Sitting of 11 May 1932

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.
Sir GEORGE PENNY (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household)reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:
I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address, informing me of the deep sorrow and indignation with which you have learned of the assassination of the President of the French Republic.
I fully share the sentiments to which your Address gives expression, and I will take care to convey to the Government of the French Republic the sense of abhorrence which, in common with myself, you feel for this detestable crime, and the sympathy for the family of the late President and for the Government and people of France which it has called forth in this country as throughout the British Commonwealth and the whole civilised world.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Chesterfield and Bolsover Water Bill,
As amended, considered.
Ordered, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."— [The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS, LIMITED (TROLLEY VEHICLES), PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the
1882
London United Tramways Act, 1930, relating to the London United Tramways, Limited, Trolley Vehicles," presented by Mr. Pybus; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA.

    COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA (INDIA).
    Mr. J. P. L. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to an article appearing in International Press Correspondence, of 10th March, 1932, the organ of the Communist International, advocating armed insurrection in India; and what action he proposes to take in view of this violation of the Russian trade agreement?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The article has been considered by His Majesty's Government in connection with the undertaking relative to propaganda given by the Soviet Government in December, 1929. His Majesty's Government are of opinion that the Soviet Government and the Communist International cannot be dissociated in these matters. I propose to take an early opportunity of speaking to the Soviet representative on the subject.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that propaganda on the part of the Third International against Great Britain is a matter of daily occurrence in India and elsewhere, and will he see that this matter is dealt with more promptly than was the case when his predecessor was in charge of the Foreign Office?
    Sir J. SIMON: My original answer deals sufficiently with, both the original and the supplementary questions.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Have not representations been made fifty times with no effect, and what further action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not correct that representations have been made 51 times?

    BRITISH EMBASSY.
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many changes there have been in the staff of the Embassy at Moscow in the past two and a-half years?
    Sir J. SIMON: There have been eight changes in the diplomatic and clerical staff, resulting in a net reduction of two in the total numbers.

    PRE-WAR DEBTS.
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish for the information of the House the correspondence between the Foreign Office and His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow regarding the payment of Russian pre-War debts and the payment of the sums due to the Lena Goldfields Company?
    Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. The correspondence with His Majesty's Ambassador has little bearing on the subject of Russian pre-War debts, as this matter was dealt with by the joint Anglo-Soviet committees which sat in London. As regards the Lena Goldfields Company, I am confident that it would not be of assistance to the company to adopt the course suggested.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the negotiations in London to which he has referred ended, the Soviet Government had refused to define their attitude on the matter? May the House not be told whether the Soviet Government still refuse to define their attitude and whether the British cash and property which have been taken by them are not to receive compensation?
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend will see that the question I have been answering has to do with communications between the Foreign Office and His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow. I do not think the matter put to me now would be touched by that.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is not the Ambassador at Moscow being urged to represent the state of affairs? Has not correspondence on the subject taken place with the Ambassador at Moscow?
    Sir J. SIMON: I informed the House yesterday that I was in actual communi-
    1884
    cation with the Ambassador on the subject.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is it impossible to publish the correspondence?
    Sir J. SIMON: It is not usually a wise course of procedure to publish, for everyone to read, a despatch at the moment when it is being sent to our country's representative abroad.

    DANUBIAN COUNTRIES (ECONOMIC RESTORATION).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement as to the result of the investigation of the four experts recently appointed by the British, French, German and Italian Treasuries to examine and report on the recommendations of the League of (Nations finance committee to grant fresh financial assistance to Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece?
    Sir J. SIMON: Each of the four experts has reported to his own Government the result of the discussions which took place. While the matter is still under consideration any fuller statement on the subject is undesirable.
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: Are the advisers who advised these disastrous loans still in the employ and advising the British Government?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that can arise on this question.

    FOREIGN LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).
    Lieut. - Colonel SANDEMAN ALLENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will notify all advisers of British nationality attached to the League of Nations, owing to the losses of capital sustained by British subjects through the issue in Britain, under the supervision of the League of Nations, of £39,000,000 of loans, that any proposed issue here of further similar loans will be harmful to international good feeling and should be discouraged?
    Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Government are not, of course, responsible for proposals made to the League of Nations by advisers appointed by it,

    1885
    whether these are of British nationality or not. My hon. and gallant Friend is misinformed in supposing that default has taken place on all the loans to which he refers. His Majesty's Government, as has been several times stated, take the gravest view of those defaults which have in fact taken place.
    Sir CHARLES CAYZER: Are these advisers to be the same people who were the architects of the previous League of Nations loans and in view of the losses sustained by British investors in these loans does the Government contemplate taking their advice?
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Baronet is under some confusion. There is no question of His Majesty's Government taking different advisers. The advisers to whom this question refers are advisers selected by the League of Nations and not by the Government.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Is it not the case that the House is responsible in the matter as it has on several occasions taken the decision to grant loans for reconstruction in Europe?
    Sir J. SIMON: I should not like without consideration to give a specific answer. I quite understand what the hon. Member is referring to in general terms but it would be better if he put a question down.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that these loans supervised by the League of Nations are a grave source of irritation which operates to the disadvantage of the League of Nations and that further issues here should be very carefully handled?
    Sir J. SIMON: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain whether the Chilean Government is raising additional taxation among its own nationals in order to meet its obligations on defaulted Chilean Government securities?
    Sir J. SIMON: According to the latest information in my possession, the Chilean budget does not include any provision for meeting the service of the foreign debt.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    BRITISH DELEGATION.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who will represent His Majesty's Government at the next session of the League of Nations Council?
    Sir J. SIMON: At the present session of the Council of the League of Nations, which opened on Monday last, His Majesty's Government are represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, and by Viscount Cecil of Chelwood. At the next session, which will he held in September, I hope to be present myself.

    EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give particulars of the proposals for a reduction in expenditure on the League of Nations made by the British representative at the council meeting on Monday?
    Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Government have made no proposals for specified reductions, but have proposed that a small expert committee be appointed to examine the whole question of League expenditure with the help of the Supervisory Committee, and to report to the Assembly in September next.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the actual cost to the people of this country is about ½d. per head per annum of the population?
    Sir J. SIMON: Even if that were so, it would be no reason for any unnecessary spending.

    BRIBERY.
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government has yet replied to the communication despatched by the League of Nations on 16th February, asking that they should indicate whether, in their opinion, it would be expedient to draft an international convention by which bribery, as it is contemplated in the Economic Committee's Report, may be made specifically criminal in all signatory states, and legal redress, civil and criminal, should be assured by the contracting parties to the nationals of the other contracting parties?
    Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have indicated that in their view the preparation of an International Convention is not a suitable method of dealing with this question, and they consider it preferable that Governments should be requested, by a League of Nations resolution, to direct their efforts to forming a strong public opinion on the subject in their respective countries and to pass legislation on the lines indicated in the Economic Committee's Report, where such legislation does not already exist. This report draws attention to the stringent and comprehensive legislation already existing in the United Kingdom.

    CHINA (BRITISH DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION).
    Mr. MOREINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of China is still situated at Loyang; if so, what is the rank of the diplomatic representative of His Majesty's Government at Loyang; and whether any and, if so, what Government is exercising authority at Nanking?
    Sir J. SIMON: The Chinese Government was never transferred in its entirety to Loyang. Several of its important members, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, through whom contact with the Chinese Government is maintained, have continued to reside at Nanking. No need has therefore arisen for British diplomatic representation at Loyang. The Government exercising authority at Nanking is the National Government of the Republic of China.
    Mr. MOREING: Is it not a fact that the generals of the nineteenth Cantonese army are exercising a considerable measure of control at Nanking?
    Sir J. SIMON: I should have to ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. KIRKPATRICK: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by the Chinese Government?
    Mr. MOREINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the rank of the British diplomatic representative at Canton; and to which Government he is accredited?
    Sir J. SIMON: There is no British diplomatic representative at Canton.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed that the British Minister in China shall in future reside at the actual seat of the Government, or whether it is proposed to maintain the British Legation in Peking?
    Sir J. SIMON: No change is contemplated at present in the existing arrangements under which His Majesty's Minister makes his headquarters at Peking and proceeds from time to time to the place where his services are most required. A member of the Legation staff resides permanently at Nanking.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Does not the trade of the country suffer under such arrangements?
    Sir J. SIMON: I really do not think so. I might add to my original answer that considerations of expense, if nothing else, would make it necessary to examine very carefully whether a move was justified, but I am satisfied that under present arrangements we are represented in all parts of China most satisfactorily.

    BRITISH WEST INDIES.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it has been ascertained whether further financial assistance during the current year from this country will be required by the British West Indies, in view of the additional preference given to sugar imports therefrom in the recent Budget?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I do not at present anticipate that any reduction will be possible in the loans and grants provided in the Estimates recently presented to Parliament. The hon. Member will realise that the assistance received by the West Indian Sugar Producers as a result of the recent Budget cannot be immediately reflected in the revenues of the Colonies concerned.

    AIR SERVICES (AFRICA).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies

    1889
    whether he is aware that the aerodromes provided along the African route used by Imperial Airways are not sufficiently good; that two aeroplanes have been damaged owing to the unsatisfactory surface of aerodromes in Tanganyika and Southern Rhodesia and that the aerodromes are out of action during wet weather; and whether he will consult with the Governments concerned with a view to improving their aerodromes without delay?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that one machine at Mbeya on the 6th January, and another at Salisbury on the 29th January, were damaged in attempting to take off. My information is that, while the aerodromes along the route are adequate for ordinary weather conditions, further work is required at certain aerodromes in Tanganyika to prevent possible interruption of the service in the rainy season. The question of the execution of the necessary work against the next rainy season is already being actively taken up in consultation with the Air Ministry. The question of aerodromes in Southern Rhodesia is a matter for the Government of that Colony. This matter is also under consideration.
    Captain CAZALET: Is it not a fact that £50,000 has been given by the Beit Trust for development in that area?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is true that a most generous contribution has been made by the Beit Trust, but I think, speaking from memory, that it covers aerodromes in Rhodesia and not the aerodromes in Tanganyika.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the wireless and telegraphic services which Colonial Governments in Africa provide for the use of the air routes which cross their territories are not of a sufficiently high standard to ensure reliable services; and whether he will suggest to the Governments concerned the advisability of improving such services or assist them to do so?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am informed that the majority of the wireless stations erected by the Colonial Governments in connection with the air route to South Africa are of modern type combining long and short wave apparatus,
    1890
    and are of a sufficiently high standard to ensure reliable services. It may be stated, however, that as the result of an inspection flight by a technical officer some of the Governments concerned are being consulted as to the desirability of effecting certain improvements.

  CEYLON.

    TEA EXPORTS AND COTTON IMPORTS.
    Mr. HAMILTON KERRasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the total value of tea exported from Ceylon for the year 1931; what proportion of this was despatched to Great Britain and foreign countries, respectively; what was the value of the cotton goods imported into Ceylon during 1931; and what proportion came from Great Britain and foreign sources, respectively?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:

    Value of Tea Exported from Ceylon during 1931.

    To

    Value.

    £

    Great Britain

    …

    6,825,619

    Rest of Empire

    …

    2,055,580

    Foreign Countries

    …

    1,523,410

    Ships Stores

    …

    82,384

    Total

    …

    10,486,993

    Value of Cotton Yarns and Manufactures Imported into Ceylon during 1931.

    From

    Value.

    £

    Great Britain

    …

    439,831

    Rest of Empire

    …

    273,843

    Foreign Countries

    …

    390,705

    Total

    …

    1,104,379

    Mr. KERRasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the benefit which will accrue to Ceylon as a result of the increased preference which has been given to tea imported from there into this Country, he can state whether any steps are being taken to bring to the notice of the Government the desirability of giving reciprocal benefit to the importation of British cotton goods into Ceylon, more especially in view

    1891
    of the recent increase in the importation of Japanese cotton goods to that territory?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that a Resolution approving the principle of the grant of preference to the United Kingdom has been favourably reported upon the Executive Committee of the State Council to which it was referred, and is expected to be considered by the full Council at its next meeting on the 24th of May. When the Resolution was first introduced the Financial Secretary deployed fully in his speech the arguments in favour of Ceylon giving a reciprocal preference to this country.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is competent for the Government of a Colony of the constitutional development of Ceylon to enter into a trade agreement with His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is a rather difficult constitutional question of which I should like notice. What I am quite clear about is that it is competent for a Government of the constitution of Ceylon to make reciprocal concessions to the United Kingdom.

    CRIMINAL APPEALS.
    Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will take steps to secure the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal for Ceylon in order to provide for His Majesty's subjects in Ceylon safeguards against the miscarriage of justice, especially in capital charges, similar to the safeguards provided in Great Britain?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Supreme Court in Ceylon sits as a Court of Criminal Appeal and reviews decisions in criminal cases. The attention of the Governor of Ceylon has already been drawn to the desirability of establishing a system on the lines of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, but I have not yet been informed whether he has found it possible to take any action in the matter. It will be appreciated that under the Ceylon Constitution, the consent of the Ministers and of the State Council to the necessary legislation would be required before such a system of appeal could be set up.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (CONVENTIONS).
    Mr. HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken in British Colonies and Protectorates to give effect to the provisions of the conventions on workmen's compensation (accidents and diseases) and on sickness insurance, adopted at the seventh and tenth conferences of the International Labour Organisation?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is a long one, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Three conventions relating to workmen's compensation were adopted at the seventh session of the International Labour Conference. Of these, the convention relating to workmen's compensation for accidents has not been ratified in respect of the United Kingdom. The question of applying this convention to the British Colonies and Protectorates, in accordance with the provisions of Article 421 of the Treaty of Versailles, does not therefore arise. The convention relating to equality of treatment for national and foreign workers in the matter of workmen's compensation has been substantially applied in the Dependencies in which workmen's compensation legislation already exists, of which particulars were given in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street on the 9th of March. The convention relating to workmen's compensation for occupational diseases has been applied (with suitable local variations in the diseases covered) in Malta and (so far as non-native workmen are concerned) in Northern Rhodesia.
    The administration of compulsory sickness insurance schemes, as contemplated in the two conventions which were adopted at the tenth session of the International Labour Conference is not at present practicable in the Colonies and Protectorates. In the majority of the Dependencies, however, free medical and hospital treatment is provided either by the Government, or (in some Dependencies under Statute) by large employers of organised labour. In other words, certain of the objects of these conventions are to a great extent attained without

    1893
    any specific contributions from the persons who derive benefit from the facilities provided.

    NORTHERN RHODESIA (UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF).
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the closing down of four of the mines in Northern Rhodesia and the consequent unemployment among white miners there, he will recommend that unemployment relief shall continue to be paid to those men?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is no system of unemployment relief in Northern Rhodesia, but the Government is taking measures to relieve distress.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the distress among unemployed white mine workers in Northern Rhodesia, he will recommend that funds should be made available for relieving distress by suspending the building of the new capital?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I do not think that a suspension of work on necessary building would be a suitable way of rendering assistance to the unemployed in Northern Rhodesia. Opportunities for employment may be offered on the new works.

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES (SCOTLAND).
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Minister of Transport the number and names of the electricity boards in Scotland which have, since the passing of the Electricity Act, been merged in larger undertakings; and how many electricity mergers it is proposed to have in Scotland to cover the whole country?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): Since the passing of the Electricity Act of 1926, no electricity boards in Scotland have been merged in larger undertakings. While authority has been given for the acquisition of a number of smaller undertakings by larger undertakings in different parts of Scotland, I am not aware of any definite proposals for large electricity mergers in Scotland.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that as a result of those smaller mergers to which he refers the cost of electricity has actually been reduced to the consumer?
    Mr. McGOVERN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the result in and around the Glasgow and Lanarkshire area has been an increase in price to the consumer?

  TRANSPORT.

    TOLL BRIDGE, SELBY.
    Mr. V. ADAMSasked the Minister of Transport whether it has now been found possible to obtain an estimate of the cost of freeing Selby Bridge of tolls and of the extent to which outlay on such a scheme could he reduced by the purchasing local authorities continuing to take tolls for a certain period of years; and, if not, whether he will arrange to obtain an early estimate of the cost involved, in view of the fact that the alternative by-pass scheme will cost £650,000 and will still leave the toll bridge un freed?
    Mr. PYBUS: It is for the highway authority to initiate proposals of this kind. The answers to the last part of the question are in the negative.

    MOTOR ACCIDENTS (WORN TYRES).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Minister of Transport the number of cases during the past year in which accidents have been due to worn-out tyres failing to grip the surface of the road; and if he will consider the necessity for stricter measures to prevent the use of tyres the treads of which have been worn down?
    Mr. PYBUS: No information is available as to the number of accidents during the last year which may have been attributable to the use of worn out tyres on motor vehicles. The Regulations require that tyres shall be maintained in such condition as to be free from any defect which might cause danger to persons in the vehicle or to other persons using the road.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is my hon. Friend aware that these regulations are very often not complied with, and will he consider having them more strictly complied with in the future?
    Mr. PYBUS: The question as to whether some more precise regulations should be imposed, particularly in. the ease of public service vehicles, is under consideration.
    Mr. LIDDALL: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the majority of motorists cannot afford to buy new tyres every month, that the motor car is an essential to our business men, and that tyres are being used with great care?

    TAX OFFICE, WATFORD.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the congestion and noise at the office of His Majesty's inspector of taxes, Watford, are such that it is difficult for taxpayers to conduct their interview with officials; and whether it is possible to provide facilities for taxpayers to be interviewed under quieter conditions and in reasonable privacy?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on the 9th instant to the hon. Member for Walthamstow West (Mr. McEntee) to which I have nothing to add.

    JUDICIAL PROCEDURE.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Attorney-General if 'he can make any statement to the House as to the advantages which it is hoped will accrue from the changes in judicial procedure recently announced?
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The advantages hoped from the changes to which the hon. Member refers are a reduction in the cost and an increase in the speed of litigation in those classes of actions to which the new procedure applies.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that the changes will diminish the standard of justice given to the accused people?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I hope not.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to acquaint the hon. Gentleman that we intend to take up this matter more seriously after the holidays.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    BRITISH TROOPS, SHANGHAI.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how long it is proposed to retain the Second Battalion of Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders at Shanghai; and whether proper precautions are being taken to safeguard the health of the men?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): This battalion left Shanghai for Hong Kong on 18th April. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

    ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH (SUSPENSIONS).
    Mr. HICKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the reasons for the present suspensions of employés at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, in batches of between 200 and 300, one week in three or one week in four; and whether by such suspensions the wages of the employés are being reduced by 20 to 25 per cent.?
    Mr. COOPER: The present suspensions, which are at varying intervals, about half being for one week in five, have been authorised as a purely temporary expedient, as an alternative to further discharges, owing to a temporary shortage of sufficient work to keep the men continuously occupied. Every effort is being made to keep the suspensions within the narrowest limits, and I hope that the necessity for them will disappear shortly; but this will of course depend on work being available. The total earnings of the employés are naturally reduced by the periods of suspension.
    Mr. HICKS: Does not the Financial Secretary think that, in spirit at any rate, the minimum wage should be paid by the War Office?
    Mr. COOPER: No, Sir.
    Mr. HICKS: Will the Financial Secretary give us any idea when he thinks they will be running at full time again?
    Mr. COOPER: I think that it would be unwise to do so, but I hope it will be within two or three months. I cannot say anything more definite than that.

    CHEMICAL WARFARE (EXPERIMENTS).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any Government subsidy is being paid for any experiments with poison gas carried out at universities or other educational institutions?
    Mr. COOPER: Certain scientists at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London carry out experiments on chemical defence problems, for which payment is made to them from Army funds.

  INDIA.

    POLICE, UNITED PROVINCES.
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received information as to the reduction or otherwise of the numbers of the police force in the United Provinces in 1931?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): The report received by me covers only the period between August, 1931, and February, 1932, in which the only reduction in the permanent sanctioned strength of the police force in the United Provinces was one of one head constable and five constables in the armed police following the abolition of a tahsil in the Kumaun Division. In the latter part of last year the temporary special force which the United Provinces Government had appointed as a result of the civil disobedience and revolutionary movement was reduced by 10 sub-inspectors, 27 head constables, 62 naiks and 630 constables, but in January, owing to the no-rent campaign, it was increased again by one sub-inspector, two head constables and 63 constables.

    PRISONERS.
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that members of the Congress party in gaol in Calcutta are permitted to receive pay from party funds; and whether he will represent to the Government of India that this should no longer be allowed?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have no information on this question. If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have any information in his possession I shall be glad to consider the matter.

    ARMY (VICEROY'S COMMISSIONED OFFICER).
    Captain FULLERasked the Secretary of State for India why it has been decided to eliminate the Viceroy commissioned officer from Indianised units of the Indian Army, thus making it impossible for the rank and file to rise to commissioned rank?
    Sir S. HOARE: The elimination of the Viceroy's commissioned officer follows from the original decision that in an Indianised unit it is not practicable to have more than one type of commissioned officer. My hon. and gallant Friend is, however, mistaken in assuming that this decision makes it impossible for the rank and file of the Indian Army to rise to commissioned rank. On the contrary, 30 vacancies a year at the Indian Military Academy are to be allotted to cadets from the ranks of the Indian Army.
    Captain FULLER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the elimination of this class of officer from any unit of the Indian Army, whether Indianised or not, will have a most disastrous effect on the efficiency of the Army as a whole?
    Sir S. HOARE: I hope that that is not the case.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    DISPUTE, FIFE.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that a dispute is in progress in certain mines of Fife, and that the owners will not meet the Miners' Union representatives; and if he will use his good offices to secure a meeting between both parties at an early date?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): I have seen a reference to this dispute in the Press, but I have received no representations on the subject from the Miners' Federation or the owners, and I do not think intervention by my Department would be helpful at present.

    HOURS AND WAGES.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to state the policy of the Government regarding legislation dealing with the hours and wages of the coal industry?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have been asked to reply. I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement at present.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the Prime Minister promised on the 3rd May that a statement would be made before the House adjourned for the Whitsuntide Recess? Will he tell us what is preventing that statement being made?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that, in arriving at an agreement in the coal trade, our hopes have been deferred not for the first time, and, until we are able to make a definite statement, I can give no other answer than that already given.
    Mr. BATEY: If the Mining Association and the miners fail to agree, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the Government's policy?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is a hypothetical question. I do not want to take the view that the miners and the coal-owners will fail finally to agree.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the latest possible date on which the necessary legislation could be introduced?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot give the date on which legislation will be introduced, but, as the House knows, by the 8th July certain results will follow from the previous Acts, and it is in anticipation of that that we shall have to take action.
    Captain McEWEN: Are we to understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that conversations are still in progress?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is difficult to say whether they are still in progress, but I do not abandon the hope that some agreement will be reached.
    Mr. BATEY: Are we not just where we were in 1926?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    Factories (Foreign Firms).
    Captain SHAWasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange with the Board of Trade for that Department to immediately notify him of all inquiries and applications received from foreign firms regarding factories and sites for factories in this country, so that he may bring before those interested the special attractions offered in many districts in Scotland?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I have been asked to reply. Any information in the possession of the Board of Trade regarding proposals to set up new undertakings in this country is, of course, available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. ALED ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the foreign factories recently opened in this country are for the purpose of manufacturing products which were previously not manufactured in this country; and how many of them manufacture products which were already being produced in this country before the foreign factories were opened?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The information for which my hon. Friend asks involves detailed inquiry and any particulars that can be obtained will be furnished in the further statement promised in the reply given on the 5th May to the hon. Members for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) and Govan (Mr. Maclean).
    Mr. ROBERTS: Could not the hon. Member expedite information with regard to these foreign factories? I asked him for it last week, and I have not had it yet.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have already given the House a great deal of information, and the moment I can get more I will supply it willingly.

    EXPORT CREDITS (RUSSIA).
    Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAYasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can state the present position of negotiations between this country and the representatives of Soviet Russia on the question of credit guarantees for export trade?
    Captain TODDasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the advisory committee to the Department is authorised by him to conclude an agreement in regard to the terms for export credits to Russia, or whether the terms in detail are subject to the approval of the Department?
    Mr. COLVILLE: The Export Credits Guarantee Advisory Committee are authorised to negotiate with the Russian representative within certain limits and these discussions are still in progress. The Department are required by statute to consult the advisory committee, and in practice they give guarantees only on such terms as the committee may recommend in each case.
    Mr. RAMSAY: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that these negotiations have been proceeding for four or five months, and will he endeavour to bring them to an issue so that the exporters may know exactly where they stand in regard to Russia?
    Mr. COLVILLE: Yes. I hope that it will be brought to an issue very shortly.
    Captain TODD: Can the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the limits of the powers given to the Advisory Committee?
    Mr. COLVILLE: At this stage I cannot make such a statement, but I hope the matter will be brought to an issue very shortly.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what length of credit the Government are prepared to give to Russia?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I must refer the hon. Member to my previous answer. I cannot make any further statement yet.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Are we to understand that all the power to negotiate rests with the Department and not with the Advisory Committee?
    Mr. COLVILLE: Within certain limits the committee are entitled to negotiate.

    ARGENTINA.
    Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAYasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will state what communication he has had with an Argentine trade mission recently in this
    1902
    country; and if he represented to the said mission that the balance of Anglo-Argentine trade is largely in favour of the latter country?
    Mr. COLVILLE: As far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no such mission has recently visited this country; the second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    Captain CAZALET: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether his Department have taken any steps to implement the recommendation of Lord D'Abernon's trade mission to Argentina a few years ago?
    Mr. COLVILLE: We are taking steps constantly, not only to encourage trade with Argentina, but if my hon. Friend will let me know the particular recommendation to which he refers, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

    EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the failure of payments for so much of the trade to certain countries in Europe and South America, he can issue any periodic statement revealing this to those concerned and others who might be about to ship goods to those countries?
    Mr. COLVILLE: As I informed my hon. Friend on 3rd May detailed particulars regarding exchange restrictions have been widely disseminated by the Department of Overseas Trade and the Board of Trade Journal, which is published weekly, reproduces much of this information.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Can the hon. Member say whether the Board of Trade Journal gives the returns and not the payments? The returns will be useless unless we know that the goods are paid for.
    Mr. COLVILLE: The Board of Trade Journal reproduces certain information which the Department of Overseas Trade sends out in a special register indicating the difficulties in certain foreign markets and the new restrictions imposed by foreign Governments.

    DISTRESSED AREAS (NEW INDUSTRIES),
    Mr. McKEAGasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has under

    1903
    consideration any proposals with the object of assisting local authorities in the county of Durham and other depressed areas in their efforts to attract new industries to their districts?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is at present under consideration a proposal to form an industrial development organisation to promote the extension of existing industries and the development of new industrial activities in the north-east coast area. My Department are in touch with this movement, as well as with similar movements in other depressed areas.
    Mr. McKEAG: Is the hon. Member aware that colliery after colliery is closing down in the County of Durham and that the plight of those districts is becoming increasingly desperate?
    Mr. BATEY: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the industrial organisation to which he refers? Is it something new?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have already explained to the House exactly what this movement is. if my hon. Friend is still deficient in information and would like me to send him further information, I will do so with pleasure.
    Mr. McKEAG: Has the work of the industrial organisation to which my hon. Friend referred resulted in any benefit to those districts, up to date?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will send my hon. Friend full particulars.

    CUSTOMS NOMENCLATURE.
    Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the draft unified Customs nomenclature prepared by the sub-committee of experts appointed by the Economic Committee of the League of Nations has now been received; and what steps it is proposed to take in connection with the matter?
    Mr. COLVILLE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and I cannot therefore add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member on 28th April.
    Mr. MANDER: Has the hon. Member formed any plans for dealing with it when it does arrive?
    Mr. COLVILLE: We are prepared for it, but I understand that it is a very complicated matter involving a very large number of heads, and it will take some time yet before the League of Nations Committee can complete it.

    INDIA.
    Captain FULLERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent preference given to Indian tea, any steps are being taken to obtain from India a corresponding preference for Lancashire cotton goods?
    Mr. COLVILLE: The question of the tariff treatment of United Kingdom goods on importation into India will be discussed at the Ottawa Imperial Economic Conference at which the Government of India will be represented.

    FOREIGN SHIPPING (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. MITCHESONasked the President of the Board of Trade which foreign Governments subsidise or otherwise assist their shipping industry and to what extent, respectively?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Many foreign Governments are now giving some form of assistance to their shipping, but the extent of this assistance could not be stated within the scope of an answer to a Parliamentary question. I will, however, send my hon. Friend a copy of a statement on this subject.
    Mr. MITCHESON: Are these subsidised ships free, as far as this Government is concerned, to engage in the delivery of cargo to and from British ports in competition with British ships?
    Mr. MANDER: Will not all ships be totally unnecessary before long?
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Does my hon. Friend regard this subsidy as a tariff against this country?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I cannot do more than give my hon. Friend full information with regard to it.

    DOMINION AND FOREIGN IMPORT DUTIES.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the approximate range of import duties, in the years 1928 and 1931, levied on British manufactures by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and Denmark?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I regret that there is no satisfactory way of comparing the general level of duties in particular countries. If my right hon. Friend will let me know what particular type of goods he has in mind I will see what information can be supplied.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is it not necessary to have this information in view of the Ottawa Conference? Could not the hon. Member supply the House with it beforehand seeing that we get many of our agricultural products from these countries?
    Mr. COLVILLE: A considerable amount of information is available, but it is difficult to get a comparison of the nature for which the right hon. Gentleman asks. I will take note, however, of what he says.

    EGYPT AND GERMANY (BABTEB SCHEMES).
    Mr. KERR (for Mr. CROSSLEY)asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he has any information of the arrangement under which the Egyptian Government will send raw cotton out of its stocks to Germany in barter exchange for chemical fertilisers?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I have no knowledge of any such arrangement. Rumours of various barter schemes under which the Egyptian Government would dispose of portion of the stocks of cotton which they hold have reached me from time to time but are so far unconfirmed.

    COTTON EXPORTS (FRENCH QUOTA).
    Mr. KERR (for Mr. CROSSLEY)asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any information of the agreement between representatives of the Lancashire cotton industry and representatives of the French textile industry regarding the quota on the import of British cotton goods into France; and if this agreement has the sanction of the French Government?
    Mr. COLVILLE: I understand that an agreement was come to last week between the Lancashire cotton interests and French cotton interests. The terms of the agreement have been communicated to the French Government but have not yet been published or put into force.

    NATIONAL GALLERY.
    Mr. BRACKENasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the succession of resignations of officials and trustees of the National Gallery, he will appoint a departmental committee to inquire into the constitution and administration of that gallery?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): My right hon. Friend the Lord President is not aware of any circumstances calling for the adoption of my hon. Friend's suggestion. The system of government of the National Gallery was considered by the Royal Commission which reported in January, 1930.
    Mr. BRACKEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend aware that one of his colleagues has resigned and that a succession of officials have resigned, and, if he sees no ground for such action, then I must say that unless—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment on Friday.

  POST OFFICE.

    SUNDAY COLLECTION (SCOTLAND).
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Postmaster-General the number of districts in Scotland which have a Sunday post collection and the number of those which have not?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am having inquiry made, and I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

    IRISH FREE STATE (CORRESPONDENCE).
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Postmaster-General by whose authority private letters passing between the Irish Free State and England are still being opened by his Department; whether he is aware that so recently as the 28th April a letter from Dublin enclosing a charitable donation was opened in the post and, after considerable delay, was delivered without apology and with only an unsigned memorandum stating that the letter had been inadvertently stopped among correspondence which infringed the regulations; what are the regulations

    1907
    referred to; and under what circumstances are private letters opened by postal officials?
    Sir K. WOOD: If my ton. Friend will give me particulars of the letter referred to, I will have inquiry made. I have little doubt, however, that it was opened with a number of other letters believed to contain advertisements of a lottery, the advertisement of which is prohibited under the Lottery Acts. Such letters are opened under the authority of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some millions of pounds of money have been pouring from this country into Ireland, and is it worth while to open a few private letters in order to secure a few ten shilling notes or money orders?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid that is outside my jurisdiction, but I shall be glad to discuss the matter privately with my hon. Friend.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say by what authority he opens private letters?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have already stated that nay authority is under the Lottery Acts, and I act on the authority of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health if he will consider amending the contributory insurance pensions scheme to allow aged men now engaged in industry to be superannuated with higher rates of pension than 10s. per week, provided that they retire from industry, so as to absorb numbers of the young men between 18 and 30 years who cannot obtain employment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): This suggestion was carefully examined by previous Governments, but for administrative as well as financial reasons it was found impossible to adopt it.
    Mr. GROVES: Are the Government going to turn down this proposal because previous Governments did not do it?
    Mr. BROWN: That does not follow. It may be that previous Governments had good reason for their action.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Minister of Health the number of women, whose husbands are in receipt of a contributory pension, who have had their claims for pension disallowed owing to not having attained the age of 65 years?
    Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend regrets that this information could only be obtained by a scrutiny of all decided claims for old age pension.

    HOUSING (WEST HAM).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the housing conditions in the county borough of West Ham; that there is little land available within the borough for housing sites, and that the local council hesitates to propose schemes of housing outside the borough because of the cost of maintenance and thereby increasing the local rates; and whether he will consider a special scheme of assistance for housing for such boroughs?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend is aware that the Corporation hesitate to propose schemes of housing outside the borough, but not that this hesitation is due to a fear of increased cost, and, indeed, he does not see that any such increase of cost is necessarily involved. He would, however, refer the hon. Member to the special provision made for areas adjacent to London in Section 48 of the Housing Act, 1930.
    Mr. GROVES: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give the House any information showing that any local authority has promoted a housing scheme outside its area which does not impose a cost on local rates?
    Mr. BROWN: I have already referred the hon. Member to Section 48 of the Act of 1930.
    Mr. GROVES: But can my hon. Friend state any local authority which has succeeded in applying that Act?
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member had better consult his right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood).

    POOR LAW (TEST WORK).
    Mr. G. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Health whether stone-breaking is applied as test work to able-bodied persons applying for public assistance; and, if so, in how many cases?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Yes, Sir, at five places the breaking of stone is included in the scheme formulated by the local public assistance authority for setting to work able-bodied men receiving outdoor relief.
    Mr. MACDONALD: Can my hon. Friend say whether the approval of the Minister has been given to this kind of work?
    Mr. BROWN: The answer is that the Minister's approval is not required. These five cases are all in quarrying districts, and in four of them this work has gone on throughout recent years, including the period of the Labour Government.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Pensions the details of the inquiries made into the income of parents or guardians applying for need pensions; whether there is any prescribed form for applicants to fill; and, if so, will he place a copy in the Library of the House?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The class of pension referred to being available only in cases of incapacity for self-support and pecuniary need, an applicant is required to complete a form giving full particulars as to his or her personal condition, family circumstances, and means of support from all sources. The claim is then investigated by an officer of the Ministry whose duty it is to verify the statements made By interview or otherwise as may be necessary. I will certainly comply with the hon. Member's suggestion.

    IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will include in the British delegation to the Ottawa Conference persons specially charged with the duty of watching the interests of consumers in this country of' goods it may be proposed to tax?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): His Majesty's Government are taking all necessary steps to ensure that the United Kingdom delegation to Ottawa will be fully advised, both before and during the Conference, as to the interests which the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. MAXTON: Has the composition of the delegation now been finally settled?
    Mr. THOMAS: Not finally.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will there be any additions or subtractions?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should like to ask whether there will be members of the Co-operative Society on this delegation?
    Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which is the society he has no doubt in mind, wrote to me last week saying that they would have a delegation in Ottawa at this time and that their services would be at my disposal. I shall accept it.
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLENasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will add to the British representation at Ottawa trade union leaders who support the National Government in addition to those at present appointed whose political opinions are known to be opposed to the policy of the Government?
    Mr. THOMAS: The choice of industrial advisers to accompany the United Kingdom delegation to Ottawa was made without reference to the political opinions of those nominated.
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable feeling on this subject in the country?
    Mr. THOMAS: No, but I am quite sure that there would be considerable feeling if the Government in selecting advisers on business matters merely considered the political views of these advisers.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not undesirable that only one political minority should be represented?
    Mr. MAXTON: Is it not the fact that the representatives of employers and workmen have been dictated to by outside organisations?
    Mr. THOMAS: On the contrary, and I am quite sure that the hon. Member with his knowledge of the Trade Union Congress would not assume for one moment that they would dictate to anybody.
    Mr. COCKS: May I ask whether there are any trade union leaders who support the Government?

    DARTMOOR PRISON (DISTURBANCES).
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if and when it is proposed to take legal proceedings against the warders found guilty of illicit actions in the report of the Du Parcq inquiry?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Whenever evidence is forthcoming that a prison officer has been guilty of an illicit act, appropriate action is taken—but legal proceedings are only practicable when there is evidence on which to base a charge against some individual or individuals.
    Mr. McGOVERN: As I understand the report, it is suggested that the warders were guilty of illicit actions. Cannot they be put on trial, after investigation, in the same way as the convicts were?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: In his report the Commissioner was careful to say that he made no allegations against any particular individual, but only expressed his impression that there was a small number of individuals probably guilty of some illicit action. But no evidence has been forthcoming on which any charge can be based against any particular person.
    Mr. MAXTON: Then have no steps, disciplinary or of any kind, been taken
    1912
    against those warders about whom Mr. Du Parcq was so sure that he gave a special paragraph to them in the report?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Mr. Du Parcq did not mention any particular warders. Very careful inquiry has been made to see if any charge can be brought home to any particular warder, but no evidence has been forthcoming.
    Mr. MAXTON: May we take it that that particular paragraph in the report is quite unfounded?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: No, I do not think that is the conclusion. There may or may not have been adequate ground for it, but it is impossible for the Home Office to take action in the absence of specific evidence.
    Mr. MAXTON: I am sorry to press this matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that without evidence Mr. Du Parcq would commit himself to a statement of that description?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: No, Sir. He made that statement, because certain things were found in the prison which led him to the conclusion that some warder must have been guilty of illicit practices. That is a different thing from being able to identify the particular warder and prosecute him.

    PRISONS (FOOD).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary in what prisons there have been complaints and disturbances about the quality of the food supplied to prisoners; and if he will send an officer of his Department to inspect the food in all prisons under his control at intervals during the year?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Special attention has of recent years been devoted to the improvement of prison dietaries, and to securing a proper standard of skill and care in their preparation. Officers of my Department regularly inspect the food and the kitchens, which are also seen by the Visiting Justices on their visits. It would be impracticable to collect particulars of complaints made by individual prisoners about their food, but I am satisfied that there is no general cause for complaint as regards either the quality or the preparation. There has,

    1913
    apart from the events of January last at Dartmoor, been no disturbance at any prison, nor any general complaint arising from dissatisfaction with the food.
    Mr. GLOSSOP: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently four hon. Members of this House had an opportunity of partaking of food in Maidstone Gaol?

    COCAINE (GLASGOW).
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that cocaine is being offered for sale by persons frequenting prominent dance halls in Glasgow; and if any investigation has already taken place?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Police inquiries have not revealed any evidence of cocaine traffic in dance halls in Glasgow, but I shall be glad if the hon. Member will let me have any information in his possession so that the matter may be investigated.
    Mr. McGOVERN: While I am glad to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether careful investigation has been made and whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied? My evidence is that in three halls in Sauchiehall Street, on the south side of Glasgow, and in Dennistoun, this cocaine was offered for sale. I myself saw a portion offered for sale and know it to have been tested.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I shall be very glad if the hon. Member will furnish me with any evidence in his possession. The police have made inquiries, but have not themselves been able to obtain any evidence.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I will do so.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there is no provision for taxpayers to have private interviews with the officials of the Income Tax claims division at Cornwall House, Stamford Street, S.E.1; and whether an interview room can be provided for this purpose?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The in-
    1914
    crease of work in the claims division made it necessary to appropriate for genera] office use the room formerly used for interviews. A re-allocation of accommodation is now in progress and a separate room for interviews will shortly be available.
    Mr. POTTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a case which has been recently before the courts and in which it was disclosed that the sum of £63,000 was owing by an individual to the Inland Revenue; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made as to why the Inland Revenue allowed the person referred to to run up such a debt?
    Major ELLIOT: Yes, Sir. I am, of course, precluded from disclosing details of the case to which my hon. Friend refers; but I may say that it would appear that the learned Judge was not in possession of all the facts of the case, inasmuch as a substantial portion of the sum in question has already been paid. I have made inquiry into the case and am satisfied that all possible steps are being taken to secure payment of the balance of duty outstanding.

    IRISH FREE STATE.
    Mr. EMMOTTasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to enter into negotiations with the Irish Free State Government with regard to the application to the Irish Free State of the Import Duties Act after the 15th November, 1932?
    Mr. THOMAS: The provisions contained in the Bill to abolish the Oath are in direct conflict with the obligations undertaken by the Irish Free State under the Treaty of 1921. It appears to His Majesty's Government that if the Bill becomes law it would be unreasonable to expect that they should enter into negotiations for further agreements with a Government which had thus repudiated an agreement already entered into.
    Mr. LANSBURY: In view of the fact that the Bill has not yet become law, does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be for the public advantage that the House should debate this question? The Irish Senate has not yet passed this Bill.
    Mr. THOMAS: On the question of debate, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will answer. As to the wisdom of debate, I have no hesitation in saying that I do not think it is necessary.
    Mr. LANSBURY: We on this side have not asked for time, because we agree among ourselves that it would be best to let this matter come to a settlement in Ireland before public discussion takes place here; but I want to point out to the Government and the House that when the matter is settled we shall ask for time to discuss it.
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I am sure the House will appreciate the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman. None of us has any desire, while this matter is still being discussed in Ireland, to interfere at all. When the question is put to me subsequently, in the event of time for debate being demanded, of course I shall be prepared to give it favourable consideration.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is in keeping either with the dignities or decencies of this House that a statement of policy of the gravity which is intimated by the Secretary of State for the Dominions, should have been made before there has been an opportunity for the House to discuss the matter for even five minutes?
    Mr. THOMAS rose—
    Mr. MAXTON: I was putting the question to the Lord President of the Council on a matter of business.
    Mr. BALDWIN: The question and the answer are both hypothetical. After careful consideration, I think we have dealt in a perfectly straightforward and proper way with it.
    Mr. MAXTON: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would point out to me the hypothetical nature of the statement made by the Secretary for the Dominions, or the hypothetical nature of the fact that I have stated, that there has not been five minutes' debate in this House of the Irish question during the whole Session.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what business is it proposed to take when the House reassembles after the Whitsuntide holiday?
Mr. BALDWIN: On Monday, 23rd May, Tuesday, 24th May, Wednesday, 25th May, and Thursday, 26th May, the Committee stage of the Finance Bill will be taken. The business for Friday will be announced later. On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
Mr. MAXTON: Arising out of the statement of business, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we were promised a statement as to the Rent Restrictions Bill before we adjourned for the Whitsuntide Recess? Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to make such a statement now?
Mr. BALDWIN: If the hon. Member will refer to the answer which was given on this subject, he will find that the statement was to be made after Whitsuntide.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 37.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The Bill which I rise to introduce to the House is a Bill to ensure the financial stability of our great scheme of National Health Insurance. In some of its aspects this Bill cannot be a pleasure to me to introduce or agreeable to the House. It has nevertheless that strongest of all justifications, that it is absolutely necessary for the protection both of the interests of those who are contributors to the National Health Insurance scheme and of the community as a whole. It is a sheer work of necessity to ensure the financial stability of the scheme. How great are the interests involved? For 20 years now the National Health Insurance scheme has become increasingly interwoven with the social structure of the country, and it is now a most important organ of that social structure.
  Let me mention but one or two figures to show how important a feature it is of the society of the nation. There are no fewer than 17,000,000 persons insured under the scheme; it is 17,000,000 persons whose interests we have to ensure and protect to-day. The amount which they contribute in contribution income year by year is no less than £26,000,000. The Exchequer contribution, the sum which the nation pays in to the assistance of the scheme, is £6,500,000 a year; and the measure of the importance of this scheme to those who are contributors and insured will be found in the circumstance that in the course of the last 20 years no less than £434,000,000 has been expended in the form of benefits. It is an organisation of the greatest complexity and, I may say, of the greatest consequence. The organisation by which the scheme is administered is in the hands of no fewer than 7,600 approved societies and branches of societies.
  I mention these circumstances in order to demonstrate to the House the importance of the task which lies before us in securing for this scheme absolute finan-
  1928
  cial stability so as to protect the interests of the assured. During the 20 years of the life of the scheme, for the first 10 to 15 years the finances of the scheme saw nothing but prosperity. Large surpluses were earned, and in consequence large additional benefits could be paid. The House knows that additional benefits are those which are paid out of surpluses by the societies that have surpluses, in addition to the statutory benefits which are paid by all societies. Large additional benefits were paid—no less than £21,000,000 in the last 10 years—and owing to those earlier years of prosperity, very large reserves have been accumulated by the societies—no less than £117,000,000. The House will know that for the greater part those reserves are, as it were, earmarked against the positive actuarial liabilities of the societies, so that not the whole of that £117,000,000 is free for additional benefits.
  Such was the early history of the scheme, but then, unfortunately, came a change in the nation's circumstances, and with the change in the circumstances of the nation came a change in the circumstances of the scheme. Bad times came, and the finances of the scheme began to show a less prosperous complexion. A threat to the absolute stability of the finances of the scheme was foreshadowed some years ago. It was foreshadowed so clearly that my predecessor—I think it was the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)—was obliged, and quite naturally, to give serious consideration to the financial basis of the scheme. That was some two years ago, and he called for a special report. In that special report we saw the first foreshadowing of what was beginning to be threatening in the circumstances of the scheme, because the principal circumstance that that report brought out was a very startling increase in the sickness experience of married women, which in the years 1921 to 1927 had increased, as regards sickness benefit, by no less than 106 per cent. above expectation and, as regards disablement benefit, by no less than 159 per cent. above expectation.
  Now that circumstance foreshadowed what has been found to be, as I will point out later, an essential weakness in the scheme with which we are now called upon to deal. In consequence of this warning, the right hon. Member for

  1929
  Wakefield then issued a circular, in 1931, in which he sought the following remedies, namely, a more careful supervision of claims made and better medical certification in respect of the claims; in other words, a closer scrutiny of claims made against the Insurance Fund.
  4.0 p.m.
  Unfortunately, those remedies proved neither sufficiently deep nor wide enough to meet the case, and, after that forewarning, there came the severity of depression, and, with the severity of depression in the country as a whole, it became obvious that something was seriously amiss with the finances of National Health Insurance. Things were beginning to be unduly unfavourable on both sides of the account. One side of the account, of course, is contributions—income—and the other side claims, and on both sides of the account things were beginning to move against the stability of the finances of the scheme with an increasing menace. Claims were increasing, and particularly in respect of the women's claims, and, as regards the women's claims, particularly with respect to the claims of married women. On the other side of the account, that is the contribution income, which provides the funds out of which the claims are met, a new menace appeared. This second menace was entirely due to the growth of unemployment. Owing to that, contributors were constantly falling into arrears with their contributions, and the income from contributions was consequently falling off. And so as I say, on both sides of the account increasing difficulties were threatening the stability of the scheme.
  After those forewarnings at the beginning of this year the blow falls in the form of the Actuary's Report upon the scheme for the third valuation period. The House is aware that at the end of each period of years there is a special valuation of the assets and liabilities of the societies by the Government Actuary, who evaluates what they have, what the potential claims upon them in insurance are, what surplus they have of the one over the other, and, on the basis of that surplus, after a proper subtracting for reserves, fixes the amount which can be spent in additional benefits. On this third valuation, as we expected, the blow falls. The situation it revealed I can summarise in a single phrase. It is this:
  1930
  The valuation shows that we have now arrived at a point at which the health insurance scheme is living upon its accumulations. What is the measure of that? A full account of this will be found in the Government Actuary's Report, to which I invite the attention of the House in order to get a full view of the situation, but I will give the essential position in one figure, which will be readily intelligible to the House.
  During the period from the first to the second valuation, that is, during the period of prosperity, the surplus assets of the approved societies grew by no less than £25,000,000. Now for the contrast. During the period of the second to the third valuation the surplus had increased by £12,500,000 only, that is, half the previous increase, and, what is more unfortunate, that increase is not a substantial one. It is an illusory one, because it is due, as to about half of it, to interest upon funds previously accumulated, upon which they must now be drawing, and is due, as to the second part of it, to non-recurring margins. The increase of surplus assets at the last period is, therefore, an illusory one, and what I have to tell the House to-day is that, as things stand at present, the rate of increase in the surplus assets of the approved societies and of the scheme as a whole, is, in substance, nil. We have arrived, therefore, at a point at which, without an increase of surplus assets, the future holds nothing but the necessity of living upon accumulations.
  That state of affairs finds its expression, of course, in the reaction upon the additional benefits. The additional benefits, as I have pointed out to the House, are those which societies pay out of their surplus assets. They are the measure of the elbow room, the margin, and now we see the inevitable effect upon these additional benefits of this decrease in the surplus assets. The contrast is a strong one. After the second valuation no less than 95 per cent. of the approved societies and branches could, and did, give additional benefits. Now see the change. After the third valuation additional benefits have had to be reduced for 6,250,000 out of 17,000,000, and, more unfortunately still, in respect of no less than 4,250,000 contributors the additional benefits have had to be discontinued altogether. That is the

  1931
  measure of the degree in which the prosperity and the stability of the funds of the scheme are placed, and—most menacing feature of all—no fewer than 418 societies and branches find themselves not only in a position not to give additional benefits, but actually with a deficiency; that is, if they did not fall back upon central aid, they would not be in a position to pay the very minimum of statutory benefits which the scheme requires. Do I go too far in saying that this outlook is now a critical one? I will quote the words of the Government Actuary himself in reporting upon the state of affairs. He says:
  "Existing surpluses provide only a temporary bulwark, and serious deficiencies are in prospect."
  What does that mean? Let me earnestly ask for the attention of the House to what is really the principal evil which we have to try to remedy. I will put it in this way: If we went on as we are going with National Health Insurance, at the end of the next valuation period there would be widespread deficiencies among the approved societies. They would be unable to pay the statutory benefits which the scheme requires. The deficiencies would be so great that the resources of the scheme would be unable to meet them, the scheme would be insolvent and would break down. We have a clear indication that, unless we take prompt action, we shall be confronted at the end of the next valuation period with a breakdown of the scheme of National Health Insurance.
  This scheme has been, in a way, the pride of our social organisation. We have boasted of its financial aspects as an example to the world. We now have, as I say, the threat that if its finances are allowed to continue as at the present time, it will break down, and we must draw the obvious conclusion that prompt action is absolutely necessary. It must be based, I think the House will agree, upon two principles. First of all, we must secure the solvency of the scheme. We must protect it from the least threat of that breakdown at the end of the next period to which I have referred. In the second place, we must maintain the other foundation stone of the scheme, which is that it is a contributory scheme,
  1932
  that is, a scheme based upon the principle that people get what they pay for. It is that contributory element which we shall look upon as having to be absolutely preserved and fortified in anything we do.
  We now set out to seek the proper remedy for the threatened danger which I have described, and, in order to do so, we must look a little more closely at the actual causes of the threatened breakdown. As I have said, the first cause is the increase in the sickness experience, and that is particularly the case in regard to the women's claims, and, as regards women's claims, it is particularly in respect of the married women. It comes from women in contrast to men, and it comes from married women in contrast to unmarried women. What is the measure of the breakdown in respect of the married women? During the last valuation period the sickness and disablement benefit paid to women was nearly £4,000,000 in excess of the actuarial provision; that is, after every allowance has been made for a reasonable increase to be normally expected, it was found that the claims for women during the period was £4,000,000 in excess of the expectation. I ask the House to notice this feature particularly. The excess was greatest at the end of the period —the last year of the valuation. The report by the Government Actuary shows that during the years 1928-30, after the valuation, the average expenditure on sickness and disablement benefits of women exclusive of the State grant, exceeded the provision made for it by no less than £850,000 a year.
  So that we have in the unexpected increase in the claims on behalf of women, a serious feature, and we must notice a most serious element in that great feature which is still increasing at the present time. This increase over expectation has got worse and worse. I would mention only one fact which, I think, will carry immediate conviction to the House as to how much the burden comes from married women's claims in contrast with unmarried women's claims. The average yearly loss per head on married women is 3½ times greater than it is with respect to unmarried women. So now we have traced down the increase in claims to its true origin.

  1933
  I turn to the question of remedy. How can we put this right when the burden is in excess of expectation? Something must be done. Only two things can be done. You must either increase the contributions or you must decrease the benefits. There is no other course which any man can devise to make the two ends meet. Let me consider for a moment the possibility of raising the contributions. In order to make both ends meet by raising the contributions, we should have to increase them for all women from 8½d. to 10d. The result of that would be that we should have to make the woman's contribution to the scheme higher than the man's contribution. At first sight that appears to be a stark impossibility. Let me suggest two other considerations. In the course of the recent past we have had to increase other contributions. We had to increase Unemployment Insurance contributions in October, 1931, by as much as 5d. In the not too remote future the finances of the National Insurance pension scheme will require an increase in contributions for women of 1d. With the increase of contributions for unemployment and pensions there is the strongest possible reason against making further increases in contributions for National Health Insurance; and, when we look round at the general conditions of the nation and at the industrial depression, when we consider the remedies which are appropriate for our national disorders, the House will come to the conclusion that it is frankly impossible to place any fresh burden in the form of increased contributions upon either the employer or the employed.
  I now turn to the alternative of a decrease in the benefits. The House is already acquainted from the White Paper with the nature of the decreases which I propose. There are one or two points that deserve special consideration. Discrimination is made between married and unmarried women. It would be unfair to call upon unmarried women to bear the burden incurred owing to the increase of claims by married women. The unmarried women in the scheme are to married women as four to one. There is, too, a difference between the economic position of the married woman and that of the unmarried woman. The married woman is in a position of greater security. She
  1934
  has no strong deterrent to going out of work for a time and on to the fund for she is a partner in a firm, the other member of which is, generally speaking, in a position to earn a living for the family if she is for a time out of work. Such a consideration as that makes it not only essential but just to make a distinction as between married and unmarried women. Even after reductions in benefits, they will still be above the pre-war level. They will still be substantial benefits.
  As a result of this adjustment, we shall return to what I think is a due proportion between sickness benefit and disablement benefit, which is the benefit which follows after the first period of sickness is over. It is always looked upon as a good rule that disablement benefit should be half sickness benefit, and we are now re-establishing that just proportion. Undoubtedly, the benefits are not as great as they have been or as we should like them to be, but what is the intention of National Health Insurance? After all, it is only to provide an assured minimum; it makes no pretence of being able to provide maintenance. It is only an assured minimum which is supplemented in many cases by voluntary insurance from a friendly society or a trade union. It is of the greatest importance to restore the stability of our national scheme and to bring it into due relation with the voluntary schemes which are still being provided. By the adjustments which I propose not a single penny is taken from the fund. All the money that was there before is still there; it is simply a matter of adjustment to make sure that the money goes round and that the scheme does not break down.
  There is another menace to the scheme on the other side of the account; that menace is wrapped up with the question of arrears. The cause of the difficulty is the system established in 1928. I can summarise it by saying that the system established in that year turns out to be too big a burden for the finances of the scheme to bear. The system was that all arrears of contribution because of unemployment were totally excused. The burden that was thrown upon the funds of the societies in the then state of unemployment was about £700,000 a year. Of that, £500,000 was met out of the central

  1935
  fund by an adjustment of the unclaimed stamps account. Only £200,000 was thrown upon the finances of the approved societies. But now see the disastrous change. With unemployment in its present condition of severity, the burden which this method of excusing all arrears throws upon the finances of the fund is no less than £2,500,000 a year. Of that, £2,000,000 has to be borne by the societies, and the funds available from the unclaimed stamps account are failing. That burden of £2,000,000 upon the funds of the societies is too heavy to be borne, and the societies cannot continue it without being driven down into deficiencies and practically into insolvency. It is urgently necessary that an intervention should be made in order to relieve them from this burden, which has proved intolerable.
  I come to the proposals to deal with this grave emergency. The proposal is that arrears due to unemployment shall be excused to the extent of one-half, the remaining one-half, less an allowance of two contributions, to be met by the insured person if he wishes to cover himself for full benefits. This proposal will result in a scheme of arrears very much as before 1928. Arrears are to be excused in any case during the weeks of notified incapacity. I take powers, if there is any improvement in the unemployment position, to give more generous treatment by the excusal of more than one half of the arrears due to unemployment. In approaching this question, I have tried to do what is necessary to make things safe, but not to do anything more than is necessary in the hope of things improving, and to take power to put things back into a better state of affairs than they were before if and when the general finances of the scheme enable me to do so. The result of the scheme with regard to arrears is that it will reduce the burden on societies by one half, that is by £1,000,000 a year; £1,000,000 a year will still be borne by the societies, and the other £1,000,00 will fall upon the contributors. This scheme has been submitted to my consultative council, and they agree that it is the legitimate and right way of dealing with the matter.
  There is a further protection which I propose to give to the finances of the approved societies. It is not right that,
  1936
  owing to this burden of arrears due to unemployment, the finances of any society should be driven into a deficiency. I therefore propose that, if any society finds itself in danger of a deficiency owing to the burden due to arrears, it shall receive a grant of the balance necessary to avoid a deficiency from the resources of the fund, and it shall receive that grant in priority to any claim upon its reserves. The consequence of that will be to spread the burden of avoiding deficiencies due to arrears over the central finances of the scheme. These two proposals in respect of benefits and contributions do not wholly satisfy the actuarial demands. I have not gone so far as the most rigid standard of actuarial requirements goes, but I am entitled, as hon. Members will see by reference to the report of the Government Actuary, to count on an improvement in respect of claims owing to that improvement in administration which was inaugurated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield. I am told that it is not unreasonable to count on an improvement of 10 per cent. in respect of claims owing to the improvement in administration.
  4.30 p.m.
  If that be so, we shall by these two Measures, as far as it is reasonable to foresee, assure the financial solvency of the finances of our health insurance schemes. I do not mean to say that there is not an element of uncertainty. I have not gone so far as to make absolutely certain, but I have felt it right in the present condition of the nation's finances to stretch a point and to take a risk, so long as it is not an unreasonable risk, while avoiding going further at the moment than is necessary for the recovery of the general prosperity of the nation. I turn from the question of the finances of the health insurance scheme to another and equally critical, and perhaps even more difficult, aspect of health insurance, and that is the prolongation in insurance of the unemployed who, because of the failure of their contributions, would otherwise go out of insurance altogether, losing all their insurance rights, their rights to sickness benefit, medical benefit, and lastly, and worst, losing their rights to the widows' and old age pensions at 65. I approach that matter on the basis of what I have already described to the

  1937
  House. If the House will adopt the measures outlined they will have restored the solvency and the stability of National Health Insurance, and that will give us an opportunity of dealing with this question of prolongation in a manner which will make possible every allowance to avoid hardship to the unemployed who otherwise would be out of insurance.
  What is the state of affairs? At the end of this year we shall be confronted with a crisis. Unless we do something some 80,000 men and women will pass completely out of insurance owing to unemployment. They will be losing all their insurance rights, including, as I have said before, the right most appreciated and valued of all, the right to widows' and old age pensions. How are we to deal with those 80,000 persons, and the other persons in future years, who will thus go out of insurance? I suggest that we should deal with the problem with two objects in mind. First, we must not do anything which will have the effect of inflicting any mortal injury upon the contributory principle. We have seen the effect of that upon unemployment insurance. We know the infinity of difficulties we got into owing to not firmly gripping the essential principle of contributions in unemployment insurance, and I am sure the House will support the Government in their determination that health insurance is not to go down the slippery slope into the disaster which has attended unemployment insurance. I think we should also approach it from this point of view, that the loss of insurance rights, and particularly pension rights, is a bitter hardship to the unemployed, and if, without sacrifice of the contributory principle and without sacrifice of the essential solvency of our scheme, we can manage to maintain at least some of those rights for those who are losing them on account of unemployment, and for no other reason, we ought to do so. I shall approach the matter in that spirit.
  We ought to take advantage of the stability which we shall gain from the passage of the first provisions in this Bill frankly to temporise as regards those of the unemployed who otherwise would lose their rights through no fault of their own. We ought to give them the benefit of the doubt, and see whether we cannot establish a period during which it will be
  1938
  possible to retain them in insurance, at least as regards some of their rights, in order, in a word, to give the national situation the opportunity of redeeming itself. I do not think it is essential to allow the rights harshly to be cut off at the end of the year, and, since it is not essential for the solvency of the scheme, we ought to allow them to continue, in so far as financial considerations will allow, in order to see whether things do not pull round, to see whether, in the course of time, the improvement in employment will not allow many of them to get back into work and so save their rights.
  How far is it possible to go in that respect? I propose to go just so far as is possible while providing for the maintenance of solvency and of the contributory principle. The House will realise that substantial concessions have been given to the unemployed under the existing law. Everybody whose contributions ceased owing to unemployment and who would otherwise go out of insurance gets these concessions: First of all, he gets an average period of 21 months' free insurance at full rates, and in addition to that he gets, after his 21 months, a free year of insurance for all purposes but at half rates as regards pecuniary benefits. So already he has 21 months plus one year, that is a 33 months' bonus period, as it were. The House will realise that it is a real bonus. I will not detain the House with arguments on the subject, because they are too technical, but under our flat-rate insurance scheme there is no surrender value to anyone going out of insurance. He gets the full value of his contributions as long as he is in insurance, but when he goes out of insurance he has got no value left such as one has in an insurance made by personal contract. Therefore, the whole of the period of 21 months and one year's free insurance is bonus.
  On looking at what can be done to keep the unemployed in insurance, consistent with the solvency of the scheme, I find that it is possible to make further concessions, which are these: Nobody at the end of this year, because of mere unemployment, shall go out of insurance; then the cash benefits shall cease, because they cannot be maintained and yet make the scheme financially sound; but after the end of this year—that is, for the

  1939
  following year, 1933—we will give him another free year of medical benefits. The House will know that from the point of view of social welfare the medical benefits are the more important, because they are necessary to maintain the health and, in that way, the employability of the man. The House will ask now, How is this to be financed with the finances of the scheme in the condition which has been described? It can be done by a very slight stretching of what I would call the capital account of the scheme. The cost can be met by the adjustment of the transfer values which will be debited to societies when members cease to be insured for health insurance benefits. That means that for one occasion, and for one occasion only—because I cannot repeat it in future years—I can, by a slight adjustment of the transfer value, get the £50,000 I want to give that additional year of medical benefit.
  Mr. LOGAN: Does this proposal entitle insured people to the additional benefits? There is a special Clause in regard to additional benefits.
  Sir H. YOUNG: I must verify the facts. The point I wish to emphasise is that that is a slight stretching of the capital account, which I cannot repeat in future years. At the end of the medical benefit year 1933 I still do something to preserve the most valued of all rights, the widows' and old age pensions rights. I. am establishing a period of prolongation to give things an opportunity of pulling round, in the hope that they will so much recover that those still subjected to these misfortunes will get an opportunity of further employment. I propose to give another year, 1934, of continued pension rights, and after that another year of continued pension rights, to the end of 1935. So there will be two years of additional pensions lights at the end of the additional year of medical benefit. The House will ask why I end at 1935. The reason is that there is then due, under the Statutes, a general actuarial review of all the conditions and circumstances of National Health Insurance. That will give whoever is in charge at the time an opportunity of reviewing the situation and seeing what it is as regards prolongation. The point is that that period is sufficient to allow for recovery, and I can do it without any infringement
  1940
  of the new-found stability which will be gained from the first part of the scheme.
  What will be the general effect of all this? The effect as regards prolongation is that under the National Health Insurance scheme the unemployed man and woman will have got at least 5½ years' free insurance without contribution, and for pensions' insurance the average unemployed man or woman will have 10 years' insurance for only 2½ years' contributions. I do not think the House will come to any other conclusion than that this is a generous method of dealing with prolongation. If the House will accept from me the assurance that it is compatible with the solvency of the scheme, subject to the adoption of the remedies proposed in the first part of the Bill, I think the House will have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that we succeed in reconciling the two essentials: solvency and protecting the unemployed who are suffering, through no fault of their own, undue deprivations and undue hardships.
  The House will next ask, What will be the state of affairs at the end of this period of prolongation, this waiting period? At the end we shall revert to the existing law, with certain exceptions which I will now specify. There will be no further special years of prolongation of the sort I propose for the transitional period. We shall go back to the present system, the system of an average of 21 months' free insurance for all persons after their contributions cease, and on the top of that one year of free insurance; and the only proposal I have to make is that it will be possible, in view of our present foundations for the finances of the scheme, to continue anew, as part of the permanent concessions made to the unemployed at the end of the one year of free insurance, one further year of the prolongation of the pensions rights as part of the permanent scheme. The House will see that throughout I have laid particular stress upon this preservation to the unemployed of their pension rights, because I am confident that it is that right which is most valued, and the loss of which, owing to unemployment, is looked upon as the most bitter form of hardship.
  There is one other form of concession which, I think, it is appropriate to make

  1941
  to alleviate the evils of unemployment. Beyond what I propose to do it is impossible, whilst maintaining the contributory basis of the scheme, to continue in insurance one who does not make his contributions owing to the loss of his employment; but there is something else which can be done, and that is to make it easier for him to get back into insurance. If he has been, so to speak, a good fellow, and made his contributions while he is in employment, and he suffers from the great evil of unemployment, and in spite of every concession we have made has finally gone out of insurance, he is entitled to every consideration in order to get back. What I propose is to see again what I can skim off the scheme in the way of financial accommodation in order to make it easier for the unemployed man to get back. This is the hard detailed expression of the principle which I have put in more general words. Now he cannot get back his pension rights until he has 104 fresh contributions, and that means two years. I propose to reduce that period to 26 weeks, and I think I can do that within the finances of the scheme. I think that will be a big concession of much importance.
  I propose not only to make it easier for that man to get back in respect of his pension rights, but I propose to make it easier for him to get back his qualification for Health Insurance. Take the case of the man who has lost his rights owing to prolonged unemployment. Under my proposal, he will, up to the end of 1936, if he becomes employed, retain his rights to full rates of benefit after 26 weeks' employment and the payment of 26 contributions. That is a very great advantage to him compared with the present state of affairs, which is that with the ordinary re-entrant into Health Insurance he can only get sickness benefit at reduced rates after the payment of 26 contributions. Then he would have to wait for maternity benefit until he had made 42 contributions, and he would not get disablement benefit until after 104 weeks and until he had made 104 contributions. I think the concession which I propose is a fair thing to do, and if it can be done within the finances of the scheme I think it ought to be done.
  There are one or two other minor concessions which I want to recommend to the House that are embodied in this Bill.
  1942
  They can be made without casting an undue financial burden on the scheme, and they will meet cases of special hardship. I think we ought to take this opportunity to take advantage of remedying what experience has shown are individual cases of special hardship. One of these cases is when a man is sick at the end of his period of insurance, where he only gets an extension of four weeks. I think if we can stretch that period a bit we ought to do so in order to give the sick man a chance of getting back into insurance. If they are sick at the time of going out of insurance, I propose to extend their insurance to the end of the half-year.
  Take next the case of a man who happens to be just getting back to work and coming into insurance. In the first place, I make the following proposal in the Bill. In order to re-qualify for a fresh free period of insurance, I propose to wind up the old system under which only one or two contributions were necessary to re-qualify, because I do not think that that was practical. I now propose that eight weeks in two successive half-years will be required to get fresh free periods. I think a proposal of that kind is necessary for the success of the scheme. In the next place suppose that a man gets into work at the end of the time that he would otherwise be out of insurance. I propose an extension of insurance to the end of the half-year which will give him an opportunity to have the new contributions so as to re-qualify him for his insurance. I think that proposal will do much to meet an individual grievance.
  I propose one alteration which, although it may meet a minor point, is of some importance. Hon. Members know that if a man arrives at the age of 60, after that, if he is out of work, he is still in insurance for pension rights up to the age of 65, and he continues in insurance up to 65 in order to secure the old age pension. A man over 60 has not much chance of getting a job, and without the present system he would lose his pension rights. I find that the finance of the scheme under this Bill will allow me to make the age 58¼ instead of 60, so that anybody who arrives at 58¼ becoming unemployed will continue in insurance until he has reached 65 if he remains unemployed. That completes the account which I desire to give of the

  1943
  main principles of this Bill, and the justification for these proposals.
  There is one other circumstance which is extremely relevant to this Bill. Our National Health Insurance scheme is administered by the approved societies, and they are not only responsible, in the first place, for its administration, but they feel the full effects of any weakening of its financial stability. They are really in the front line trenches, and I feel that any action which I propose to take, if it is taken without the sympathy and agreement of the great approved societies, is likely to be taken in vain. Let me tell the House that I have been approached by a deputation representing those societies and they have pressed me to take some such action as that which I have proposed in this Bill. I do not think I am going too far when I say that, perhaps with the exception of some minor adjustment, the provisions of this Bill have the support and approval of the approved societies.
  Mr. MAXTON: I understand that there are three main sections dealt with under this Bill. Of course, I am aware that there may be one or two dissentients, but I want to know if all these three types of societies have agreed to this legislation.
  Sir H. YOUNG: I appreciate the hon. Member's question, and I am pleased to say that the scheme proposed in the Bill has the approval of all the three types of societies. It could not be otherwise, for, unless we take such action as we now propose, those societies would be threatened with a financial position of the utmost gravity, and nobody responsible for the administration of those societies could consent to continue the existing situation unless the Government were prepared to act by such action as we have proposed in this Bill. I notice that a Motion for the rejection of this Measure has been put down by hon. Members opposite, and I shall be interested to hear by what arguments they are going to support that Motion. I do not think hon. Members opposite can deny the gravity of the position which I have placed before the House. I am sure that they cannot question that there is a situation existing with which it is urgently necessary to deal, and no
  1944
  solution of this problem on general lines other than that which I have placed before the House is possible. I believe that what I have suggested is the only method by which it is possible to reconcile the two things which I have described, the solvency of the scheme and its protection from disaster.
  The maintenance of the contributory principle permits the Bill to follow along the path which we all have conspicuously before our eyes. On the other hand, I believe in my heart that the new stability which will be given to insurance by this Measure will be of the utmost use in mitigating the hardships which affect the unemployed. I started my remarks by saying that I have not a pleasant task before me. No task is pleasant which is confronted with difficulties like those with which the nation is faced to-day. The proposals I have made are in accord with the genius of our race. We should not wait for things to go from bad to worse before we put out a hand to stop the downward course. I feel sure that the House will be prepared to take the necessary measures, but I hope that I shall not be blamed for making every allowance for the hope which we all have that things will not always be as bad as they are, and that we can legitimately make allowance for the hope that things will be better and that they will be completely restored in the future.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
  5.0 p.m.
  In moving this Amendment, which is supported by several of my hon. Friends on this side, my first obvious duty is to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his very lucid statement on a very technical subject. I agree entirely with him that this is a Bill to secure the financial stability of the National Health Insurance scheme, but I am afraid I shall be compelled to be a little critical of one or two of his observations on that issue. Indeed, it would be a very strange Bill if it found agreement in every quarter of the House, and, therefore, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not be offended if I direct two or three criticisms against his Bill on points which do not find favour on this side of the House.

  1945
  The right hon. Gentleman said that we have now reached the point when the schemes is living on its past, and he pointed out that there was a serious reduction in the surplus on the third valuation as compared with that shown on the second, the surplus being, in fact, reduced by one-half. I would ask the House to bear that very important statement in mind. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must secure the solvency of this scheme. He also remarked that under this Bill the Government are not taking a penny piece from the funds of the societies. I wish that he could have said that in 1926. I am under the impression that he was a party to taking money from those funds in 1926. But before I dwell on that burning question within the approved society world, I want to make one point clear, because it is very important that we should understand where we are on this issue. I am sure I am right in saying that there is no section of the community that is not anxious to see this scheme continue to be based on insurance and actuarial principles. In fact, its success for the future depends, in my view, entirely on that fundamental basis, and any criticism that we may offer on this Measure will, therefore, fall within the confines of those principles. This is the only national social fund left to us in this country that is now based on insurance principles, and I want very much to see those principles maintained. I do not think that anyone in the House, and least of all anyone connected with the administration of National Health Insurance, will ever want at any time any means or income test to be applied to the recipients of health insurance benefits.
  I should like to offer one or two observations on the history of the National Health Insurance, because I think we ought, as the preachers do, to take a historical sketch before we criticise the details of the Bill. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is rather glad that I should say something about the preacher and the historical sketch, because it will show him that I know what I am talking about. It is important to remember, in connection with the history of this scheme, that, if the original contract entered into by the State, the employers and the insured population had been carried out up to date, we should not be faced with this
  1946
  problem of finance at all to-day. The scheme, however, has been saddled from time to time with obligations that its founders never intended it to carry, and I make bold to say that no private insurance company would ever have allowed liabilities to be placed upon its funds in the way in which Conservative Governments have placed obligations upon these funds. I am proud to stand here and say that no Labour Government at any time has thrust added responsibilities upon this fund, or reduced any of the contributions of the State to it.
  The whole trouble about the financial stability of this scheme came, and it received its first blow, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Conservative regime—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)—reduced the State grant to the National Health Insurance Fund by £2,750,000 per annum. Ever since that time, the financial foundations of the scheme have been somewhat shaky. Not only did the right hon. Gentleman do that, but he added to the liabilities of the fund in respect of medical benefit costs by nearly £2,000,000 per annum; and up to date the funds of these societies have suffered, as a result of the reduction in State subsidy, of new obligations, and of loss of interest that would otherwise have accrued, to the extent of very nearly £30,000,000. The Minister of Health has pointed out to-day that the surplus on the third valuation was only £12,500,000 as compared with £25,000,000 on the second valuation. I am sure I am right in saying that, if the original contracts had been carried out by the State, and the usual subsidy to these funds had been continued, the surplus on the third valuation would have been equal to that on the second. The surplus on the third valuation was very largely destroyed by the reduction of the State subsidy.
  Of course, in addition to all that, unemployment has taken its toll on the funds. The average number of contributions has declined with the economic depression that has fallen upon the insured population. As a direct result of that economic depression, the scheme has been saddled with certain liabilities that it was never intended to carry; and I do not like at any time to see responsibilities thrown by the State upon this or any other in-

  1947
  surance scheme that ought to be borne by other services of the State. It is a remarkable tribute, therefore, to the soundness of the scheme that it has been able to withstand all these liabilities and reductions of subsidy. In spite of all that has been said about the scheme, it is still, as it now stands, the safest and soundest social insurance scheme in the world. We cannot get ninepence for fourpence out of it now; it is about sixpence for a "tanner" at the present time. Nevertheless, the scheme has been very useful to a large number of persons in this country who have suffered prolonged sickness.
  Were it not for the fact that the Ministry induced most of the approved societies to separate, for valuation purposes, the funds of the men from those of the women, I am positive that those societies would never have had reason to complain of the heavy claims of married women; they would not have been brought to light to the same extent. [Interruption.] Perhaps I should say rather that the problem would never have arisen in this acute form. If we are to extend this process, as I imagine it is intended to do, and not only to separate the men from the women for valuation purposes, but to separate married women from single women, we shall in the end reach the stage when each of the 17,000,000 insured persons will have a separate ledger account. As an administrator, I am rather inclined to the view that this scheme ought to be carried on in its original form, that is to say, that the liability ought to be shared out over all the membership, men and women alike, and that, if a tightening up of administration is required in respect of any section of the membership, some of the financial reforms which the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting to-day ought to be carried out, within the principles of insurance, but by administrative action.
  I am quite sincere in my opinion that the Ministry of Health could, on the financial points of this Bill, have found a way of doing all that they desire in respect of the married women without reducing their benefits. The right hon. Gentleman said that only two courses are open to us—either to increase the contributions or reduce the benefits. I do
  1948
  not think he need accept either of those two alternatives. I cannot believe that married women in 1930, 1931 and 1932 suffered more from ill-health than they did in 1920 and 1921, when their experience on sickness benefit was very much less. I cannot conceive, after 20 years of panel medical service in this country, with such a large number of medical men giving attention to the boys and girls who were growing up—so far as I know, the most universal medical attention in any country in the world— that the really genuine claims of women have increased to such a great extent between 1920 and 1930.
  I am satisfied that a large proportion of the increase in the sickness claims of married women comes from the loose certification of the panel practitioners. The number of medical men in this country is, I believe, growing in proportion to the number of the population; that is to say, there were so many doctors in this country per 10,000 of the population, and the proportion has increased each year. They must all have a livelihood; I do not dispute that; but I am sure that the medical practitioner to-day is not adopting the same attitude towards panel practice as he used to adopt when he was employed by the old friendly societies. Further, if the panel doctor of 1932 did his work as conscientiously as he did for the friendly societies 20 years ago, we should not be faced with this problem of reducing the benefits of married women to-day. The Ministry of Health has been so dissatisfied with some panel practitioners that it has set up what is called a regional medical service, which actually takes an oversight of the work of the panel practitioner, and approved societies that are dissatisfied with the certification of the ordinary panel practitioner send thousands of cases annually for second medical opinion. Were it not for the work of the regional medical officer, the percentage of this increase would not be 100 but I should imagine it might easily reach 200 on the experience of some approved societies.
  The Ministry of Health has done a great deal already in dealing with this problem. They know as well as the administrators of approved societies that the situation regarding certification is still very unsatisfactory. What should

  1949
  be done? In my view, the medical practitioners who are dealing with National Health Insurance ought to be employed by the State. I see no way out of securing a proper certification unless you get a State medical service. The right hon. Gentleman may say that is a very Socialistic proposal, but I am sure that some day a Minister, of whatever political colour the Government may be, will be faced with the problem of appointing State medical officers to deal with this problem of certification, because when the right hon. Gentleman has done all that he is proposing to do in this Bill to-day, unless the question of certification is dealt with properly we shall still be in the same financial position later on.
  Mr. McGOVERN: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the medical profession are passing people for benefit who are not suffering from illness?
  Mr. DAVIES: The real fact is that the average panel doctor is doing his work well, but there are certain cases of practitioners who are known to be granting medical certificates when they ought not to be granting them.
  Mr. MAXTON: What is the motive?
  Mr. HOWARD: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, if you did away with the opportunity that is allowed to patients to transfer from one practitioner to another, you would prevent the granting of these easy certificates. I could give instances where one doctor is canvassing patients and endeavouring to induce them to get them away from a rival round the corner by promising to grant certificates.
  Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member has answered my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). That is exactly what we say. The Ministry of Health has all this information in its hands. This problem of the medical profession is not a new one. Those who administer the scheme know, too, of the extravagant claims of some dentists, opticians and surgical instrument makers. All these claims are happily scrutinised very carefully at the central offices of the approved societies. To come back to the question of the married women, we are not satisfied that the benefits should be reduced at all. The right hon.
  1950
  Gentleman said that, because contributions were declining, consequent upon unemployment, and claims for sickness were heavy, you must reduce the benefits. The actuary's statement in the report on the third valuation, not in regard to women but to men, says:
  "Friendly societies without branches contain 10 cases of men insured alone, in which there is an aggregate deficiency of £288,673."
  There is no proposal in this Bill to reduce the statutory benefit for men. The complaint I make is that there are some segregated approved societies covering certain sections of the workpeople in quite as serious a financial position as women's societies. I would not be a bit surprised if financially the drain upon the funds of some men's societies is as heavy as the drain of the married women upon theirs, and it is unfair to draw a distinction between these persons because the woman is a married woman. If you segregate a section of men who are unemployed for a long period, and their claims are heavy, you may find the same condition appertaining to the men alone as to the married women when segregated. Those who administer approved societies have never been satisfied that all the married women who are in membership are insurable propositions. A great deal of this problem would be avoided if membership of approved societies in respect of married women was confined to women in regular employment. I think a number of women have slipped into insurance because they are casual workers, and they are very difficult to supervise, even for membership purposes, let alone scrutinising their claims for sickness benefit.
  There is another aspect of the problem too. When a woman gets married, I think she ought to be transferred to a class of her own, and be dealt with in that class throughout marriage. When you have done those two things, it seems to me that you should avoid a reduction in benefit because you avoid these very grave liabilities that come from the two categories that I 'have mentioned. There are societies of women membership only, and they are, of course, feeling very severely the effects of these claims. But the economic depression has more to do with the problem than anything else I have mentioned. When there is very little money to buy food, the married

  1951
  woman is probably the first to suffer in the home. She is willing to make a sacrifice for the sake of her children, and when she is sick she naturally very easily secures a certificate and claims benefit. But I have yet to learn that the Ministry of Health has ever been able to determine one issue for us. A woman gets married and declares that she is going back to work and, consequently, remains in insurance on her own statement that she is eligible for employment. I do not know what this Bill intends to do in those cases, but it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman ought to bear in mind that a better definition of the declaration as to whether a woman on marriage is going back to work or not is essential. We have never had a proper definition yet. We on this side are afraid that, once we begin to emphasise the difference between the several sections of the insured population, we shall arrive at the stage when we might as well keep a separate ledger account for each person. But, if that were the case, it would no longer be a social insurance scheme. It would be a contributory scheme; you would merely get back all that you paid in minus administrative expenses. I wonder, however, whether, when the right hon. Gentleman was considering these proposals, he ever turned to the recommendations of the May Committee on the subject. That Committee was condemned in several of its recommendations, but I am not so sure that it was not very much more generous to the insured population in its recommendations on this subject than the right hon. Gentleman is to-day. Perhaps he will look up the recommendations of the Committee in that respect.
  The right hon. Gentleman has included a provision in the Bill to safeguard the title of persons who have suffered from a long period of unemployment to the pension at 65. I do not know, after all, that it will carry them all to the point that they will secure their pension. The State has saved a great deal of money by the institution of contributory pensions. We shall soon reach the stage, I should imagine, that very few people will be entitled to claim the original Old Age Pension at 70 years of age. Most of the industrial population will obtain the con-
  1952
  tributory pension at 66. As the number of Old Age Pensions under the original scheme at 70 is declining, the amount paid under the contributory scheme from 65 upwards is increasing, and consequently the State has already gained financially on the transaction. There is, therefore, very much greater reason why the State should say that all persons who are unemployed for a long period should be guaranteed entirely for their contributory pension at 65 whether they are employed or not. It seems to me that it is only a human duty on behalf of the State to carry out that principle.
  To sum up our attitude on this side, we stand unhesitatingly for the continuance of the application to this scheme of actuarial and insurance premiums. We are satisfied, however, that, were it not for the reduction of the State grant by the Act of 1926, we should not be subjected to the difficulties that we are now faced with.
  Sir H. YOUNG indicated dissent.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. DAVIES: I shall be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman's deputy will tell the House if it is not a fact that that Act has caused a saving to the Government, up to date, of not less than £25,000,000, including interest accruing. The right hon. Gentleman does not shake his head now, and I am sure I am right. We are of the opinion that there are certain cases which ought to be left out of the scheme as uninsurable, and that if they were eliminated from the scheme it would be possible to maintain the same rate of benefits for married and for single women. The distinction which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn between the single woman and the married woman is very unfortunate in respect of the decrease in benefit.
  I am sorry that hon. Gentlemen on my left seem to think that I am a little too critical of the medical profession, but I have said it more than once in this House and I repeat it, that better and more accurate medical certification in connection with the scheme would go a long way to obviate the reduction of benefits. I am absolutely satisfied of that fact, and I should be surprised if any approved society in the land disagreed with such a statement.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I want to know—and I want his evidence for it—whether the hon. Member is suggesting that people who are contributors to the insurance scheme, and the doctors are co-operating in a fraud upon the State. That is a very serious statement to make, and it ought to be backed up by facts.
  Mr. DAVIES: I have never used the word "fraud" at all. If hon. Gentlemen want proof they can get it from any insurance committee in the land, and if they want figures I am prepared to get a return showing how many medical practitioners are brought before insurance committees for giving certificates which are not in fact genuine.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is only human nature.
  Mr. MAXTON: Here it is said that we have married women who are engaged in a fraudulent practice. That is the first part of the statement. The second part is that medical men, men of one of our learned professions, are out to defraud the State. Taking those two examples we have to go on the assumption that the whole community is a fraud. Unless the evidence is overpowering we are not inclined to believe that the mothers and the doctors of the nation are engaged in a fraudulent conspiracy.
  Mr. DAVIES: I have never charged any of them with fraudulent conspiracy, and the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to put those words into my mouth. What I said—and I repeat it—is that some medical practitioners have issued certificates when they ought not to have been issued, and everybody connected with National Health Insurance, and everybody at the Ministry of Health, knows it to be true. Finally, we are very anxious about the suggestion which I have made this afternoon that the scheme should still be carried on by better administration, better 'medical certification, and by the elimination of what I term uninsurable classes from the scheme. I think that by adopting the suggestions which I have made it will still be possible—because the amount is not very great compared with the whole —to save the married women and the single women from any reduction in benefit.
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I should like to offer my congratulations to the Minister upon the very clear and lucid manner in which he has explained a somewhat intricate Bill. Those of us who have taken the trouble during the last two or three days to try and find out exactly the implications of many of the provisions of the Bill realise that, after all, the Bill is not such a complicated Measure and appreciate its proposals. Having heard the proposals, I think that those of us who have been associated with National Health Insurance administration for a large number of years will agree that the Bill is on the whole a fair and complete attempt to deal with certain difficulties which have arisen in the administration.
  I propose mainly to confine myself to the portion of the Bill which deals with a reduction in the benefits to married women. It is really the portion of the Bill which is of greatest interest to all who are associated with approved societies. For some time we have been apprehensive as to the situation. We realised that the various demands upon the funds of approved societies were such that at no distant date we should be facing almost the bankruptcy of the scheme, and when the third valuation was published we saw that our fears were well founded. Most of us agree with the importance of maintaining the scheme on an insurance basis, and I am glad to hear from the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) that he and those who are associated with him adopt the same view. Presumably, if that means anything, it is that the State should not be called upon to find anything further in the way of funds in order to relieve the scheme from any of its existing liabilities.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: During the past year the various publications devoted to the interests of approved societies have devoted a considerable amount of space to the serious situation which has been created owing to the large sickness incidence of married women members. We have heard a statement from the Minister as to the position as a whole and as to the large amount involved. I was interested to notice in one of the insurance

  1955
  gazettes two or three weks ago a report dealing with one of the smaller approved societies with three classes of members— men, single women and widows, and married women. Perhaps from a small case of this kind it is very much easier for us to visualise what is taking place. In this particular approved society there were 31,200 men, and the sickness benefit paid in respect of them during the previous year amounted to £18,858, which was equivalent to 12s. 1d. in respect of each member. In the case of single women and widows the number in the society was 15,200, and the benefits paid in respect of those members amounted to £10,142, or at the rate of 13s. 4d. per member. There were 7,100 married women, and the sickness and disability benefit amounted to £10,000, very nearly as much as the amount paid in respect of double the number of single women and widows, or an average of £l 8s. 2d. for each married woman member.
  Incidents of that kind—I am certain that similar instances could be multiplied —show that there is a problem to be faced and that unless it is faced it will gradually lead to the insolvency of the whole scheme. Even societies which administer women's benefit only have realised this fact. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) had been present at the moment I should have liked him to listen to what has been said by the secretary of a large Scottish women's friendly society which has had to face this position. That society recommended, in the first instance, a reduction of benefits.
  I should like to impress upon the Government—the point has been mentioned by the hon. Member for West-houghton—that you have to deal with married women in a very different way from that in which you deal with other persons who are in the insurance scheme. The recommendation of the society was that all women on marriage should be placed in a separate class with the right to certain benefits, or alternatively that a woman on marriage should go out of insurance and that a certain sum of money should be paid to her. I believe that the same sort of situation arose in the Irish Free State. Similar difficulties were found there with regard to married women who were in insurance
  1956
  and the Irish Free State Legislature decided that on marriage the women in insurance should be paid a certain sum and that all her claims upon the insurance fund should cease. There may be difficulties in that connection, but at any rate it is one way—perhaps the easiest way—of solving a very difficult problem. Afterwards, if a married woman bona fide resumed employment, she was entitled to be treated as a re-entrant into insurance. The third recommendation made by the Scottish Women's Friendly Society is very much on the same lines as that suggested by my right hon. Friend, namely, that employed married women working less than 30 hours per week should be treated as exempt from insurance. That is that you should regard a woman who only works for a comparatively limited number of hours per week as entitled to be left out of insurance. In that case certain provisions will have to be made so that the employers should not escape liability for contributing to the Insurance Fund.
  Some of those who are associated with the administration of National Health Insurance approved societies feel that the Bill does not go far enough, and that the whole position is not going to be safeguarded by the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, on the Committee stage, it is proposed to put down an Amendment of a somewhat lengthy character. I will not read the Amendment, but the operative part is that it contemplates that all insured women who marry shall automatically be transferred to a special class as from the date of marriage and become entitled to the benefits of that class, whether or not they continue in employment; and that those who cease employment will ultimately pass out of insurance in the same manner as at present; whereas those who continue in employment will requalify for full insurance by shorter waiting periods than at present. That is briefly the essence of the new Clause which it is proposed to put down for consideration on the Committee stage.
  I am satisfied, just as the hon. Member for Westhoughton is satisfied, that legislation alone is not going to clear up the grievances of which we have to complain. Very strong, stern administrative action will be required. In this connection per-

  1957
  haps a few sentences which appear in the very valuable report for last year of the Chief Medical Officer of Health of the Ministry of Health might be read, as they put the position very much more clearly than I can do. Sir George Newman says:
  "The experience of 1930 has again emphasised that the health insurance scheme cannot be maintained, still less can it expand, unless it is administered on strictly economic and actuarial lines. If the doctor or the insured person ignore that fact nothing but difficulty will emerge, or if they ask from the scheme more than it can reasonably yield nothing but disappointment will result. For instance, if a doctor furnishes certificates incorrectly or unreasonably extending the period of incapacity, or prescribes excessively, or prescribes something akin to "public assistance" to the patient on request, he may be performing a service of charity or even indirectly of medical aid, but he is rendering a direct disservice to the whole system of health insurance. If, on the other hand, the insured person demands from the system advantages in benefit, privilege or relief quite outside the contractual rights under the Act, or if he asks for aid on economic rather than medical grounds he may indeed be asking for something which is beneficial to his health, but he is making a demand, however reasonable in itself, which makes an insurance system a mere method of financial relief and uses the doctor as a relieving officer instead of a physician."
  I think that quotation puts the position very succinctly.
  I disagree with the attack which has been made upon the panel practitioners by the hon. Member for Westhoughton. For over 20 years I have sat as chairman of the Insurance Committee for my county. My hon. Friend said that there are constant complaints before every committee as to irregular certification. I cannot at the present time remember 1 single case of a complaint by an approved society against a medical man in my county as regards irregular certification. We have had certain complaints. We had to recommend that the services of one medical man on the panel should be dispensed with and the Ministry of Health through the Commissioners held an inquiry, which upheld our recommendation. On the whole, however, I believe that the great mass of the medical practitioners on the panel endeavour to administer the Act in the most straightforward manner in the interests of their patients.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: That is exactly what I said, but I pointed out that if
  1958
  2 per cent. did not do the right thing, it was damaging to the funds of the societies.
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: I cannot agree that that was the line that my hon. Friend took. He made a bitter attack upon the medical profession. So bitter was his attack that certain of his friends opposite resented it. They could not believe that the medical profession could be described in the way that it was described. An hon. Member behind me intervened and said that he knew of cases where medical men in order to increase their practice had certified cases of sickness where they were not justified in doing so, and had gone round to induce patients to go to them. I am satisfied that if complaints of that kind were reported to the British Medical Council, immediate action would be taken. I think I am right in saying that in one or two cases action has been taken and the offending doctor has been removed from the Register and from the list of panel practitioners. But I do not wish it to be understood that the medical profession could not have done more than they have done in connection with certification. It is a very easy thing for a medical man to err on the wrong side. He may think that a patient should have a week or two longer than is absolutely essential. I know that there is a certain number of cases of that character. The difficulty of the medical man is very much greater in the case of women, particularly of married women, than in the case of the ordinary worker.
  During the past few months an attempt has been made by insurance committees, with the concurrence of the Ministry of Health, to arrange for conferences of medical men, representatives of insurance committees and representatives of friendly societies, and I am satisfied that those conferences have resulted in a vast amount of good. They have enabled medical men on the one hand, and the representatives of the approved societies on the other, to appreciate the point of view of the medical man or the approved society, as the case may be. About five weeks ago a conference of that character was held in my county. There was a large attendance of medical men and members of approved societies, and the

  1959
  chief medical officer for the Welsh Board of Health attended. The medical men, naturally, listened to him as a member of their profession, and I feel certain that if there has been any ground of complaint in the past so far as my county is concerned, those complaints will be largely removed in the future.
  In regard to the question of certification and excessive claims upon societies, I am not satisfied that the societies have done all that they could. I think that the system of sick visiting which is in vogue in a great part of the country is of very little value to the societies. The Minister in his statement referred to the fact that there are 17,000 approved societies in Great Britain.
  Sir H. YOUNG: 7,000.
  Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: 7,000. What does that mean? It means that in the area of almost every insurance committee you have hundreds of societies. When you go to any industrial town, you find on door after door a different society with its name up. That makes it essential that if the scheme is to be operated in such a way that there is not an undue charge upon the funds, there should be sick visitors. One knows that there is a certain amount of malingering and that the medical man cannot always detect malingering. Anyone who had to do with recruiting for the Army during the War will appreciate the difficulty that the medical men have. They had to take cases from board to board before they could be satisfied whether or not a man was malingering.
  It is only by constant vigilance that you can get off the books of the approved societies persons who are malingering. The temptation is greater in regard to the married woman, and the difficulty of finding out if she is a malingerer is greater than in the case of a man. I suggest that the Ministry should endeavour to get the approved societies to do away with the existing method of sick visiting and that instead of the sick visiting taking place in respect of A, B and C society, with an indefinite number of sick visitors in each area, there should be a number of visitors in the first instance appointed by and responsible to the Ministry of Health. I am certain that
  1960
  if a system of that kind were introduced and the sick visitors were regarded as perfectly independent of local approved societies and responsible to the Ministry of Health, we should find very soon a large reduction in the incidence of sickness in various parts of the country.
  6.0 p.m.
  There is only one other point to which I would refer in regard to the statement of the Minister. We must all feel grateful for the Amendments which he proposes to move in regard to unemployed persons not losing their pension rights. When the Pensions Bill of 1929 was introduced, one was flooded with complaints of cases where persons who had been in insurance up to a certain point and had suffered from unemployment had gone out of insurance, and a very large number were accordingly unable to enjoy the rights which they would otherwise have enjoyed under the Acts of 1925 and 1929. There will be considerable satisfaction throughout the country that the Minister has taken this step to secure that unemployed persons shall have their pension rights ensured for a further period. When the Division takes place, I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Government.
  Mr. LOGAN: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) in his observations in regard to approved societies. His solution for the difficulty may be quite right from the medical point of view, but to talk about setting up a State service of sick visitors on the remuneration given to approved societies is absolutely nonsensical. A small saving might be made, but a great deal would have to be paid out by societies, who have not got the money, for such a service. There is one observation I want to make in regard to the continuation of those who are unemployed on the funds of approved societies. It appears that this provision is the result of consultations which have taken place between approved societies and the Government. I was not aware that there had been any such consultations until the Minister of Health made his statement this afternoon. It appears that they are not to be entitled to additional benefits. It is no use hiding facts.
  Sir H. YOUNG: I do not know why there should be this misunderstanding.

  1961
  What I said with regard to the approval of approved societies referred to that part of the Bill which concerns approved societies, and is the part which relates to the benefits of married women. It does not affect the finances of societies at all.
  Mr. LOGAN: As I understand it, those who have been accepted as members of an approved society are entitled to certain benefits when they have complied with the regulations concerning contributions, and, that being so, this is truly a National Insurance scheme. One would have thought that, with an experience of 19 or 20 years, we should by this time thoroughly understand the position. What do we find to-day? The Minister of Health in a National Government says that this will certainly prove to be an insolvent scheme, and that as far as the allocation of surpluses is concerned, they are getting to the diminishing point. The first valuation showed a big surplus. The second valuation showed a 50 per cent. reduction, and now we are coming to an allocation which is smaller, and which makes the Minister think that it is absolutely necessary to deal with the claims of married women. One would have thought that it would not have taken 20 years for the administrators of the scheme and for those in charge of approved societies to find out the actual position, inasmuch as they already knew the liability on the society of married women. I want to pay a tribute to the Actuarial Department. I am convinced that there could be no better body of men to deal with the affairs of approved societies than the National Health Insurance Actuarial Department. They have all the material and information, which they place at the disposal of the Minister and approved societies.
  I suppose that this is one of those problems which Governments must face. One would naturally have thought that in dealing with the case of married women there could be no saving; and it is unlikely that any body of sick visitors will be able to supervise what doctors themselves are not able to deal with. Medical certification has certainly a lot to do, from the point of approved societies, in regard to this matter. A married woman bona fide entitled to go back to work is entitled to benefit. When
  1962
  a woman is married she naturally feels that she should stay at home if the income of the house is sufficient to keep her. But she may have to go to work and when you ask a married woman whether she intends to return to work she knows that if she says "No," she will be put out of insurance. She accordingly, of course, says "Yes, I shall return to work." Those who administer the Act have no power to say that they must get off the funds of the society because they are unemployed. The society is not able to put these people out, and, therefore, they have to bear responsibility. It is a remarkable thing that a married woman about to return to work can go on practically the whole of her life drawing benefit from an approved society when periods of sickness occur. Disablement benefit continues all along the line. Approved societies have not the power to deal with these difficulties, and they have been overburdened.
  I do not think that the Ministry have really gone into the causes of this position in regard to approved societies. I admit that the solvency of approved societies is essential for National Health Insurance. In order to give the benefits it must be a solvent body, but the State is a third party to the scheme and owes a duty not only to approved societies but to every approved member. You are going to make a farce of the whole position in the case of a person who fills up a form, joins an approved society in a state of health and, being a worker—because no one but a worker can fill up the form—makes a payment. In this Bill the Government are applying for powers which they have already got. The Act of 1912, which has not yet been repealed, gives the Government exactly the same powers which they are asking from the House to-day. It is already Laid down that a society composed of male and female members can be separately or jointly valued. If it is a joint valuation, the surplus of deficit is defined on the two; if it is a separate valuation, you have a surplus on the men's side and a deficit on the women's. Any society that may have a deficit can take the women's side as being deficient: and the Government have the power either to raise contributions or decrease benefits. If that is so, I want to know why the Government are coming to this House and ask-

  1963
  ing for special provision to be made in regard to married women; why we should be asked to pass something which is more stringent than the original Act? One would have thought that the Government would have asked for a repeal of the Act of 1912 and then introduced a new National Health Insurance scheme. At the moment the Government are dealing with a matter in a patchwork fashion.
  In the deficiency account there is one society, which I will not mention, which has a deficiency of £9,803. The National Glassblowers' Society has a deficiency of £7,219, the Weavers' Society a deficiency of £63,332, the West Riding Miners Association a deficiency of £10,190, the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners Society a deficiency of £17,969, the Northumberland and Durham Society a deficiency of £248,459, the Durham Miners' Society a deficiency of £107,967, the Scottish Miners' Society a deficiency of £5,504, and £6,637. These figures indicate that in those areas where there is impoverishment of the people and a great amount of unemployment, there is a great drain on the insurance account. That naturally follows in our great mining areas and industrial centres where poverty is rampant and where there is unemployment and malnutrition; where medical men are required to attend the wives and children of those who are unemployed. Of necessity, in those great areas you have this reflex on your insurance accounts. That was bound to follow. If you have prosperity you have well-fed children, but if you have unemployment you must have malnutrition, anaemic cases and all the other things that follow from poverty.
  We have had a scheme that was prosperous, with £25,000,000 for allocation in the fifth year on the first valuation, then £12,500,000, and now a deficiency. Now we are told that economies are necessary. We are told that we must make the scheme solvent upon actuarial calculation. It may be that the means test and other things have no bearing on this matter. If you talk of national schemes designed for the welfare and health of the people it is necessary to pause and consider well before bringing about actuarial solvency, when the present conditions show so much poverty, starvation and misery in the industrial centres of the
  1964
  country. I am just as anxious as the Minister to have a National Health Insurance scheme which is perfectly all right. I have administered the Act from July, 1912, up to the present time, and I say that all Governments have done a great amount of good through the benefits that the Act has given to the people. I know of no scheme of national service that appeals more to all parties or goes more deeply into the life of the nation than this Health Insurance scheme.
  We have in power a great National party. I call it great, because it has the power of doing great good or great evil. The Amendment asks the Government to stay their hands for six months. It is a right and proper Amendment. The Government have the facts of the actuarial position in their possession. Why should they not give an opportunity to the scheme to regulate itself by an increase of employment? In dealing with the unemployed and the sick, can the Government find no other solution than to make an attack on the rights of married women by a reduction of benefit? That method will only create greater evils. It may be that some approved societies are anxious, from the point of view of valuation, to have a surplus. The society to which I belong has a surplus, but I would much prefer to see it with no surplus if that would ensure the service for which National Health Insurance was established. When all is said and done the question of national health is superior to the administration of approved societies. The health of the people is of first importance.
  If the Government want to make the scheme solvent there is one way, which has not been mentioned so far, in which it can be done. At the age of 14 to 16 boys and girls start work and enter the competitive field. At the age of 16 they become insured. They are then often turned adrift, and their places are taken by younger people of 14 to 15 years of age. In considering the question of solvency, have the Government thought of the other end of the scale? They talk of provision for old age. What attention are they giving to young age? I ask the Government to remember that thousands and hundreds of thousands of children from 14 to 16 are leaving school every year, and because they have to contribute to the insurance fund at 16 they are often

  1965
  discharged from their workshop. The scheme should be made solvent by bringing in the younger people to make good the defects of those who through no fault of their own break down in health. The scheme was never brought into existence for the healthy ones. It was brought into existence to repair those who were unhealthy and to keep in repair those who are healthy.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: To prevent them getting unhealthy.
  Mr. LOGAN: It may be preventive work, but what we are dealing with in this Bill is a proposal that lower benefit should be paid to those who are ill, and those who are not ill are to pay for the benefits of those who are ill. This is a scheme of National Health Insurance. What is the nation doing? Will there be any benefit to the nation by persisting in this Bill and saying that married women must now be ostracised? Is there any supporter of the National Government who dare go to his electorate and say, "We had a mandate to deal with the married women"? I know there is audacity in the National Government. They claim many things, but they will not claim that they have authority from the people to deal with married women in this way. Good times, we are told, are likely to come from Lausanne and the balancing of the Budget. Moreover, the Liberals may leave the Government and make the position better. I suggest that it would be a wise thing to wait a little while. We have been waiting ever since the defeat of the Labour Government and we keep on waiting. There would be no harm in the Government accepting the Amendment and waiting a little longer.
  Mr. MELLER: Some of the later speeches this afternoon have wandered rather wide of the subject-matter which we have been asked to discuss. The hon. Member who has just spoken said he had very grave doubts whether any hon. Member could say that he had a mandate to deal with married women. I do not suppose that any hon. Member wants to say that. He would be an unwise person who attempted to say it. But we have this mandate: that every member of the National party had a mandate to come back to this House and endeavour as far as he could to see that the national
  1966
  finances were placed on a sound footing. We are to-day dealing with a very important part of the social services of this country. The Government have financed and kept solvent this scheme. They have a right to say, "We have doubts as to the financial condition of this scheme, and we propose to put before you certain things which we think will place the scheme on a much sounder footing."
  The House might well offer its sincere congratulations to the Minister for the Bill and for the excellent and clear way which he has explained it. But let me add that, but for the excellent Memorandum issued and but for the very clear statement of the Minister, I defy the uninitiated to understand what the Bill is about, and even those who are initiated may be left wondering whether they are dreaming or have passed to another world. What is the Bill? What are the Government endeavouring to put right? There are two points which have caused great concern in the minds not only of the Government but of those who have to deal with the question of National Health Insurance. One is the great problem of unemployment as it has affected contributions, and the other is the unfortunate position in which the sickness fund of the women's section, and particularly the married women's section, has been placed. I have here the report by the Government Actuary on the Third Valuation of the Assets and Liabilities of Approved Societies, and this is what he says:
  "Certain features in the present situation must, however, evoke anxiety. The claims for sickness and disablement which, on the whole, have been light between 1915 and 1921, have subsequently risen to a level which, in the case of men (regarding the system as a whole) precludes the expectation of any large amount of further surplus from savings in this direction, and in the case of women results in a loss of such dimensions as to call imperatively for measures of reconstruction."
  He wound up:
  "The present position is that while full benefits are being paid to the great mass of the insured whose normal occupation is employment, less than 90 per cent. of the contributions required to support these benefits are being collected."
  I ask the House to take notice of that.
  "Such a position is wholly incompatible with the maintenance of the soundness of an insurance organisation. It may be endured for a time, especially by societies which under more prosperous conditions have

  1967
  accumulated surpluses, but even here a limit must be put to the burden."
  I heard with great satisfaction the observation of the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that the members of his party strongly believed in the principle of insurance. That is 'a conversion—
  Mr. MAXTON: Hear, hear.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. MELLER: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) agrees, that is a conversion from the view which they held in the not very far distant past. I have heard them pressing for prolongations when there was no principle of insurance involved, but only a giving of something beyond what contributions would provide. It is a very good thing to know that they have returned to saner paths of finance in regard to National Health Insurance. The Minister has told us in connection with Clause 1 of the Bill of the unfortunate condition of the employed people. For three years now the insured people who are unemployed have been in a state of grave anxiety, towards the end of each year, as to what was going to happen to them in the succeeding year. In my view it is much better to know the worst than to go on from year to year not knowing what is going to happen next. The Minister has endeavoured here to deal very generously with the position of the unemployed people.
  Reference has been made to the Act of 1928 which conferred the extended period of insurance. The Minister now says that, instead of bringing down the guillotine immediately, he will give the people concerned ample notice. He introduces his Bill and the insurance of these people is to be carried on during 1932. In 1933 there is to be another year of insurance, with certain limited benefits and thereafter, until the actuary has an opportunity of considering the position of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Scheme, these people will have the knowledge that, with regard to Old Age Pensions, their position is to be safeguarded. Other matters are dealt with in the Bill which I believe although they may not be very costly to the scheme are very important. The real burden of this question of unemployment was this.
  1968
  What were the societies to do? It was not a case of the Government coming forward and offering grants. It was quite evident that in the present state of the national finances anything more by way of grants-in-aid was not to be expected. The societies had to put their house in order and they had to look after their own concerns before they could be generous to other people.
  Last night the Financial Secretary to the Treasury complimented the House and the country on the fact that our great social insurance schemes were in a state of solvency. He referred to the unemployment insurance scheme although that can hardly be said to be in a state of solvency because it has been necessary to borrow to put it on a proper footing. At all events the Financial Secretary meant that the people who were concerned with unemployment insurance knew that they would get their benefits when those benefits were payable, and he included also within the scope of his remarks the great national health insurance scheme. If there is one thing on which the approved societies of this country pride themselves, it is that this scheme, without any State aid; has maintained itself up to this moment in the proud position of solvency.
  An hon. Member has dragged in the King Charles' head of the excellent position in which the societies would to-day find themselves had it not been for the Economy Act. For my part, I was in favour of the Economy Act, much as it cut against health insurance, and it has been clearly proved since, that it would have been a wise thing had there been a little more economy in the days that have gone by and if before we launched out upon these remarkable schemes of generosity we had first considered carefully whether the country would be able to pay and to continue to pay. As a matter of fact if the Economy Act had not been introduced when it was introduced it is clear that it would be necessary in order to meet the emergencies of to-day. The question which the societies had to consider with regard to the unemployed person was this burden of £2,000,000 a year and there is a distinct generosity now, going even beyond the bounds of insurance principles, when the societies undertake to bear a burden of

  1969
  £1,000,000 in respect of their members who have been unfortunate.
  The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) seemed to imagine that the health insurance scheme had been brought into existence for the benefit of the sick. It was brought into being for the benefit of the sick and also for the benefit of those who are well. It is true that the people who have the fortune to enjoy good health have to pay for those who experience long runs of sickness. On the other hand those who do pay and who do not fall on the fund in the early years, have a right, to expect, as the years go by, that when sickness does overtake them they shall be able to claim the benefits which they were promised when they first came into insurance. If we reach a state of insolvency in connection with the scheme, then it may be that persons who have paid in the past will find, in the absence of arrangements such as those adumbrated by the Minister, that they will not receive the statutory benefits which they were led to expect.
  What is the other point which is troubling hon. Members? It is the question of the position of women and particularly married women in relation to health insurance. In the last Debate in the House on this subject, we had the evidence of the Department and the report of the Government Actuary as to the sickness experience of this country. We also had the allegations, which have been repeated to-day, perhaps with rather greater vehemence, by the hon. Member for Westhoughton against the medical profession. I have spoken in the past with regard to medical men and health insurance but I am not prepared to say that bad medical service is so widespread as to make the difference between the expected sickness experience and the actual. In the main I believe that the doctors render excellent service. The Actuary has said in a very pronounced way with regard to the married women that although he suggests either an increase in contribution or a reduction in benefits a satisfactory state of things is only possible on the assumption that there is going to be the greatest care with regard to supervision and certification. He says further that there must be a reduction of about 20 per cent. in sickness experience to maintain the benefits exist-
  1970
  ing at the present time, and with regard to the suggested reduction in benefits these are only possible provided there is a reduction of at least 10 per cent. in the sickness experience. Therefore it is a matter for co-operation between all parties concerned in this great question of health insurance. The Minister referred to the fact that the proposals which had been put forward in the Bill or those mainly affecting the societies had been approved by the great body of the societies. That is the case, and the hon. Member for Bridgeton can take it from me that the deputation representative of all types of societies which went before the Minister and without any dissent, expressed their firm conviction that the present position of affairs must be met in the way in which the Minister has met it.
  Mr. MAXTON: Will my hon. Friend make clear this point? Did the various groups which were associated with that deputation meet in advance and come to a considered decision before those representations were made?
  Mr. MELLER: First of all the secretaries of the various groups were communicated with and asked to send delegates to a meeting at which the general question was discussed. They were then sent back to their respective groups to take instructions and return to a further meeting and they then nominated delegates to go to the Minister. I do not think there is any body which is more representative than that of which I have the honour to be chairman, the Consultative Council to the Ministry of Health. That body is representative of all types of societies and not merely the large groups, and there was unanimity when the matter was put to the Council with regard to the measures which are proposed in this Bill. I hope that the Minister, having taken the advice which was tendered to him, not only in the interests of the societies but in the interests of the insured persons, will take the advice which was also tendered to him and which will be tendered to him again in the form of a new Clause which is to be submitted on the Committee stage.
  The deputation to which I have referred put four points before the Minister. First, that the question of women's insurance should be reviewed; second, that there should be no increase

  1971
  in contributions; third, that benefits should be related to contributions even though restriction and reduction of benefits might prove to be involved, and, fourth, that there should be differentiation between single women and married women. That proposal will be put before the House in the form of a new Clause to extend the differentiation between married women and single women. I hope that there will be no confusion of mind as to what is intended. The widow is classed as a single woman, and I hope that there will be no sentimental talk about the widow with many children having to go out to work. We are dealing here with a proposition which is entirely different, namely, the treatment of the married women under this insurance scheme as opposed to the single women.
  The incidence of sickness in the case of married women, is so vastly different from that in the case of single women, that you are bound, in justice to the single women, to see that their funds are not depleted to the extent to which they are being depleted by married women to-day. Single women ought to get, under the insurance principle, that return for their contributions to which they are rightly entitled. As I view the matter, there is no hardship involved to the married woman. The married woman when she enters into that state takes on an entirely different condition and status. Presumably she hopes that her future life will be one of dependence upon somebody else and not upon her own labours. Of course she may be disappointed and I have heard it suggested that if there is to be any grant or any other form of assistance given to the married women to prevent their benefits being reduced that assistance ought to come from the man's fund because the men are responsible for the unfortunate position in which the married woman finds herself, and if it were not for the men there would not be any married women. But that is hardly a matter which we can deal with by legislation.
  The proposal to which I have referred is that the married woman shall enter into a new insured class just as she has entered into a new condition of life and that, if she is going to enter into employment she shall prove that, not as in the past by merely saying, "I propose
  1972
  to continue in insurance and I will do a few weeks work and so on," but she has to prove actually that she is continuing in employment. There is a provision in the new Clause for a further period of requalification—that she should be at least 26 weeks in work before she can say, "I am a person who has entered into insurance once again as an employed person." That does not go as far as I would like. I would prefer a qualifying period of 104 contributions for sickness benefit and 42 for maternity benefit. In either case, during the qualifying period, provision would be made for payment of certain benefits provided out of the contributions of the previous insurance. The Minister has expressed himself as grateful for the advice and assistance given by the society. I hope he will accept my statement that it is with the deepest sincerity and regard for the well-being of the scheme that they put forward this particular proposal. I do not think that I need labour the question beyond that. I agree with the main principles of the Bill, the two points which the Minister has endeavoured to meet—the question of unemployment in its relation to sickness insurance and the question of the position of women—and if he will crown his good work by accepting the new Clause which I hope to put forward, I believe that he will go forward as the Minister who, among many amendments of the Insurance Act of 1912, carried through a Bill which will stand as an immemorial example of good legislation.
  Miss RATHBONE: I want to deal only with those portions of the Bill which affect the women. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister laid down two propositions. One was that the solvency of the insurance scheme must be safeguarded, and the other was that the contributory nature of the scheme must be safeguarded, in the sense that benefits must go to those who deserve them and who pay for them. I accept both those propositions, but the application of them seems to me to depend on what you mean by the word "contributor." I listened very carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but, as far as I could judge, he took completely for granted, and did not argue, what seems to me the real point at issue in this Bill, and that is the question of whether it is fair to

  1973
  segregate the women, first of all, and within the women the married women, and to make them bear the whole burden of the difficulty caused by their excessive sickness claims. I should not have the slightest objection, as a matter of justice, to segregating the women from the men in the matter of insurance if that principle was carried out over the whole field of insurance. But although the Minister is only responsible for health insurance, we in the House of Commons are concerned with other insurance as part of a system of State insurance, and I think there ought to be some natural relation between the principles that apply in the case of health insurance and those that apply in other forms of insurance.
  The suggestion is that the high rate of sickness incurred by women in general and married women in particular requires that these particular classes shall meet the deficiency by having their benefits cut down, but that kind of principle is not applied in other forms of insurance, and the attitude of the State both when acting in defence of its own funds and when acting in defence of its male beneficiaries seems to be on the principle of "Heads we win"—meaning by "we" the State and the men—" and tails you lose"—meaning by "you" the women. Take the question of the Widows, Orphans, and Old Age Pensions Contributory Insurance Act. I remember well, though I was not in the House at the time of the first Act, the discussions which took place with regard to it, and it was repeatedly stated, in the discussions on that Measure, that the contribution asked from women was really greater than was necessary to pay for the benefits which they would individually receive in their own right. The justification put forward was that in their capacity as future probable widows, mothers of fatherless children, and recipients of pensions as wives of insured men, they would benefit indirectly by the Bill and, therefore, ought to bear a part of the burden. Does not that principle apply equally to the present Bill? If the sickness of married women is heavy, it is largely because of their motherhood. Sir George Newman, principal medical officer of the Ministry of Health, wrote:
  "An incalculable amount of unreported and often untreated injury and ill-health arises from pregnancy and labour … 3,000
  1974
  mothers a year die, and tens of thousands of young mothers are unnecessarily damaged or invalided every year."
  I am not making an appeal to sentiment in recording that fact. I am merely recording it because it has a real bearing on the question of whether you can segregate the women's claims. I note with satisfaction that only a few days ago the cotton unions held a meeting about this Bill and that they caused a test to be carried out among their married women members, which showed that out of 5,724 weeks of incapacity incurred by that group of married women members, no fewer than 3,625 weeks were due to childbirth, and they went on to make the proposal that that should be covered partly by segregating the married women, but also by a general contribution from the men towards their support. That seems to me a just proposal.
  Take again the question of unemployment insurance. Here, so far as I know, it has never been suggested—certainly it has never been conceded—that the charges incurred for men and women beneficiaries should be pooled separately and that the women should bear only that portion of them which is actuarially attributable to women's claims. Supposing that principle were adopted in unemployment insurance, what would be the result? Women pay a lower rate of contribution, and they get a relatively lower rate of benefit, but in addition they draw that benefit on the average for a far smaller number of weeks in proportion to their contribution than the men. That has been so from the very beginning of unemployment insurance until now. Thus, from November, 1920, till April, 1927, for every day's benefit claimed by a woman, more than one week's contribution was paid, but for every day's benefit claimed by a man, only half a contribution was paid. If we take the later figures laid before the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, we see that in January, 1929, 13.8 per cent. of men insured in industry were drawing benefit, as against 8.5 per cent. of women; in July, 1931, 23.8 per cent. of men insured in industry were drawing benefit, as against 19.5 per cent. of women; in December, 1931, 23.2 per cent. of men were drawing benefit, as against 15 per cent. of women; and in January of this year, after two months' experience of the Anomalies

  1975
  Act, 25.1 per cent. of men were drawing benefit, as against 15.4 per cent. of women, a discrepancy of 10 per cent.
  It is clear from those figures that if men and women were pooled separately in unemployment insurance, women would probably be able to claim very much higher rates of benefit relative to their contributions than men. I have made that comparison between the treatment of women under this Bill and that accorded to them under the other two principal forms of State insurance for the purpose of showing how unfair and illogical it is to treat women as a special class of contributors who must pay for their own insurance when the cost of their insurance is heavier than that incurred for men, while continuing to pool the two sexes together whenever that pooling is for the benefit of men or alternatively to save State funds.
  Women are not the only class that has an abnormal sickness rate. In the actuary's report regarding this Bill, it is pointed out that coal miners have a specially heavy sickness rate, and also it is pointed out that Welshmen have an exceptionally heavy sickness rate. I think that two hon. Members who have advocated the segregating of married women are Welshmen. I wonder how they would like it if Welshmen were to be segregated for the calculation of their benefit because they have an exceptionally heavy sickness rate.
  Sir H. YOUNG: May I interrupt the hon. Lady in order to avoid a misconception? There are no provisions in this Bill for the segregation of married women at all.
  Miss RATHBONE: Not perhaps for the segregation of married women, but there is a provision in the Bill for the cutting down of the benefit of married women and the disablement benefit of single women also because they have 'an excessive sickness rate. They are treated as a separate class, and that is all that I mean. Apart from the question of the anomaly in the different kinds of treatment accorded to the two sexes, this Bill has another defect. One of the features of the present Bill and also about the recent Unemployment Insurance (Anomalies) Act which has been most resented by women is the implication
  1976
  which is being drawn by the general public that women in general, and married women in particular, are malingerers who willingly sponge on the State, or on their fellow-contributors, to a greater extent than do men. I think the figures that I have just given about the much smaller proportion of women's claims in unemployment insurance to men's, and the much smaller number of weeks for which they claim, do not at all bear out the theory that they sponge more readily than the men.
  At the same time, I am not going to deny that there is a real difficulty here. The married woman has undeniably a greater temptation to malinger than the married man. I think there is some confusion, because hon. Members have spoken as if sickness was a clearly defined thing. The fact is that sickness is a relative thing. Many married women know, when they go out to work, that their work is badly needed at home, and if they are feeling slightly ill, they may deem it better policy to give up their work and claim on the fund, so that they may remain at home with the children. They are not actually working at home, but the value of their supervisory services at home, plus their sickness pay, is better worth their while than to continue at work. A man in similar circumstances, if he was slightly ill, would not be able to stay at home. He would know that he would be merely a nuisance at home, and that his money could not be spared, and he is driven to go to work, even though it may be greatly to the detriment of his own health.
  I am not sure that in many cases it really does pay in the long run for a sick contributor to hold out too long before applying for sickness pay, but I admit that there is a certain greater risk of malingering in the sense of too eagerly going on the fund on the part of married women. But that ought to be met by stricter administration, and, what is more, it is being so met, and, as was pointed out in the report, special steps are being already taken to tighten up the administration, and are having some effect. Malingering is certainly not the sole cause of the higher sickness rate.
  There is one other factor, to which I have already alluded, and that is the sickness which follows on pregnancy and

  1977
  arises out of labour, but, in addition to that, there is the fact that often a married woman goes out to work because she knows that her husband is unemployed or suffering from short-time or lower wages, and the double strain of working and carrying on the duties at home of cook, housemaid, washerwoman, and general servant is a very heavy strain on her health. Then again, when the woman is carrying this double strain, she is very likely getting a smaller share of the family food than anybody else. Every social worker knows that in hard times, when there is unemployment or when money is short, the woman, because she is the housewife, comes off worst. Mr. Rowntree writes in his book, "Poverty":
  "Extraordinary expenditure, such as the purchase of a piece of furniture, is met by reducing the sum spent on food. As a rule, in such cases, it is the wife and sometimes the children who have to forgo a portion of their food—the importance of maintaining the strength of the wage-earner is recognised, and he obtains his ordinary share."
  Speaking of the excessive sickness of married women, the secretary of the National Association of Trade Union Approved Societies said last year:
  "If food is short in the home, the man does not go without. The wife feeds the brute because he is earning the money. Then she feeds the kiddies. If there is any left, she has it, but often mother says she is not hungry."
  That happens because as the person who provides the food she has to see that the rest of the family get their share first.
  7.0 p.m.
  These three factors, the effects of pregnancy and labour, the double strain of earning and of housework, and the traditional self-sacrifice of the housewife, very largely account for this excessive sickness. The question is whether they justify the separation of the married women's claims and the expediency of cutting down their benefit. It is a well-known maxim that the most economical method of treating sickness is to cure sickness. It is difficult to see in what way, except on the principle of taking a hair of the dog that bit you, it is going to help the married women with debilitated health through insufficient food not to give them enough to eat. Married women are getting tired of these attacks on their pocket and on their repute. All the attacks of
  1978
  the last six months have hit the married woman heavily. Six months ago her unemployment pay was cut down. Now her sickness pay is to be cut down. If she is the wife of an unemployed man, she has had her dependant's allowance reduced.
  I often wondered why the Government were so ready to attack the married woman. The Debate to-day furnishes the reason. It is because in the economic structure the married woman inhabits a No Man's Land. The economists used to talk of the Economic Man, who responded solely to economic considerations. If there is an Economic Woman, she must be a spinster because no Economic Woman of the working class would be such a fool as to get married. The married woman of the working class always gets the worst of it every way. If she decides when she marries to give up her job and look after her home and children, she is entering one of the most dangerous occupations in the world. She does not get a penny of wages and is expected to live on what her husband can spare her out of an income which is no larger than that of a bachelor, but out of which she has to keep her husband and children. If she retains her job, everybody looks at her askance. Her employer looks at her as one who may be irregular in her work, the trade union looks at her as a potential blackleg, and the spinster often asks why there should be two incomes coming into the same house. The Government, watching these things with one eye on their finances and the other on the electorate, think that married women are fair game. I do not mean that the present Bill is fair on the spinster, because she too is to receive less disablement benefit, although she already has to contribute to old age pensions and widows' pensions from which she derives no benefit either in her own capacity or if she becomes the wife of a man who is not insured. Her wages are low because she has no family to keep, but under the means test she has to contribute to the upkeep of any member of the family who is unemployed. Now, with her debilitated state of health, if she is driven to claim disablement pay, her miserable 7s. 6d. a week is to be cut down by 1s. 6d.

  1979
  I ask the Government to consider whether there is not some way, which is fairer and more consistent with the other forms of State insurance, of meeting the acknowledged difficulty. We recognise that the gap has to be bridged in some way or other, but is there no other way? I do not claim to be an expert on insurance, but I know that in the report of the Royal Commission on Health Insurance in 1926 it was definitely suggested that some scheme should be adopted of pooling a certain amount of the surplus enjoyed by the more prosperous societies in order to meet the claims on the less fortunate. It was suggested that in a universal compulsory scheme of insurance, towards which a substantial contribution was made from the resources of the State, some element of mutual aid should be included by which the more fortunate members of the insurance community should contribute out of their abundance to the needs of the less happily placed. The Royal Commission declared:
  "These considerations …. would incline us to view with favour the introduction of a measure of partial equalisation of benefits so limited in its operation as to preserve the incentives to sound and economical administration …. but at the same time going considerably beyond the restricted scheme of pooling which was introduced, so far as Societies actually in deficiency are concerned, by the establishment of the Central Fund."
  Does the Minister say that the means adopted in this Bill is the only possible means of meeting this deficiency? Might it not still be possible to meet it by some form of pooling the surpluses of those societies, a very substantial number, which still have such large disposable resources that they are able to give substantial additional benefits, such as dental benefits and convalescent benefits? Is it not right that, in a State system of insurance contributed to by the State, the principle of equality should be carried at least far enough to assure that the rates of benefit necessary for subsistence should be paid to everybody before any group of fortunate contributors are allowed to enjoy additional benefits? I believe there is a strong ease for such a method of dealing with the matter. I do not believe it is beyond the power of the Minister of Health to devise such a method if he wished to do so. He told us that the means he has
  1980
  devised meets with the approval of the great majority of approved societies. I do not doubt that the great majority of approved societies approve it, because they have a substantial surplus which they can use to make themselves more attractive to their contributors by giving every kind of additional benefit. Naturally they want to retain those surpluses, and do not want to share them with the less fortunate. But it does not follow that the State, as a substantial contributor to the scheme, should not say that the underlying principle is, "Bear ye one another's burdens," or that that principle must be carried to such an extent that the burdens of the poorest section of the community, the section most liable to sickness, shall be borne by the men of the community as well as by the women of the community, and that the whole burden shall not be placed on the shoulders of the unfortunate married woman or of her still more unfortunate sister, the single woman who is disabled. I shall have no hesitation in opposing the Bill as long as it remains in its present form.
  Mr. MAXTON: I have no hesitation in associating myself with the opposition to this Bill and the Amendment for its rejection, although the hon. Member, who moved the rejection, did not make out a very convincing case. He seemed to have some difficulty in reconciling his two interests, one as spokesman for the official Opposition and the other as the responsible head of a great approved society. I hope that the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), if he is going to take part in this Debate, will let us hear somewhat more decisively and distinctly the voice of the official Opposition in its antagonism to this Measure. The hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. R. Davies) intimated that he stood by the insurance principle, so far as health insurance is concerned, and also by the principle of a National Health service under entirely national control. It is some time since I was a member of the party above the Gangway, and I did not know of the alterations in its policy which he revealed to-day. I understood that the Labour party stood completely for a National Health service completely under national ownership and national control, and I was surprised to hear that

  1981
  the Labour Opposition now stood for the insurance principle.
  I also wish to raise another point with the hon. Member. He made the suggestion that there was much malingering, particularly among married women. I use the word "suggestion" and I am not trying to quote his words. He left the impression that, in his view, there was a sort of tacit conspiracy between the panel doctors and the married women to get more out of the National Health Insurance funds than these contributors were entitled to. I hope that that is not an unfair representation of what the hon. Member said. I challenged that statement at the time he made it, and said that it should not be made unless there was some evidence to support it. He said that the evidence in support of it was that a person called the regional medical officer was reviewing claims and that that regional medical officer was passing a great number of people as fit for work who had been passed by the panel practitioners as unfit for work and in need of benefit. Does that prove the panel doctor was wrong? I have just been discussing with the Minister of Labour the case of a constituent of mine, who has been off work and on sick benefit. His panel doctor says that he is unfit to return to work, but that panel doctor's opinion has been reviewed by a regional medical officer who declares that the man is fit for work. The man has not got a job and, when he signed off his sickness benefit, he went to the Employment Exchange. The Employment Exchange reviewed his case and decided that he was not fit for work and on that ground not entitled to any benefit. The Health Insurance authorities refuse the man benefit because their medical officer declared him fit for work, while the unemployment insurance authorities refuse him benefit because he is unfit for work.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: What right have the Employment Exchange officials to say that he was unfit for work? Had they medical advice or were they acting on their own lay opinion?
  Mr. MAXTON: As a matter of fact, in this case they had medical advice. But my knowledge of the case is that to the layman this person is, obviously, unfit to go back to work.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Some people look very ill and are yet very vigorous.
  Mr. MAXTON: Yes, and some people look very fit who are not fit for work. Here we have a case of a regional medical officer, on whose evidence my hon. Friend supports the malingering charge, and it may be that, as we have had experience in the Ministry of Pensions, the local medical practitioner is the honest witness, the human witness, and that the other man is merely the hack of a Government Department who is endeavouring to serve his master by saving the funds of the Department. I am afraid for a portion of this Debate that none of the women Members of the House were going to be present. The Debate had proceeded for a considerable time before any one of the women Members deigned to grace the Chamber with their presence on a matter in which indubitably the women are again being made first to shoulder the burden of responsibility for the necessary economies to make this fund solvent.
  I want the Minister to consider whether the problem of solvency should be allowed to take first importance in his mind. I can understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the President of the Board of Trade or the heads of Departments, such as the Government Actuary, who are concerned with finance, trade, industry or commerce, being primarily concerned about the balance-sheet aspect, but this National Health Insurance scheme, of which the Minister of Health is in charge, has for its main purpose the maintenance of the general health of the community. It has been a matter of some slight satisfaction to all of us that, in the difficult times through which the people of the country have been passing, the vital statistics of the country have been on the whole showing an upward tendency, although the one figure in our vital and health statistics that does not show an improvement, and has not shown an improvement for a long period, and is one of the most obstinate problems, is the figure of the maternal death-rate at childbirth. I should like the Minister also to have that in his mind when he picks out the married woman as the special instrument for achieving a solvent balance-sheet.
  The point which I want to make to him primarily is this. Is it in his opinion, and in the opinion of the House generally,

  1983
  sound national economy to risk a serious deterioration in the health of the nation? Up to last year the criminal statistics of this country were also showing a steady diminution. The number of persons sent to long terms of imprisonment were steadily going down. All of us know the outcry that has been raised in this Parliament about the increase of serious crime. I do not say that it is post hoc propter hoc, but it is a fact that since the anomalies Act the cut in unemployment insurance, and the application of the means test, the criminal statistics have begun to show an upward tendency. It would be poor economy if, as the result of the economy on the health services, the health of the nation should show a steady deterioration.
  A criticism which I would make of the Bill is that the Minister admits quite frankly that it is hand-to-mouth legislation; a number of the proposals are mere improvisations. He does not pretend that they are anything more than an attempt to tide over a period of crisis which he still seems to believe is passing. I want to suggest to him that the real danger of insolvency to this fund does not lie in the extravagant demands of the married or unmarried woman upon the fund, but upon the possibility that the investments in which the funds of the health insurance scheme are placed will not be able to face up to a valuation one, two or three years hence. That is the really serious danger, and you are not going to save this nation from its difficulties by knocking a couple of shillings off a married woman's benefit. You will only get out of your difficulties if you can devise ways and means to show how the hundreds of millions of pounds that are the basis of this fund's solvency are to continue to show a reasonable return over the years that lie in front of it. I do not believe that you will be able by anything that has been done yet by this Government, or by anything that is in contemplation, to save the industrial and financial machinery of this country from complete collapse.
  The fact that the Minister himself does not speak with any degree of confidence and makes only temporary arrangements in this matter is an admission on his part that the Government have no great confidence in the resuscitative qualities of their policy as it has been applied so far
  1984
  to our industrial and commercial problems. The sick married woman, the totally incapacitated married woman, is to be asked to maintain herself in her total incapacity on a weekly payment of 5s. It is again another contribution from the poorest section of the poor, and the sick poor at that, to maintain the stability of our great nation with its great history. We are asking our sick women to shoulder this added burden in order to save this indefinite, impersonal entity, the nation, from collapse. The sick married women are to be shoved out into the front line trench. After them will come the aged persons, the 65-years-of-age people. The Minister said something about the aged people and the widows' pension rights for a period of 10 years. The Minister shakes his head. Am I right in my assumption?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I am anxious to help the hon. Member, but I do not in the least know what he is referring to.
  Mr. MAXTON: Tht right hon. Gentleman will see in the OFFICIAL REPORT, if he takes the trouble to read his own speeches, which I do not advise him to do, that he said that with regard to the rights for old age pension there was a guaranteed period of 10 years insurance for, I think he said, 2½ years contributions. That might have created a wrong impression, but I understood quite clearly that the old age pension is not to be guaranteed beyond 1935. Am I right in that assumption, namely, that only up to 1935 the old people in this country have any assurance that their old age pension is to be available?
  Sir H. YOUNG: What the hon. Member is saying has no relation to any provision in the Bill. The existing law stands as regards the relation between old age pension rights and contributions, and the proposal is to extend to those who would otherwise come out of insurance their pension rights for two additional years—1934 and 1935.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. MAXTON: But after that they go out, failing a great fundamental change in the whole insurance system. Am I right in concluding that up to 1935 the old age pensioner who is unemployed is maintained in his rights to his old age pension, but that after that, so far as the law of the land is concerned, and so far as his knowledge of it is concerned,

  1985
  he is in complete uncertainty. He is left in complete doubt as to whether he is to receive the old age pension or not. I presume that that is a correct description of the position. You are shoving the married woman out into the trench, then the single woman to a lesser extent, and then the aged persons. All those who are now between 66 and 60 are to be left in complete doubt as to whether after 1935 they will be in a position to draw the old age pension, or, if the husband dies, whether the widow and orphans will be able to draw the allowances which are now provided for them. The Minister sits there with a very strong hand. He has a very strong majority behind him. He has a certain statement by his immediate predecessor showing that something was necessarily required in the way of economies in this Fund. He has, as he has explained, got behind him the support of all the approved societies, but I want him to consider whether on high national grounds all that he will get out of this will justify the very heavy risk that he is taking. Since he is quite uncertain of what the future may hold for this nation, quite uncertain what our financial position will be 12 months hence, since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated that further drastic economies in our national expenditure will have to be imposed, could not the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Health, say "I agree that further great economies will have to be made,"—that is the outlook of the present Government, that the nation is going to be saved by reducing everybody to destitution—"but the aged, the sick, the widows and the orphans will be left to the very last"? Can he not say that, until we are right in the middle of the catastrophe, the mothers of the nation, the aged people, the widows and orphans, the sick people, the future mothers will suffer no cut in the meagre, miserable allowances secured to them by legislation so far?
  This great National Government came in nine months ago, with a great flourish of trumpets, to do wonderful things in five minutes, but already it is shifting its ground. Now Ministers say it will be a long slow process. Last September, and in the General Election, it was going to be done by a wave of the magic wand —when they got on the job! [Interrup-
  1986
  tion.] I see a young Member who was more cautious, but I am talking of the experienced politicians! They said, "If only we can get on to the job, on to the Treasury. Bench, in a few months you will see the rising tide of prosperity." Now, nine months afterwards, they tell us that it has not worked, that there is no rising tide of prosperity. Things are worse financially and industrially than they were nine months ago, so bad that the sick people have to be refused the comforts that their few shillings buy them on their sick bed, and the aged people, or the people approaching the age of 65, have to spend their latter years with the feeling of uncertainty that at 65 the meagre 10s. which they have been looking forward to will no longer be available. I ask the Minister of Health if that is worth while. Is it good business? Is it high statesmanship? I ask him whether he will not walk back into the Cabinet and say: "Here, take my resignation. Get somebody else to run a show like this. I will not do it."
  Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) loves to make our flesh creep, and I think he has succeeded.
  Mr. MAXTON: Oh no, I do not.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: He did it quite effectively, but those who speak like that always overlook the fundamental fact that it is something to have safeguarded 5s., in preference to running the risk of having nought, which would be the inevitable result of a succession of years of a Labour Government's administration. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member treats us to 20 minutes of platform stuff, surely I am entitled to reply in the same vein! That is what the trouble was about last year. But I am not going to pursue that point, though I am quite capable of doing it. It is inevitable that all the Bills which come before this Parliament should have a financial background, what the hon. Member described as "the balance-sheet mind." He pokes fun at that; be does not think there can be such a thing. This House, which was elected at a time of grave national crisis, must weigh up that consideration very carefully when any Measure comes before it. In any Bill there must be a balancing of advantages and disadvantages, and the House has to make up its mind.

  1987
  Before I comment on the Bill I think one word should be said to express the indebtedness of the House for the careful estimates which the Government Actuary's Department have made. To be sure, their estimates generally turn out to be wrong, through circumstances which could not possibly be foreseen, but we are always grateful for the reports they submit on the facts which they have got. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury last night pointed out that the actuarial calculations on Unemployment Insurance at the time of the Blanesburgh Committee are some 2,000,000 out, as compared with the position to-day. That was no fault of the calculators. There is also the most glaring difference between what has actually happened and what was forecast, on good authority, in regard to the price of corn in the Tithe Act of 1925. Therefore, whilst we are grateful for the work of the Actuary's Department, we must not be too confident that even now the calculations on which these alterations are based will turn out to be correct. The actuaries have very little to go upon. A nation-wide scheme of compulsory insurance is a very different proposition from the ordinary kind of insurance, in which the companies can distinguish between the probably good and the probably bad people from the insurance point of view.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have repeatedly stressed the point, during the Debates on the Finance Bill, that it is up to this House, when a Bill comes Before it, to try to disentangle its possible financial repercussions. It is too late to do so afterwards. When the Budget of 1935 or 1941, or whatever year it may be, comes along, it is too late for the House to complain of the bill then presented, because the answer will always be, "The House of Commons, in its wisdom, passed such legislation, and now we are merely asking you to provide the ways and means." When we find the unemployment position is so different from what people had expected it to be, even so recently as 1928, the Minister of Health is confronted with the problem of whether he should reduce benefits or raise contributions, on the assumption, which he rightly makes, that the great bulk of the people want to
  1988
  keep the fund solvent. They are all the more keenly anxious to keep it solvent on account of the tragic experience of the insolvency of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. If, when we started on the slippery slope of giving unemployment benefits which were not in the original contract without making adequate provision therefor, we could have foreseen that in the end it would have meant those dreadful hardships to which the hon. Member has referred, and which are vaguely described by the words "means test," people would probably have taken a very different view of that legislation. That is the warning which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House.
  If we look at the Bill it will be found that there are really two fundamental principles. Whereas, in the first part, dealing with health insurance—the married women's case, and all the rest of it—he has appealed to the "head" of this House, and told us we have to keep the scheme on a solvent basis, in regard to the second part, dealing with the concessions put forward with a view to keeping the unemployed in benefit, so that they may qualify for pensions, the appeal is completely ad misericordiam, because there are no financial provisions for that in the Bill. The first part of the Bill is, roughly speaking, a self-balancing affair. There are certain contributions and certain benefits, and, as it is found that the benefits do not fit the contributions, of the two alternatives he has chosen to reduce the benefits. That is a mathematical arrangement. As to the other arrangement, I am surprised to find hon. Gentlemen proposing to vote against it, because, looking back to the Debates in 1925, it is exactly what they have always been pleading for. Their theory then was, and may be still, so far as I know, that we should not have a contributory system for widows and old age pensions. In a way that is the effect of the concessions. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that now an unemployed man will, after the age of 58½, be automatically kept in mythical insurance, so that he can get his pension at 65, though no contributions have been paid.
  Mr. MAXTON: That is a very limited period.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Well, from 58¼ to 65 years is a goodish time. The hon. Member may call it "limited," but it is a great deal better than nothing. [Interruption.]
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): He is not an old man at 58.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: No, at 58 very few people like to call themselves old.
  Mr. MAXTON: If I understood the Minister aright, this only applies up to 1935.
  Mr. BROWN: No, no. Under the present law a man who reaches the age of 60 and who is unemployed is, if he has been insured for 10 years, kept in insurance for all the benefits. That provision is not interfered with by this Bill, except in so far as it makes the position better for the insured person by lowering the age from 60 to 58¼ years; and the picture of the old man with white locks which has been given to us is entirely fanciful.
  Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand that all the provisions that are at present safeguarded to the aged people by the Prolongation of Insurance Act now go by the board, and that the provision for 1935 takes its place?
  Mr. BROWN: Now my hon. Friend is putting an entirely different point. He is not painting the same picture. The picture he painted was a picture of old people dropping out and losing their insurance completely.
  Mr. MAXTON: If unemployed.
  Mr. BROWN: That is not so. I repeat that the present law, the permanent part of this scheme, now lays it down that if an unemployed person has been insured for 10 years and, when he reaches the age of 60, is unemployed, his rights are safeguarded. What this Bill does is to make a concession in favour of that man by lowering the age of 60 to 58¼ years. Then there are a certain number of people who are under the prolongation Act. It after 1935 they are not 58¼ or have not 10 years insurance to their credit when they become unemployed, they will cease to be insured after 2¾ years' continuous unemployment.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for eliciting that clear statement from the Front Bench. So far as old age pensions are concerned, it means a concession of 1¾ years on the present advantages which the unemployed person enjoys. May I bring the House back to the financial question? I was alluding to the second part of this Bill which deals with the insurance scheme and the old age pensions which seemed to me to be an appeal ad misericordiam. If I want a witness to that statement, I can only refer the House to what the Minister said on this point. He stated that
  "you must temporise"
  and
  "give the national situation a chance of improving."
  That has been echoed in one form or another very frequently from the Front Bench, and certainly the Government, of which Miss Bondfield was a member, surpassed anything in that respect of which the Minister of Health could be capable. That is a little disquieting, because it shows that there is a risk that we may, in future, look back upon this Bill as something which this House ought not to have passed. Take the Actuary's Report. He takes a period of 2½ years only in the 10 years and makes his estimate on the basis of 80,000 persons. The Actuary goes on to say:
  "The pension contributions so paid would amount to less than £400,000, while the payments to widows of men in respect of whom they have paid will eventually exceed £2,500,000."
  The Actuary further states:
  "The pensions system is so constituted financially that the concessions under this head will impose, ultimately, some charge upon the Exchequer though its amount cannot be assessed in the absence of means of estimating the number of cases that will arise."
  The trouble of our social legislation is that we have merely looked at a period of five or 10 years, but this House should consider sometimes the potential expenditure under these proposals. I hope the House will fully realise what it is doing, because the same problem arises in connection with other Departments. The Service Estimates show the amount that has to be found every year under those estimates for pay and pensions in the non-effective Votes. The same

  1991
  problem arises in every one of our great social services, and the potential amount which will be required in future years seems to have been lost sight of by this House. The Minister of Health is squaring one account in one part of this Measure, but in another part he is opening the door a little wider. I should like the Government to have accepted an instruction dividing the Bill into two parts, one dealing with the widows', orphans', and old age pensions' side of this question. A division of that kind would have given us a better opportunity of reviewing the problem. If the House gives this Bill a Second Reading, at least let hon. Members do it with their eyes open. While recognising the hardships referred to by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) in relation to married women, and the people who are going to have their benefit cut, in spite of all that it is the same old problem that has worried everyone connected with the crisis, and that is to see whether under the changes which are being brought about all round anything at all in our social scheme can be saved from the wreck.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I rise to say a word or two from the point of view of Scotland, but, before doing so, I would like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) on the clearness with which he has put before the House the vital question of national economy. I accept the hon. and gallant Member's statement that the great mass of the provisions of this Bill are based upon the balance-sheet mind. With regard to the prolongation of pension rights to the end of 1935, I think it is only right to say that on the best estimate that could be made the possible financial expense in that direction will be very slight. In this connection, we have to consider the vast importance to men and women who may for a long period have paid Health Insurance contributions and then for a small period have been unable to do so. This is a very important advantage to them in their old age. Even my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough with his strict balance-sheet mind would agree with me when I say it is well to dilute the head a little with the heart. This is a matter of
  1992
  arrears, and that is a point to which we ought to give consideration.
  I know, and my colleagues from Scotland know, that the proportion of unemployment is heavier in Scotland than in the United Kingdom, for the simple reason that we are more dependent upon the heavy industries, and it is those industries which carry the chief burden of unemployment. It is not surprising that many Scottish Members have received deputations from friendly societies urging them to do all that is possible to help them to face their problem of arrears. I think, however, that we may be satisfied that in this Bill we have faced the problem of arrears which presses so heavily upon Scottish societies, and that under the proposals of the Bill that problem will have been solved to a considerable extent. The excusal of arrears is placing on approved societies a burden of over £2,000,000 a year, and of that £2,000,000 they are going to be relieved of the burden of £1,000,000 per annum. With regard to the £2,000,000 liability which the societies incur, only £1,000,000 will be met forthwith, and the second £1,000,000 will be met at the next valuation period, when any deficiency which the societies may have incurred will be met by the central fund. Therefore, the approved societies have the knowledge that with regard to one-half it is being dealt with forthwith, and they will be relieved of the burden of the other half at the next valuation. I think that should bring some satisfaction to those approved societies which are so heavily pressed owing to the large number of members who are suffering from unemployment.
  8.0 p.m.
  The Debate so far has dealt very largely with the reduction in benefit to married women, and various points have been raised as to who is at fault in this matter. It has been admitted that the claims of married women are enormously high. They have risen very much, and they are still rising. On that thorny topic, I do not think that I need to enter, but I would just like to say to the House that it so happens that investigations which have been made in Scotland will, I think, very soon enable those interested in this question to satisfy themselves to a large extent as to who is at fault. The Scottish Department has attempted to solve this problem, and their report will enable hon. Members to see what has happened

  1993
  since June, 1930, in relation to sickness and insured persons in Scotland, and the report will tabulate the number of certificates given by various medical men. That will furnish a double check as to how far in certain districts certain complaints and ailments are prevalent, and the kind of proportions in which medical men give certificates. I think that that will furnish a very real addition to our knowledge of the question of insurance medical benefit. The only other comment that I would like to make on that matter is that the investigation which I have very briefly described affords an interesting example of the benefit of having a separate insurance administration in Scotland. To have undertaken this investigation in England would clearly have been a very large and expensive task, but the Scottish Department of Health, administering a smaller area and a smaller number of persons, has been able to undertake this highly scientific and detailed examination, which I think will be valuable to all who are interested in the question of health insurance far beyond the confines of Scotland.
  Mr. MAXTON: Will the results of that investigation be made available to Members of the House shortly?
  Mr. SKELTON: The first report, I think for the year from the 1st July, 1930, to the 30th June, 1931, will shortly be published, and will be available, not only to Members of the House, but to the public generally.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Does it cover the whole of Scotland?
  Mr. SKELTON: I understand that it does.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Does it cover all insured persons, or does it cover male and female alone, or married and single alone? Is there to be any differentiation, or will it cover all who are in National Health Insurance, irrespective of their calling or the part of Scotland in which they live?
  Mr. SKELTON: It is universal and comprehensive. It covers, not merely special cases, but all insured persons.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Are the persons who are carrying out this investigation
  1994
  Government inspectors presently employed in the Department, and are they all men, or do they include a proportion of women? Are they in any way specially selected, or are they members of the normal staff of the Scottish Board of Health who have been transferred for the time being to this duty from other duties? Seeing that the work of the doctors is going to be corrected or altered on the basis of this investigation, it is important that we should have some knowledge as to the persons who are conducting the inquiry.
  Mr. SKELTON: I understand that the investigation has been, and will continue to be, conducted by the ordinary staff of the Department of Health, which includes, as the hon. Member knows, a medical staff. It is largely a clerical matter, consisting of the checking and tabulation of written records.
  Mr. MAXTON: The report will be a publication of the Department?
  Mr. SKELTON: Yes. I should like to add, to what I have said on this matter from the Scottish point of view, that, from the general point of view, I am satisfied that we have found, for the extremely difficult insurance problem with which we are concerned, solutions which clearly have commended themselves to the approved societies, which will commend themselves, I think, to any reasonable persons who have made themselves acquainted with the problem, and which I think I may say, judging from the Debate as far as it has gone, have commended themselves to the House as a whole. I am satisfied that in National Health Insurance, as in every other department of national life, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough is right when he says that one form of mind above all is absolutely vital at the moment, and that is the mind which not only appreciates, but determines to pursue, the difference between solvency and insolvency.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I am much interested in the scheme which has just been propounded by my hon. Friend the Under-secretary of State for Scotland—a kind of sleuth-hound, Sherlock Holmes scheme for the investigation of the crimes or otherwise of the medical profession in this matter. Of all those

  1995
  who are concerned with the question of the health of the people generally, none would wish more strongly than the medical men themselves that this inquiry should be successful in running down any real negligence on the part of the panel practitioner. No one can be a friend of the medical profession, or of the panel practitioners in particular, who in any way supports any suggestion of laxity on their part—
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)—I call him my hon. Friend because he attacks the Opposition, as I always do when it is necessary—made, in his attack on this Bill, some very interesting remarks on the general subject; but the unfortunate thing is that he always finds it necessary to twist his original thoughts, which are useful, round to the Communism or Socialism which he advocates outwardly, and, consequently, the latter part of his speech was not worthy of him or of the subject. In the earlier part of his speech I found a great deal with which I could agree, because he represents the side that sees realism, and recognises that these matters have to be considered in their human aspect. He mentioned a particular case in which the panel doctor, with his human appeal, was apparently, in his estimation, right, but in which the regional medical officer, bound, as he said, by the dictates and rules of the master whom he serves, was bound to consider only the financial aspect. Therefore, the hon. Member concluded that the panel doctor was right and the regional medical officer was wrong.
  Let us see where that leads us. If the regional medical officer, because he serves the Government and the insurance scheme, is bound to consider finance only, and not humanity, what becomes of the hon. Member's whole structure of Communism and Socialism, of the State scheme that is entirely bound under the State, when these officers will all be like the regional medical officers, when they will all be officials holding public offices? Does the hon. Member think that they will not be primarily bound by finance? Why should that not be so? Why should
  1996
  they suddenly become human? The hon. Member will say, because, under the Communistic, Socialistic system that he advocates, all will be well, and all people will be angels. If that foe his argument, we may leave the bringing in of such a system to the Greek Kalends, because we know that it is not practical politics.
  It is true that the panel doctor often knows, and the regional medical officer, who comes in from outside, does not know, the real human side of the case, and that is what we have to consider in this difficulty about certification. If these matters are to be judged by bureaucratic methods—by methods, which quite rightly are being explored by the Scottish Office, of tabulating columns and percentages—if one doctor who certifies 50 per cent. more patients than another is to be adjudged wrong—it will reduce the whole thing to ridicule. You cannot judge human action by percentages. Material facts can perhaps be so judged, but we are dealing here, not with material facts, but with human judgment, and that is the difficulty of getting at the real truth on this subject of certification.
  I agree with the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), who suggested that this difference in certification for sickness benefit could not all be attributed to malingering, but that, nevertheless, some must be attributed to it. I do not like the use of the word "malingering," because it leads us astray. I do not like the use of the phrase "false certification," because it leads us astray. The great majority of people, whether they are beneficiaries or officials, do not deliberately break the law or cheat, but they are human, and the result is that, on the one hand, they naturally take benefits as they come to them in the ordinary kind of way, while, on the other hand, the doctor hates signing certificates, and signs them as a matter of course, not meaning to deceive anyone or to betray anything, but in the hurry of his ordinary practice and because he hates signing these things. The medical profession are probably the most un-businesslike people in the world in their general practice, because their general practice has such a compelling human appeal that they cannot be businesslike in their ordinary arrangements, and, when they have time to be businesslike, they suffer from never having learned

  1997
  the habit of being businesslike. It is natural to them to do what they can for their patients, and to do what their patients wish them to do; and it is natural that if the patient comes to his doctor and says, "Sign me again, doctor," he signs. I agree that he is not fulfilling his contract under the insurance system, and that an insurance system would break down if that practice were followed generally. I am only saying that it is a natural tendency, and the reason why it involves going against the rules is that the whole National Health Insurance system is against the rules. When you have anything systematised, you are bound to have difficulties. I do not mean to say that you must not have rules, but you must expect that they will break down when it comes to a narrow line. They will not follow the straight line that the law wishes them to do. There must be a swerve one way or the other, and those carrying out the scheme are more swayed by the human appeal than by the head, or by the head than by the human appeal. You must have rules and you must try to get them carried out, and you have to make up your minds whether it shall be a general beneficial system of charity, such as is advocated by the hon. Member for Bridgeton and many others, or whether it shall be a definite insurance system.
  Mr. MAXTON: When did I ever suggest a general system of charity for anything? I listened very quietly while the hon. and gallant Gentleman misrepresented my Socialist and Communist views, but now when he is talking of me as a charity monger I am entering my dissent.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The whole implication of the hon. Member and his policy is that it should definitely be the care of the State as a whole, regardless of contributions, and I say that is charity. The House and the country generally have decided that this should be an insurance system. We have to keep it a watertight and a financially sound system; otherwise, it will break down on the very lines which have been so well put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and be involved in the general ruin. We must make this watertight and sound if we are to carry it on as an insurance system,
  1998
  and we have to see that the systems of public health and public assistance shall be improved wherever we can. The question is in what way we can make it sound. The figures show an increase in certification up to 1927, but I was rather surprised that the Minister did not also remark that the figures since then show a definite improvement. He rather left the impression that there had been this constant increase in certification for sickness and disablement benefit among the women. As a matter of fact, in the last three years there has been a considerable improvement, as is shown in paragraph 9 of the White Paper. Disablement and sickness are practically stationary at a level slightly above that reached in 1927 for unmarried women while those for married women have substantially increased. If that is the case, there has been an improvement.
  The Minister is banking on having a 10 per cent. improvement during the next few years. I have the figures here for the, society with which I am proud to be associated in the work of honorary arbitrator, the Hearts of Oak Society, and their figures for the last three years certainly do not show that there is likely to be a 10 per cent. improvement. There has been an improvement on some lines, but on others it is very slight. The figures for women's sickness in 1930 were £70 benefit per 100 members, and in 1931, £66. Disablement benefit was reduced for all women from £52 to £49, with different figures for spinsters as opposed to married women—married women very much more. There was not very much reduction, and that reduction really corresponded to the reduction in the scale of benefits. I am very much afraid that the 10 per cent. reduction on which these estimates were framed will not be sufficient, and that is why I hope we may be able to get support for the Amendment that has been adumbrated by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones). It is a natural, a reasonable and a right suggestion in accordance with his diagnosis of the trouble. Women, when they are married, try, wherever they can, to retain benefit so long as they remain in the same class. The suggestion in the Amendment is that they shall go into a separate class—class K—until they are definitely disabled, and then they go back to class E and get their benefit. I believe

  1999
  that is a human, natural way of meeting the point, and you will get a further reduction in sickness and disablement without any real hardship.
  I have been asked also to support an Amendment put forward by the National Association of Insurance Committees to prolong medical benefit along with the prolongation of pension rights. Obviously, we should all wish to see that if possible, but it depends on finance. I understand from my society that it would not be practicable to make that further concession of medical benefit for another two years, but I hope that it will be properly looked into and that we shall see about it in Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said the other day, what is the use of a National Government if it does not do the unpopular things which require doing and which the ordinary party Government is unable to do? In any sense in which it reduces benefits, this must be an unpopular thing to do, but, if it is the right thing to do, let us do it and not hesitate. I am certain we shall gain credit and confidence for the National Government if we do the right thing to help to make the scheme sound. So much depends on this because the health of the people depends on it. The whole system was badly conceived, and largely politically conceived, and there is a great deal wrong with it. It is more directed to benefit than to treatment and prevention of sickness. It has failed a great deal from that point of view, on which it was so much advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). But we have to make the most of it, and we have made a great deal of it. There is a great deal of good in it which can be preserved and enlarged. I object strongly to the hon. Member for Bridge-ton saying, as he did, that the health of the people is deteriorating. It is not, and he knows it is not. It is extraordinary how the health of the people has been improving despite all the difficulties of the past years, and we have to see that this improvement and the benefits continue. They can only do so if we keep to sound financial lines.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I rise to address this enthusiastic House of 13 Members—
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Unlucky!
  Mr. McGOVERN: And I am wondering where the other 602 are. A scheme is being put before the House which ought to have the consideration of all concerned. I am rather inclined to think that, if the contributors to this scheme could see how they are being dealt with and could see the interest that is taken in a Bill which affects 17,000,000 insured persons, their interest and their support of this House, with its traditions and its great National Government, would go by the board. I am interested in the scheme which has been presented. We are dealing with a Bill proposed by the Ministry of Health. I have always understood that the term "Ministry of Health" meant that they were primarily interested in the general well-being of the health of the community, and especially of its insured persons. But the whole case which is being made out here to-day for reducing the benefits to insured persons who are ill is that they have to balance the Budget in connection with the Insurance Fund.
  We have been told that we must put the insurance scheme upon a sound, actuarial basis. Since I came to this House two years ago I have heard, in season and out of season, the words "placing the fund, or the insurance, either unemployment or health, upon a sound, actuarial basis." I understand that the lesson which we have to learn from the piling up of a huge deficit upon the unemployment side is that we must be very careful with the Health Insurance Fund and must draw in the reins and cut down benefits at the outset. The people who are affected by the Bill are not ill because they desire to be ill. They are ill because of certain diseases which affect the human being. People do not wish either to lie in bed, or to malinger upon the fund for the sake of the scanty amount which they receive as a result of being ill. I believe that in London I could go carrying packages at the railway stations for a couple of hours during the day and almost obtain as much as is paid out of the Insurance Fund to any individual for a week.
  Here we have a problem, where, as the national position, industrially and economically, becomes worse, we have to go round to all the poorest sections of the community and say, "The fund

  2001
  is insolvent, and because this old system of ours will not work as we should like it to work, you who are at the bottom of the social ladder are to be the very first to be attacked and have your standards reduced." If the system gradually goes into a state of collapse and creeping paralysis passes over industry, are we always going to the fellow at the bottom and say, "Another bob is to be lopped off you"? We do not think about going to the men at the top. We always go to the poor man at the bottom who cannot get a decent meal or a suit of clothes, or who is being ejected from his house, and ask him to make the sacrifices. We are told that there are two or three ways of making the fund solvent—increasing the contributions, or decreasing the benefit, or the State making up the difference. Why should not the State make up the deficit in order to give to the people the allowances they are entitled to receive? If I understand humanity and morality, it is that the strong should keep the weak, and not that the weak should always be bearing burdens which should be borne by those at the top and be going further down into the depths of poverty and distress.
  8.30 p.m.
  On the other hand, it has been said in effect that there has been a conspiracy between the medical profession and those who have been drawing from the Insurance Fund so that the latter should get something out of the fund to which they were not entitled. If that were true—I do not believe that it is true—it would mean that the nearer the present system of society came to collapse and the greater the economic difficulties, the more those at the bottom would be driven to attempt other methods in order to safeguard their loaf of bread, or margarine or poor standard of life. It would mean that your system, as it gradually approached collapse, would throw up people with a criminal mind and intention, and you would be driving them to other than honest methods in order to get a livelihood. I think that that is a very fair statement of what is meant when any person says that those people are attempting to get benefits to which they are not entitled.
  To suggest that the medical profession in this country are going to certify people
  2002
  as being ill when they are not ill is one of the gravest charges that could be made on the Floor of this House. There has not been any evidence submitted in the House to-day to show that such a condition of things exists. If I made across the Floor of the House a charge of dishonesty against any hon. Member in the House, I should be asked to withdraw, and, I suppose, rightly so, according to the ordinary decencies of the House. But hon. Members are permitted continually in this House to attack millions of human beings outside who cannot be here to defend themselves, and to charge what I believe to be an honoured profession with dishonest tactics and methods in dealing with a great State fund. I believe that when the suggestion was made here that the medical profession and a large number of insured persons were engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the State or the fund, it was done with a deliberate intention. That is what I read into it.
  We were told by the Minister that a circular was sent out by the late Minister of Health suggesting that there should be a more careful examination and certification of those who were applying for benefit, and, realising that there was likely to be a charge made that the Ministry of Health under the late Labour Government were equally responsible for suggesting the cutting off of people from benefit, an attempt was made to attack the insured persons and the medical profession in order to defend the Ministry in the late Labour Government. That is my reading of the situation. I resent it entirely. I have been in contact with hundreds of human beings who were ill and drawing from the fund, and I can say that the amount they received from the fund was insufficient to meet their ordinary needs, and they were compelled to go to the ordinary Poor Law in order to get the balance made up, enabling them to keep their home and have the ordinary securities of life. Meagre as is the amount which is given at the moment, it is suggested that there shall be a further cutting down of the miserable pittance at a time when we are told that there is a great national emergency.
  I listened to the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) last week. I think he said that he was never satisfied that there was such a national emergency as the Government made out. He said

  2003
  that he thought it was greatly exaggerated, and I do not think the emergency exists yet. Nevertheless, the plea has been continually put forward that there is an emergency and that we have to economise under this Bill. It is also suggested that we must economise all round. I do not possess the great governing capacity or the great brain power that is claimed for the Government bench but I could suggest numerous methods of dealing with this national emergency, if there is an emergency in existence, so that the standards of life of the poor people shall be safeguarded and we shall not disturb the social system upon which this nation and the world is built.
  I came into the House last night during the tariff Debate on the Finance Bill. The House was packed with hon. Members. They were all, as they put it in Australia "looking for their share of the cut." They were all gathered round like wolves, looking for their share of the swag that was going to ensue from the tariffs. But when we are dealing with 17,000,000 insured persons, we get a miserable House of something like 12 or 13 persons. If we had ordinary rules governing this House it would be in order to adjourn the House completely, because people are not paying any attention or taking any interest in the Bill. I am not satisfied as a Socialist that there is any need for a contributory scheme. I believe that the medical profession ought to be run by the State and that when a person is ill, after having given service to the State, that person should be treated as any citizen ought to be treated who has ordinary needs. People need food, clothing and shelter and they should get that from society, just as a Cabinet Member gets it or as any person in society gets it, who does a great deal less service than the ordinary man whose position we are discussing in connection with this scheme.
  We are told that there are periodical valuations, that we find out how things are going on and then we decide what benefits are to be paid. The Minister told us that we have paid out £434,000,000 in 10 years, that it has been distributed through 7,600 approved societies and that for the first 10 years surpluses were made.
  2004
  In addition, £21,000,000 were paid out in benefit during those 10 years. I expect that the additional benefits were given in the shape of teeth and spectacles by the different societies. Some societies paid a little higher than others and competed for the insured person, just as one hon. Member suggested that doctors compete. He suggested that doctors were going round tapping at the doors and looking for insured people to go to them, and in that way stealing from other medical men in the area. I can hardly believe that such a state of things exists, that the honoured medical profession are going round tapping at doors and looking for persons to insure with them. I suppose the next thing that will be said will be that they are paying people to go out and canvass for them and giving them a dividend on the number of persons they get; a sort of payment by results.
  We are told that these valuations have been made from time to time and that fairly good surpluses were shown. I think the Government Actuary said:
  "Existing surpluses provide a temporary bulwark and serious deficiencies must be looked for."
  I am prepared to accept the view that that is the state of things and that serious deficiencies must be looked for. We are told that we should make this a contributory scheme and that people should only get that which they pay for. It would not be so bad in life if everybody got exactly what they pay for. A large number of the supporters of the National Government would go hungry to bed at night if that system prevailed. It is further said that the payment of better benefits was a method of reducing the surplus, that 6,250,000 received decreased benefit and that 1,250,000 were cut off altogether.
  We are told that the health of the community is becoming better. If the health of the community is becoming better, the insolvency of the fund must be due to some other factor than that which has been stated. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) said that it was in the distressed areas where the greatest decrease took place in contributions, and that that was one of the main factors contributing to the insolvency of the fund. One can readily understand that in the

  2005
  depressed areas, mining, cotton and shipbuilding, where there is so much unemployment and where the unemployment is steadily on the increase a very large sum of money will have been denied to the fund. If there is so much unemployment, surely the people who are ill are not responsible. I suggest seriously that the Minister of Health should not be discussing only the solvency or insolvency of the fund. The fund might be solvent and people not getting that to which they are entitled. The fund might be insolvent and the health of the people might be requiring greater protection than it is getting.
  We may have to change the name of the Department of Health for Scotland and the Department of Health for England. Instead of a Ministry of Health we may have to call it a Ministry of Death. If we are continually reducing the standards of life of the people we are bound to have serious results. We do hot escape the result of a policy of that description. It simply means throwing on to the local rates in the form of ill-health the people who are not being properly treated. It means sending them into institutions where, as is the case in an institution in Glasgow, it costs three guineas a week from national and local funds to keep a patient. Yet we are grudging paying a few shillings to people. They cannot be maintained on a few shillings. We are always hearing the threadbare argument about putting the fund on a proper actuarial basis. We are putting people on their backs and into their graves as a means of putting the fund on to a proper actuarial basis. If the fund is insolvent through unemployment I could conceive the scheme not paying more than 2s. 6d. a week to people who are ill. If not more than 2s. 6d. per week could be paid, are hon. Members going to suggest that people should be cut down to that standard in order to make the fund solvent?
  I am sick to death of hearing of the insolvency and bankruptcy of these various funds. Hon. Members are always trying to make the outside public believe that something else is responsible rather than a decaying system of society which is continually throwing up these problems. Hon. Members may disagree, but any intelligent person will realise that we are dealing with the effects of a bankrupt
  2006
  capitalist system, and things may become a great deal worse. They are always buoying themselves up with the old story that the tide will turn. I have heard this said since 1918, by every so-called great statesman in the land. They are always telling us about the bright light appearing over the hill, the depression passing away, the dawn of a new era, the old ship of State coming safely into harbour, and prosperity around the corner. All these statements have been made over and over again, and when they ask for still further sacrifices from the common people the tale is always spun that it will be all right when days are more prosperous. There will be no prosperous days under the present order. It is going to inflict great sufferings on the people, and in the end will throw up worse problems than those which we have to face now.
  We entirely disagree with the present method of dealing with National Health. We think that every human being has a right to be treated if he is ill; that he has every right to be catered for by the State. The great medical profession, instead of haggling, should be under the control of the State. Every person should be able to send for a medical man when he is ill without considering the cost; perhaps dying because he cannot afford the amount. The condition of the people is very bad at the moment and the worry of unemployment and the hardships of the home are bound to increase the number of married women who will come under the scope of the Bill. In connection with lunacy we were told that seven cases out of 10 of people mentally deranged since the War were due to economic causes; and the same is true of the women who are coming under this scheme. It is a question of household worry, of making ends meet, the insufficiency of food. We protest against their being made the butt of attacks in this House. We are here to defend people who are suffering because of a system of society which is entirely out of date and which outrages all common decency. The sooner a complete collapse comes the better. We shall welcome it, because it will open an opportunity for the people to receive common justice.
  Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: The Minister of Health did not state in his opening speech that he had actuarial sanction for that part of the Bill which deals with the

  2007
  insured person who continues in insurance, in the matter of old age pensions and other benefit, a part of the Bill with which I entirely agree, but I assume that he had in fact actuarial sanction for this part as well as for that relating to married and single women. If that is so I can tell hon. Members that they cannot have a better or more reliable adviser than Sir Alfred Watson, and I readily accept the Bill as it stands. Except on one small matter. It seems to me an insecure basis to tell any approved society that if they run into bankruptcy, by reason of the unemployment of their members, they have a call on a general reserve fund in preference to their own reserve. A more extravagant form of management I cannot possibly imagine. I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) justified the proposal that the claims of married women should not be altered on the ground that men should bear them. From the beginning of national insurance the contributions paid by women have been on a different scale to those of men, and so have the scale of benefits paid to each. As it has been discovered that the contributions do not bear a fair proportion to the benefits paid to married women it is obvious, if it is to be an insurance scheme, that either the contributions or the benefits must be altered.
  The point upon which I desire to address the House, however, is this. There has been no mention by anyone, from the Minister downwards, of the administration of approved societies. I am by no means satisfied that the present position might not have been avoided or the financial position of approved societies put right by better administration. I speak now as a rural Member with the experience I have as the chief officer of a rural society, whose members for the most part are lowly paid people. We pay the very best benefits that are paid by any society in the country. We pay a cash benefit, a medical benefit of 22s. 6d., a disablement benefit of 11s. 3d., a maternity benefit of £2 15s. We pay the whole of the eye doctor's bill, and the whole of the dental bill, whatever appliances are ordered. We pay the whole cost of any surgical or medical appliances which may be ordered, and the full cost, including railway fares, of any member
  2008
  who has to go to a hospital or convalescent home. We pay a number of other smaller benefits which I will not mention and, in addition, we return the whole of the contributions except one-half-penny per week.
  In fact we do better than the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), for instead of giving 9d. for 4d. we provide 9d. for ½d. I will not mention the name of the society because I do not want to advertise it, but if by careful administration these results can be brought about in a truly rural district, how is it that all over the industrial areas of the country the position is different? How is it that we are told by the Minister that unless something is done the whole system of National Health Insurance will be bankrupt, and that to-day not only have the extra benefits disappeared, but that even there is difficulty in paying the smaller benefits? I would have liked to have heard something from the Minister or from some official source as to how the big societies are being administered when the results are so different from what is taking place in the case of rural districts. I wonder whether any information is in the possession of the Ministry showing what has been the effect of paying benefit for the first three days. One hears rumours and stories, how members of approved societies in town wish to take a holiday, a long week-end of four or five days, and a complacent doctor—I hardly dare mention a doctor—does not take very much trouble, and the members go on benefit for these week-ends. That is the story that we hear. I wonder very much whether that benefit, which I always mistrusted, has not been abused, and whether there has not been laxity in this administration.
  Dr. O'DONOVAN: This is a matter of interest to the medical profession. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman translate the stories of what he hears into how he hears it and from whom? The medical profession will then be greatly indebted to him.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: I only hear it. Numbers of people tell me so, but otherwise I am not prepared to justify it. I was asking for information, whether there were any statistics upon it. I wish also to ask whether it would not be advis-

  2009
  able to alter the system of the relationship of the panel doctor and his insured patients. At present, I understand, no notice has to be given of any change. Can a doctor be more secured in his position by having a two months' or three months' or four months' notice given by the patient before the patient changes his doctor?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The patient has to give notice now.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: I understand not.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Very brief notice.
  9.0 p.m.
  Sir H. CAUTLEY: The doctor is put into an impossible position, where his duty conflicts with his interest. No judicial officer is allowed to be placed in such a position in the administration of justice. What happens now is that the panel doctor is the medical man of the head of a family, and he has, as a rule, the wife and children of the family as his private patients. He is presented with an application to sign a certificate that a panel patient is ill and wants to go away. He is put in the position that if he refuses he runs the risk of at once having an application made, in the heat of the moment, for a change of the patient's medical adviser, and if that takes place the dotcor loses the whole household as his patients. That is a position which is not fair to the doctor and not fair to the system, and it ought to be altered. On broad public grounds, making no suggestion that the doctor does not try to do his best in a very difficult position, I say it is a position in which he ought not to be placed.
  I welcome this Bill in so far as it is necessary, because no one recognises more than I do title enormous advantage to society of many of the benefits conferred by National Health Insurance. I have taken an active part in their administration ever since the Act was passed, and I shall be only too glad to see them on a perfectly solvent basis, and to see everyone in the position that my society is in, of being able to give every additional benefit that the Act provides.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) commented on the fact that there were only 13 Members present during his speech. I said that they were unlucky, and the
  2010
  longer he spoke the more certain I was that my remark was well founded. I have listened to the speeches on this Bill with great interest. I want to take exception to one phrase that the Minister used, and that was his reference to "increased contributions." I always understood that a contribution was a voluntary payment. These are not contributions to this fund; they are compulsory exactions; they are levies, like taxes. It is a misuse of language to call them contributions. What the insured person has to pay, what is deducted from his wages willy nilly, is not a contribution. That is what is at the bottom of the failure of the National Health Insurance Act. I get very tired when I hear Members of this House, medical or otherwise, talk about the great National Health Insurance Act. There is no more unpopular Act amongst the mass of the people, and no one more heartily dislikes it than they do. No statesman could make himself more popular than by reducing the whole thing to ashes and doing away with it. But there are the vested interests that have grown up, numerous officials who make a living out of it, and the vast mass of doctors who have been reduced from a profession to becoming tax collectors, a brotherhood of Zaccheus. They do nothing but collect and fill up forms, and are insulted by committees of laymen, and surcharged if they give patients medicines that are a little expensive.
  The whole thing is bound to be unsound because it is founded on the essential fallacy that if you have £5 a week or less you are such a fool that you cannot look after your health by consulting a doctor, and you are too dishonest to pay him. That is the basis of the National Health Insurance Act. That is the fallacy on which it is founded. We all know people who have £5 an hour but who are very foolish, unscrupulous and nasty persons and we know others who have 30s. a week and who are very intelligent and are people of the highest character. Imagine what feeling there would be on our side if the Government said to everybody who was paying Income Tax on a large salary, "We propose to deduct £200 or £300 a year from you in order to pay your doctor and you will take one from a panel." Why, there would be a Fascist revolution against it at once. Yet we inflict that sort of

  2011
  thing on the poor working man under this National Health Insurance Act. This scheme was made in Germany because Bismarck wanted to placate Lassale the Socialist and he held the old Greek conception of Aristotle, the basis of a slave civilisation, namely, that mankind were divided into two classes, namely, those who thought and ruled and those who had no right to say anything but had to take whatever was given to them.
  It may have suited the servile Germans. But the whole thing is totally antipathetic to the spirit of our people. It is against all the ideas of liberty-loving British people. You cannot found a moral system on a compulsory basis. People naturally make up their minds when they are compelled to pay their money that they are going to get their money back if possible. They say, "We were never consulted about paying our money and we want to get it out." People do not understand insurance, especially the women. A great many of them are like the woman who was left a little house property and was told that she ought to insure it against fire. She asked the agent, "Does it make any difference if you set fire to it yourself?" The agent said, "Of course it does; you will be put in gaol for that." Whereupon she said, "Then I will not insure; I knew there was some trick in it." That is the position of the women in regard to this insurance and it is the married women who are getting the most money out of it, because they are the most artful. That is why they are married. But even the women who have been left on the shelf are more artful than the men and are getting more out of the scheme than the men. It is all farcical in the extreme.
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) found fault with the medical profession but he had not the courage to boldly affirm what he knew to foe the facts. Then we had the hon. Member for Bridgeton. (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for Shettleston defending the medical profession. As I have already said, the medical profession has been largely degraded by the position into which its members have been put by this abominable Act. A different breed of men has come into the profession and
  2012
  doctors themselves or most of them will tell you how they detest it. A doctor friend of mine in Edinburgh told me that he was getting £1,500 a year for a few working men waiting in his consulting room in the evenings. He said he got £75 a quarter from people who were too indignant to nominate a doctor and whom he therefore did not attend, and he felt as if he was getting money under false pretences. I asked him why he did not "chuck it" and his reply was that if he did, some other fellow would get it; that it helped to pay for his car and household expenses and enabled him to build up a West End practice on the backs of the poor. That is what the National Health Insurance Act is doing. Another medical friend of mine who had a practice in the slums said to me when I was denouncing the Act nearly 20 years ago, "Do not be too hard on it. Formerly I could not make £300 a year; now I am making £1,500 a year." I said "Yes, out of the poorest of the poor. You ought to be ashamed of yourself."
  It is all nonsense to talk about the Act protecting the people's health. An hon. Member sitting below me, who belongs to the medical profession I take it, judging by the indignation which he displayed in reference to a remark by the hon. and learned Member for East Grin-stead (Sir H. Cautley), asked for instances. I will give him instances. To begin with a substantial percentage of doctors practically wiped their boots on the panel patients when it was impossible for the patient to change his doctor. When the patients got some liberty and got the chance of changing their doctor, there was the inevitable result of competition for patients. I do not blame the doctors. They are only human beings, a little lower than the angels, just like ourselves, and if I were put in the position of having to compete with other doctors to get 10s. a year each from several thousand people, I would naturally look after myself, though I might curse the Government which had put me in that position.
  I remember the case of a man who came to my own house to do some upholstering. He was a man who worked singlehanded. I always employ such a man because I have no use for your combines and big shops. I know that

  2013
  the free man working for himself will do a conscientious job. He was complaining bitterly to me of all the contributions which he had paid into the National Health Insurance scheme as an employé to a big firm and said that they were all lost. He said, "I called on a doctor the other day, and he was very rude to me. He could not pass me out quickly enough, and almost pushed me out of the door. I asked him what I owed him, and he said, 'Are you not one of my panel patients?' I said 'No,' and he said, 'I beg your pardon,' and shook me by the hand and dragged me back and examined me carefully." That is the result of the National Health Insurance Act. If I were being paid 10s. a year by several thousand people for giving them legal advice, they would get it, but it would be very quickly given. I would not spend much time in going through law reports. I would be too busy looking after the other clients who could afford to pay me guineas. I make that frank confession, and I say that that is what every man in this House would do, and the man who says he would not do so is the man that I would be most careful to watch.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. and learned Member knows that he has made a speech here in praise of those who act as "Poor man's lawyers" in Glasgow, and I think he himself has given poor people legal advice without any payment at all.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Yes, but when we won our cases, we got damages from the other side. There was always a sporting chance. But I will give another instance to my medical friend below me to show how this system is bound to have a demoralising effect. In a certain district a member of the education authority told me that the school cleaner, who was a man, had had a letter from a doctor newly settled there, suggesting that he should give up that post and arrange to have his wife appointed in his place. He also wrote to this member of the school committee asking him to arrange (hat the man's wife should take the job, and the reason given was because the wife was a very delicate woman and the doctor could give her a certificate enabling her frequently to go on to the National Health Insurance. These are actual cases, and, with weak human
  2014
  nature, it is inevitable that such cases should arise. When patients have the right to change their doctor, pretty well as they choose, that kind of thing is inevitable.
  It is not so long ago since a letter appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" from a young practitioner describing how he had bought a country practise with a number of panel patients. In one little village there were 12 panel patients. On the first day he was there a man called on him to get a "line" to enable him to draw on the fund. It struck him that there was not much wrong with the man. He came to the conclusion that the man was perfectly well or at any rate as well as any of us are, because I suppose most of us are not perfectly well. He did not think the man was ill enough to give him a "line," so he sent him to the referee doctor, who still maintains some of his independence, which the panel doctor has lost. The referee doctor confirmed that the man was not entitled to a "line," and the result was that the panel doctor lost 10 out of his 12 panel patients in that village within a week. There could not be any other result; it was inevitable.
  This is not a National Health Insurance Bill at all. The British working man is satisfied of this, that all your so-called social services are costing 5s. or 10s. a week out of his pocket, money that he could spend much better for himself. After the first few years the whole of the beneficiaries are completely forgotten, and the thing is run almost entirely for the benefit of those who are administering it. All this sort of legislation is based on the false principle that the British working man is a pauper and that you need to bribe him to get his vote, which all the politicians have done.
  My view is that the British working man is a gentleman, that he hates all these eleemosynary services and wishes to get rid of them, and the politician who will get his vote is the man who will have the courage to do it for him and clean up these matters. The ordinary man-in-the-street does not understand what the politicians mean. A woman wrote to me a little while ago, saying: "I do not understand what you politicians mean. Why should a woman get money for burying her husband whom she may have worried into his grave? There is no.

  2015
  reason why, unless she is in dire need. Here am I, a poor, lone, delicate spinster, who has never had the joys of matrimony in any shape or form, and Mrs. Brown next door, a big, strong woman with four strong sons and four lodgers, gets a pension! Are you politicians all mad?" I wrote back and said that they all were, except myself.
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton said that the panel doctors are not satisfactory, but he went one worse, and said that therefore we must have a State medical service and State doctors. God help the patients if we do that! Panel doctors may chastise with whips, but State doctors would chastise with scorpions. They would be like Income Tax collectors, and do you think it is possible to make medical men out of such people? Do you think they would have that rare and delicate relationship which there used to be between the family doctor and the poorest of the poor? I knew a doctor in a country area who is a splendid fellow. In fact, I got him to come to London, because he was too good for the district he was in, but he would never render a bill to anyone. He took what they gave him. I had to send him a case of whiskey and a box of cigars at Christmastime to clear my conscience, because his bills to me were so ridiculously modest. All that sort of thing has been killed out by the commercialising of a noble profession. There was never a worse turn done than the passing of the Act of 1911. It was a quack Measure, introduced by a quack politician, and unfortunately it is still quacking on.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have listened with the greatest disappointment to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten). I have sat and watched him for the past two hours waiting to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, and I thought he was going to make a great pronouncement. As the leader of the new party, holding strong views on the Supreme Court (New Procedure) Rules, 1932, I thought he was going to back up the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), but he delivered a speech that ought to have been delivered when the National Health Insur-
  2016
  ance Act, 1911, was passing through this House. Most of what he said would have been very appropriate then, but is hardly appropriate to-day. My complaint against the hon. and learned Member is that his speech had very little to do with the Bill now before the House. He delights us with his stories, but he charms us mostly by his irrelevance, and we have had a typical speech from him this evening.
  The problem with which we are faced to-day is part of a very much larger problem than appears in the Bill. It is part of the general problem of poverty. If we lived in the kind of society that the hon. and learned Member visualises, where everybody does what he likes and sends cases of whiskey and boxes of cigars to his friends at Christmas time, and nobody charges anything for services rendered, it might be possible to do without a scheme of this kind. But because, as a matter of fact, poverty does afflict the people of this country, we have tried to deal with it in various ways, and the National Health Insurance scheme happens to be one of the ways which we have devised to deal with the problem of poverty. The National Health Insurance Act, 1911, when it reached the Statute Book was perhaps the most unworkable Statute ever passed by Parliament, due very largely to conflicts between vested interests and to the desire of the Prime Minister to get a Bill of some kind.
  It has been made to work, very largely by the genius of the Civil Service, who have administered what left the Houses of Parliament as a quite impossible piece of legislation, and we have now for 20 years made national health insurance a scheme which can be carried out. It has worked in normal times, but now the trouble is that we are not living in normal times—the fact that there are so many hon. Members sitting opposite is proof of that—and the National Health Insurance scheme is breaking down now, not because of inherent weaknesses in the scheme, but for two other reasons. In the first place, I think its foundations are being shattered because of the aftereffects of the War. I have not time to go into that, but it is clear that since the War changes have taken place, and the National Health Insurance scheme has not escaped the effects of those

  2017
  changes. In the second place, it is breaking down because of a long period of trade depression. The National Health Insurance scheme was never devised to deal with a period of more than a decade of serious unemployment.
  The Minister this evening said that the blow had fallen this year, but the truth is, of course, that the blow has been falling for several years. This is not a new crisis. The crisis through which we are passing is one which has been with us for many years, and the present Government exists because there is a crisis, a crisis which is exceptional in its character, a crisis which resulted in welding together the most diverse political forces. So serious was this crisis, that political considerations had to be set aside. Then, in the face of this great world crisis, the National Health Insurance scheme is the one on which the blow falls. Why should this scheme have to bear the burden of a crisis of this kind? It was never devised—no scheme ever is—to be able to meet exceptional circumstances. Legislation is passed, for the most part, to deal with normal situations. We are to-day in an abnormal situation, so abnormal that now that I am back in this House I can realise how abnormal it is when I see hon. Members opposite. You cannot expect a piece of legislation, passed in ampler and more leisurely days than this, to weather the storm of a post-War period and expect it to come through unscathed. When the right hon. Gentleman says the blow has fallen this year, I say the situation has been developing through a long period of trade depression, and that because of the urgency of the crisis of last year it has fallen to the present Government to deal with it on lines which are most unfair to insured persons.
  I am not going to deny the existence of the problem which has brought this Bill before the House. After all, there are documents which were published during my term of office in which we pointed out the facts of the situation. There is no denying the fact that sickness claims have increased among women within recent years. Nobody could get up in this House and say that that was not the case, but it is not so easy to ascertain the reasons. I know there are people, such as the hon. and learned Member for Argyll, who think otherwise. I am sorry the hon. and
  2018
  learned Member has left his place. He comes from a part of Britain where, I thought, they had a high opinion of human nature, but what he said seemed to lead one to believe that the people with whom he associates are not people who are nice. I think that it is very difficult to ascribe reasons for this increase in the claims among married women. I am satisfied of this, however, that the long drawn-out trade depression is one of the most important reasons, because it is clear that where there is unemployment, and where the family income is restricted and less money is going into the home, there is likely to be more sickness. It is true, also, that if anybody goes short when income is reduced, it is the housewife herself, and it would not therefore be surprising if during a period of this kind—a period of 10 years of abnormally high unemployment—the claims for benefit among women, and especially married women, did increase.
  Lieut-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think there is any sign of increased sickness on which to base his argument?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I think it has been admitted as a factor in this situation.
  Lieut-Colonel FREMANTLE: Not the death rate.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: There is all the difference in the world between the death rate and the sickness rate, but I have not finished yet with this question of unemployment. In a family where the wage-earner is unemployed, it is not surprising, if the woman who is sick, and who would have carried on if the father had been working, did go to the panel doctor. Further, I put as a very important factor in the decrease of claims among women the results of the propaganda which has been going on in recent years and in which the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) has himself taken part. We have been preaching now for a generation that prevention is better than cure, and that early treatment is better than late treatment. We have been urging pople to go to the doctor as soon as there is anything wrong with them in order that they might avoid more serious consequences later on. It

  2019
  is undoubtedly true to-day—and it is a Very good thing from the national point of view—that people are going to the doctor when they would not have done so in the old days, or are going earlier than they would otherwise have done.
  Coming to the third cause, it may be, as a result of one of the unfortunate effects of the aftermath of the War, that there may be laxity. That laxity is not confined to any class of the community. It is undoubtedly there. I was astonished to hear hon. Members below the Gangway getting up in defence of the doctors this afternoon. Their case has been argued with tremendous enthusiasm, but with very little knowledge of the subject. They act as though they were friends of every class but their own. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) never made any general charge either against the doctors or against the married women, but it is undoubtedly true that in every scheme you will get people who will, as far as they can, exploit the opportunities that are open to them. That is not a new thing. I am not suggesting that doctors are acting dishonestly or that married women are trying improperly to obtain benefits under the National Health Insurance scheme, but it is undoubtedly true that there are cases of lax certification by doctors and a desire on the part of insured persons to get something to which they are not entitled. So far as I am concerned—I said it when I was on that side of the House, and I say it again here—I could not myself ever agree to persons obtaining benefits unfairly under any scheme.
  What is the solution which the right hon. Gentleman put forward? He has told us, as a justification for what he has done, that the approved societies have approved his policy. Naturally they want their problem dealt with, and it is a serious problem from their point of view, but, of course, they know the kind of Government we have got to-day. They know the attitude that this Government will take towards this problem, and, as long as their problem is settled, they do not mind. That is perfectly natural and perfectly proper. But they knew perfectly well when they were faced with the position this year that there was little point in going to
  2020
  this Government and expecting any financial relief. I do not think, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman can claim that he has the whole-hearted support of the approved societies. He has got what I suppose he expected to get, their approval to proposals which would meet their immediate difficulties.
  The Minister asked what the appropriate remedy was. He said that we must either increase contributions or decrease benefits; there was no other way. He said that increased contributions were out of the question, and he accepted reduced benefits. There is no case whatever for penalising either married or single women. If it be true that there are married women who are improperely obtaining benefits, it is no way to deal with them to make an all round cut in the benefits to married women. If it be true that there is a problem regarding single women, it is not a fair way to deal with them by cutting the disablement benefit of single women as a class. Nor is there any case for depriving the unemployed of their pension rights. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted the case. He knows in his heart that the National Health Insurance scheme has a value to working people which it never had before because of the pensions which are attached to it. I have often worried myself about the reduced rates of benefit for unemployed persons; it does not save them from the Poor Law. I do not attach too much importance to that, however; what I do attach importance to is that the unemployed person should have his rights to pension or the rights of his widow to a pension safeguarded. I hope that the House will realise that the public would wish that to be so.
  We have now had for two or three years this long-drawn-out process of slow murder: they are not to be thrown off now, but they are to be thrown off in time. The House should recognise that that is not in accordance with public opinion. In 1929 I was able to prolong it by regulations and in 1930 by legislation. It was prolonged again last year by legislation. It is quite clear that the unemployed, because of their unemployment, ought never to be deprived of security in old age or of a measure of security for their widows. The Minister has more or less admitted the

  2021
  case in the rather timid provision that he has made. I do not believe that the reduced benefits are justified. A good deal might have been done by administrative action. I was not the author of the National Health Insurance scheme. If I had had to deal with it, it would have been a far different scheme because I do not believe that the present scheme is the way in. which to deal with the problem of public health. The point is that the scheme is there; it is embedded in our national life, and we must take it for what it is worth. So far as I am concerned, I should be prepared to see it properly administered. Let it be administered properly. If there are people anywhere who are obtaining benefits to which they are not entitled under the scheme—I am not saying that they are not entitled to help from the community in other ways—let them be turned out of the scheme, though that does not in any way absolve the community from its responsibility.
  Something is being done. Something was inaugurated during my period of office to deal with the problem. Indeed, a reduction of sickness claims is being anticipated because of the improved administration which we inaugurated when the late Government were in office. For his recognition of that, I make my acknowledgments to the right hon. Gentleman. But there is another way. Reference has been made to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, who is the great robber of hen roosts since the War, because of the raid that he made on the fund and the reduction which followed in the State contribution to National Health Insurance. I do not say that had that £2,750,000 still continued to be paid in, it would have obviated the present situation, but I do say, though I have my own views as to how that money might be used, that if the Government are faced with the serious decision, in a time like this of prolonged unemployment, of reducing benefits in one class of insured persons, they might at least have got from the Treasury some of that £2,750,000 a year which was filched from the fund by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). It is along those lines that I think the Government should have gone.
  The Minister spoke about a financial adjustment and said that there will be
  2022
  just as much money in the scheme as before, but that it is a matter of bookkeeping. It is all right for the fund, but it is not all right for a considerable number of insured persons who are not "swinging the lead," but who are going to be deprived of benefit to which hitherto they have been entitled. Whatever you can do by book-keeping, you can never avoid having to pay the bill, and if you cut down the benefits of these women, if their ailments are not dealt with, and if they are driven on to the local rates—and the half-crown might make all the difference—you take it off the back of the national Exchequer. The nation, however, has not saved anything. Indeed, it might be argued that nationally there is a considerable loss. I suggest that it would be wiser for the Government to say, "We will try and make this a scheme which is Being fairly used by the people who are entitled to benefit, but we will find, if it is necessary, a little further assistance rather than inflict this new insult on the people who are down and out."
  This must stand in the same category as the reduction of unemployment insurance benefit. If we were really hard pressed as a nation I should not complain of a reduction of benefits all round. I have never thought we should be worse off if we were all poor together; but the trouble is that we are not all poor together; and it is a little mean for a great nation like this, even if it passing through a time of economic difficulty, to filch half-a-crown from the pockets of married women, honest industrial workers, in a time of sickness. It does not seem to me that that is consonant with the dignity of this House. This House has done some very bad things in its time—I have witnessed some of them myself, as a victim—but I thought that it rose to a very high level for a short time yesterday when the Lord President of the Council and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) put aside everything but simple human interest. There was no spark of party politics for 10 minutes yesterday afternoon. It would be good if the House could pay as much attention, with the same human interest, to the people who will be smitten by this Bill. I am satisfied that the Government will not do a good day's work for itself in

  2023
  pressing this solution of the present difficulty. After all, it is a very small difficulty, relatively, and if the Government cannot meet these minor difficulties in any better way than by a further impoverishment of the poor, what hope is there that they will surmount the larger difficulties?
  My own view is that this Government cannot surmount the larger difficulties, and to-day they are showing their pettiness of mind in dealing with what is a relatively small national problem in this very petty and narrow way. We shall vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, because we regard it as a further offence, as a further insult, as another instance of the unfairness of this Government. We can utilise our national resources to help national institutions which provide incomes for the well-to-do, we can even mobilise credit to the extent of £150,000,000 for that purpose, but when it comes to a mere handful of people who, in the hour of sickness, look to the community to help them, then they are to be deprived of something which they have enjoyed. I am sorry this Bill has been introduced. My hon. Friends and I will vote against it with a clear conscience. We know we cannot defeat the Bill; but I must utter this word of warning—the Government will be sorry that they ever introduced it.
  Mr. E. BROWN: This has been a remarkable Debate. In my time in the House I do not recall a more remarkable one. We have to answer an Amendment for the rejection of this Bill. My trouble in replying to the Debate is to find the reasons why there should have been such an Amendment. I think it is fair to say that the only Member who made a speech relevant to the rejection of this Bill or any insurance Bill of any kind was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). When I looked at the Order Paper and saw the six names attached to the Amendment I wondered whether, on paper, Wakefield and Gorbals had met together and Bridgeton and Westhoughton had kissed each other. On the Paper three hon. Members from above the Gangway and three from below the Gangway have joined together in an Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, but those who have followed the Debate will have noticed
  2024
  that there is no agreement as to the reasons for so drastic a course. Members will not have overlooked the fact that this is no reasoned Amendment; it is a bald negative. No reasons are set down for careful consideration, as careful consideration as has been given by the Minister and the Government to the Bill; it is a bald negation. I thought the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) showed great innocence. He seemed to think, being an administrator of an approved society, and rather anxious about the society, that the Amendment would not kill the Bill but only put it off for six months. I can disabuse him of that idea. The Amendment is the Parliamentary form not for putting off the Bill for six months but for killing the Bill, or any Bill like it, in this Session of Parliament.
  We are glad to see the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) back and to hear him speaking on these proposals, but what does he say? He says that there is a case in that the facts are grave, and he rightly says that he himself took steps, by the issue of a. memorandum to medical men and a circular to approved societies, to see whether certification could not be tightened up. He refers the whole problem to three things—to the trade depression, to the propaganda in favour of an earlier application to medical men in times of sickness, and, thirdly, and very tentatively, to laxity. But his trouble is this, that when he comes down to his real argument it is the same plea as is put up from below the Gangway, though not in the same terms. In the last parallel he drew, the parallel between the moving episode yesterday and the Bill to-day, surely he cannot be ignorant of the fact that yesterday was an occasion on which pure sentiment was the real medium, and the only possible medium, for the expression of any man's feelings or any public body's feelings about a great event. It is true that sentiment enters into this problem, but sentiment is not the only thing, and, moreover, there are opposing sentiments concerning this problem. The sentiments expressed are based on two opposing conceptions. I do not seek to underestimate sentiment, and I will say a word or two in a moment about the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton

  2025
  (Mr. Maxton). I have always agreed with Wendell Phillips that sentiment is the toughest thing in the world, and that nothing else is iron, but there are spheres in which sentiment can affect nothing. There are cases where sentiment can effect nothing, and, on the other hand, there are occasions when sentiment may have a directly opposite effect. To vote against this Bill is to act on a sentiment that is based upon profusion. The sentiment of those who are supporting this Bill is based on the principle of frugality. We feel just as keenly as hon. Members opposite the fact that these cuts have to be made in benefits to sick women. The only difference between the supporters of the Government and hon. Members opposite is that they prefer to ignore the facts and we prefer to face them. That is the difference between the two sides of the House on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman opposite talks about filching money, but we have not filched any money. That is a word which might pass on the platform outside without notice, but it ought not to pass when it conies from the Front Opposition Bench.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I was referring to the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill).
  Mr. BROWN: I certainly took what the right hon. Gentleman said in that light, but it is agreed now that we are not filching money. The essence of the whole problem is the matter of frugality. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Max-ton), in his wonderful way, played his sentimental violoncello and then painted the picture of the old man, but he has never applied his mind to the Bill, and when he is tackled in terms of cold, practical fact, he has to look away from his fanciful picture of the old man and drop the tune. The hon. Member talks about solvency as if it were some form of abstraction. If it were, we should not need to be standing here defending this. Bill. Solvency is not an abstraction, but it is an essential condition of being able to pay not only these benefits, but any benefits at all. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) that the main point which he raised was seriously considered by the Government. The Government in making these changes had to do it so as best to guard the pension Tights of these poor people as far as possible, consistently
  2026
  with a sound scheme, and that we have done.
  10.0 p.m.
  In the whole course of this Debate there have been very few commentaries. The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Meller), the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones) and the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) raised the question of a special class for married women. That is, of course, a case which can be presented during the Committee stage of the Bill, and then everything that is to be said in favour of it or against it will be heard with great care by the Minister of Health when the case is put. Some hon. Members who have spoken have rather misunderstood the scale of the problem, and I would like to point out that our powers are very limited and the Central Fund is also a very limited fund. I would like to remind hon. Members that since the pension fund became part of National Insurance, there have not been so many unclaimed stamps and the fund is much smaller. That is my reply to the criticisms of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan).
  Mr. LOGAN: The Minister of Health has still the power to do what I stated that he could do. He could either make the people contribute more or reduce the benefit under the Act which the Government are operating now without this Bill.
  Mr. BROWN: At any rate, the solution which was put forward by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division was no solution at all. Now I turn to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. E. Davies), who stood for a sound insurance system. If he had not done so, I have here a speech made by him which would have made the point clear, because not only the hon. Member, but the society for which he has done such good service, stand for the contributory principle of insurance. I suggest that there could be no clearer proof of the lack of a case against this Bill than the fact that the hon. Member opposite spent three-quarters of his speech dealing with what was done in 1926. [Interruption.] I would refer the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield to what I said in 1930 in regard to the prolongation of insurance. In 1926 the general financial position of the country was causing

  2027
  serious alarm, but at that time the National Insurance Fund was in a position of abounding prosperity. In the previous year the Government had introduced the Widows' and Orphans' Old Age Pensions Contributory Act, and they relieved societies of the cost of benefit to persons between 65 and 70 years of age, and such persons became entitled to old age pensions.
  If hon. Members argue on one side of this case, we must argue on the other. The case is surprising when we consider the problem of which the hon. Member for Westhoughton reminded us. The hon. Member was addressing his mind to the problem of women, but surely he would not claim that any large part of the effect with which we are trying to grapple in this Bill is due to the Measure of 1926. In the case of men, the reduction of the State payment was from two-ninths to one-seventh, and to one-fifth in the case of women. In the case of men, the reduction of the State grant was substantial, and events showed that it was justified, because, as regards men, notwithstanding the reduction, the position of the scheme is still not unsatisfactory; while the reduction of the State grant under the Economy Act in the case of women was trifling—only from two-ninths to two-tenths, that is to say, one forty-fifth, or slightly over 2 per cent. Let us compare this with the position which now faces us as regards excess of expenditure over receipts. Paragraph 9 of the Actuary's Report on the present Bill states that, for the years 1926 to 1930, as regards the percentage of weeks of sickness to the valuation provision, the actuarial position was as follows:

  Unmarried Women—

  Sickness Benefit

  110

  Disablement Benefit

  123

  Married Women—

  Sickness Benefit

  112

  Disablement Benefit

  190

  On these figures, it is obviously absurd to say that the present position is due to the reduction of 2 per cent. in the case of women made by the Economy Act. Putting it in terms of money, the annual expenditure on women's benefits, cash and medical, at the present time, is about £12,000,000 a year. If the Economy Act of 1926 had not been passed, the Ex-
  2028
  chequer would have found a further amount of one forty-fifth of this sum, that is to say, £250,000 a year.
  I now want to deal with the major topic that has occupied the attention of the House, namely, the reduction in the case of women, and especially of married women. Charges have been flung, not across the House, but across the Gangway. I do not wish to join in recriminations about doctors, societies or patients. There is no Member of this House who has had any experience in the working of approved societies of any kind who does not know that the most subtle and difficult of all approved societies' problems is the decision as to when a married woman is or is not sick. It is not only a difficulty for the doctor; it is a difficulty for the approved society. I have in mind now a small approved society whose Secretary has been the Secretary first of a voluntary insurance scheme, and then of a mixed scheme, for 54 years. He has seen the whole of its membership grow up under his regime, and, if anyone knows the character of individual members, and is in a position to say whether there is malingering or not, it is he. He tells me that, of all the hard problems to solve, whether in a voluntary or in a State scheme, the problem of deciding when a married woman is sick is the hardest. It is a very serious problem. His visitors go and pay the sick pay, they make inquiries and reports, the town is a small one, and people's movements are known; but, with all these advantages, which do not occur in the case of many large societies in the great cities and in London, it is still very difficult to decide whether there is laxity or not with regard to certification in the case of married women.
  One fact is certain—and this is the answer to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone)— and that is that, however you construe the results of the last valuation and the Actuary's report of 1930 to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wake-field, the actuarial risk in the case of married women under an insurance scheme is out of all proportion either to the risk in the case of men on the one hand or in the case of single women on the other. It is because that risk, whatever may be its cause, has assumed such

  2029
  great proportions, that my right hon. Friend has felt it right to face the problem in the way that he has, and to say, regretfully, that there is only one thing to be done, and that is to tackle the question of what is the risk, in terms of solvency of the scheme, in the case of married women; and I think the only answer, in these times, must be the one that he has given. Any suggestion as to increasing the contributions of 4,000,000 single women in order that 1,000,000 married women may take a risk that is four times as large, only needs to be mentioned to be brushed aside as irrelevant. The right hon. Gentleman talked lightly about this small claim upon the Treasury, and brushed aside the crisis as though the taxpayer in this country at the moment were not taxed, not merely up to the hilt, but above the hilt. The right hon. Gentleman smiles, but I would say to him that, as long as he smiles in that way when thoughtful men talk about serious problems, the people of this country will never trust him or his friends. I think I have covered all the points that have been raised, and, in conclusion, I would say that in my judgment, while for divers reasons hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have put their names to an Amendment for the rejection of this Bill, I have never heard a weaker case against a Bill than has been made this evening, and I ask the House to give the Bill an overwhelming majority.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to offer a few comments on the Bill which it is now proposed that we should pass. In the first place, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has met the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) raised. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that, since he asked people to state facts, he ought to have tried to meet my hon. Friend by supplying the facts, but, as far as I could gather, he did not do so. I regret that I was not present to hear the Minister's speech in introducing the Bill, because I take some interest in this matter from the point of view both of unemployment and of the approved societies. I am myself the chairman of an approved society, and am also concerned with the unemployment aspect of the matter. Although I have heard most of the Debate, I have heard very few speakers cover the real
  2030
  points with which this Bill deals. I was amazed at the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). He said that many of these people were entitled to be treated as sick persons but were not entitled to be treated as insured persons. He would have no compunction in removing them from the purview of the Insurance Fund. Where would he put them? There is only one place where they can be put, and that is on the Poor Law. Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman who is at the moment leading the Labour party would transfer people who are in need of sickness benefit, because they are not covered by an insurance basis, on to the Poor Law?
  I agree that the Bill is shockingly bad, but the right hon. Gentleman's record is not one to be proud of. He introduced a Bill to prolong insurance, but he only did it at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day, when Parliament was almost closing down. My colleagues and I say frankly that this is not insurance. You talk of insolvency. There would be insolvency if the fund was run on an insurance basis. I am surprised that this point has never been raised. Take two trades, patten making and moulding. Both unions cater for their approved members. Both are capably served by officials. The moulders' union is in debt. The moulder makes the same contribution, but the patten makers' society has a surplus and gives additional benefit. The moulders' calling is dangerous and you must inevitably have sickness, while the patten maker is comparatively free. Where is the insurance principle?
  Go further and take the clerks who deal on the stock exchange. They have practically no sickness at all. Local Government employés have relatively no sickness. They form approved societies which have huge surpluses. This is not insurance, because you have men and women paying equal amounts but receiving different returns in the shape of benefits. If you intended to make your fund solvent, I could understand the Government with a balance-sheet mind— a frugal mind—saying, "We are going to put all approved members on an equal footing. We are going to tackle the whole problem from beginning to end, to deal with the problem of the moulder and the kindred tradesman, and to deal

  2031
  with the problem of the female worker." But the hon. Gentleman did not tell us in regard to the female worker that there are higher rates of sickness among women in certain callings as compared with other callings. The sickness rate in certain female callings is high, and it is low in others. I could have understood the Government dealing with the problem as a whole. They do not do that. Their only justification for dealing with the matter is that they find themselves faced with financial difficulties, and they pick out two classes. I confess that the Labour party can have little complaint against them for picking out the married women. After all, they are leaving married women with 5s. and 8s., but under the late Labour Government's Anomalies Act they were left with nothing, so that the women are at least that much better off.
  The main point regarding the Bill has not to do with married women but with the man who, after long years of unemployment, is going to drop out of insurance. He is to be given a year and nine months on the average, and in addition another year. In that additional year, if he is to retain his full benefits, he must have 26 weeks of contributions. Take, again, the case of the man who has been unemployed for some considerable time. That man, even if he has not worked a day for six years, and is 50 years of age, is safeguarded at the present time, if the card has been stamped, in respect of the old age pension, medical service, and sickness benefit on a reduced scale. Now, that man is to lose his sickness benefits. In addition, after the lapse of a year, he will lose his medical connection. Then he will have to go on for another two years for old age pension purposes.
  Let hon. Members note three outstanding facts. In the first place, the man loses his health money. That money is exempt for Poor Law purposes. A person who is on sickness benefit and on the Poor Law gets that sickness benefit at the present time in addition to his Poor Law benefit—7s. 6d. It is also exempted by almost every local authority for transitional benefit payments under the means test. Now, it is proposed to take from that sick man the 7s. 6d. which is safeguarded for Poor Law purposes and for
  2032
  the means test, because for those purposes the sick man is treated a little out of the ordinary. He is being treated worse than the married woman and worse than the single woman. Not having done enough to him, it is proposed to take from him his doctor in the following year.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that there were men with long years of contributions to their credit. I know of men 50 years of age who paid into this fund up to four or five years ago, who were never one day unemployed, and yet from those men it is proposed to take away every right, by degrees. There will be taken away their sick benefit, their doctor and every right down to pensions. The Parliamentary Secretary tried to reply to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). He made a slight improvement by reducing the age from 60 to 58¼. The man of 58 years of age who has passed out cannot get back again unless he puts in 26 payments under the insurance scheme. Let hon. Members think of the time in which we are living. Let them think of mining areas. How is a man of 57 or 55 years of age going to fulfil that condition? The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about men being young at 58. They are young in age, but our trouble is to get the employers to believe that they are young. These men are old for employment purposes, and you are setting an impossible task to a man of 55 to be sure of the putting in six months' contributions in order to get back into the scheme.
  10.30 p.m.
  This Bill attacks the married woman and the single woman, and it even attacks the man in fairly steady work. If that man has 28 weeks' employment and 24 weeks idle he is credited for his 24 weeks if his card is franked, but under this Bill he is only to be credited with half of those weeks. He must now find arrears of contributions amounting to 1s. per week for 12 or 13 weeks. I do not want to be in any way insulting to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), but I would like him to remember that we are applying our minds to these things—
  Mr. E. BROWN: My remark was justified because an attack was made upon us that we are robbing old men of benefits. I said that the hon. Member who made that statement had not applied his mind to the Bill.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member, however, has not replied to the point. The Act of 1920 brought large numbers of men into insurance. These are the men who have been for 10 years in insurance, and who cannot now come within this Bill. Therefore large sections of the old ment are going to be kept out. The Bill affects married women and single women, the man who is at work, and the man who has been out of work for a long time. It makes it difficult for old people to retain their pensions, and widows are in danger. It attacks every one of these classes, and the only excuse of the Government is the solvency of an insurance fund, which is not an insurance fund. If it was an insurance fund every member would contribute the same amount for the same benefits, and under the same conditions. This fund makes all contribute the same for different ranges of benefits. That is not insurance. It allows approved societies to make different regulations and adopt different methods. If the Government want to make it an insurance fund they should bring in a Bill based on the principle of equal payments, equal benefits. But because we are faced with a financial system which is going bankrupt the Government is attacking these people and has singled out married women.
  It is not an unpopular thing to attack the married women. There are many working people, no doubt, who will support the Government in this attack. It is not unpopular to pick out single women who are in industry. But this has nothing whatever to do with insurance and the question of solvency. If it is wrong for married women to continue in industry, from the point of view of employment, let us be quite open and say that they are barred from industry. Let us say straight out that the country can only afford to employ its male adult population and single women, but cannot employ its married women. That is the logical position, but it is not right to allow married women to enter into industry and then because they have done something that is legal to subject them to vindictive and cruel treatment because you think it is a popular policy.
  This is a bad Bill. We may be called sentimental. I have heard terrible sentimentality about the Empire. Why should not we be sentimental about the sick and
  2034
  the needy? This is an unwarranted attack on these people, and the only excuse for it is the saving of money. I disagreed with everything that was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), except one thing. He said that this House was apt to pass Measures without taking the long view, that we made commitments and did not look ahead far enough. We pass here proposals for saving millions, but we do not count the cost 20 years ahead in the social havoc that they cause. The Government, of course, will put this Bill through, but all they will have to their credit in the future will be a wastage of poor humanity, and those people will soon see through the falseness and the hollowness of this National Government.
  Dr. O'DONOVAN: I would ask indulgence for a few minutes simply because I have heard a most corrosive contribution to the Debate, and if taken seriously it might lead administrators into difficulties and politicians into trouble—lead to the use of my professon as the goat of Israel, so that they might tie their sins upon its horns and push it into the wilderness. We have heard from the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) that doctors accept their money as if that money were obtained under false pretences. That is a form of words often used in His Majesty's courts in criminal procedure, and I think it is no help to clear thought or any aid to Debate to suggest that there is a profession that could have attached to it so criminal a label and so vile a libel. We are told, on the authority of that hon. and learned Gentleman, that a new breed of men has come to my profession. I would assure him that the men who are entering my profession now are born of women, as they ever have been. They are handed to the care of the pedagogues, as has always been the custom of this country. They proceed to the ancient universities, where they study athletics and the humane arts, and they are entered into the hospitals to be taught the same traditions of medicine as existed before the National Health Insurance Act was ever thought of.
  At the head of my profession are ancient and learned men who are quite unaware that the sons of women given to them are of a lesser or inferior breed. But the

  2035
  hon. and learned Member's contribution has been fortified by evidence, the evidence of men who have found no employment in organised trade, the evidence of workmen who have not been even checked by foremen, men loose upon the labour market, unattached craftsmen. I suggest to the hon. and learned Member that the word "evidence" in my profession consists of a careful observation made by a competent observer, accurately recorded and truly reported. But the hon. and learned Member has left upon my mind the impression that, in his profession of the law, evidence is any old story repeated by any old gossip that the courts in their inscrutable wisdom may listen to. I tremble to think of what his brethren in the legal profession must think of the evidence which the hon. and learned Member has offered on the state of the law and the practice of the law in the ancient and venerable city of Edinburgh.
  We are told that the cases of poor people are handled, not with a passion for justice, not to punish the wrongdoer, but as a sport, with the hope of getting damages out of the troubles of His Majesty's lieges. It is the most degrading admission I have ever heard. But I still believe that lawyers are moved by a passion for justice just as the clergy are moved by a passion for goodness, and I do not believe that the law is pursued either as a sport or as a means of getting damages in cases where the poorest people are concerned.
  I am troubled, however, to think that it should be suggested to this House that a member of my profession ought to be perfectly content to maintain his family on a salary of £300 a year; that he should live until death calls him, in a miasma of disease and in the midst of the direst poverty on such a sum and that on the other hand if he takes service under the panel and receives £l,500 a year, he ought to be troubled in his conscience and refuse to work. It has been a blessing to the profession that, thanks to the Health Insurance Act, doctors can now bring up their sons to that profession which they love and hand on from father to son its great traditions of service. We are told by the hon. and learned
  2036
  Member that the National Health Insurance Act passed by this House after long debate has produced but one fruit, namely, that doctors will shake the hands of the patients who offer to pay them and neglect the others. I would offer as a serious contribution to this Debate the submission that the Act has brought into the profession a wider selection of keen minds anxious to maintain the public health.
  I was a little disturbed when the ex-Minister of Health said that the success of the National Health Insurance Act had been due to the genius of the Civil Service. I always think that when you attribute genius to administrators you are confessing to an inferiority complex. To complete the statement of the right hon. Gentleman I would say that the Act has worked well because it has received the co-operation of an intelligent and learned profession. Acting through the British Medical Association, my profession has worked cordially with Governments of all colours for the people's health and because of that cooperation the fruits of this Act have been good. The British Medical Association will celebrate the centenary of its foundation, this year, in London, under the presidency of Lord Dawson and hours will be devoted by the keenest minds to the discussion of public health problems. We have seen members of my profession drawn into public life because, through this Act, they have been interested in public health administration. We have not segregated ourselves entirely in the atmosphere of the sick room. Owing to this Act which has been so much derided, our medical research, through the medium of the Medical Research Council, has been placed on a footing which is the admiration of Europe. Through that they have been able, with the co-operation of our large voluntary hospitals, to bring every modern device of science and the help of specialists to the home of every one of His Majesty's subjects. I apologise for delaying the House from important business, but a corrosive acid should have some antidote.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 43.

  Division No. 173.]

  AYES.

  [3.42 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

  Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Belt, Sir Alfred L.

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

  Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

  Buchan, John

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Bernays, Robert

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Burnett, John George

  Apsley, Lord

  Blaker, Sir Reginald

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)

  Borodale, Viscount

  Caine, G. R. Hall-

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Carver, Major William H.

  Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

  Bracken, Brendan

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Balniel, Lord

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

  Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Nith'I'd, Hexham)

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

  Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

  Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

  Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

  Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

  Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

  Christie, James Archibald

  Jamieson, Douglas

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Clayton, Or. George C.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Colville, John

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

  Cooke, Douglas

  Kirkpatrick, William M.

  Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Copeland, Ida

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Robinson, John Roland

  Cowan, D. M.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

  Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Lees-Jones, John

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Crossley, A. C.

  Levy, Thomas

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

  Culverwell, Cyril Tom

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

  Curry, A. C.

  Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

  Salmon, Major Isidore

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Salt, Edward W.

  Davison, Sir William Henry

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.G'n)

  Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Denville, Alfred

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Scone, Lord

  Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Doran, Edward

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Drewe, Cedric

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

  Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Simon. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Duggan, Hubert John

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

  Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Dunglass, Lord

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Slater, John

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

  Ednam, Viscount

  McKeag, William

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Elmley, Viscount

  McLean, Major Alan

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

  Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

  Soper, Richard

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

  Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

  Stevenson, James

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Stones, James

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Martin, Thomas B.

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Gledhill, Gilbert

  Millar, Sir James Duncan

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Goldie, Noel B.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Summersby, Charles H.

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Milne, Charles

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Thompson. Luke

  Graves, Marjorie

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

  Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Grimston, R. V.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Train, John

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

  Moreing, Adrian C

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  Morrison, William Shephard

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Muirhead, Major A. J.

  Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Munro, Patrick

  Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Nicholson Rt. Hn. W G (Petersf'ld)

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

  Harris, Sir Percy

  Normand, Wilfrid Guild

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Hartland, George A.

  North, Captain Edward T.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Nunn William

  White, Henry Graham

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsford)

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Pearson, William G.

  Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Peat, Charles, U.

  Womersley, Walter James

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  Petherick, M.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Hornby, Frank

  Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

  Hudson Capt, A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

  Pybus, Percy John

  Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir

  George Penny

  1918

  1919

  NOES.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Halt, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Maxton, James

  Batey, Joseph

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Owen, Major Goronwy

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

  Hirst, George Henry

  Price, Gabriel

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Kirk wood, David

  Thorne, William James

  Cove, William G.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Daggar George

  Leonard, William

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Edwards, Charles

  Lunn, William

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  McEntee, Valentine, L.

  Mr. Groves and Mr. Duncan

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  McGovern, John

  Graham.

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Division No. 174.]

  AYES.

  [10.45 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Goldie, Noel B.

  North, Captain Edward T.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

  Pearson, William G.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Graves, Marjorie

  Peat, Charles U.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Greene, William P. C.

  Petherick, M.

  Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)

  Balniel, Lord

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Pickering, Ernest H.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Powell, Lieut. Col. Evelyn G. H.

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Procter, Major Henry Adam

  Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

  Harris, Sir Percy

  Pybus, Percy John

  Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

  Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

  Blindell, James

  Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

  Borodale, Viscount

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hope, Capt. Arthur O J. (Aston)

  Ramsden, E.

  Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Hopkinson, Austin

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Hornby, Frank

  Remer, John R.

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Renwick, Major Gustav A.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Brown, Brig,-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Hunter, Capt. M. J (Bring)

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.

  Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Burghley, Lord

  Jamieson, Douglas

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Burnett, John George

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

  Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

  Salmon, Major Isidore

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Salt, Edward W.

  Carver, Major William H.

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Cassels, James Dale

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Scone, Lord

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Selley, Harry R.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

  Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Chalmers, John Rutherford

  Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

  Leckie, J. A.

  Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

  Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

  Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Liddall Walter S.

  Skelton, Archibald Noel

  Clayton Dr. George C.

  Llewellyn-Jones Frederick

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Colvllie, John

  Mabane, William

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  Conant, R. J. E.

  MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

  Soper, Richard

  Cook, Thomas A.

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Cooke, Douglas

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Copeland, Ida

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Cowan, D. M.

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

  Craven-Ellis, William

  Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

  Stevenson, James

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

  Stones, James

  Crookshank, Capt. H. c. (Gainsb'ro)

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Storey, Samuel

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

  Maitland, Adam

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Dickie, John P.

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Donner, P. W.

  Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col Sir M.

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Drewe, Cedric

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

  Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)

  Duggan, Hubert John

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

  Martin, Thomas B.

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Dunglass, Lord

  Meller, Richard James

  Thompson, Luke

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

  Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Milne, Charles

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

  Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-

  Train, John

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Elmley, Viscount

  Mitcheson G. G.

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Emrys-Evans P. V.

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Morgan, Robert H.

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

  Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Fermoy, Lord

  Morrison, William Shephard

  Womersley, Walter James

  Fox, Sir Gifford

  Muirhead, Major A. J.

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Munro, Patrick

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Nail, Sir Joseph

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Gledhill, Gilbert

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Normand, Wilfrid Guild

  and Lord Erskine.

  2038

  2039

  NOES.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  McGovern, John

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Grundy, Thomas, W.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hall, F. (York, W.H., Normanton)

  Maxton, James

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

  Hicks, Ernest George

  Price, Gabriel

  Buchanan, George

  Hirst, George Henry

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Kirkwood, David

  Thorne, William James

  Cove, William G.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Lawson, John James

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Daggar, Georgs

  Leonard, William

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Edwards, Charles

  Lunn, William

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Mr. Groves and Mr. Duncan

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Graham.

  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.-[Sir Hilton Young.]

  WHEAT BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—(Sir J. Gilmour.)
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The House may be a little appalled by the number of Amendments from the other House, but in the main they are purely drafting. They are drafting in the sense that they either meet certain representations which were made in the discussions on the Bill in this House and are necessary in order to carry out the undertakings which I gave; or they are in the nature of transposing from one part of the Bill to another and co-ordinating parts of the Bill which were scattered about when the Measure left this House. These relate to such things as the definition of bread, and to problems which deal with the export of bread after consultation with the interests concerned. It can be said with certainty that nothing new has been introduced into the Bill beyond the tightening up of certain regulations after consultation with all the interests concerned, and nothing has been inserted except with the consent of all those who are concerned in carrying out this work.
  There is one Amendment on the Schedule, to which I desire to direct attention, to increase the numbers of the Wheat Commission. After consideration of this problem it was found very desirable to increase if possible, by at any rate one member, those who represent the corn merchants, and to add one to those
  2040
  who represent the growers of wheat. I will not say definitely exactly how these will be chosen, but I have it in mind to give that representation to Scotland which I undertook to do when the Bill was under Debate here. We can then give proper and fair representation both to the tenant farmer and to the larger landed interests, and, if I can so arrange, I should like to add one representative of the workers. In that way, we shall have complete representation of all those-who are concerned in agriculture. I shall be ready to answer any questions on any of the Amendments, and I hope that the House will find that they are in the main drafting Amendments.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: We have congratulated the right hon. Gentleman previously upon having produced the most highly complex piece of legislative machinery so far known. Now we have to congratulate him on what is an absolute record of Amendments made by their Lordships in another place to the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. Has the right hon. Gentleman thought what would happen were the Opposition really inclined to oppose as did the Conservative party in opposition? There are no fewer than 84 Amendments to this Bill, which clearly proves what a lucid piece of legislation it was. If we were to divide upon each of those 84 Amendments, taking 15 minutes for each Division, three Parliamentary days would be gone. Fortunately, there is a different spirit on the Opposition benches now from that which prevailed in the last Parliament, and we have no desire to take up the time of the House. Of course, we have no power to insist upon the Government giving more time for such complicated Amendments as those before us, and we are obliged to take them at this very late hour.

  2041
  We have satisfied ourselves, after a careful examination of the whole of them, that no new principle has found its way into the Amendments. We object to the terms of the Bill. We feel that the machinery is well-nigh unworkable, but the Amendments are chiefly Amendments either to improve the wording or to make it more nearly possible to operate the machine than was the case before the Bill left for another place. We observe that a new interpretation of bread has been produced by Noble Lords. I am not sure that my hon. Friends will not have something to say on that, but, apart from that, as we are satisfied that we can make no material difference, and that the principles now are pretty much the same as they were intended to be by the right hon. Gentleman, who, unfortunately, was unable to express himself in the Bill as it was originally introduced, we see no reason to waste time by forcing Division after Division, knowing full well that at the end we shall be where we were when we started.
  Lieut.-Colonel J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I would like to ask for an explanation regarding one of the Amendments to Subsection (6) of Clause I of the Bill. That Amendment has deleted the words "registered grower" and inserted the word "person," and the Clause now reads:
  "If any person from whom the Flour Millers' Corporation have been required."
  Suppose the farm is owned by a co-operative society?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should wait until we get to that Amendment.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
  Lords Amendment: In page 8, after Clause 3, insert:

  WHEAT BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE A.—(Repayments in respect of flour and bread exported or shipped as stores.)
    (1) If, in accordance with the bye-laws of the Wheat Commission, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commission that quota payments have been duly made in respect of any flour and that the flour has
    2042
    been exported or shipped as stores, a repayment shall be made or allowed by the Commission to the exporter, and the amount of the repayment to be so made or allowed in respect of any quantity of flour, as at the date on which it is exported or shipped as stores, shall be an amount equal to the quota payments payable in respect of a like quantity delivered on that date.
    (2) If, in accordance with the byelaws of the Wheat Commission, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commission with respect to any bread that the bread has been exported and that all the flour from which the bread was made was flour in respect of which quota payments have been duly made, a repayment shall be made or allowed by the Commission to the exporter, and the amount of the repayment to be so made or allowed in respect of any such bread, as at the date on which it is exported, shall be calculated at such a rate that the amount of the repayment in respect of every three hundred and seventy-six pounds of bread shall be equal to the quota payments payable in respect of two hundred and eighty pounds of flour delivered on that date.
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 4, after the word "flour," to insert the words "or cabin biscuits."
    May I ask for an explanation of this Clause on the lines that this is a drawback in respect of flour and bread exported? I would like to bring to the attention of the House the question of the export of cabin biscuits, which consist of 90 per cent. of flour. Our export trade to the West Coast of Africa is being hampered by the inclusion of a Clause of this kind. In France, under the French quota, they have a drawback, and I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if it would not be possible to include cabin biscuits in this Clause, and thus remove a possible and probable hardship to the export trade in cabin biscuits.
    Dr. SALTER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I should like to reinforce what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen). On an earlier occasion I moved an Amendment winch would have carried out the object which the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead has in view, and the Minister declined to accept it. I should like once again to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point on the lines suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead.
    Mr. BROCKLEBANK: I also would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether he cannot accept this Amendment.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The House will recollect that we debated this question on a previous occasion, as has been said by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter). We have considered this matter very carefully, and have come definitely to the conclusion that we cannot extend this Clause beyond dealing with plain bread, and, therefore, in the circumstances, I am unable to accept the Amendment. The new Clause deals, in a more definite form than the previous Clause, with the problem of the export of bread. It has been drafted after careful consultation with all the interests concerned, and I hope that the House will agree to allow it to remain as it stands.
    Amendment to Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 14, line 42, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Provisions as to Millers' Quota Fund.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 1, after the word "distributed," insert the words:
    "on behalf of the Flour Millers' Corporation by a person appointed (after consultation with that corporation) by the Wheat Commission."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Dr. SALTER: I should like to ask whether it is intended that this gentleman shall be a chartered accountant, and whether he is to be paid for his services in this connection?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. The purpose of this Amendment is to make proper provision for the distribution of the profits of the Millers' Quota Fund by an independent person, an accountant appointed by the Wheat Commission after consultation with the Flour Millers' Corporation, and, naturally, he will be remunerated for that work.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 24, line 43, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 19.—(Interpretation.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 7, leave out from the word "the" to the word "so" in line 10, and insert:
    "product produced by baking flour unmixed with any substance other than water, salt and yeast or other leaven";
    Dr. SALTER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 1, to leave out from the word "baking," to the end of the Lords Amendment, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "a dough prepared by mixing and fermenting flour with water, salt, yeast or other leaven (which Shall include improving substances such as malt or malt extracts) and with no other ingredients."
    11.30 p.m.
    When the Bill was before the House, the Minister produced a definition of bread which was covered with ridicule in the House and knocked to pieces in the technical press outside. As a consequence, he produces this new definition. But it is simply rank nonsense. I have never in my life seen anything of this character in a Bill. He sets out to give a definition of bread. Instead, he gives a definition of biscuit. It states that bread is a product produced by baking flour mixed with certain substances. That is biscuit. Flour mixed with water and other substances is biscuit. Bread is produced not by baking flour but by baking dough, and dough is not flour. Dough is a substance which, as the result of certain admixtures and certain chemical and biological and physical processes has been converted into something totally different from flour. From some points of view the definition is positively humorous. In another place I am given to understand that the Minister's representative stated that this new definition had been agreed upon with the representatives of the trade, but, as a matter of fact, that is certainly not so, because this week's trade papers declare the definition to be ridiculous. The actual adjective is ridiculous. An article in the "British Baker" of this week suggests that the trade is not likely to offer its congratulations upon the latest effort of the Minister. There follows a couple of columns ridiculing the definition which is now proposed.

    2045
    I should like further to define the word "leaven." I understand that the representative of the Ministry in another place made a complete muddle in this connection and stated that such mixtures as malt, malt extract and other improvers were all included under "wheat," whereas they should have been included under the term "leaven." The trade desires that the term "leaven" should be defined specifically in the Act so that there shall be no question hereafter that malt and malt extracts come under that category. Malt, of course, is not strictly leaven in this sense, but it is an aid to the leavening process and acts as a sort of food for the leaven, whether it is yeast or another substance, and it is this process which accelerates action, and in that sense it can be termed "leaven." I understand that that was what was meant in another place when the statement was made that malt, malt extracts and similar improvers were already included in the Bill under the term "wheat." I should like the Minister to clear up the matter and accept the definition which I have moved. No hon. or right hon. Gentleman in the House, and least of all the Minister, would be prepared to say that he agreed that bread was a product produced by baking flour. It is obviously incorrect and should certainly be remedied.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: It is correct to say that when this matter was discussed in the House on a previous occasion some criticism was made of the definition, and the present Lords Amendment, and the next Amendment in line 10, to leave out "article" and to insert "product" seek to improve the definition. The subject is one of a very technical character, and, in drafting the fresh Amendments, we have consulted the National Association of Bakers and Confectioners. [Interruption.] Anybody may write articles, but the writers do not speak for the National Association of Bakers and Confectioners. My Department and I have taken care to ascertain the views of the association, and we have also consulted the Bakers Association of Northern Ireland. They are satisfied with the wording of this definition. That being so, I would respectfully say to the House that, while I do not claim to have technical knowledge upon this matter, I have taken adequate
    2046
    steps to consult those who ought to know, and as they are satisfied, I think we ought to leave in the proposed definition.
    Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment negatived.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 25, line 24, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 26, at the end, insert:
    "'Flour' means the products produced by the milling of wheat, and includes all such products except substances separated in the milling as wheat offals, and (subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of this Section) where such products as aforesaid are mixed with other substances, whether or not produced by the milling of wheat and whether milled with the wheat or subsequently added, the mixture shall be deemed to be flour;"
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Dr. SALTER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the definition of flour, Grape Nuts, Force and similar productions are included?
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 26, line 41, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 8, leave out "fifteen," and insert instead thereof "seventeen."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Sir J. Gilmour. ]
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: With reference to the appointment of a representative of agricultural workers, we are not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman hopes to make that selection.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: This increase in the number from 15 to 17 gives a wider scope for selection. I cannot commit myself as to the actual selection at the moment, but I have in mind to include as wide a representation of the interests of consumers as possible, and I must leave it at that. Obviously it gives an opportunity for widening the representation, which I think is acceptable to the House generally.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to mean that this increase will enable him to increase the representation of the workers?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: That is a possibility which will have to be considered carefully.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [Lords.]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [Lords.]

    CLAUSE 3.—(Provision regarding ordinances or scholarships in United Free Church of Scotland.)
    Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, after the word "Session," to insert the words:
    "or in any scheme under the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1882, or in any order under the Churches (Scotland) Act, 1905."
    This Clause enables bursaries which might otherwise be limited in their scope to be used in a broader way. One class of bursaries was omitted by mistake, namely, bursaries whose use was decided under the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1882, and we are now seeking to include them by this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In line 21, after the word "scheme" to insert the words "or order."
    In line 29, after the word "scheme," to insert the words "or order."
    In line 31, after the word "scheme," to insert the words "or order."—[Mr. Skelton.]
    Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, at the end,, to insert the words:
    "Provided also that, where any bursary or scholarship which, in pursuance of a deed of declaration under this section is tenable at a Scottish university, is awarded to a student of theology preparing for the ministry of the United Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), any period not exceeding one year during such student's tenure of the bursary or scholarship which he may spend as a student in the college of the United
    2048
    Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) shall, for the purposes of the said deed of declaration, be deemed to be spent at the university."
    The present Bill embodies an arrangement made between the universities and the Church of Scotland and approved subsequently by what is called the United Free Church Continuing, which is the part of the United Free Church which remained separate when the greater part of that body united with the Church of Scotland. Under the arrangement by which these two churches united provision was made for rules by which students should enjoy theological bursaries. One of the terms was that they should enjoy these scholarships or bursaries, even although one of the years in which they were enjoyed was spent not at the university but at their own theological college. That particular provision was overlooked in the framing of the Bill, and I now seek to reintroduce it in order that students may still enjoy these bursaries, as the Church of Scotland intended they should.
    Amendment agreed to.
    King's Consent signified.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. COWAN: As one of the representatives of the Scottish Universities I would Hike to congratulate the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary for Scotland on the fact that they have been able to carry this Measure to its last stage. It must be a matter of special gratification to my colleague, the Undersecretary, that he has been able so early in his official career, to help forward a Measure which will do much to advance the reputation of the Scottish Universities. Brief and simple as the Measure may appear to be, it embodies many years of hard work. It is a, triumph of the art of conciliation applied to practical difficulties. In the past Scottish Universities have had a great reputation in the sphere of theological studies, but alongside the university roll of distinction in that respect there has been another roll of the three colleges outside, and the result has been that there has often been a duplication of work. By this Bill that will be remedied. In future the universities will be able to call to their assistance not members of one denomination only

    2049
    but of all denominations. It has often been said that Scotsmen give most of their free time to the discussion of theological or metaphysical questions. That may or may not be so. But it is quite true that in the field of theology Scotland has had and still has a leading part. I believe that the Bill will lead to a very great advance. The department of theology has always been one of the foremost in the Scottish Universities. We are all agreed that that department is, perhaps, the greatest department to which mankind can devote its intelligence. While I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Undersecretary, I should like to associate with them in those congratulations the men who, for years past, have been carrying on the discussions which have led to the presentation of this Measure. Some of us have personal knowledge of what their efforts have meant. There have been difficulties. It has been necessary to harmonise in this Bill, the interests of the Crown, the interests of the universities and the interests of the churches.
    2050
    As a Scotsman, apart from my position as a representative of the Scottish Universities, I think that the passing of the Bill will mark a great scholastic and academic advance in Scotland and I hope that the Measure will receive the unanimous assent of the House and will have results far beyond even our greatest expectations.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the county borough of Warrington; and for purposes incidental thereto." [Warrington Extension Bill [Lords.]
WARRINGTON EXTENSION BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Report from the Joint Committee, in respect of the Solicitors Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), and Special Report brought up, and read;
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BILLS REPORTED.

  SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provivisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

RHYL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
  BRIDGWATER CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  POLICE (PAY).
  POLICE (PAY).
  CONDER GREEN AND GLASSON DOCK ROAD (CULVERT).
  CONDER GREEN AND GLASSON DOCK ROAD (CULVERT).
SCOTLAND.
  STRAWBEBBY STOCKS (CERTIFICATION).
  STRAWBEBBY STOCKS (CERTIFICATION).
  FURUNCULOSIS.
  FURUNCULOSIS.
  CEYLON (GOVERNOR'S RESERVE POWERS).
  CEYLON (GOVERNOR'S RESERVE POWERS).
  BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, PETERBOROUGH.
  BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, PETERBOROUGH.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SALARIES).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SALARIES).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  REGISTRATION, EXCHANGES.
  REGISTRATION, EXCHANGES.
  COAL MINING INDUSTBY.
  COAL MINING INDUSTBY.
  RIVER NEATH (DRAINAGE).
  RIVER NEATH (DRAINAGE).
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  ORDNANCE SURVEY.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
TRENT NAVIGATION BILL.
Read 2a.
CHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
CAMBRIDGE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
KETTERING GAS BILL.
Read 2a.
WARRINGTON EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

PRODUCERS' POWERS UNDER THE MARKETING ACT.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR rose to call attention to the possible dangers of giving combined producers of a commodity statutory powers under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, to restrict production and restrain trade compulsorily; and to ask the Government what steps are being taken. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I propose to-day to avail myself of the opportunity which is given to members of your Lordships' House in a way which is not possessed by members of another place of raising matters of public interest and importance. I have indicated in the terms of my Notice some of the points which I want to raise, more particularly the new powers which are being given to restrict production and also to interfere with trade—very drastic

389
and very far-reaching powers indeed. It brings us an entirely new conception as to the conduct of business, which is very dangerous, I think. It may be right, and it may be necessary, but at all events I suggest that we ought not to embark upon the use of these powers, or allow them to be adopted, without full consideration of the implications, and without having our eyes opened.
Just over a year ago your Lordships passed the Agricultural Marketing Act. It went through almost without discussion; there was a Second Reading on a Monday, the Committee stage on Thursday and Friday, and the Bill was passed the following Wednesday. I cannot believe that your Lordships realised the far-reaching implications and consequences of that Marketing Act when you let it go through without more detailed examination and criticism. We had not then a National Government. We had a Labour Government and a Labour Government is very much more zealous for bureaucratic control than Governments of other complexions.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Well, they used to be any way. At any rate I think the noble Earl will agree that they do not accept the economic laws of supply and demand in the way that we do. This Act is based entirely on the negation of those laws. There is another point which we ought to bear in mind. For a period of years now we have had falling prices. World prices of commodities have gone down and down. That has hit traders and producers very much and in bad times, in times of real slump, people will snatch at almost any remedy. They will snatch at remedies which they would turn down without a moment's consideration if times were normal. When the Marketing Act was passed the National Farmers' Union were bitterly hostile. As far as I have been able to ascertain the National Farmers' Union, representing the organised agricultural producers of this country, were only won over to the operation of this Act by a combination of a bait and a threat, by the suggestion that they could only have Protection if they consented to work the Marketing Act. I am afraid I cannot absolve the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, entirely in this matter. I could quote some of
390
his speeches with interest. The noble Earl says "Hear, hear," so he accepts that. The farmers were won over reluctantly to the acceptance of this Marketing Act, not on its merits, but because it seemed to be the only chance of getting a form of Protection.
I have searched the laws of other countries and I cannot find any instance of an Act like this in the laws of other countries. I cannot find that any country has an Act as drastic as this. There is no such Act in Denmark, nor is there in Holland. It is true that in one of the Dominions there was an Act which was not altogether dissimilar, but that has been repealed. The only Act, as far as I have been able to ascertain, which had any similarity to this very drastic Act was one which has been repealed, so that to-day no country has these terrifying powers which are now being brought into operation here. I cannot help thinking that the measure was passed through a confusion between co-operation and compulsion. The whole Act is based on compulsion although it was introduced as a measure to encourage co-operation.
There was a further confusion of thought—a confusion between preparation for marketing and the actual control of distribution. Let me explain what I mean. Everyone who has studied agriculture or trade will agree that it is in the interests of producers and consumers to standardise and grade the products put on the market. A great deal has been done in that direction under marketing schemes for apples, eggs and other things. That is most desirable and I think it ought to be supported and developed, but it is entirely different from the powers contained in this Act. I will show presently that inevitably the Government must be brought in when a central body is given complete power to control distribution, and I think that is not proper for a marketing scheme. On the question of co-operation I should like to remind your Lordships that Sir Horace Plunkett —than whom no one has done more for co-operation in the British Isles—wrote a letter to The Times a year ago protesting against this very clause in the Act to which I am calling the attention of your Lordships to-day. He was in favour of co-operation but entirely opposed to the compulsory powers in the then Bill which are now embodied in the Act.

391
I do not want this afternoon to detain your Lordships by going in detail through the powers of the Agricultural Marketing Act; but I would point out that there are powers to regulate sales, to tell a producer where he is to sell his goods, what kind or variety of goods he is to produce, to fix prices at which he may sell, to prohibit ally price being cheaper than the minimum price fixed under the Act, to regulate the quantity sold—which means, of course, the quantity which may be produced—and so to limit production and to pervent new producers coming into the field. A central body is given power to prevent a new man coming into an industry. These are the real danger points in the Marketing Act—the price-fixing power and the power to limit production. Neither of these powers is essential to a genuine measure to encourage cooperation.
For a time I was at the Ministry of Food and it is partly from the experience I gained there of the control of foodstuffs that I have been brought to realise the danger of a measure like this. We found at the Ministry of Food that when Government or a central body comes in and starts fixing prices there is no end to it. You have to go on fixing further prices. You may start by fixing the prices charged by retailers. You have then to fix the prices charged by wholesalers and producers. I know perfectly well that that is part of the policy of a Socialist Government and of the Labour Party—price fixing at every stage; but I hesitate to believe that it has really now been adopted as part of the policy of the Party to which most of your Lordships belong. There were other lessons to be learned at the Ministry of Food. One was that where the Government steps in to fix prices it is easier for inefficiency to continue. Government by action cannot kill the less efficient. Government, when it fixes prices, has to fix them at such a figure as to enable inefficiency to make a profit. You wipe out the ordinary rules of competition which knock out the inefficient. You also have red tape.
One of the lessons we learned in our control of food during the War was that prices tended to go up. I fully recognise that we have to have an increase in prices and I think that is desirable, but we do not want an excessive rise because
392
if we get that there is a real risk that the majority of voters in this country will treat our efforts to help agriculture in the same way as the clauses of the Corn Production Act were treated—by repealing them. The conditions of war and peace are entirely different. During the War the Ministry of Food did all it could to increase production when fixing prices. The Marketing Act and the schemes produced so far are an attempt to limit production—the absolute opposite. The one thing we wanted to do was to stimulate production.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Will the noble Lord allow me? Is it right to say that it is to limit production? Is not the wording "more efficient production"? I suggest that it is hardly fair to say "limit."
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The noble Lord, if he looks, will find powers to regulate the quantity which may be sold, and if you regulate the quantity a man may sell, you must limit the quantity he can produce. I shall quote later a scheme produced under the Act giving chapter and verse for the powers to limit production. There is another point. During the War it was relatively easy to bring in this very drastic measure of "Dora" control. There was no foreign competition. The submarines limited the importation of competitive foodstuffs. Now, it is inevitable that with a minimum price you have to prohibit the importation of any competing article at a lesser figure; you must restrain trade; create an artificial blockade; you do not put up a tariff but you prohibit importation altogether.
There is a further inevitable step. If you say to a producer that he shall not sell what he produces at a lesser figure than a figure fixed by a statutory board, you have to guarantee him a market and ensure that somebody will take his produce off his hands. You cannot say to a grower of potatoes that he shall not sell below a certain figure and then not see that his potatoes are taken off his hands. If he cannot get whatever it is the sum may be, he will dispose of them at any figure. Inevitably, therefore, if you fix a minimum price you have to guarantee to take all the articles which the producers of that particular product grow

393
off their hands. It is because of that that the next step is also inevitable—namely, you have to prohibit imports of commodities in order that there may be a guaranteed sale of the whole output of the producers in your own country. I am perfectly certain that most people in this country and perhaps some members of your Lordships' House, have not followed the consequences and the implications of the policy inevitably associated with the Marketing Act and the corollary—namely, the system of quotas.
There are three requirements, it seems to me, in production, in trade and commerce: efficiency, fair profit and fair price. How are we to achieve those? In the past we have done so under the capitalist system by encouraging initiative and competition. We have got efficiency by competition which knocked out the inefficient, and it is that competition which has given us not only efficiency but a reasonably low price. Recently we have seen an entirely new conception in Russia. There, under Communism, competition has been wiped out, the State has come in, taken over the whole of industry, production and distribution. In Russia efficiency is achieved under absolute Government control and any individual who does not come up to the standard is put on one side. Land not used in the national interest according to the opinion of those at the centre is given over to other purposes. But under this Act we have a third conception, which I suggest is much more dangerous than even the Communist view of the conduct of business. Under the Marketing Act we prevent competition. We do not have full Government control, but there is the maximum of interference, and the inevitable result of the Act is to protect inefficiency.
I venture to suggest that if that is the way in which the Marketing Act is going to work out it is a more dangerous form of conducting our business even than Communism. Let me examine the way in which these powers can be used by bringing to your notice the first scheme produced in England under the Marketing Act, the hop scheme. Under that a central monopoly board is established and that central board has power to tell each producer of hops where he is to
394
sell his hops and the price he is to be given. There is power to limit production under the hop scheme. An amazing power under that scheme is that the central board have power to burn surplus hops. That is a very extraordinary thing, because these powers are available for other things, bacon, eggs, poultry and fruit, and here under the Marketing Act a central board is given power to destroy the surplus. Those are pretty desperate and far-reaching powers. The whole aim of the Agricultural Marketing Act is to "trustify" producers. Across the Atlantic in the United States of America the whole aim and efforts of the Legislature have been to control any attempts of a trust to restrain trade. Here we reverse that. Under the Agricultural Marketing Act we say to producers: "Provided you trustify yourselves you can restrain trade." I venture to suggest again that those are powers that I do not believe your Lordships fully realised were in the Agricultural Marketing Act.
Then in the Act there is a consumers' committee. Now, there is a very interesting point on that. If you look at Section 9 you will find that "persons who purchase the product, or commodities" (which are regulated) "for the purpose of any trade or industry carried on by them" are specifically excluded from this consumers' committee. That is to say that, where hops are concerned, the brewers are not allowed representation on the consumers' committee. The brewers are placed entirely at the mercy of a monopoly of hop growers. If you look at the Dyestuffs Act, which was passed in 1920, you will find there an entirely different procedure was adopted. There the consumers' committee was to consist of five persons concerned in the trades in which the goods are used, three persons concerned in the manufacture of goods, and three others. That is to say that those industries that were dependent upon dyestuffs in that case—or in this case hops or milk, or whatever it might be—were given specific representation on the consumers' committee. I think they ought to have it. They are vitally concerned in this question of production and the prices which are charged.
Take, for instance, the question of pigs. If there is a scheme for the control of

395
pigs under the Agricultural Marketing Act, does it mean that the bacon curers are not to have any say as to the price which is to be charged? Take the ease of milk. We are told that there is to be a scheme under the Act for dealing with milk. Does that mean that the makers of cheese are to be specifically by the Act kept off the committee which is to be concerned with the fixing of prices? I cannot help suspecting that there is there a tinge of that suspicion of private manufacturers which one found in the minds of the late Government.
In order that your Lordships should see that I am not expressing fears which other people do not feel I would like to draw your attention to what happened the other day. I am going to quote from The Times of May 6. A case was heard in the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, before the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Avory, and Mr. Justice Macnaghten. There Mr. Davis moved on behalf of a gentleman for a rule nisi for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the Minister of Agriculture from proceeding, with an alleged scheme for the marketing of English hops. Let me read some of the things which counsel said:
"Counsel contended that the scheme seemed to provide for everything except the marketing of hops. The producer was to be prevented from marketing his own hops; if he delivered them to the hoard he was deprived of his property in them without compensation; the board was not bound to buy his hops or to sell them … If the hoard did sell the producer's hops he was not entitled to the price, but only to a proportion determined by the board of all the hops, good, bad, and indifferent, sold by them.
"The result was that the efficient producer of first-quality hops would find himself subsidising the producer of inferior hops for which there was no market. ….
"Counsel submitted that the scheme was not a marketing scheme, but a scheme … which deprived the producers of their rights in and over their own property. …"
It is not surprising that the Lord Chief Justice granted that rule. I have quoted that in order that your Lordships should see that I have not been exaggerating when I indicated the very serious consequences connected with the Agricultural Marketing Act.
I have there examined the first scheme which was produced in this country. You probably know the reasons which
396
have caused hops to be the first commodity to be dealt with under the Agricultural Marketing Act. There is a glut of hops. There are two reasons for that. First, during the War there was control of hops and no importation of foreign hops. So the growth of hops was increased and kept up. Since then you have had the importation of foreign hops, and, in addition to that, the consumption of hops has gone down. That is an occurrence which happens every day in all forms of business. You have ups and downs; you have surpluses and you have deficiencies, and the ordinary laws of supply and demand work out. One year you have a profit, another year you have a loss, and gradually the supply adjusts itself to the demand. You do not have to bring in these drastic new "Dora" powers to deal with a situation like that. The real difficulty where hops are concerned is due to the fact that an attempt has been made to keep all hop-growers alive and in existence. If you have an over-production it is inevitable there should be a reduction in acreage. The other day, Lord De La Warr used a phrase, which I challenged—"a balanced industry." It seems to me there is exactly the same fallacy here. If you have x acres under hops, then it is all right, but if that acreage is reduced then you have an unbalanced industry, even though that reduction may be turned over to fruit or anything else.
Let me examine this in detail. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that there is over-production of any article. Normally, under the ordinary economic laws of supply and demand that over-production gets righted through the less efficient producers giving up and turning over to something else. But that is not the procedure which is suggested under the hops scheme which has been published. Under that scheme every grower of hops is given a quota—a quota based on the production of the previous two or three years. And, in view of the fact that there has to be a total reduction, the production of each hop grower is reduced proportionately. The efficient hop grower has to bear the same reduction as the inefficient hop grower. What is the effect of that? It means that the efficient hop grower has to carry the inefficient. By efficiency and inefficiency I refer to the price at which they can

397
market their commodities. This leads to real wastage. You say to the efficient producer that he has to reduce his output and thereby you increase his overhead expenses. That is obvious.
You say to every hop grower that he has to reduce his acreage by a certain amount. I think I saw somewhere that the total acreage had to be reduced 8,000 acres. It is immaterial what the figure may be. Normally, the thing to do would be to take out of hop growing the 8,000 acres which were least capable of producing the hops at the market price; but that is not the proposal of the hop scheme. Every producer has to have an equal reduction of acreage—half-an-acre here, an acre there, two acres somewhere else. There is no chance whatever of using that half acre, that acre, those two acres, which are to be taken out of hop cultivation. Under the ordinary laws of supply and demand you would use that acreage for other purposes. If you have a hop field of 40 acres and you tell the hop grower that he is not to grow this half acre, acre, or two acres, obviously he cannot economically grow apples, pears or raspberries on that restricted acreage. The net result of this hops scheme, this attempt to meet over-production or a glut, inevitably must be a real wastage of acreage which otherwise might be available for growing another product. I venture to suggest that I may not have been so much wrong when I said that in comparison with a scheme like this even the very drastic system adopted in Russia is less likely to lead to waste and inefficiency—not that I favour that system.
What is one to say about this scheme? I am going to quote from the National Farmers' Union Record for April, the official publication of the National Farmers' Union. I find in that publication that this hop scheme is not the product of the National Farmers' Union. I find that it was not produced by the branches of the National Farmers' Union. I find that it is the product of a Member of Parliament—I do not want to mention names—that it was discussed at an informal meeting not under the auspices of the National Farmers' Union even, and that it was presented to the Ministry of Agriculture by certain gentlemen in their individual capacities. That is what I read in the National Farmers' Union Record for the month of April.
398
What is the origin of this scheme? I find that during the past month the Member of Parliament who appears to be the author of this scheme, has gone around the country accompanied by representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, conducting a vigorous propaganda among the hop growers. Those gentlemen have explained in general what the hop growers ought to do and the enormous benefits that would be available for them if they would work this Act. I have read some of their speeches delivered up and down the country. It is natural and obvious that before submitting this scheme to the National Farmers' Union the gentleman in question would have consulted the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture. He was going round the country with them. I do not say that the Ministry agreed to every letter and comma in the scheme, but it is obvious that when it was published it did not take the Marketing Department or certain members of the Ministry completely by surprise. The amazing thing is that the Ministry did not nip this scheme in the bud before it was ever produced, which shows how far bureaucracy goes when you give it full powers. I have purposely gone into the details of this scheme because—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is the scheme law now?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: It was held up the other day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is it held up by Parliament?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: No, by the Lord Chief Justice, in the High Court. Still, there is to be an inquiry, and it is to be submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture and then there is to be a poll. I am only dealing with the scheme as it was originally submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture. I do not want to go into the details of another scheme that has been produced under the Marketing Act in Scotland dealing with raspberries. If it were necessary to convince your Lordships of the danger of this Act I could do it. I notice that violent protests are being made by fruit growers in the fruit growers' newspapers against the raspberry scheme. Not unnaturally many of the fruit growers desire to dispose of their own products, and they are pre-

399
pared to do that without the raspberry scheme as the hop growers are without the hops scheme. The marketing scheme is not, as I say, for marketing purposes; it is to restrict production, to set up trusts, to kill competition, and to force the efficient to subsidise the inefficient. It is based on a confusion between preparation for marketing and the control of distribution. I am all in favour of the first, but I consider that the second is very dangerous.
In the Notice which I have placed on the Paper I refer to the power to restrain trade. I think it is necessary that we should try to see the significance of the Agricultural Marketing Act and its implications. If you fix a minimum price, if you decide where a producer is to sell his product, if you tell him that he may not sell below that fixed minimum price you have to guarantee him a market. You have to undertake to take off his hands the product he has grown. You have to buy it from him. So you get Government control. Supposing the central purchasing body is not able to dispose of the product at the price at which it buys it and there is a loss, what is to happen?
There is the further point that if you fix a minimum price for food, for articles grown in this country, you have to prohibit the importation of any competitive articles which may be sold here at a lower figure. That is to say, you have to prohibit imports altogether. If you tell the cheese-maker that he shall not sell his cheese for less than a particular number of shillings you cannot allow the cheese-maker in another country to sell his cheese here at a lower figure. It is because of that fact that we hear so much about quotas. I want to say at the outset that I am a supporter of tariff duties. If you compare tariff duties with quotas I say emphatically that quotas are far more dangerous and much more calculated to put up prices than tariff duties are. You can estimate the probable effect of tariff duties on prices. No man can foretell the effect of a quota on prices. I think it is necessary that anybody who still sticks to the policy of Free Trade should realise that quotas are a far more drastic form of Protection that tariff duties are or could be.
Let us examine these prohibitions of trade which are called quotas which in-
400
evitably must follow from the Marketing Act, and let us examine them in terms of bacon. If you have a quota for foreign bacon you can restrict the amount of bacon which comes into this country. That is to say, the English bacon grower knows that the extent of the competition which he has to bear from foreign sources is restricted and limited. The whole object of quotas, as of tariffs, is to protect the home producer and enable him to put up prices. So that one of the first results of the Marketing Act plus quotas is to put up the home prices. On the other hand, you are saying to the Danish producer of bacon that he is to be allowed in future to sell less than he is selling now, and the amount he is to be allowed to sell is specified and restricted in the quota. But at the same time as you tell him you are to restrict the sales, you give him a guaranteed market within the quota. It is obvious that within the quota the Dane is going to put up the price. You give him a sure market and no competition within his quota. The Danes will not compete with each other; there will be one selling agency. The Danes will not fear competition from Poland or Czecho-Slovakia or the American bacon exporter. They-are guaranteed a market in England—that is to say, they can put up the price, certainly to the same extent as the British producer puts up his price. You eliminate foreign competition altogether.
It seems to me that as between the various forms of Protection—tariff duties, quotas and import boards—quotas are far and away the worst; in fact I believe that if we were to find ourselves saddled with a comprehensive system of quotas, import boards must follow inevitably. I think you would be driven to have one single monopoly, a Government buying agency. As we know, quotas have not been brought forward on their merits, but as a device to escape the odium of what are called food taxes, which are associated in the popular mind with tariff duties. I have indicated—and I think anybody will agree—that quotas must put up the price of food, or whatever be the article that is protected, far more than a tariff duty would do. The result of the combination of the Marketing Act plus quotas is to restrict internal competition and prohibit foreign competition. I can-

401
not help thinking that the result will be to force prices up. Prices will soar, and I see a real danger to agriculture in that. I said just now I thought it was necessary for prices to rise. World prices of world commodities are too low, but if we take artificial action to force prices up unreasonably and unnecessarily I believe there is a real risk of the consumers, who represent the majority of electors, turning down all the efforts which we are making to protect and help agriculture.
There is another aspect. We are now, I hope, at the end of the cycle of falling prices. I cannot tell, of course—nobody can tell—but we have had falling prices so long that I think it likely they may soon tend to rise. But let us examine the position. What would have happened supposing we had had a marketing scheme in operation seven years ago when prices were still high. Examine what would have happened then. You, would have had this central board of producers fixing minimum prices. World prices drop a little, say, from 20 s. to 18 s. or 15 s. Nobody knows whether that drop is going to be continued, and consequently the whole aim of the board of producers is going to be to stabilise prices, as it is called—keep them up artificially, and not let them go down. A year after, prices go down a little more, to 12 s. or 10 s. Still the board of producers try to keep prices here above world prices. There is another drop to 8s. or 7s. or whatever the figure may be. Then inevitably the consumers are going to demand a reduction of prices. When you have this conflict between organised producers to whom you have given these great powers of the Marketing Act and the general consuming public, inevitably the Government is going to intervene and fix prices. I cannot think of anything more serious or more dangerous than to have the Government and Parliament fixing prices at all stages of all classes of the food of this country. We did it during the war. I think we should be very cautious in creating machinery which must mean that the Government has to intervene at some future time and fix prices.
I have been compelled to deal—and I indicated in the terms of my Notice that I intended to deal—not only with marketing but also with quotas, because the one is a necessary corollary of the other.
402
I hope the noble Earl who will reply for the Government will tell us the extent, to which we are being committed in this development of quotas, the inevitable corollary of the Marketing Act. I cannot help thinking it is bad for traders and bad for producers, and dangerous for agriculture. At the moment I am convinced, reading many of the discussions which take place at farmers' meetings, that farmers themselves have forgotten for the moment the interests of the consumers, and that there is a real danger of their forcing up prices excessively high. Some rise is necessary, but we have to see that we do not enable that price to be forced up too high. I would urge the Government even now not to try to go as fast as possible, but, in dealing with marketing, to extend the excellent principle of grading and standardising produce. That is all to the good. It helps the producer and the consumer, but let them not try to bring in to their full the "Dora" powers given under the Marketing Act. As regards protecting some home producers from the competition of foreign producers, I would ask them to examine more sympathetically tariff duties as being preferable to the system of quotas.
I have spoken as one who is convinced absolutely and genuinely of the importance of agriculture. I want to develop agriculture, but I realise the danger of proceeding along the wrong lines, the danger of creating a reaction. I have tried to examine the trend and the tendencies of the Government's policy as I have seen it. If I am wrong the noble Earl will indicate where I am wrong. If I am right, then before we go too far I hope we shall stop. I apologise for having spoken so long. The reason I have gone into such detail is that I am anxious that we should not drift into a position where trade will be caught in a vice without being fully aware of the consequences of our action.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I am sure from what the noble Viscount said in the earlier part of his speech that the matters with which he has been dealing are sub judice, and that as yet no decision has been given by the tribunal before whom this question has been brought. That being so, I venture to think it is extremely unusual, perhaps I might go further and say extremely im-

403
proper, either in this House or elsewhere, to discuss questions which are the subject of pending judicial proceedings. I find some difficulty in arriving at any conclusion at what the object of the noble Viscount is. Does he expect this House or does he expect the Government while matters are still sub judice to take action? That I conceive would be quite impossible. Or does he expect those words which he has uttered to-day to reach the mind of the Lord Chief Justice and the other members of the tribunal before whom this case is being heard and possibly have the effect of convincing that tribunal to go in the direction he wants? I think the Lord Chief Justice would do nothing of the sort. He may or may not know that the matter has been brought forward in this House, but if he does he certainly will not read the speeches and if he does he will not be the least influenced by them. I therefore for my part feel that it is extremely unfortunate that this matter should have been brought up pending judicial decision. It is not in conformity with the practice of this country to discuss a matter which is sub judice, while the decision has not been given.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I do not wish to intervene in the debate for more than a few moments or to stand between the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and your Lordships' House, but I cannot quite agree with my noble friend Lord Danes-fort that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has done anything improper by bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. After all, the appeal to the law, I take it, is on a technical point as to whether the hop marketing scheme is according to an Act of Parliament or not and surely we are not to be prevented from discussing the scheme because of some technical question which may be before the Courts of Law. The general principle put forward in the extremely able speech of my noble friend Lord Astor is one which I think we are quite able to discuss apart from a technical point which may very properly be under judicial investigation.
I rather think that my noble friend is perhaps a little unduly pessimistic. In the first place this Act is a recent Act which was passed less than twelve months ago. I know that in another place at any rate, because I was on the Com-
404
mittee, we spent weeks and weeks in Committee upstairs going through the Bill, not merely clause by clause but word by word and almost comma by comma, and this is the result. It may be the unfortunate result, but it is the result of the combined wisdom of a very recent Parliament and at any rate in Committee in another place great modifications were made in the original Bill and large numbers of members belonging to the same political Party as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, were brought round to the conclusion that, although there might be in this Act many possible dangers which we feared politically, yet the state of agriculture was such, and is such, that we were prepared to face those dangers in order to do something for agriculture.
The Committee, as I understood it, wanted to try to get something done in this country on the lines of the co-operative system which has been such a success in Ireland, and which was supported by Sir Horace Plunkett to whom tribute has been paid to-day. The reason for bringing forward the Bill, which became the Marketing Act, was that the British farmer, fortunately in one respect is very individualistic, but unfortunately in another respect is so individualistic that he will not co-operate with his fellow farmers to get a decent price for the stuff he produces. The middle-man gets most of the profit and this Act is a genuine attempt to enable the farmers—in the end by compulsion, if necessary—to come together and to secure for them a decent price for the product which they put on the market. I would point out to my noble friend, when he suggests that nothing can be done to modify any bad features in this Act, that no scheme can come into effect without an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. If either House of Parliament disagrees, for instance, with the hop scheme when it comes up, that scheme falls to the ground and another scheme will have to be put forward for consideration by both Houses of Parliament.
It is not the case that a scheme can be imposed on industry by a bureaucratic Government Department. No scheme can be even put forward in Parliament unless it has been approved by more than two-thirds of the people engaged in the industry and unless it concerns more than

405
two-thirds of the commodity which those people engaged in the industry produce. I quite agree with the noble Viscount that there are many insidious socialistic principles embodied in this Act, but the plight of agriculture was so bad last year, and is so bad, that we ought to judge each scheme on its merits, and if we consider it will bring about more efficient marketing and secure a better price to the producer of the fruits of the soil then we ought to adopt it even though it may violate some of the principles which we have held throughout the whole of our lives.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, after the last speech to which we have listened I really feel that there is very little left for me to say, but I might perhaps, in confirmation of what the noble Lord has just said about the consideration that was given to this Act before it was finally put on the Statute Book, point out that this Act was given very full consideration in another place and that, although it passed through your Lordships' House in a comparatively short time, there was considerable discussion and there was actually a Division challenged and a vote taken. Neither amongst the speakers in the debate nor amongst those who voted for or against the Bill can I find the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, so no doubt the passion which he at present feels about this piece of legislation had not begun to generate in his mind at that time. He appeared to be seeking to make political capital out of the fact that the measure was brought in by a Labour Government. If one thing is more pleasing than another in regard to the position which I hold, the position of working for agriculture, it is that in both Houses of Parliament we find amongst members extremely little political prejudice and a very great desire to do as much as they can for agriculture on the merits of the case.
The noble Viscount said that the whole Act was based on compulsion. The only compulsion contained in this Act is the compulsion of the majority of the producers of a commodity to ensure that the minority of producers of that commodity do not ruin the majority of their colleagues. He went on to say that this
406
compulsion would be used to restrict production in the industry. I would challenge him to show in one single instance the manner in which this Act will enable producers to restrict production. Whether you have a Marketing Act or not it is an economic fact that where there is overproduction of a commodity production will have to be curtailed. That is going on at the present moment with regard to the crop which he mentioned—namely, hops. The position is that if there is over-production there is a surplus, and so far as that surplus has to be dealt with under a marketing scheme it is for the marketing board to endeavour to find a means of disposing of that surplus to the best advantage, and to find a fair method of assessing the way in which the loss due to the existence of that surplus should be borne amongst the producers. Of course a lower price has to be taken for a commodity with a surplus than for a commodity which is in full demand. A lower price will indirectly bring about decreased production of the commodity.
The noble Viscount must forgive me if I do not attempt to carry this argument into a discussion of the particular crop to which he has referred. The noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, has already told your Lordships that a rule nisi has been granted in the High Court and the matter is therefore sub judice of the High Court. What the noble Lord told you was not the full case but merely what one particular counsel told the Court and, as we all know, counsel have their instructions. They are told what to say and they accordingly say what they are paid to say. Why the noble Viscount should blame the Ministry of Agriculture for not interfering with this scheme I cannot imagine, particularly as the charge he made was that it was our bureaucracy that made us forbear to intervene in the details of the scheme. Of course we have nothing to do with the scheme until it is officially submitted. In so far as our officials can be of use to agriculturists in explaining any portions of the various legislative Acts affecting agriculture it is their duty to be as helpful as they can be, but beyond that we really take no responsibility. Perhaps I might say that this particular case of hops is really a good example of what tremendous safeguards there are before any scheme can be put into opera-

407
tion. But I will not detail safeguards to your Lordships again, because the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, has already drawn your attention to them.
Where I suggest the noble Viscount goes wrong is in assuming that, because in one case the Marketing Act has to deal with marketing of a crop in which actual over-production exists and in which therefore any scheme for orderly marketing must incidentally discourage disorderly or over production, all other schemes dealing with other commodities must also tend directly or indirectly to limit production. I would like to try to impress on the noble Viscount that, in our view, if we are to increase the production of agricultural produce in this country organisation is essential and that organisation cannot be made effective unless it is operated under some such Act as the Marketing Act. The whole purpose of organising agricultural marketing is to make possible greater consumption of British-grown foodstuffs through reduction of wasteful charges of distribution and through increasing the ease with which they can be handled by large-scale buyers. That is the way to get at increased production—through increased consumption. Neither increased production nor increased consumption can be obtained unless the market is attacked by organised industry with an orderly plan able to guarantee goods of first-class, uniform quality in quantities which can be relied upon.
The noble Viscount asked why could we not press forward with our standardisation and grading work. We are pressing forward as fast as we can with the increased emphasis we place on the grading and standardisation of agricultural produce. But there is a limit to what we can do simply by tackling the subject from that point of view. The individual can produce first-class stuff on his own, but in many cases the individual cannot afford to grade it or pack it suitably to meet the requirements of the market, and he cannot give a large buyer that guarantee of continuity which is essential if the demands of the market are to be satisfied. Therefore, I say that organisation is absolutely essential if we are going to do any effective work, and I repeat that organisation cannot be made effective unless it is conducted in many cases—I do not generalise about
408
every commodity—under the powers of the Marketing Act.
The noble Viscount says that farmers in other countries have organised without legislative compulsion. That is so. It is true that in Denmark, which we always hear spoken of as the most progressive country in regard to co-operative development, they have not these legislative powers. Why? Because they do not need them. They have the compulsion of having to serve an export market. The Danish farmer knows he is not going to get his butter and cheese to the British market unless it goes to the co-operative factory; and I challenge the noble Viscount to dispute this—that in no single country has co-operative action made any really effective contribution to agricultural prosperity—I will not say he cannot mention individual cases of success—excepting for purposes of export for which it is easy to organise co-operative effort. We have an infinitely more difficult problem in this country of organising agricultural producers because they do not have to get their goods through the bottle-neck of the port. Put in a nutshell what we tried to do in the Marketing Act is to create artificially by legislation those conditions that exist for the farmer abroad who is exporting goods to the British market.
Does the noble Viscount really want us to return to the sort of effort of agricultural organisation that has been going on for the last twenty, thirty or forty years with practically no effect? Can he point in this country to any really successful co-operative effort of a character sufficient to alter the agricultural system in this country? The noble Viscount has been concerned with the work of the National Milk Publicity Council. Why is it that the income of the Council is only about £7,000 a year? It is that on the basis of voluntary contributions the milk producer knows that the contribution he makes to publicity such as that can only be used to advertise milk generally, and will just as likely help to sell his neighbour's milk as be of any use to him. The only hope even for such a modified scheme is that every producer should contribute fairly according to his production.
Why cannot milk prices in this country be sucessfully negotiated under a

409
national scheme? It is for the reason that those endeavouring to negotiate those prices on behalf of the farmer in the past have known that a large proportion of the milk has probably already been sold at a lower price than that for which they are endeavouring to stand out. Why do milk producers in cheese areas disorganise the fluid milk market? It is because they are unable, or were unable before this Act, to get together in any organised form to guarantee supplies to the cheese factories. It was for these reasons that the National Farmers' Union, having fought this Bill when it was introduced, changed their minds, and not merely, as the noble Viscount says, because of the bribes that he suggests I and other members of the Government held out to them; though admittedly the fact was of importance that this Government was in a position to tell the farmers for the first time that, if they did organise, we would see to it that unregulated and disorganised importation from abroad would not be allowed to break up the efforts which they had made to organise themselves in this country. Why have bacon factories failed in the past? Because, among many other reasons, they have not been able to have any guarantee of supplies. I do not expect there are many of us who are interested in agriculture who have not had the unfortunate experience at some time of investing our money in bacon factories which we have seen ruined, partly, among other reasons, because they have had nothing but farmers' old sows to deal with.
I have tried in a few words to put before your Lordships a few of the points which make this compulsory power over the minority so essential if agricultural co-operation is to be made effective. There is one last point. I would like to ask the noble Viscount what really it is that he wants to do for agriculture. The other day I had the privilege of introducing here the Wheat Bill, and the noble Viscount, for reasons which were very logical and most interesting, criticised that measure. One of the main criticisms that I have always heard of the policy of artificially stimulating particular crops, has been that you are not really going to help agriculture that way because you have to make agriculture more efficient and to improve its market. Therefore I did hope at least that the
410
noble Viscount would be prepared to support the Government who, while helping particular growers who are specially depressed, are at the same time endeavouring to bring methods of organisation into the marketing of agricultural produce.
I would suggest to the noble Viscount that negation is not sufficient. I have read the noble Viscount's book, and I was very interested—we must all have been who read it—in the many facts that he laid before us about the agricultural situation, but I read his book in vain for a single grain of hope of really dealing with the situation with which we are faced. Certainly on this problem of marketing, where he talked very pleasantly about the benefits of co-operation, he showed us no way whatsoever of getting the farmers to combine. And now here he comes and attacks the one Act that has, after thirty or forty years of fruitless propaganda, at last made it possible for the farmer to organise his marketing successfully. In the past farmers have been criticised because they did not organise. I venture to suggest that until they had this Act on the Statute Book they were really very wise because they had not powers at their command with which to make their action effective.
The noble Viscount has spoken of dangers. I have tried to answer the noble Viscount on the main danger that he foresees, the danger of restricted production. The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, has answered him to a great extent by pointing out the tremendous safeguards that are contained for the minority of producers, for the consumer, and for the rest of the community in this Act. But, more important than all that, again I ask the noble Viscount what is the alternative, and I suggest to him that he has to choose between effective organisation and the existing chaos. Organisation admittedly means power; power admittedly means the power to do harm as well as the power to do good; and it is for those in the industry, whether we are working in the Ministry, or whether we are in Parliament, or whether we are out in the country among farmers, to see to it that we help to direct this power into the most useful channel.
We are attempting as a Government to build up a planned and organised in-

411
dustry capable of realising its responsibilities, producing for the market what the market wants in the form that the market demands it, and on that basis we believe that we are most effectively proceeding for the increased production which the noble Viscount and all of us most want to see. Fundamentally, if we are going to get any increase of production in this country agriculture must have security. The Government by their acts during the last few months have attempted to give to agriculture one form of security, but we are also determined to help it to get into a state of efficiency and organisation so that it can satisfy the markets, and thereby prove to the public, no matter what Government happens to be in power in the future, that it pays them to safeguard the interests and the position of the farmer. And the only effective way, we believe, in which we can do that, as we know from experience, is to organise the farmer and to allow him to organise effectively through the powers that are given to him under the Agricultural Marketing Act.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, with your permission I would like to deal with some of the points raised. First of all Lord Danesfort. I think the noble Lord will remember that I dealt very fully with the Act. I tried to deal with the dangers as I understood them. I merely quoted the hop scheme to substantiate that what I had been saying myself was possible under the Act. I fully realise that the scheme is not through. I simply quoted it to show that I had not misrepresented what might be done under the Act, and I was trying to indicate what I considered to be the dangers of the Act. The same powers may be extended to other things, eggs, milk, bacon, and fruits. He said he did not know what the object of the debate was. One of the few things that we really can do effectively in this House is to discuss matters of public interest, and there is nothing which is interesting the public so much at the present moment as agriculture. We have not had many real, ample discussions on agriculture. I think this is the first opportunity we have had of discussing what the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, calls the organisation of agriculture. I really do not think he should criticise
412
me for raising this point for the first time. And certainly I do not remember that there has been any attempt to examine quotas. I am very sorry that the noble Earl has said nothing about quotas, which, as I pointed out, are an inevitable corollary of the Agricultural Marketing Act.
Lord Mount Temple referred to the safeguard in the poll of growers. It is going to be very difficult for all the growers, who have to vote by postcard, to understand all the details and the implications of a complicated scheme such as the hop scheme. They go to a meeting, they are told "This is the way to get better prices, vote for it, and you will get a better price." It is quite obvious that they will vote without fully understanding the implications, the dangers and the difficulties. That is one of the reasons why I purposely raised this debate. The noble Earl twitted me for not having made a protest a year ago. I grant that I have a measure of responsibility, like all of your Lordships who did not protest then. I say quite frankly that I had not thought out all the implications, but I foresaw some of them. In fact, I told the noble Earl at a private conversation I had with him that there were certain parts of the Bill concerning which I had considerable apprehension. They were those very points which I have indicated as the real danger points in the Act. I do not object to the Act as a whole, but I have tried to indicate that there are certainly two powers—that to fix prices and that to limit production—which I consider to be really dangerous and hazardous.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I do not dissent from the noble Viscount, indeed, I am not sure that I could; but will he point out where there is the power to limit production? It may be there, but I have not discovered it.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I was going to deal with that.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not want to intervene, but I hope that my noble friend Lord Astor will not deal at very great length with this. I, as in some sense the custodian of the rules of your Lordships' House, ought to point out that he has no right of reply upon

413
asking a Question. My noble friend was challenged upon one or two points and I think your Lordships will consider that it is only reasonable that he should have an opportunity of answering them. But perhaps I ought to enter a protest against there being anything like a formal reply to a debate when, according to the rules of the House, no right of reply exists.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I was not attempting to reply and I indicated at the outset of these remarks that I was only speaking with the consent of your Lordships. I was not going to provide an alternative for the noble Earl and when he threw out the challenge I did not see how I could satisfy him. I am fully conscious that I have taken up a great deal of time and I was purposely only trying to deal with the different points that have been raised. To return to the point that I did not vote or protest against the Act, I thought that where a Socialist measure was concerned I could leave the rights and liberties of the subject in the hands of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, and others, who would protect the rights and liberties of the subject without my doing anything.
The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, asked me about the powers to restrict production. Take the hop scheme. If he will study that scheme he will see that the central board has power to fix the quota—namely, to say what amount of hops shall be marketed. That is restricting production because there is to be no market for anything beyond the quota.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: It is under the Act?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: It is a scheme under the Act using the powers of the Act. If the noble Lord looks at Section 5 he will see that one subsection deals with the regulation of the quantity which may be marketed and that another deals with schemes and may require producers to sell certain quantities. If you regulate the quantity which a producer may sell you surely limit his production. On the question of there being any precedent, honestly I prefer to take the opinion of Sir Horace Plunkett as to the powers essential for co-operation to the opinions of those who are supporting this measure. I believe that Sir Horace Plunkett had
414
a far better idea of what was necessary and inevitable. As I have said, I will resist the noble Earl's challenge to produce my alternative. I can only express regret that he has not dealt with the very important point that I raised and which we find indicated in the terms of my Notice—quotas and restraint of trade —because that is a very serious instrument. My whole object in raising this discussion to-day is that we should have discussion and debate before we found ourselves implicated in, or tied up with, some of these new methods of dealing with trade and industry.

MARRIAGE (NAVAL, MILITARY, AND AIR FORCE CHAPELS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, twenty-five years ago a proposal was put forward to enable marriages to be solemnised in garrison chapels under an ordinary licence, and a Bill was drafted for the purpose as long ago as 1913. I believe there are somewhere near fifty garrison chapels in England and Wales. Only nine of those are consecrated, and marriages have to take place in all the others under a special licence which, I understand, costs something like £25. Obviously, such a charge is an impossible one for warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men and also, of course, for many officers. It is my privilege at last to introduce this Bill to your Lordships and, working under my noble friend the Leader of the House, to bring this matter before Parliament for the first time.
Your Lordships may ask why, when the matter has been so long under consideration by the Service Departments, it has been so long before a Bill has been brought forward in Parliament. The marriage law and the registration of marriages in this country are among the subjects which have never been dealt with by a Consolidation Bill. I understand that something like thirteen Acts of Parliament had to be consulted before this Bill could be drafted. It has taken an immense amount of labour on the part of the Parliamentary draftsman and a good deal of research. That would have been impossible but for the assistance

415
which has been given to us, in the first place, by the most rev. Primate, whom we are all glad to see back again in his place in the House, and in particular the great assistance given to us by my noble friend the Lord Bishop of Southwark whom I ought now, perhaps, to describe as the Lord Bishop-Elect of Winchester. For several years he has given us an immense amount of advice and assistance in drawing up this Bill. Further, we have had many consultations with the Registrar-General without whom we should have been unable to produce the measure.
The Bill is quite a short one and I think I can describe it to your Lordships in very few words. Under subsection (2) of Clause 1 marriages will be allowed to be solemnised in chapels which the Admiralty certify as naval chapels or those which the Secretary of State certifies to be either military or Air Force chapels. The people who may be married in those chapels are set out also in subsection (2). They are people who at the relevant date are either serving or have served in the various branches of the Regular Forces of the Crown. Under paragraph (c) members of the Reserve Forces, the Territorial Army, or the Auxiliary Air Force, if they are actually embodied, can be married in those chapels. Under paragraph (d) nurses who are actually employed in the nursing service connected with one of the Regular Forces of the Crown can be married in those chapels, and under paragraph (e) the daughter of any such qualified person. The "relevant date" is set out in subsection (3). Speaking generally, and not going into great detail, I may say it is the date of the notice of marriage. There are two different codes, one for Church of England marriages and one for marriages under other denominations who have a different code of registration. It has been necessary to try to bring these two into line and to get as simple an arrangement as possible for the purposes of the Bill.
The remainder of the Bill is simply machinery. Clause 2 deals with marriages according to the rites of the Church of England. Subsection (1) enables the Bishop of the diocese to licence a chapel for what I might call these military marriages. Under subsection (2) the Bishop of the diocese has power to revoke a licence when he so wishes,
416
and he is called upon to do so when the Admiralty or the Secretary of State ask him to revoke it. That is only likely to occur when a chapel is no longer used for troops owing to their having been moved to another locality. Subsection (3) enacts that when a chapel is licensed for marriage that fact shall be published in the London Gazette, and when it ceases to be so licensed that fact shall also be published in the Gazette. Subsection (4) deals with the registration of marriages, and assimilates the procedure to the Marriage Act of 1898. Clause 3 deals with marriages otherwise than according to the rights of the Church of England, and it brings the Bill into line with the Marriage Act of 1898 in regard to the registration of those marriages. Clause 4 enacts that evidence shall not be necessary to show that a person is a qualified person to have been married in the chapel, or that the chapel has been licensed for that purpose. Under the Schedules it is quite definitely laid down that a person shall have the necessary residence, and shall give the necessary information that he is a qualified person before the banns can be published. I think it covers the point adequately.
In Clause 5 your Lordships will see that the Act does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. It does not apply to Scotland because, in that instance, Scotland is more fortunate than England, in that persons can be married in any building at the present time. Therefore the Bill is not necessary in regard to Scotland. In regard to Northern Ireland, it is believed that this is a matter which should be dealt with by the Parliament of Northern Ireland if it considers it necessary to do so.
As to the Schedules, the First deals with marriages enacted according to the rites of the Church of England, and the Second with marriages by other denominations, because the Bill deals with marriages by any denomination of the Christian religion. Part I of the First Schedule and of the Second Schedule deals with enactments that have to be excluded and Part II with enactments that have to be modified. That is really only to be certain that there is no overlapping in these innumerable Acts relating to marriage. There is certainly no alteration of law. It merely adapts the existing

417
law in regard to marriage, and fits it into the requirements for marriages in naval, military and Air Force chapels.
I said at the beginning that I felt it is a privilege to bring this Bill before Parliament. I said so for this reason. I am firmly convinced that every member of the Defence Forces of the Crown will welcome this Bill. It is a Bill that many people have asked for for many years. The family feeling that exists in a good unit is one, I think, that all of us would desire to continue and, if possible, to help. Many officers and men who would desire to be married in the garrison chapel where they normally worship have been prevented from doing so by the cost. Thanks to the good offices of the most rev. Primate and others, we are enabled to reduce that cost until it becomes the same as that for a marriage in an ordinary parish church. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a most desirable object, and I hope the Bill will receive the same favour in Parliament as I am sure it will receive in the Services as a whole.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I wish to make only a few brief observations upon this Bill. The noble Earl has explained very clearly its purpose—namely, to enable men who are either in the Navy, the Air Force, or the Army to be married in their own chapels without the cost of an Archbishop's licence. There were various difficulties in the way of this measure, some of them technical and legal difficulties, and there were also other difficulties which were raised from time to time. Among them there is the difficulty, which I know is felt by a certain number of people who have not gone very carefully into the matter, that in the future it will be possible for a man to have his banns called not in his parish church but in one of these chapels. The calling of the banns in the chapels is, of course, an innovation, though in most cases, but not in every case, those chapels will not, be open to the public, and the criticism has been made that this does away with the publicity entailed by calling the banns in the parish churches. But I feel that this is a theoretical rather than a practical difficulty. I think far greater publicity is likely to be given in the
418
true sense of the term if a man's banns are called out before his own comrades in the garrison chapel in which he worships rather than in a parish church into which he may never enter.
For a number of years I was incumbent of a parish church in Wiltshire in which a very large number of Service men were married. The great majority of these marriages were perfectly correct in every kind of way, but I always felt it was almost impossible to know anything about the men serving in ships who sent their names in to be called in church where probably there was hardly anyone in the congregation who knew anything about them. Only a few hours ago I was talking to a friend who had been incumbent for some eight years of a large parish church in a great garrison town, and he told me that again and again he felt this difficulty, that if men wanted their banns to be called secretly and the facts about their marriages not to be known, the simplest way was to go to the parish church, and my friend wished in such cases that those banns might have been called in the garrison church instead of the parish church.
There is another difficulty which I may just touch upon. It would be a very serious matter in some cases if the fees which are now received by the incumbents were transferred to the chaplains of the garrison churches. In many cases where the incumbent is feeling financial pressure the difference of £10 or £20 a year might be a very serious matter to him, but this Bill does not in any way take away from the incumbent the right of receiving his legitimate fee. I understand that the Departments are perfectly ready to make arrangements to see that the fee is paid regularly, subject of course to the sanction of the Treasury. It has already been done in one case I know of, where the fees are regularly paid to the incumbent of the parish church. Of course there will be the loss of a number of incidental fees which will naturally drop out, but I believe the incumbents are perfectly ready to face this if by so doing they are able to solve the grievance which has undoubtedly been felt by many.
I would also point out that this Bill does not propose that every chapel should at once be licensed for marriages. The different chapels will each be dealt with

419
on their own merits. The Departments concerned will make their applications in each case, and each will be considered separately, so that I feel there is really no danger of any abuse arising through the extension of this privilege. I am not quite so optimistic as the noble Earl about the number of people who will avail themselves of this opportunity. I think that in many cases the bride will insist on being married in her own parish church, and I think, as far as the men are concerned, very often the very last place they would wish to be married in is the chapel which to them is so associated with church parades. But undoubtedly there are a certain number of people who, for years past, have felt the present position to be a grievance, and, therefore, as far as this Bill succeeds in removing that, it is to be welcomed.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I do not think I have anything to say in addition to what has been said by the Lord Bishop of Southwark, who has taken an immense amount of trouble over this matter in negotiation with representatives of the Departments. As the noble Earl has said, the Bill has been the result of a great deal of inquiry and deliberation. No sooner had we set our minds to see whether something could be done than all the difficulties of the marriage laws immediately emerged. An immense amount of labour has been bestowed upon this part of the Bill by the Parliamentary draftsman. I agree that on the whole it is well that this Bill should pass. It is true that it involves, or may involve, a very real sacrifice on the part of numbers of the clergy of the Church of England, not so much in the matter of the fee, which I hope may be amicably arranged, but in the matter, particularly as regards marriages of officers, of those extra fees which accompany marriages of that kind which make a great difference sometimes to the clergy.
But, my Lords, the person who suffers most under this Bill is the individual who is now addressing your Lordships. I do not say that I personally will lose a very considerable revenue if your Lordships are pleased to allow this Bill to pass, but certainly a number of my most trusted and valuable officials—the Master of the Faculties and those who work with him and transact a great deal of very
420
necessary business—will lose some of the emoluments which they now enjoy for that work. Therefore your Lordships will see that really I should have an interest in opposing the Bill which the noble Earl has put before the House. I am, however, willing to make a sacrifice as far as I am concerned because I am anxious to increase, as far as one can increase, the opinion that the garrison chapel is the spiritual home of the officers and men. I agree that in the case of the men they may not be so concerned as are the officers to be married in the garrison chapel, but at any rate, in the same way that parishioners, I hope, regard the parish church as their spiritual home, so the men of the garrison or marines or the men in the dockyards should look upon the chapel as the place where they would wish to be married, and that wish should as far as possible be gratified.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before we adjourn perhaps the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House will be good enough to tell us whether there is any alteration in the work which he foreshadowed would be taken in the remaining part of the week? I should also like to ask if there is any alteration in the date on which it is proposed we shall reassemble after Whitsuntide; and if I may put a third question it is whether he can tell us what will be the business before us when the House resumes?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the Motion on emigration to the Dominions which was put down for to-morrow in the name of my noble friend Viscount Elibank has been postponed by him until after Whitsuntide. I think it is now put down for May 31. Therefore that Motion will not appear on the Order Paper to-morrow. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal proposes to move tomorrow the Second Reading of the British Museum Bill, as was suggested by one of your Lordships last week. Then we propose to have a Royal Commission at half past five to-morrow afternoon to give the Royal Assent to such Bills as have been passed. I hope that

421
in another place the Amendments to the Wheat Bill will be dealt with to-day. I would suggest further that, we have a purely formal sitting on Friday morning in order to give a First Reading to the Children and Young Persons Bill, which I understand is likely to receive a Third Reading in another place, and also a small Bill dealing with hire purchase and small debts in Scotland assuming that that passes in another place. In that case we should have these Bills to deal with as soon as we come back.
The second question which the noble Lord asked was as to the date of reassembly. So far as I have been able to ascertain there will be only enough work for two days in the first week. Therefore I think that probably it will be more convenient to your Lordships if, instead of meeting on May 24 and then adjourning to May 26, we decided to defer reassembling until Wednesday, May 25. In that way we shall have an
422
extra day's adjournment. When we come back—this is in answer to the noble Lord's last question—I would suggest that on Wednesday, May 25, we might take the Committee stage of the Bill which has just received a Second Reading. If your Lordships give a Second Reading to the British Museum Bill tomorrow we might also take the Committee stage of that Bill, and perhaps also take the Second Reading of the Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Bill which we expect to receive on Friday. None of those will give rise to any prolonged discussion or any controversy so far as I can ascertain. On Thursday, May 26, your Lordships will be asked to give a Second Reading to the Children and Young Persons Bill, which of course is one of the principal Government measures and will no doubt require careful consideration.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.

PORT OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
CHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Committed: the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

TRENT NAVIGATION BILL.
Committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:

E. Poulett,

V. Burnham (Chairman),

424

L. Dorchester,

L. Carnock,

L. Swinfen:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 7th of June next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard, as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

SHANKLIN AND VENTNOR GAS ORDER, 1932. RADNORSHIRE AND BRECKNOCKSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Leave given to the Joint Committee to report from time to time: First Report by the Joint Committee, being a Report on the Solicitors Bill [H.L.] made, and to be printed. The Minutes of Evidence (with the Proceedings of the Joint Committee) laid upon the Table and to be printed.
SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House: Bill to be printed as amended.