Sitting of 17 December 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Sea Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    INDIA (JAPANESE GOODS).
    Major PROCTERasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the northern coastal region of the Bombay Presidency Japanese rayon goods are being sold at prices below the Customs duty; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent smuggling and the evasion of the quota agreement between Great Britain and India regarding Japanese goods?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): Smuggling in this area has been the subject of very careful inquiry during the present year, and the Government of India have taken and are taking steps to strengthen their preventive lines. My right hon. Friend has received no recent complaints of smuggling of artificial silk on a large scale. As regards the quota arrangement between India and Japan—covering cotton goods only, not artificial silk—the Government of India are satisfied that with the co-operation of the States they have reduced to a minimum the possibility of uncertified Japanese cotton piece goods finding their way into India.
    Captain FULLERasked the Secretary of State for India whether any steps are being taken to prevent the importation into India of cotton piece goods from Japan which are not supported by certificates because they are being shipped from British Colonies and, because of that, greatly exceed the agreed quota?
    Mr. BUTLER: I have no information regarding the arrival of Japanese cotton piece goods in India from British Colonies, but if my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of the information that has reached him, the Government of India will be asked for a report.

    CHINA (SMUGGLING).
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, owing to the high tariff on imports into China, smuggling has grown so profitable that it is becoming increasingly difficult for legitimate British traders to carry on business; and whether he will direct His Majesty's Minister in China to discuss the matter with the Chinese Government?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): Yes, Sir, I am aware of the prevalence of smuggling into China, which must obviously cause prejudice to legitimate business. His Majesty's Minister has from time to time discussed the question with the Chinese Government. I understand that the number of preventive vessels has recently been increased, and in the circumstances I do not feel that special instructions to His Majesty's Minister are called for.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the steps that have been taken arising out of the previous incidents are resulting in any reduction in the smuggling, and, if not, should not something further be done?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have not any comparative figures that I can give my hon. Friend, but he will have noticed from the terms of my previous answer that the number of preventive vessels has recently been increased. We are in communication from time to time on the subject.

    MANCHURIA (BRITISH TRADE DELEGATION).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can give any intimation as to the results of the recent visit of British trade representatives to Manchukuo; whether any concessions for British trade have been obtained in that part of the world; whether any compensating concessions for Japanese interests have been demanded in return; and, if so, of what nature?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The recent visit of British trade representatives to Manchuria was an unofficial one, sponsored by the Federation of British Industries. With regard to the first part of the question, I understand that the Federation of British Industries have not yet issued a report, but propose to do so very shortly. In the circumstances, I am unable to answer the remainder of the question.

    CHILE (BRITISH INVESTORS).
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ascertain from the Association of Trust Companies if any further progress has been made since 4th December by the Chilean Government towards meeting its contractual obligations to British investors in Chilean Government bonds issued by public subscription in London?
    Sir J. SIMON: According to my information no further steps have been taken by the Chilean Government to reach an agreed settlement since the date mentioned by my hon. Friend.

    ABYSSINIA AND ITALY.
    Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement with regard to the situation in Abyssinia and the fighting that has taken place there; whether instructions have been telegraphed to His Majesty's representatives at Borne and Adis Ababa in regard to the delimitation of the frontier, and whether this matter is connected with the negotiations now in progress with the Italian
    798
    Government in regard to an Anglo-Italian air convention?
    Sir J. SIMON: According to my information, the course of events since the 23rd November has been as follows:
    On that date the Anglo-Ethiopian Boundary Commission, which has lately completed the demarcation of the frontier between Ethiopia and British Somaliland, and which is also charged with the investigation of the watering and grazing areas which for generations have been used by nomadic British Somali tribes, arrived in the vicinity of the wells of Walwal and Wardair, which have always been so used. These wells lie in the neighbourhood of the undefined border between Italian Somaliland and Ethiopia, and have been in Italian occupation for some time. The Italian Government had previously been notified of the joint commission's movements, but it appears that the officer commanding the Italian troops at the wells had not had this information passed on to him, and on their arrival he declined to permit the joint commission to enter Walwal and Wardair, whereupon a formal protest was recorded by the British representative, Colonel Clifford, and his Ethiopian colleague, the commission subsequently withdrawing to a camp some 30 kilometres distant. On the 5th December a serious encounter, in which I must emphasise that the Anglo-Ethiopian Joint Commission were in no way concerned, occurred between Italian colonial troops and Ethiopian forces in the vicinity of the two wells. Since then the Ethiopian Government are understood to have made an offer to the Italian Government to submit the dispute to arbitration, and they have now reported the matter to the League of Nations.
    As it is understood that the disputed ownership of the wells at Walwal and Wardair, where, I must repeat, the boundary between Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland has never been demarcated on the ground, had given rise to local unrest, I instructed His Majesty's representatives at Rome and Addis Ababa, prior to the above incident, to recommend to the Italian and Ethiopian Governments, the desirability in the interest of good relations of proceeding to an early demarcation of the frontier. I should add that before news had been received of the clash on the 5th December,

    799
    the Italian Government had informed His Majesty's Government of their willingness to allow Colonel Clifford and his Ethiopian colleague of the Boundary Commission to enter Walwal and Wardair to carry out their work. As soon, however, as His Majesty's Government learnt that a clash had occurred between Ethiopian forces and Italian troops instructions were immediately despatched to Colonel Clifford to withdraw his section from the affected area, similar instructions being sent by the Emperor of Ethiopia to the Abyssinian Commissioner.
    The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that His Majesty's Government will continue to watch this very delicate situation; and should it not be dealt with by the League of Nations?
    Sir J. SIMON: I cannot make a further statement after the rather long statement I have made, but, of course, my hon. Friend may be assured that if the matter comes before the League Council in January His Majesty's Government will try to discharge their duty.

  AGRICULTURE.

    MILK REORGANISATION COMMISSION.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOTasked the Minister of Agriculture when the proposed Milk Reorganisation Commission will be appointed; and how soon it is likely to commence its examination of the working of organised milk marketing in Great Britain?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I am not yet in a position to make any further announcement on this subject.
    Mr. FOOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to make an announcement?
    Mr. ELLIOT: No, I am afraid I cannot say.

    MILK MARKETING SCHEME.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTHasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that under the recent order of the Milk Marketing Board villagers who from time immemorial have purchased
    800
    milk at the farmhouse door at a reduced price are now compelled to pay the same price as that charged by retailers who bottle and deliver the milk at the consumer's house; and what steps will he take to remove this hardship on one of the poorest sections of the community?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware that under the terms of the retail licence issued by the Milk Marketing Board, a registered producer is prohibited from selling milk by retail, whether at the farmhouse or elsewhere, at less than the minimum appropriate retail price prescribed by the board for the district in which the milk is sold. The minimum price may be reduced by the board if they receive a resolution to that effect passed by a majority of the milk retailers in the district concerned. As to the last part of the question, I am inviting the attention of the Consumer's Committee for England to the matter.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether this matter, which is really a grievance in the country districts, will come before the Milk Reorganisation Commission, which I assume is about to report?
    Mr. ELLIOT: As I have said, I have invited the attention of the Consumer's Committee for England to this matter, and I hope that we shall have some statement from them before the report of the Re-organisation Commission is likely to be issued, but, if not, there is no doubt that this is one of the matters which we might take into consideration.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to submit to the retailers that they should pass a resolution in order that they might give these poor people an opportunity of buying milk at something near the price which they formerly paid?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Oh yes, Sir, and in fact the retail price has been reduced in 225 cases, mostly in the villages, and it is certainly possible for the retailers to reduce the price in those areas without calling for any recommendation.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman make suggestions to the retailers to do that?
    Mr. ELLIOT: It is a little difficult for me to make suggestions direct to the

    801
    retailers, as the hon. Member will realise, but I am sure that the question and answer will indicate that the attention of the House is closely directed to the matter.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that when employés of farmers concerned in this matter purchase milk, the reduced price charged is recognised as part contribution to their wages?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Sales of milk by a farmer to his own employés are exempt from the provisions of the scheme.

    MILK ACT (EXPENDITURE).
    Captain HEILGERSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any portion of the £750,000 authorised to be spent in the next four years under the provisions of the Milk Act is being utilised at the present time; and, if so, to what specific purpose is it being allocated?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and myself, acting in conjunction under Section 9 of the Milk Act, 1934, have now arranged to fix the 1st February as the appointed day from which the expenditure of the sums provided under that Section is to begin. On that day schemes will come into operation for encouraging the establishment of herds free from tuberculosis by the offer of a bonus on milk produced from such herds.

    FAT CATTLE (SLAUGHTER).
    Captain HEILGERSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the number of fat cattle consigned for slaughter to markets and abattoirs, has been in excess of or below the normal since the commencement of the subsidy period?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The number of fat cattle entered at the 40 markets reported by the Ministry since the commencement of the subsidy period has been in excess of the entries in the corresponding periods for the last three years. It is probable, however, that the total entries since the beginning of September last have been increased by the appearance in the markets of animals previously sold privately. As regards abattoirs, the number of fat cattle slaughtered at National Mark beef grading centres, the only abattoirs for which figures are readily available during the three months September to November,
    802
    1934, showed an increase of 4 per cent. as compared with the same period for the previous three years.
    Captain HEILGERS: Does that not show that too many immature beasts are being certified at the markets and abattoirs?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I should hesitate to discuss that matter by question and answer.

    WHEAT QUOTA.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Agriculture the total cost to the consumer up to the present of the wheat quota?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Having regard to the variety of uses to which flour is put and to the varying proportion which the cost of flour bears to the cost of the finished article, it is not practicable to determine the total cost to the ultimate consumer. The total sum collected up to 13th December, 1934, by way of quota payments from millers and importers of flour under the provisions of the Wheat Act, 1932, and orders thereunder is as follows:

    £

    1932–33

    4,777,466

    1933–34

    7,180,765

    1934–35 (up to 13th December)

    2,163,404

    Total

    £14,121,635

    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Will my right hon. Friend give the House the price of bread last month and the price in November, 1930?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

    ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSONasked the Minister of Agriculture which, if any, of the arterial roads completed in the past 10 years are as yet fully set out on ordnance maps of 25-inch, 6-inch and 1-inch scales; whether details of any of the new housing estates in Hertfordshire, Surrey, or Essex are similarly recorded; and whether he is aware of the expense and delay to local authorities with statutory housing and town-planning obligations consequent upon the backward state of the Ordnance Survey?
    Mr. ELLIOT: About 90 per cent. of the arterial roads completed in the past 10 years are shown on the 1-inch scale Ordnance Survey maps already published, or in course of publication. No such roads are shown on the 25-inch or 6-inch scale maps except those in the close proximity of some of the larger towns. 25-inch and 6-inch maps of Surrey will be published shortly, which will show about 75 per cent. of the details of new housing estates in that county. The new housing estates in Hertfordshire and in Essex are not shown on the 25-inch or 6-inch maps for those counties, but will be shown on the new edition of the one-inch maps. These sheets will be published almost immediately, probably before the end of February. The desirability of speeding up the revision of Ordnance Survey maps is receiving my close attention.

    SPITALFIELDS MARKET (FRUIT EXCHANGE).
    Mr. ORR-EWINGasked the Minister of Agriculture whether be has seen the report of the judgment of the High Court, dated 30th November, 1934, to the effect that the City of London is not entitled to limit the right of sale by auction within the Spitalfields Market; and whether he will now have the statement upon page 157 of the Ministry's publication, Markets and Fairs, that the fruit exchange, which is part of Spitalfields Market, is conducted on the closed-room principle, corrected?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I understand my hon. Friend to refer to the judgment in the case the Corporation of London versus Lyons Son and Company (Fruit Brokers), Limited. I am informed that the question of entering an appeal is under consideration, and it is therefore undesirable that I should make any statement upon the matter raised in the latter portion of the question.

  POST OFFICE.

    POSTMEN (HALF-HOLIDAY).
    Captain HEILGERSasked the Postmaster-General whether it is customary for full-time postmen to receive a half-holiday each week?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): Postmen are liable to
    804
    give a gross attendance of 48 hours weekly, and in these circumstances a weekly half-holiday and a consequent reduction of their hours of duty below the level at the expense of the taxpayer could not be financially justified. Services are, however, suspended in certain cases on one afternoon in the week with the prior concurrence of the local authorities, but postmen are of course paid as for a full week. In London and certain other places a number of men are relieved from any attendance on one day of the week, but they give an extended attendance on the other five days. It has not been found possible to make this arrangement in rural districts owing to the impracticability of finding useful employment for the men for more than eight hours daily.
    Captain HEILGERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a strong feeling that there is no need of and no desire for these postmen to work delivering letters in the afternoon and evening of the day of the local weekly half-holiday?
    Sir K. WOOD: The matter has been considered from time to time and the arrangements that I have indicated were considered the best in the circumstances.
    Mr. HICKS: Is any effort being made to get an eight-hour day, a 48-hour week, worked within daily hours of, say, 10 per day, instead of an extended period of, say, 12 hours or more?

    REGISTERED PARCEL POST (SEALS).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Postmaster-General whether he will issue fresh instructions in order to mitigate the frequent inconvenience caused to the public through the obligation to place five impressions of a private seal on any parcel accepted for the registered post, especially in view of the fact that there is no adequate definition of what constitutes a private seal, and that the general public cannot ascertain whether their seals are in order until their parcels are submitted at the Post Office?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think my hon. and gallant Friend may be under some misapprehension as registered parcels in the inland post of this country need not be sealed at all if they are otherwise so secured that they cannot be opened without

    805
    leaving traces of tampering. If, however, he is referring to the insurance service in the parcel post to places abroad, international regulations come into question to which this country must necessarily conform. These regulations do not say what number of seals must be used, and it is not necessary to affix five if a parcel can be effectively sealed with less.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a difficulty about interpreting the regulation, that different Post Offices lay down different regulations, and that sometimes it takes a whole day to get a parcel off?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of that fact. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any personal difficulty, perhaps he will speak to me, and I will see what can be done in the matter.

    BETTING AND LOTTERIES ACT.
    Mr. WISEasked the Postmaster-General how much extra staff he proposes to employ to open and investigate the correspondence passing between Great Britain and the Irish Free State?
    Sir K. WOOD: I do not anticipate that any extra staff will be required.
    Mr. PIKE: Does my right hon. Friend not consider that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, that any member of the community can send a 10s. postal order to Dublin, will necessitate an increase in the staff if the remaining acts of scrutiny are to be carried out?
    Sir K. WOOD: I thought my hon. Friend would have been very pleased with my reply.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Would the Postmaster-General be well disposed towards a request for the preparation of a return of the number of letters opened in connection with the Betting and Lotteries Act?
    Sir K. WOOD: That does not appear to be relevant so far as this question is concerned.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I hope the Postmaster-General will not be trapped into the net of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill).
    Mr. CHURCHILL: With great respect, the Postmaster-General has not answered the perfectly courteous and amicable inquiry that I addressed to him.
    Sir K. WOOD: The matter is so important that perhaps my right hon. Friend will put his question on the Paper.

    HIGH COURTS OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL CASES).
    Mr. DAVID EVANSasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the recent declaration of Mr. Justice Talbot in regard to the trial of actions in the commercial list; why there is a shortage of judges specially familiar with the matters with which commercial causes are concerned and with the law relating to them; and what steps are being taken to remedy this deficiency?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): My attention has been drawn to the statement of Mr. Justice Talbot. The difficulties in connection with the commercial list are due in part to the absence of one or more of His Majesty's Judges through illness and in part to the unusual pressure of work on some of the circuits. The Lord Chief Justice is giving attention to these difficulties. Meanwhile a Bill has been introduced in another place to enable two additional Judges to be appointed.
    Mr. EVANS: Has the hon. and learned Member's attention been drawn to the very grave character of the observations made by Mr. Justice Talbot, who said, in effect, that the trial of commercial cases by a judge who is not familiar with such subjects is a fraud on the litigant in question, and that he thought it his duty to draw attention to the public mischief involved in such matters; and whether it is not a fact that on that very day there were learned judges familiar with such cases who were employed in trying criminal cases and who had no experience of such cases?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The House will agree that this is not a proper matter to discuss in a controversial sense by question and answer. In regard to the last part of the supplementary question,

    807
    I have no information before me. In regard to the other part, I should like to say that, in so far as Mr. Justice Talbot expressed or appeared to express doubts as to his own capacity to try a particular class of case, I am certain that those doubts are shared by no one who knows the learned judge.
    Mr. EVANS——
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss this matter.

    HOUSING (CONTROLLED HOUSES).
    Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Health how many houses are still controlled under the Rent Acts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): It is estimated that there are some 4,000,000 controlled "C" class houses which will remain controlled until 1938. In July, 1933, it was estimated that there were about 1,250,000 controlled "B" class houses, but since that date a certain number will have been decontrolled by the owner having come into possession. My right hon. Friend has no means of ascertaining how many of these "B" class houses have been decontrolled in this way.
    Mr. WEST: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the annual number of houses being decontrolled is increasing or decreasing?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It has been slightly decreasing in so far as "B" class houses come into the possession of the owner. "C" class houses are not affected.
    Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say anything in regard to the subletting of these houses? Is that being taken in hand and carried out according to the Act?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss this matter.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Health how many persons are drawing contributory and non-contributory old age pensions?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The number of persons in receipt of such pensions on the
    808
    30th September, 1934, was approximately 2,345,000.
    Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Health how many persons have ceased to work at 65 and are now in receipt of pensions?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend regrets that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available.
    Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: Has the hon. Member's attention been directed to the advisability of augmenting these pensions, conditional on retirement from industry?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.
    Major PROCTERasked the Minister of Labour whether it is the intention of the Unemployment Insurance Committee administering Part I of the Unemployment Insurance Act to raise the allowances for children to a level commensurate with that contained in the regulations governing the administration of Part II of the Unemployment Insurance Act?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The committee are required by statute to make a report on the financial condition of the Unemployment Fund in the early part of next year, and I cannot at present forecast the conclusion which they may reach as to whether there is an available surplus, or the manner in which it should be dealt with.
    Major PROCTER: Am I to understand that the position of the children of those on transitional payments is going to be more favourable than that of the children of those who are insured?
    Mr. HUDSON: That depends upon the composition of the family.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Have not the Government power to ask the committee to consider a matter of this description, and, if so, do they propose to do that?
    Mr. HUDSON: The committee was only recently set up, and it would not be fair to them to ask them to submit a report before they have had a reasonable time to see how the finances of the unemployment fund—with the care of which they are charged—are likely to run.
    Mr. BEVAN: In the event of the committee itself not making any proposals in the future, will the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the Government will ask them for a report on this matter?
    Mr. HUDSON: That is a purely hypothetical question.
    Mr. THORNE: Has the hon. Member any objection to sending a copy of this question to them?
    Mr. HUDSON: I have no doubt that the chairman of the committee follows the proceedings in Parliament quite closely.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Captain FULLERasked the Minister of Labour whether the Government have any plans for dealing with labour at present surplus to industrial requirements besides the Depressed Areas (Development and Improvement) Bill?
    Mr. HUDSON: The whole policy of the Government is directed to the re-establishment of industrial prosperity, and, as evidence of its effectiveness, I would point to the fact that since the Government came into office the number of insured persons in employment has increased by over 800,000.
    Captain FULLER: Will the hon. Member kindly answer the question on the Paper? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the adjournment.

    MANOR OF NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME (COURT ROLLS).
    Mrs. COPELANDasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware of the hardship that has been caused in the Stoke-on-Trent area by the removal from that district on 16th November of the local court rolls to distant Harrogate, which will not only double the Government's expense, but the distance
    810
    and cost involved will also debar local house owners from inspecting these court rolls, as they are entitled to do under the 1922 Property Act; whether the protests made for the return of the said documents are receiving his attention; and what he is doing to expedite this return, bearing in mind that the time for the transference of copyholds to freeholds in this district is limited by statute to December, 1935?
    The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. J. C. Davidson): I am not aware that the removal of the rolls has involved hardship, nor do I understand my hon. Friend's use of the phrase "Government expense." No moneys Voted by Parliament are affected, and the additional charge on the Duchy revenues, if any, is negligible. Most of the court rolls of the Manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme were removed to the Public Record Office, London, 40 years ago. A vacancy having recently arisen in the office of Deputy-Steward, I approved the appointment of Mr. J. A. Eddison, of Harrogate, as being conspicuously the most competent man for the post. As Deputy-Steward the possession of the remaining and more recent rolls is essential to his work, and accordingly they have been transferred to him at Harrogate.
    I am advised that the right of inspection given by Section 144 of the Law of Property Act, 1922, does not imply that the rolls must be kept in the district to which they relate. On the contrary, the court rolls of numerous manors are kept at a considerable distance from the manor. I understand that no appreciable inconvenience results from such an arrangement and I see no reason to anticipate difficulty in regard to the manor of Newcastle. The Act allowed 10 years from the 1st January, 1926, for the compensation for the extinguishment of the manorial incidents to be paid by agreement. After that period has expired, only the compulsory procedure, which normally will be much more expensive for the property owner, will be available.
    Unfortunately, in Newcastle the progress of extinguishment has been slow as compared with other manors, and it is essential in the interests of the property owners that progress should be greatly accelerated in order that the risk

    811
    of having to pay the additional expenses of the compulsory procedure may be avoided. After full consideration, I am satisfied that the arrangements made are in the best interests of the parties. I have carefully considered certain protests which have reached me, but for the reasons given above the immediate return of the court rolls would gravely prejudice the interests of the property owners as well as of the Duchy. I therefore do not propose to order their return at present.
    Mrs. COPELAND: In view of the great dissatisfaction caused in the district on this question I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.

    SUBMARINE CONTRACTS (ELECTRIC BOAT COMPANY).
    Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Sir Charles Craven informed the Electric Boat Company of America, on 6th January, 1933, that the Admiralty had promised Vickers, Limited, an order for His Majesty's ship "Clyde" (a repeat of the "Thames"), but that the contract was not to be given officially until after the letter had been received in America, and that he asked the American company not to let the information get into the hands of the American navy department; and whether he intends taking action under the Official Secrets Act in respect of this action by a British firm?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): Messrs. Vickers-Armstrongs informed the Electric Boat Company of the contract which they had received for His Majesty's ship "Clyde," because the Electric Boat Company, as the owners of certain patents, are their licensors for the construction of submarines. I have no evidence that Messrs. Vickers-Armstrongs stated, as suggested, that the contract was not to be given officially until after their letter had been received in America. In view, however, of His Majesty's Government's desire to secure international agreement for the abolition or limitation of submarines, the contract contained a proviso giving the Admiralty an option of
    812
    cancelling the order at any time before the 31st March, 1933, and what Messrs. Vickers did was to ask their licensors in view of this proviso to prevent the contract from becoming public until it was certain that the vessel would be constructed.
    The letter was apparently written 11 months after the programme of new construction for 1933, which included the "Clyde," had been announced and after the contract had actually been placed. In these circumstances I cannot imagine how the letter involved any breach of the Official Secrets Act, or why any question of action under that Act should arise.
    Mr. JONES: May I ask whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has examined the terms of this particular letter, and whether he has submitted it to the Law Officers of the Crown with a view to ascertaining their legal opinion on the matter?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No, Sir. I am quite capable of interpreting the terms of the letter, as long as I have seen it.
    Mr. JONES: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. A. BEVANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that under an agreement between Vickers, Limited, and the Electric Boat Company, payments were made by Vickers for any type of submarine boat built by that firm for the account of the British Government, and that the average profit to the Electric Boat Company has been £28,467 per boat; had these arrangements the approval of the Admiralty; what is the total paid by Vickers to the Electric Boat Company since the agreement was made; and what were the full terms of the agreement?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The Electric Boat Company are the owners of certain patents used in the construction of submarines, and Messrs. Vickers Armstrongs, when they build a submarine for the Admiralty, or for anyone else, have undertaken under a commercial agreement to make a payment to the company as their licensors. The statement made at the United States Senate Inquiry that

    813
    the company has received on an average £28,467 per boat must, I think be quite erroneous. I understand that the total sum received by the company was reported at the same inquiry to be £444,000. Whether this figure is accurate I cannot say, but, if it is, seeing that the total number of submarines built by Messrs. Vickers Armstrongs is 167, it would appear that the average amount received per boat over the whole period has not been more than about £2,650. The agreement between the two concerns is an ordinary agreement between licensees and licensors. The Admiralty are not parties to it, it does not require their approval, and its exact present terms are not known to them.

    PRISON SERVICE (REMOVAL EXPENSES).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the date of application to the prison staff of the removal expenses circular, for the Civil Service generally, dated 24th October, 1925?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The provisions of the Report on Removal Expenses, dated the 24th October, 1925, were applied to the Prison Service as a whole as from the 1st April, 1926.

    SAVOY HOTEL, LONDON (ACCIDENT).
    Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from his factory inspector in connection with an engineer who was killed at the Savoy Hotel, London, on Sunday evening last; and whether the machinery in which this man was caught was properly protected?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: If, as I presume, the hon. Member refers to a fatality at the Savoy Hotel, I understand that this accident occurred in connection with some plant for ventilating the basement. I have no powers as regards dangerous practices or safeguards on ventilating plant at hotels, but I am informed that the coroner and his jury considered that the conditions were satisfactory.

    MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.
    Mr. PIKEasked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the representations from the Association of Municipal Corporations which seek to secure support to an amendment to the law relating to the times of polling at municipal elections; and whether he is in a position to make a statement?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The representations are under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. PIKE: Will the House have a full opportunity of discussing this subject before any assurances are given?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot answer that question.

    POLICE PENSIONS ACT.
    Sir A. WILSONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a moiety of fines imposed for offences under the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, and other Acts such as the Chimney Sweepers Act, 1894, are now credited to the police fund under the Police Pensions Act of 1921; and whether he will review this practice of linking police duties with police pensions?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Fines which may be put to the police fund in pursuance of the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Police Pensions Act, 1921, go with other receipts in relief of the general cost of the force, and I cannot regard them as in any way forming a link between police duties and police pensions.

    TUNSTEAD CHEMICAL WORKS (ACCIDENT).
    Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received from his factory inspector a report in connection with the death of a man who was working on a steel girder at the Tunstead chemical works; and if he can state whether the staging was properly erected?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: It has not been possible to trace this ease from the terms of the question. If the hon. Member will send me the name and full address of the firm and a note of the circumstances, I will have inquiry made.

  TRANSPORT.

    LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (STAFF PENSIONS).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Transport whether the London Passenger Transport Board are proposing to institute a superannuation scheme to cover all their workers; and, if so, when it is proposed to commence to operate such scheme?
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): My hon. Friend is informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that they are not yet in a position to give consideration to the establishment of a superannuation fund to cover all their employés.
    Mr. McENTEE: Is the hon. Member aware that the employés of several municipal tramway undertakings which were taken over by the London Transport Board are actually in receipt of superannuation, and, in view of that fact, will he impress upon them the necessity of extending it to all employés?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: I will convey the hon. Member's remarks to the Minister of Transport.

    LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (ELECTRIFICATION).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to give effect to the promise given to the House when the London Traffic Bill was under consideration, on behalf of the London and North Eastern Railway Company, that local train services from Liverpool Street station outward would be electrified if the Bill became law?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: The railway company say that they do not recollect that any promise was made to the House on their behalf in regard to this matter, which is still under consideration by the Standing Joint Committee of the Main Line Railway Companies and the London Passenger Transport Board.
    Mr. McENTEE: Is the hon. Member aware that Lord Ashfield in another place gave a similar promise and that nothing has been done?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: I will convey that information to my hon. Friend.

    MOTOR DRIVERS (WORKING HOURS).
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with the new Order made under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, permitting drivers of goods vehicles employed in the retail distributive trade to drive for 12 hours in all on not more than two days in the week ending on 22nd December, and on 24th, 29th, and 31st December, provision has been made to allow at least two mealtimes during the 12 hours?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: The new Order does not affect those provisions of Section 19 of the Act which make it illegal for a driver to drive for any continuous period of more than 5½ hours.

    BATTERSEA ELECTRICITY STATION (FUMES).
    Mr. ALAN TODDasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make a report on the emission of smoke and noxious fumes from the new Battersea power station, in the light of his pledge to the borough of Chelsea and the city of Westminster on this matter?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: A further report by the Government Chemist's Committee is now being printed and will, my hon. Friend hopes, be presented to Parliament this week.

    ARMAMENTS INQUIRY.
    Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the Prime Minister whether he will make use of the offer of Senator Nye to allow the use of the documents produced in the United States of America arms inquiry for the investigation proposed by His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with reference to the offer of Senator Nye to make available to the British Arms Inquiry Committee documentary evidence produced before the United States Senate Arms Inquiry Committee?
    Mr. A. BEVANasked the Prime Minister whether, in the forthcoming armaments inquiry, he will direct special investigation to be made into the letter sent by the Liège Gun-Makers' Association,

    817
    dated 5th December, 1924, to all gun-making countries, inviting them to send representatives to a congress to consider methods of dealing with their respective Governments, in view of the League of Nations proposed convention for the control of the international traffic in arms?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): It will, of course, be for the body entrusted with the inquiry to conduct it in the way best calculated to discharge its task without interference from the Government.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: When is the committee to be appointed and when are we to be advised as to its constitution?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As quickly as possible. There are a good many obstacles in the way, but they are being overcome.
    Mr. JONES: Does the Prime Minister think it advisable that the Government should indicate to the proposed Committee of Inquiry that it is desirable to utilise the information available in America in regard to the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Obviously, that would be most improper. The Government give the terms of reference and appoint the committee, in every member of which they ought to have confidence, and then allow the committee and chairman to conduct their business in the best way and to present their report.
    Mr. JOHN WILMOT: In drawing up the terms of reference for the Committee of Inquiry, will the terms be drawn sufficiently wide to enable the committee to make use of the information if it be offered?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The scope of the inquiry was stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the speech that he delivered here, I think, on 22nd November.
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In relation to this matter, will the Prime Minister bear in mind the grave inconvenience which might arise if a Committee of Inquiry appointed by the Government of this country were considered as in any way the judges of evidence submitted to a senatorial inquiry of another country—to be judges
    818
    of the report which the senators may make in that inquiry?
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Might not the information which the American inquiry will be able to put before the inquiry here be very useful?
    Mr. WILMOT: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to state that the terms of reference of the inquiry will be sufficiently broad to enable the committee to make use of this information if they so desire?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Obviously, I cannot say anything on that point. This committee is to be appointed and made up of gentlemen in whom the Government have complete confidence, or it had better not be appointed at all. The point referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) is, of course, a point that no Government can afford to overlook in considering the work that the committee has to do. The committee is to be appointed for the purpose of reporting upon and giving the country guidance regarding very important points that have been raised, and I am quite certain that, when we have finished our work and appointed the committee, the committee can very well be left to do their very best and to present a report that will be authoritative and accepted.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we to gather that the intention of the Government is that the inquiry should proceed on evidence and not on hearsay?
    Sir P. HARRIS: Can we have the constitution of the committee before the Adjournment for Christmas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot promise. I am doing my best to hurry it up, but I cannot promise to make a statement to the House on the subject before Friday.
    Captain P. MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman assured the House that the committee would deal only with future policy in this regard, and would not be a roving commission?

    COAL INDUSTRY (ACCIDENT, WOODHOUSE, SHEFFIELD).
    Mr. GRUNDYasked the Secretary for Mines if he has any statement to make in respect to the fall of roof at the Birley

    819
    East pit, Woodhouse, Sheffield, where three men were entombed and fatally injured?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have been asked to reply. This accident occurred on Thursday afternoon last at the gate end at the extremity of a retreating long-wall face, during operations connected with the movement of a coal cutter from the face to the gate. Rescue operations were commenced at once from both sides and, in spite of danger from further falls, all the four men involved were got out, but I regret to say that one was already dead, and two others died in hospital next day. I hope that further information as to the immediate cause of the roof collapse will be available when the fourth man is sufficiently recovered to describe what was being done at the time. I am sure that the House will wish to join my hon. Friend and myself in expressing sympathy with the relatives and dependants of the deceased.

    SAAR POLICE (BRITISH SUBJECT).
    Mr. LANSBURY(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the recent breach of the peace in the Saar in which a British member of the Saar Volunteer Police Force was concerned.
    Sir J. SIMON: The Saar police force is under the sole authority of the Saar Governing Commission, upon which continues to rest the primary responsibility for the maintenance of law and order in the territory. His Majesty's Government have, of course, no responsibility either for the recruitment or the selection of the members of that force. I understand that recruitment abroad for this police force has now ceased in view of the despatch to the Saar of the International Force, which has no connection with the Saar police but which is placed at the disposal of the Governing Commission for the purpose of maintaining order in case of need.
    I regret to learn that on Saturday night an incident occurred in the streets of Saarbrucken arising out of the mounting on the pavement of a car driven by an officer of the Saar police with the result that a member of the public who was standing on the pavement was injured.
    820
    This caused the gathering of a crowd which assumed a threatening attitude to the occupants of the car and especially to the police officer in question. The matter came to blows and one or two revolver shots were fired. The police officer was set upon by the crowd and had to be taken to hospital. The Governing Commission have issued special instructions for a prompt and thorough investigation and the police officer concerned has been suspended until the matter is officially cleared up.
    As the question is still sub judice, I am of course unable to make any further statement except that, wherever the blame may be found to lie, such an incident at this time is exceedingly unfortunate. There is no reason to anticipate political complications and I have already made plain that neither the International Force nor the British contingent have any connection with the matter whatever.
    Mr. LANSBURY: In view of the fact that injury to or the death of a British subject, enlisted in this cosmopolitan police force, would be a matter of consideration, at least, to the Government, would it not be better that the international police force that is being or has been recruited should be brought under the same jurisdiction as the soldiers who are going in at the request of the commissioner; and that, instead of two cosmopolitan forces, there should be only one under one jurisdiction?
    Sir J. SIMON: I must point out that the composition of the Saar police force is not a matter with which this Government or indeed any other Government is directly concerned. It is a force that has been recruited by the Saar Governing Commission at a time when they were not aware that they would get the help which is now at their disposal through the International Force. I do not think, therefore, that it rests upon us to decide the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and I think we may leave this matter now with some confidence in the hands of the Governing Commission to deal with it fairly and prudently.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was some confusion in the public mind to-day, as this incident happened right on the heels of the troops going into the Saar; and will he make it

    821
    quite clear that the persons concerned have nothing whatever to do with the troops there who have gone in there?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for underlining that point, but I think that my own answer was, in fact, quite specific. I said so both at the beginning of my answer and at the end of it. If I may repeat my words, what I said was:
    "I have already made plain that neither the International Force nor the British contingent have any connection with the matter whatever."
    I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is most important that it should be publicly known and that in no quarter should any contrary impression be created.
    Mr. LANSBURY: While that is so, I would like to press the point that the British subjects who are in this police force were recruited with the knowledge and at least the acquiesence of the British Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, we did not stop them being recruited, and I think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman on that point did convey the information that persons wishing to enlist could get information from a Government office—as they did. That is one thing. The other thing is this. Had this officer been killed would that not have been a matter of interest to the British Government, and, if so, I repeat, would it not be to the advantage of all concerned if bodies of police or soldiers acting in the Saar were under one command? I know they are under the control of the commissioner just as the police here are under the control of the Home Secretary, but there is an officer in charge of the troops. Should not that officer be in charge of all the foreign police and soldiers who are there now?
    Sir J. SIMON: As regards the first of the questions just put by the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to make it entirely plain that the choice and enlistment of those who are now in the Saar Police Force is a matter with which His Majesty's Government or this country have nothing to do at all. It is very necessary that there should be no mistake about it. As regards the second question, I well understand the motives behind the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition, but he has to remember
    822
    that the choice and enlistment of these people was on a different basis from the International Force, as acting for the League of Nations directly, and I really think that we may safely leave that matter now in the hands of the Chief Commissioner. No doubt he will consult the general officer commanding, but it would not be possible nor right for us here to attempt to regulate arrangements which are made by the League of Nations and by the Saar Commission.
    Mr. MABANE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one newspaper last night produced a report announcing:
    "British attacked in the Saar."
    and would he suggest that the Press should exercise the greatest possible care in making reports on this matter at the present time?
    Sir J. SIMON: I regret it very much, because not only was it improper, but as far as I can see it was quite contrary to the information which came from there.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: I hesitate to follow this matter further, but is there not some slight misapprehension about the position. Is it not a fact that if an Englishman obtains employment abroad—and this arises out of the right hon. Gentleman's own speech on the occasion of the incidents in Russia—we accept certain obligations for the safety of that person and his defence against unfair treatment, and, in view of the fact that this man has sought employment abroad, not directly under the League of Nations, is it not possible that a man in those cir-circumstances in the Saar might involve us in some unpleasantness?
    Sir J. SIMON: There is no possible analogy between the two cases. The Englishmen who were in Russia were private persons in a foreign country engaged in carrying out their duty and Englishmen in those circumstances will always be entitled to the protection of their own Government. But if an Englishman enlists in the Foreign Legion or in the Saar police, he does so with his eyes open and nobody would suggest that in those circumstances he has a special claim upon the Government.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether this officer was a British officer?
    Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the nationality of this gentleman is British, but of course his position in the matter was that he was a member of the Saar police force.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1934).
    Estimate presented—of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1935 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT, 1934.
The following notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper:
"That the draft Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) Regulations, 1934, dated the eleventh day of December, 1934, made by the Minister of Labour, under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said eleventh day of December, be approved."—[Mr. Stanley.]
3.40 p.m.
Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: Before the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour opens the Debate on the Unemployment Regulations, it might be for the convenience of the House if you, Mr. Speaker, would state the course of the Debate in the coming three days and the position which the Amendments on the Paper should occupy in the Debate.
3.41 p.m.
Mr. SPEAKER: I shall be very glad to give a Ruling as to the position of the various Amendments to this Motion that are on the Paper, but, before giving my Ruling on the Amendments, may I say that I feel I should only be doing my duty, as the guardian of the Privileges of this House, if I asked, what I think the House has a right to expect, that my Rulings, which may have been forecast to Members at private interviews for their guidance and assistance, may be allowed to be given first by myself from the Chair and not anticipated without my knowledge in the Press. Such proceedings may, and indeed do, lead to grave misunderstanding of the position and duties of the Speaker of this House, and they do not encourage that free confidence between Members and the Speaker which it has always been my object to promote.
With regard to the actual Amendments which are on the Paper, I think it is important that, as regards this kind of Regulations, it should be definitely laid down by the Chair what is the position as regards Amendments. The question of whether the House has or has not the power to modify orders, regulations, etc., which by Statute require approval, depends in each case upon the terms of the Section of the Statute which directs that its approval is to be obtained. In the case of regulations made under the Emergency
832
Powers Act, 1920, Section 2, Subsection (4) of that Act provides that such regulations may be added to or altered by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. Other Statutes similarly provide for approval with modifications—for instance, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, Section 7 and Section 26. In the case of Church Measures, on the other hand, which require the approval of Parliament, the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, Section 4, provides that such Measures shall be presented for the Royal Assent, if approved by both Houses of Parliament, in the form laid before Parliament. Thus approval with modifications is in this case specifically excluded, and Amendments have not been allowed to be moved to Church Measures. Similarly, in the case of the Unemployment Act, 1934, the passage which governs Parliamentary procedure on regulations submitted by the Unemployment Assistance Board is as follows, from Section 52, Sub-section (4):
"(4) If each House resolves that draft regulations made by the Minister under this section be approved, the Minister shall make regulations in the terms of the draft to take effect on such date as may be specified in the regulations."
It appears from this that the Minister has power only to make Regulations "in the terms of the draft." If the House approves the draft Regulations with modifications, the Minister would seem to have no power to make Regulations in the terms of such modifications, and it follows that approval of the House with modifications is ineffective. It is not the approval required by the Act, and the Minister could not make Regulations as a result of it. Approval with modifications is therefore equivalent to rejection. Therefore, a Motion for rejection, giving reasons if desired, is the only form of Amendment which in the circumstances is permissible. Hon. Members will see, therefore, that the only two Amendments which are in order are the first Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—in line 5, to leave out "be approved," and to add:
"will be inadequate to ensure the maintenance of unemployed persons and their dependants in health and physical efficiency."
—and the second Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan)—in line 5, to leave out "approved," and to add:

833
"disapproved inasmuch as they should be subject to the following modifications, namely:
In Regulation IV 1. Part I,—

'30s.' should be inserted for '24s.';

'24s.' should be inserted for '16s.';

'20s.' should be inserted for '14s.';

and

'if under the age of 14 years 5s.' should be substituted for all the words from 'if,' to the end of paragraph (d) and in many other respects they will be inadequate to ensure the maintenance of unemployed persons and their dependants in health and physical efficiency."

Both these Amendments are what I call reasoned Amendments, giving reasons for disapproval of the Regulations. The other Amendments on the Paper would not be in order, because they seek to amend the Regulations with modifications which is not allowed for under the Statute. As regards these first two Amendments, I should like to point out to the House that, supposing I called the first Amendment, which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I should have, if I wished also to call the second Amendment, to save the latter by putting the Question, "That the words to 'approved' stand part of the Question." If I did that, I should save the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gorbals, giving the various reasons which he sets out for disapproval of these Regulations.
Mr. GREENWOOD: May I ask for your guidance a little further on the distinction which is drawn between the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the Amendment on somewhat similar lines in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan)—in line 5, at the end, to add:
"subject to the following modifications, namely:—
In Regulation IV, 1, Part I,—

the substitution of '30s.' for '24s.';

the substitution of '20s.' for '16s.';

the substitution of '20s.' for '14s.';

the substitution of the words 'If under the age of 14 years, 5s.' for the words—

'If aged 11 years or over but less than 14 years

4s.

6d.

If aged 8 years or over but less than 11 years

4s.

0d.

If aged 5 years or over but less than 8 years

3s.

6d.

If under the age of 5 years

3s.

0d.

834
(d) Where the household consists of only one child in addition to not more than two adults, the amount allowed in respect of that child shall not be less than 4s.' "
Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says that he disapproves of the Regulations inasmuch as they should be subject to certain modifications; in other words, it is a reason for disapproving of them. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) seeks directly to amend the Regulations. That is the distinction between the two.
Mr. GREENWOOD: Do I understand that unless legislation specifically empowers the Minister to submit Regulations which may be modified, it is not within the power of the House to make any modifications? That, as far as I see it now, scarcely squares with your Ruling on the second Amendment on the Paper.
Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Surely the second Amendment, that by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), is very much the same as the first Amendment simply because it disapproves of certain things in the Regulations, and that is the only reason why it is in order, because it disapproves.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is just what I was trying to point out. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gorbals says that he disapproves of the regulations because of certain modifications which he wishes. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale seeks directly to amend the regulations. That is the distinction between the two.
Mr. GREENWOOD: Is it your Ruling, Sir, that, unless there are words in the Act of Parliament specifically stating that regulations may be approved with or without modification, it is impossible for the House to modify them?
Mr. SPEAKER: I must be guided by the terms of the Statute under winch the regulations are made. The Statute relating to the regulations in this case is in Section 52, Sub-section (4), which says:
"If each House resolves that draft regulations made by the Minister under this section be approved, the Minister shall make regulations in the terms of the draft."

835
That means in the terms of the draft regulations that have been laid before the House.
Mr. THORNE: In your opinion, Sir, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) be carried, will it be obligatory on the part of the Minister to alter the regulations accordingly?
Mr. SPEAKER: If the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gorbals be carried, it destroys the regulations, and there is an end of them.
3.55 p.m.
The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move,
"That the draft Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) Regulations, 1934, dated the eleventh day of December, 1934, made by the Minister of Labour, under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said eleventh day of December, be approved."
In moving this Motion, it is perhaps hardly necessary for me to remind the House of the origin of these Regulations. The long debates on the Unemployment Act which took place this year will be still fresh in the minds of hon. Members, and they will no doubt recollect that, whereas the Act constituted the Unemployment Assistance Board and laid down its duties, it was left for subsequent regulations drafted and submitted to me by the board to deal with the actual method in which the need of those who came within the scope of the board were to be assessed. Those regulations were to be drafted by the board, submitted to me for approval, and then submitted by me to the House in their original form for the approval or rejection of the House. If Amendment were necessary, elaborate machinery was laid down whereby the House would have in its possession both the original draft regulations as submitted and the draft regulations which I would have asked the House to approve. In this case all that machinery is unnecessary because the draft regulations as submitted to me for my approval are the regulations which I now submit to the House for its acceptance.
This is the last Parliamentary step which still remains after all the discussions of the past year before the board, which was then set up, begins to undertake
836
its work. If the regulations are approved, the first appointed day upon which the board will become responsible for those who are now in receipt of transitional payments will be the 7th January; and on the 1st March it will assume responsibility for those able-bodied unemployed who are now the charge of the local authorities. I do not think there is any need to go again in great detail over all the old ground which was hotly contested during the debates on the Bill. It is necessary however to make some general preliminary remarks in order that the House may see the particular scheme which we are now discussing in proper relation to the general treatment of the unemployed. It is perhaps natural that, owing to the fact that these regulations have been long awaited and that they are extraordinarily important in their detail, they should have received a great deal of publicity and that the general impression should be conveyed that they overtake in their importance the other section of the State's care of the unemployed which is the Unemployment Insurance scheme.
I want to make it clear that despite the importance of what we are now discussing, the Unemployment Insurance scheme still remains the first line of defence against the evil effects of unemployment. It is true that when that scheme was originally introduced in the days before the War, it was introduced to deal, not with permanent, but with intermittent unemployment. It still remains a fact that the majority of cases of unemployment are intermittent and not permanent in their character. The last set of unemployment figures we have—those for the end of November—show that over 60 per cent. of those on the register had been unemployed for less than three months, and over 70 per cent. for less than six months. In the 12 months ending November, 1932—I regret these are the latest figures I have—which were the 12 months which covered the greatest depths of the depression, more than 80 per cent. of the people who made any claim for allowances during the year received insurance benefit. Owing to the improvement in employment since that time and the extension of the period for which unemployment benefit can be drawn, that figure, if it were available, would be appreciably better.

837
The majority of unemployment is still of that intermittent character for which the insurance scheme was originally introduced and against which it is the best defence. It provides security against the ordinary industrial accident of unemployment. It provides a sum which has no relation to need. If the sum is greater than the need of the man, it is a sum for which he has paid and to which he is entitled as a right. If the sum is less than the need, he has behind it a record of employment, and as the unemployment is a passing intermittent phase, he is enabled to tide it over without a general lowering of his standard. The great thing is that he is entitled to look upon that payment as a right which he gets without delay and regardless of his resources. It is true that the originators of the scheme thought it would deal fully and amply with this kind of intermittent unemployment. I think that there they were right. It is true, too, that the originators of the scheme thought this intermittent kind of unemployment was the only kind with which that scheme would have to deal. I only wish they had been right.
We have had to grapple with the new phenomenon of persistent as opposed to intermittent unemployment, which is in addition to the ordinary experience of unemployment for which the unemployment insurance scheme still remains the best defence. We have to-day unemployment of a permanent character and of unemployed whose employment over the last few years has been not intermittent but non-existent. That phenomenon, although it has been the growth of some 13 years, was one which successive Governments failed or refused to recognise. We have seen during the past 13 years repeated attempts to adapt the machinery of the old scheme to deal in some way with the new problem. We have had extended benefits, uncovenanted benefits, transitional payments—all methods of grafting on to the old insurance scheme something which, it is hoped, would deal with the new situation. But the only result of that attempt to adapt the old to deal with the new has been greatly to destroy the solution of the old problem without succeeding in finding one for the new. The climax of that process, the climax of the destruction of the insurance system without any solution of the new problem
838
was reached, I think, in June, 1931, when the Unemployment Fund's rate of borrowings to meet its obligations actually exceeded the annual income which it was receiving. But it was clear that a situation of that kind could not continue, and it was left to the National Government when they assumed power in the Autumn of 1931 to make a decision which had long been inevitable, and that was that, as long as you had the two different types of unemployment, you had to have two different schemes to deal with the needs.
I do not think I need trouble the House with any reference to the steps which were taken by the National Government to put the insurance part of the scheme upon a sound basis. It is sufficient, I think, to point to the success which those steps have attained—to point to the fact that it has been possible, within a financially sound insurance scheme, to have restored the unemployment benefits to the full level that they were before the crisis of 1931, to have extended the period during which they might be drawn by those in the scheme, and, at the same time, to have in the scheme a financial situation which is not only sound but which actually provides for a surplus. But for those who had to be brought under the new scheme whom it was essential to deal with on a different basis and with a different outlook the State accepted the whole financial liability for transitional payments. At the same time it was decided that, while the State accepted that financial responsibility for all the applicants, the payments made should be in accordance with the needs of the recipient, and not merely a flat rate.
There is no need to fight over again that battle upon the question of the needs test. As far as these regulations are concerned, that battle was settled by the Act. The obligation to provide for the needs of the people, subject to their resources, is a statutory obligation placed upon the board, and no regulation which did not contain those provisions would be either within the powers of the board to draft, or within the powers of the Minister to present to the House of Commons; but, of course, I, for one, have no hesitation in reaffirming the fact—and I believe that here my hon. Friends behind me are in agreement

839
with me—that I believe that principle is right, and that the State in dispensing this money has a duty not only to those to whom the money is given, but a duty to those from whom the money is taken. That duty is even more urgent now, when the increased distribution, and the still increasing distribution, of wealth means a wider and wider basis of taxation. We maintain the principle that if you are to take money, much of which may come from wage-earners who are little better off than the unemployed men themselves, it should only be given to meet the needs of the people to whom it is given.
Hon. Members will recollect that that decision was taken in the autumn of 1931. It was obviously impossible to devise new machinery which could be put into immediate operation whereby this new scheme could be operated. On the other hand, the local authorities had in their administration of the Poor Law been doing something of the same kind for 300 years. They had an organisation set up to ascertain the needs and resources. They had certain standards which they could apply, and it was to meet the emergency of the moment that use was made of this organisation and these standards. To the local authority was entrusted the task of administering the scheme on the same basis as their administration of out-door relief to able-bodied unemployed persons. I think we can pay a tribute to the vast majority of local authorities who undertook the task—the unpleasant and difficult task—for the way in which they have carried it out. Great weaknesses and great difficulties, no doubt, have arisen in the administration, but to a large extent those weaknesses were outside their control. In the first place, the whole administration of the Poor Law has been of local growth. It has developed in different areas on different lines in accordance with local circumstances or local opinion, with the result, over the country as a whole of a complete lack of uniformity of treatment which, although it may not have been too apparent when applied to the old Poor Law system, immediately it was applied in a nation-wide scheme of this kind that lack of uniformity caused anomalies and created obvious injustices as between individuals and
840
families in one part of the country and another. The immense variation which existed between what people in exactly the same circumstances might receive in different parts of the country undoubtedly has been one of the consequences of the decision of the autumn of 1931.
The second difficulty was that at the same time that the local authorities were administering this scheme on behalf of the able-bodied unemployed who fell within its scope, they were administering public assistance to other able-bodied unemployed who were outside the scheme, and they were administering these two schemes again on a differentiating basis. Not only in different parts of the country were people receiving different amounts, but in the same town people who were able-bodied unemployed were being treated on a different basis. Thirdly, of course, a heavy charge in respect of certain of the able-bodied unemployed fell with particular severity on certain areas, and it was, of course, in those areas that the situation was most difficult. The inevitable result of these weaknesses growing up in the local administration of what was an emergency scheme was that a national scheme had to be adopted, and that was prepared in the Act of 1934. That Act laid down two main principles which were to guide the board in their administration of the scheme, and which were to guide the board in their drafting of these Regulations. The first was that the assistance given should be proportionate to the needs of the applicant and his dependants; and the second was that the resources of all members of the household should be taken into account,
"due regard to be had to the personal requirements of those members whose resources are taken into account."
Before I come to discuss the details of the Regulations—and if I have to take a considerable time, I hope hon. Members will pardon me, because it is a difficult and long task—I want to make one general remark. There is, and there can be, no fixed limit on the amount of assistance which is given by the new Unemployment Assistance Board. Transitional payments were limited by the benefit rates, but benefit, of course, itself was limited by the rates laid down by

841
this House. But in both those eases, theoretically at any rate, there was recourse, in case of need, to public assistance. [An HON. MEMBER: "In fact!"] As an hon. Member says, "in fact," but it was very limited. In February, 1934, in England and Wales—I am sorry I have not the figures for Scotland—the extent of supplementation for benefit and transitional payments was not more than about 2 per cent. of the cases. But, of course, that has gone. The local authority will no longer be entitled to supplement the allowances for the people who come under the new scheme, but the board will be responsible for the relief of the whole of their needs except the medical need. It is plain that the service of the board must be discretionary, because they have the statutory duty which overrides everything else, to provide for the needs of the applicant.
Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in what is a difficult task, but we have Amendments to move and, therefore, we must get these points in discussion. Will the discretionary powers exercised by the board be varied from individual case to individual case, or will they be wider, and enable them to vary them from area to area in respect of the scales themselves?
Mr. STANLEY: I shall be dealing with that point during the course of my speech, and I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising it, but I hope that hon. Members in general will not think me discourteous if I say that I would rather not answer particular questions on details during the course of the speech. We are going to have a prolonged debate, and it will be possible for every point to be raised. I am sure no one wants to raise mere debating points to try to catch me out, but wish to put their points and receive a real answer to them.
I would say that this service must be a discretionary service in view of this paramount duty of relieving the needs of the whole household, and therefore, the Regulations, although they contain certain figures which will be discussed, and which I shall ask hon. Members to approve, cannot lay down any arbitrary figures. All that they can do is to lay down, first of all, a general standard of payments;
842
secondly, to afford minimum protection to certain resources; thirdly, to indicate the various points at which discretion will be necessary, and fourthly, as far as possible, to place the exercise of that discretion within some limits of which this House can be aware. The further point is that these Regulations are an attempt to show how the vast majority of cases can be dealt with. They do not pretend, and could not pretend, to deal with the exceptional case which always must occur, and which cannot be fitted into any general scheme of this kind. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will not think that by producing some cases of exceptional family distribution, or exceptional family need which are not met by a scale intended to meet the ordinary run of cases, they will thereby destroy the basis of these Regulations. They will, I think, only increase the arguments for the use of discretionary powers.
Let me turn to the Regulations themselves, which will govern the board's officers when they start to work this scheme according to the scale of maintenance to be found at the bottom of page 3 and the top of page 4. I will not go in detail through the scale, because, no doubt, various points will be raised by hon. Members during the Debate, but there are two major points to which I wish to call attention. The first is the provision of 24s. for a man and wife. Many hon. Members will, no doubt, when discussing various points call in aid some of the inquiries carried out by various bodies into needs, both as regards food and other requirements. I am sure they will appreciate the point that when they quote those bodies as authorities in other respects they must accept them also as authorities in the case of the man and wife, and I think they will find that 24s. for a man and wife is about what is given in the best of the scales and considerably higher than is given in one or two of the scales to which I will call attention.
I want the House to realise that our scales are the result of a very careful survey by the board of the primary needs of the people for whom they have been responsible. There are, in addition, these various social surveys which have been carried out and which have produced some theoretical figures as to needs. All those the board have had within their purview. But I would point out to hon. Members that there are very great

843
differences in the results which have been arrived at by these different social surveys, and I submit that in deciding whether the board have succeeded in their task or not it is not fair to pick out the best bits from each of these scales and put them all together into one scale with which to compare the board's scale, to the great disadvantage of the latter. In addition to the theoretical knowledge which these scales can provide, the board have before them the lessons of the practical experience under the scales which have been applied in different parts of the country.
Let me turn to the children's scale. Hon. Members will recall that in the spring of this year there was a hotly-contested Debate, and even a closely-contested division, as to whether a child should receive 2s. or 3s. In this new scale the minimum for any child under five is 3s. and that amount increases with the age of the child, which is a new principle. In insurance benefit there is just a flat-rate allowance for the child irrespective of age. In many Poor Law scales there has been, I think, a differentiation in the case of children, but that differentiation has always been on the basis of so much for the first child and less for the second and third and fourth. This, I think, is the first time that the distinction has been made on what, I submit, is the proper basis, and that is that the older the child the more it needs and the more it should receive. I think that hon. Members in all parts of the House, whatever may be their views as to the ideal figure, will agree that in comparison with the old scale under which the vast majority of those on transitional payment have been dealt with this new scale for the family with children is an immense improvement.
I received to-day from the Children's Minimum Committee certain criticisms on the subject of the scale for children, and I say for them at once that they frankly admit, with all the criticism they have to make, that the scale represents a great advance on what has gone before. However, they attempt to make out a case for a higher rate, say the scale is still inadequate, and give figures to form a comparison between the British Medical Association scale for
844
food and the Merseyside scale for such things as fuel, light and clothing, and the scale adopted by the board. I would repeat that in comparing our scale with the theoretical scales it is hardly fair to take the best bits of everything and put them together and say, "There is a scale which we put in comparison with yours." It would have been possible to take the Merseyside survey as the basis for the whole of the need, including food. Were that done it would be found that the board's scale for a man and wife and three children is higher than the scale laid down in the Merseyside survey.
Miss RATHBONE: Would the right hon. Gentleman——
Mr. STANLEY: No, I think I would like to go on with my speech. The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to put her points, and they will be very carefully considered. With regard to the British Medical Association's scale, I do not pretend to be sufficient of a scientific expert—and I doubt whether anybody in this House is—to say whether that scale or the scale produced by three or four other surveys is the theoretically correct one. It does happen that the British Medical Association scale, which has been selected for comparison, is very much the highest scale in the matter of food. There is, however, one consideration which hon. Members must take into account. I do not want to go now into the details of the figures, because there appear to be certain discrepancies in them which I cannot quite understand, though I am sure the hon. Lady will explain, but one of the reasons why the British Medical Association scale for food is so much higher than any other scale is the very large provision which it makes for milk. Hon. Members will realise that the British Medical Association scale, and the costing of that scale, were drawn up before the scheme for the provision of cheap milk in schools was produced, and the scale requires revision in view of the fact that the milk which forms such a large part of it can now be got elsewhere.
There is one other point with which, I think, the hon. Lady would like to deal when she speaks, and that refers to the wages question. The Children's Minimum Committee sets out the fact that it is difficult to suggest a scale which is going

845
to bring the allowance above the wages of a man in employment, but the hon. Lady says that that is really not an argument against increasing the scale in these cases, because of certain figures, which she gives, purporting to show how few people there are receiving wages so low as in any way to compete with these scales. I must tell the hon. Lady, if she was responsible for the drafting of the circular which was sent out to Members of the House this morning, that over this question of wages there has been, apparently, a complete misunderstanding. She makes the statement, on the authority of a Ministry of Labour publication, that, taking all the great industries which were surveyed in it, only 2 per cent. of the people engaged in them are drawing less than 45s. a week. I feel she has misunderstood the results of that inquiry. What is showed was the average wage paid in an industry: and on that the hon. Lady has said of those industries where the average wage is more than 45s. that nobody in them gets less than 45s. and therefore——
Miss RATHBONE: I should like to say that I did not draw up the circular. I regret any error. I am chairman of the committee.
Mr. STANLEY: I knew the hon. Lady would speak on behalf of the committee, and no doubt she will answer that point. There are two provisos to this scale with which I must deal. The first is the proviso in the case where there is only one child in addition to no more than two adults. In such cases the child is not to receive less than 4s. The case which that proviso is intended to deal with is the case of the married couple and one young child, especially the first child. The board felt that the arrival of the first child brings expenses which are greater than on the arrival of subsequent children. The other proviso deals with the reduction of 1s. in respect of each member of the household when they exceed five. The expenditure of the household on such things as fuel and light and cleaning materials do not increase in proportion to the number of people in a house, and therefore, where there is in the scale applicable to each individual certain allowances to meet those particular requirements, what is a perfectly proper allowance in the case of one individual, or two becomes excessive
846
in the case of six or seven or eight. The fire which is there for three is there also for six or seven.
From a consideration of the scales I wish to pass to another most important part of the scheme, the new factor which has been produced by the variable allowance for rent. On the question of rent there has been a general lack of uniformity in the practice of local authorities. Usually the allowances given are deemed to include a certain amount for rent, and perhaps there is some discretionary addition to the allowance if the rent is excessive. In the result one may quite well have two families in the same town and in similar circumstances getting exactly the same allowance and yet one paying 5s. rent and the other 10s. No one can defend that as being a practice which is either just or equitable. Either the people paying only 5s. are getting more than they need, or the people paying 10s. are getting less than it is possible to support life upon. That is an obvious inequality which I think the board quite rightly deal with. It is wrong that there should be no discriminating allowance for rent at all, and it is equally dangerous that there should be an automatic and inevitable payment of the exact rent. The knowledge that the State was standing behind the tenancy of such large numbers with an automatic increase of rent whatever it may be would be a direct incentive to profiteering by the landlord and would raise considerable dangers of collusion between landlord and tenant. The board have adopted a rule which, while it makes certain variations with regard to rent, does not provide a hard and fast or automatic payment of the rent whatever it may be.
The first thing to do under the board's rule is to ascertain the normal basic rent which you would expect the household to be paying. That is arrived at in relation to the total scale allowances of the members of the household. Where those scale allowances total between 24s. and 30s., the normal basis rent is taken to be 7s 6d.; if the scale allowances are above 30s., the 7s. 6d. is increased by one quarter of the amount by which those allowances exceed 30s. The basic allowance for 30s. is 7s. 6d.; the basic allowance for 32s. is 8s. If the allowances are less than 24s., the basic

847
rent allowance is decreased by one quarter of the amount by which the allowances are less than 24s. Having arrived at your basic rent, you then compare it with the actual rent which is being paid by the household. If that rent is greater than the normal basic rent, then, subject of course to the overriding provision that, in the view of the officer of the board, in all the circumstances of the case the rent paid is a reasonable one, the allowance can be increased by an amount sufficient to make the rent allowance equal to one-third of the scale allowance; that is to say if the basic rent allowance be 7s. 6d. and the actual rent is 10s., the officer can add 2s. 6d.
Mr. WEST: Suppose it is 15s.?
Mr. STANLEY: I was just going to deal with that point. If it be more, for instance in this case if it be 15s. the matter becomes one of discretion. Taking the country as a whole, probably this provision which allows an increase without the use of a special discretion up to one-third of the basic rate would, I think, fairly meet the case, but there are a certain number of highly rented areas, such as London, where a limitation of this kind would obviously be insufficient to meet the requirements. In those highly rented areas, special discretion will be given to the officers to exercise, not so much with individual cases as in other areas, but as part of the general administration in that area. If the rent is below the basic rate, the corresponding reduction is made in the allowances, subject to the one overriding provision which permits a discretion on the part of the officers not to apply the first 1s. 6d. of any reduction which might become justified under this rule.
It may be that you cannot justify theoretically a discretion of that kind. If you want to get mathematical exactitude you would have to decrease the allowance exactly as the rent decreases, but you cannot ignore that it has long been the practice on the part of local authorities in some areas not to take into account those subtler distinctions of rent. People have become used to that practice, and have to some extent built up their life upon it. This discretion will be used in cases where owing to the operation of the rent rule some reduction would be caused in the payment which people are
848
now getting, either from public assistance or under the transitional payments scheme. That means that where the scale allowance is 28s. and the rent paid is 6s., instead of a reduction of 1s. 6d. which, under the rent rule would be permissible, that 28s. can be paid without any deduction whatsoever. Having applied that differentiation according to rent to the amount which is already determined under the scale, you have a provisional assessment, which, for the people without resources, may become the final assessment, but for people with resources has to be considered in connection with those resources before a final assessment is arrived at.
Let me now turn to the question of resources and explain the way in which the board propose to deal with them under this new scheme. The first point that arises is the treatment of capital assets—of savings. Hon. Members will recollect that safeguards were introduced into the Act to deal with this question of savings, but the Regulations which the House is now considering include two important extensions of the safeguards which were included in the Act. They apply to cases where the savings belong either to the applicant or to his immediate relations; by that, I mean the applicant, his wife, or his father or mother. The first extension is that when half or more of the total capital assets in the household belong to what I might call the other relations, the upper limit of £300 is increased to £400; secondly, where the protected savings belong to those other members of the household, up to the sum of £400 only the actual income from the savings is to be taken into account. Hon. Members will recollect that there is a provision in the Act that a sum equivalent to 1s. per week for every £25 shall be taken into account after the first £25. Under the new scale, in the case of protected capital savings belong to other members of the household, nothing would be taken into account except the actual interest that arises from it.
Mr. A. BEVAN: Up to the £400?
Mr. STANLEY: Yes, up to the £400. Now in regard to earnings. In this connection, the board have made a differentiation betweeen the various relationships in the family. They hold, as I think most hon. Members do,

849
that there is a difference of responsibility in the maintenance of one relation by another in accordance with the degree of kinship. Parents have a greater responsibility for their children than for any other relation. Children have a less responsibility for their parents than their parents have for them, but a greater responsibility than they have towards other members of the family. Thirdly, members of the family who are not blood relations have a less degree of responsibility than either of the other two classes. In some of these cases a distinction has been made in the earnings which may be retained by three different classes. One is the applicant himself or his wife or his family. There the amount of earnings to be retained for personal requirements is 5s. or half the earnings, whichever is the less. Second for blood relations—That is, for the son, daughter, brother or sister, the amount to be retained is one-third of the first £1 and a quarter of any excess. In the case of more distant relations the amount to be retained is one-third of the total.
I want, in connection with this earnings rule, to draw hon. Members' attention to three points. The first is that what they retain under these Regulations is for their personal requirements. They are entitled, in addition to that, to the scale allowance for their maintenance. It is important to note this, for people may try to compare this allowance with what they see set out very often in a public assistance scale, in which the amount which the member of the household is allowed to retain out of his earnings includes provision for his own maintenance. In the Regulations, provision for his maintenance is in addition and is not included. The second point is that the wages considered are the net wages, that is, the wages after statutory deductions. A point which I know will interest hon. Members opposite is that the deductions to be made also include deductions made through the custom of the trade or calling.
Mr. T. SMITH: Assume that you are dealing with the case of a collier who has to pay a checkweighman, the cost of tools and explosives and for hospitals, will all that be allowed?
Mr. STANLEY: I think the actual details are going to be answered. I can answer in the case of the cost of explosives,
850
which would be allowed. If hon. Members will put the particular points down as to what comes within that definition, I will be glad to give a reply. The point is that the customary deductions which are part of the conditions of employment are deducted in arriving at the net wages. The third point to which I would draw hon. Members' attention is the discretion which is contained in Clause V, 3 (4), to allow the member of the household to keep additional sums out of his earnings to meet special expenditure which has to be incurred in the course of his work; for instance, for travelling expenditure, or, in the case of a man who has a job as a clerk or shop assistant, who has to pay particular attention to his dress and appearance. In that kind of case, there is a discretion to make an increased allowance to meet those special needs.
I pass to the question of the treatment of resources other than earnings. These other resources are so varied in their character and so different in their claims to treatment that the board felt, I think, rightly, that to lay down at once without experience of their working an arbitrary rule which could not be altered would only lead to hardship to the applicant. They therefore leave it, as far as the regulations are concerned, to discretion coupled with a certain minimum protection which is to be given in all cases. I am sure the House would not be content to allow these regulations to pass without knowing, in the first instance and before experience has been acquired, how the board intend to deal with these particular resources. I will give the House information in regard to some matters to which I know they attach the greatest importance. During the Debate I shall be only too glad to answer in regard to any other points. First of all, with regard to milk and school meals, the basis which the board are going to adopt in the first instance is as follows:
All meals given upon a doctor's certificate that the child is suffering from a specific physiological condition and requires extra nourishment are to be set off against the personal medical requirements of the children, and ignored.
The next provision deals specifically with milk or other special provision, such as cod liver oil, which is to be entirely ignored.

851
The provision of meals up to two per day for a single child in a household, or one meal for two children, will be ignored, as constituting a negligible saving to the family. That is to say, 12 meals in the week in the household are free. After that, some deduction is to be made in respect of those meals, which works out at a sum of roughly 1d. per meal.
As regards medical relief, maternity and child welfare, and tuberculosis services, any payment or allowances in kind under these Services will be regarded as being off-set by the special needs, and will, therefore, be ignored.
In the case of old age pensions, widows' and orphans pensions, and blind pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, any balance after providing for the pensioner's needs at the scale rate will be allowed for personal requirements where there are no other resources; in other words, in those circumstances it will be ignored.
Mr. T. SMITH: What about a pension received in respect of a lad who lost his life in the War?
Mr. STANLEY: We will deal with any particular points on which hon. Members may desire information. I am now making a general statement.
Educational grants from local authorities, where the amount does not exceed £15 a year, will be allowed for personal requirements in connection with education. Where it exceeds £15 a year, or is in respect of college or university education, the case will be considered in the light of expenditure attributable to education, provided that no part of the grant is to be regarded as available for the needs of members of the household other than the recipient of the grant.
These are some examples of the way in which the board intend to start dealing with some of these other resources, and I think hon. Members will agree that their treatment of these particular resources is adequate, not to say generous. I realise, however, that hon. Members will want the fullest information, not only as to how the board will start dealing in their discretion with resources of this kind, but as to any changes they may make, and I am considering whether perhaps the most convenient form in which to give the House information would not be to lay a White Paper, or, perhaps, put a paper in the
852
Library, giving all these discretionary cases among other matters, and which could be brought up to date as any change was made by the board in their procedure. In that way the House would have full knowledge of how eases of this kind were being treated.
Now, having been through the main points of the treatment of resources which have to be related to the provisional assessment which has been already arrived at, we are in a position to arrive at the final assessment. To that final assessment there are three provisos. The first is a proviso dealing with the wages earned. I believe most Members of the House will agree with the principle that a man should not receive more for doing nothing than he would normally receive when he was in full work in his occupation. I would, however, in this connection, point out two things. The first is that this so-called wage stop does not operate solely in the case of the wages of the applicant, but operates in respect of the wages of the applicant and anyone else in the household who is out of work. That is to say, if a father and a son in the household are both out of work, this wage stop is the wages of the two combined, and not of the father alone. Secondly, it is necessarily the fact that there is, and must be, a discretion, so that, if the needs of the family cannot be met except by a sum which exceeds the amount which the man would earn if he were normally employed, the statutory duty of the board to meet those needs overrides this as it overrides any other provision. The second proviso gives a discretion to deal with needs in special circumstances. In answer to my hon. Friend who raised the point, I would say that theoretically the board has to consider every case by itself, and has to apply its discretion in every case according to the circumstances of that case, but there are obviously cases, such as I referred to in the highly rated areas in London, where the individual circumstances are so much the same that the individual use of discretion really amounts almost to a general use of discretion in the area.
Mr. A. BEVAN: Would that apply, not to a particular class of applicants, but to a geographical area such as a distressed area? Are we to assume that the conditions for the grant of unemployment assistance are to be more or less uniform

853
throughout the country, including distressed areas, and qualified only by discretionary powers exercised in individual cases?
Mr. STANLEY: There is no differentiation between areas as such. The whole object of the scheme was to obtain uniformity and do away with inequalities, but of course in each case the individual circumstances have to be taken into account, and discretion can be used in exceptional circumstances in individual cases. The other kind of case with which this discretion will have to deal is the case of a family where there has been sickness and where extra nourishment is required, or where there has been some special domestic difficulty.
There are, of course, two cases where this discretion may operate, not by way of increase, but by way of decrease. Hon. Members will realise that the large majority of applicants to the board will be found in the industrial areas, and the regulations are designed primarily with regard to the circumstances in those areas. There are special circumstances in individual cases which may require an adjustment by way of reduction of the assessment in the case of applicants living in country districts. It is true that, expressed merely in figures, you probably cannot find any wide variation in the cost of living as between a particular industrial district and a rural district, but we all know that in these rural districts there is very often a different economy—that in fact you can maintain the same standard of life at less expense than is possible in a big industrial town. In many cases applicants in a rural district have resources to which it is not possible to attach a precise monetary value, but which enable them to maintain the same standard of life at lesser expense. There may be a need for some adjustment on these grounds in individual cases. Its extent will depend on the circumstances of each case, and care will be exercised to secure uniformity of treatment of applicants in like circumstances. Hon. Members will realise that the exercise of discretion of this kind is subject to appeal to the tribunal by the applicant. The third proviso deals with a different type of discretion—the discretion to meet needs of an exceptional character, needs, if I may so express it, of a non-recurring character
854
which do not have to be satisfied week by week. For instance, you may find that a particular household is in immediate distress because of some lack of necessary household utensils or equipment, and it will be possible under this discretion to meet the needs in such a case.
Having dealt with the regulations, there are certain general considerations upon which I wish to say a few words. The first is the question of the appeal tribunals. That, of course, is a matter of the very greatest importance. A great deal of the administration of the board must necessarily be a matter for discretion, and it is essential that the applicant should be protected against any arbitrary rulings by the board in the exercise of the discretion which the House will have granted to them. These appeal tribunals have been very carefully selected. I have been personally responsible for the selection of all the chairmen. There is a representative of the workers on each tribunal and a representative of the board. In addition, provision was made in the Act, as the House will remember, for local advisory committees consisting of people who knew the local circumstances and the local needs, and who could advise the board and assist them in their local administration.
The second general point to which I want to refer is the effect that these provisions will have upon the live register. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, my predecessor made the prophecy that the passage of this scheme would result in a substantial increase in the numbers of registered unemployed. The House will realise that obviously it does not make any difference at all to employment or unemployment; it does not mean that more people are going to be unemployed than there are now; but it may make some difference to the figures shown. That will not be because, as some hon. Members think, of a transfer of people from the public assistance committees to the care of the board. It is a general rule with all public assistance committees, when giving relief to able-bodied unemployed, to make them register at the Employment Exchange as a condition of receiving their relief. There is, however, a certain number of people, whose

855
number we do not know and cannot guess, who are not qualified for unemployment benefit or transitional payment and who have been deterred from going to the public assistance committee by the old stigma, which has still lingered, of the Poor Law. We are, under this Act, removing that Poor Law stigma from the people who apply to the board, and we are at the same time providing a scale of assistance which is much more generous than that given by the vast majority of public assistance committees throughout the country. There is no doubt that the result of these two things will be that an appreciable extra number will come to the board who would not go to the public assistance committees, and that will therefore cause an increase in the live register.
Finally, I propose to deal with the financial effects of the Regulations. First of all, with regard to those people who are now receiving transitional payments and who will on the 7th January begin to be transferred to the board, it is very difficult to make a precise estimate of the cost. So much depends upon individual cases, and there are so many varying factors, such as the differing ages of children, the rent and the use of discretion, that it is not simply a question of having a scale, multiplying by a number, and then arriving at a result. The only way in which an estimate can be obtained is by taking samples and making some form of proportional estimate. By the use of samples of that kind, widely drawn throughout the country, we estimate that the increase in payments to the people who are at present receiving transitional payments will be at the rate of £3,000,000 a year. Hon. Members will realise that that increase of £3,000,000 is not necessarily a figure that will be reflected in next year's Budget. The actual amount which is going to be spent on maintaining these people depends, of course, upon the number who have to be maintained. What it means is that, if there were throughout next year the same number of people receiving transitional payment as there are now, it would cost an additional £3,000,000 a year to maintain them under the new scale. I would like to point out to the House that the comparison which we are making is not a
856
comparison with the cost expressed in last year's Budget, but a comparison with the post-July cost after the restoration of the 10 per cent. cut in the Budget of this year. It is estimated that the cost of that restoration has been at the rate of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 a year, so the effective comparison as between this coming spring, when the board is fully operative, and last, is that the people on transitional payments will be receiving something in the nature of £7,000,000 a year extra.
In addition to that, there is the extra expense that is to be incurred in respect of the people who are taken over from the public assistance committees. The extra expense there is of two kinds. One is the actual increase to the unemployed themselves and the other is the relief that is going to be granted to local authorities by transferring a part of their burden to the State. It is very difficult to estimate either of those two increases. We have no precise knowledge of the number who will come over to us, nor is it very easy to find out exactly the scales on which they are being paid. The amount of the relief to local authorities depends on the calculation of the expenditure in a standard year, a calculation which has not yet been completed, but it would not be safe to assume that the cost of these two items together can be any less than £5,000,000. Therefore, I think the minimum at which we can put the total additional cost to the Exchequer of bringing this new scheme into operation is an increased expenditure of £8,000,000 a year.
Miss RATHBONE: How is the £5,000,000 distributed between relief to rates and assistance to the unemployed?
Mr. STANLEY: I could not give an exact figure, but of course the larger proportion of the £5,000,000 will be in relief to rates. The hon. Lady will remember that we only estimate that something like 200,000 will come over from the public assistance committees.
Although this scheme will cost a great deal more, although it will mean largely increased payments to the unemployed, it does not mean that every single person who is now on transitional payment or public assistance will get more as the result of it. It was never pretended that he would, and I do not think the House or the country ever expected it. One of

857
the great arguments in favour of a national scheme was to get uniformity and to do away with the vast differences between various areas. You cannot expect, in attempting to get uniformity, that you will not get some decreases as well as some increases. But the figures of the cost that I have given and the fact that the unemployed on transitional payment are going to get £3,000,000 a year more than they are getting this year—[Interruption.] I will take the hon. Member up at once on that. The comparison made is the comparison between the same number of people on transitional payment. We have taken samples of what people were getting post-July and we have compared that with what they would get under the board, and that gives a figure of percentage increase. That percentage increase shows that, taking the number of people on transitional payment to-day, they will get £3,000,000 a year more. The increase is not caused in the very least by any alteration in the number of applications. The hon. Member can work it out for himself.
I am sorry to have detained the House so long, but it is a complicated matter, and it is only fair to give a full description of it. I think every one will agree that, in drawing up these regulations, the board have been faced with an extremely difficult task. They have had to consider the rates of the wage earner, and the maintenance of insurance benefit. In addition, they have had to bring uniformity over great areas where now there is a lack of uniformity. Whatever regulations they introduced, they would be bound to be criticised and attacked from one side or the other, but, though no doubt we shall hear from hon. Members opposite complaints and criticisms of these regulations, and I have no doubt they will oppose them in the Division Lobby, yet I believe that the general body of opinion in the country is satisfied that the board have approached their task with sympathy, with understanding, and with success. Important as are these regulations even more important will be the way they are going to be carried out. A great deal has necessarily to be left, in a scheme of this sort, to the discretion of the board, subject of course to the decision of the Appeal Tribunal, and I believe the care, the sympathy, and the understanding that the board have obviously brought to this part of their task is an
858
earnest of the way in which they are going to treat the other part of their task and is a good omen for the success of the scheme.
5.8 p.m.
Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out "be approved" and to add instead thereof:
"will be inadequate to ensure the maintenance of unemployed persons and their dependants in health and physical efficiency."
I think all Members will sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in the difficult task that he has had to undertake in trying to make plain to us in a minimum of time, all the implications of the very complicated regulations that he has put before the House in the most technical language. We cannot complain about the work of the Unemployment Assistance Board. Our complaint is not against the board. It is against the marching orders given to the board by the Government in the 1934 Act. The board have acted with very conspicuous success in framing some scheme though not a scheme that is likely to be acceptable to Members on this side of the House. When the Unemployment Bill was first before the House, the most extravagant claims were made for it. It was hailed by its authors in terms which even the most enthusiastic biographer would never use regarding the person whose life he was writing. Self-praise it is said is no recommendation, but this scheme was boosted as being the one scheme that was going to lead to the salvation of society. It was going to be the most important piece of social legislation of this generation. We see it now in all its completeness—the Act plus the first set of Regulations under it. I think it is clear that the problem of unemployment and of the unemployed has baffled the Government, and I am not sure that they are out of the wood yet. Indeed it was suggested to them—and now that we have the Regulations this suggestion is more than borne out—that their new scheme would have very far-reaching repercussions on the whole structure of our social services.
What is to be the future of the Poor Law now that this scheme is about to operate? I do not want to go into details about medical relief and so on, but we are entitled to ask whether autonomous public assistance authorities, acting

859
within their own discretion and spending their own money, who happen to have scales of out-relief for the non-able-bodied and the sick which are higher than those set out in the Regulations, on the threat of surcharge by the Public Auditor, are to be compelled to come down to the Unemployment Assistance Board's scale. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to suggest that on the whole these scales are much more generous than the scales of many local authorities, but there are numerous public assistance authorities whose scales would put to shame the scale of the Unemployment Assistance Board. We ought to know whether the Poor Law service is now to become the handmaiden of the Unemployment Assistance Board and whether their freedom of action to deal with scales of relief is to be determined by the upper level set by the Unemployment Assistance Board.
Then, of course, there are bound to be very serious repercussions on the whole system of unemployment insurance. I am not certain that the Government, in their desire to maintain the fabric of the unemployment insurance system has not really put the first nail in its coffin. We shall see. The next three or four years, if the scheme works as long as that, will prove whether Part II of the Unemployment Act has or has not knocked the bottom out of Part I. I am quite satisfied that there will be a demand—indeed, there has already been a question—that the right hon. Gentleman should alter the scale of the dependents' allowances in unemployment insurance. There will be a demand that the means of the family should be taken into account. There is no virtue in a flat contribution and a flat benefit. It is only for administrative convenience. But if without paying any money you can have regard to all the circumstances of applicants and members of his household, what is the case for the continuance of the unemployment insurance scheme at all? It ceases to have any kind of justification and even those who wish to keep it will desire, no doubt, to bring the unemployment insurance scheme into some kind of harmony with the scheme of the Unemployment Assistance Board.
The Unemployment Act on which these regulations are founded set out primarily to make the unemployment insurance
860
scheme self-supporting. It was a cold, callous, mathematical calculation. We pointed out from these benches time and time again that it is always easy to get a self-supporting unemployment insurance scheme. All you have to do is to increase the contributions or lower the benefits, or shorten the time during which benefit is payable, and any unemployment insurance scheme can be made a business proposition. The Government proceeded to do that in Part I of the Act. It was the intention of the Government in Part II, and indeed it was the intention of many hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, to bring Part II into conformity with Part I. It was to be assumed that Part II should not offer to the unemployed worker better scales than were offered in Part I. That was the assumption. The Government have had to depart from that in very important particulars, and they may before very long have to depart still further from it.
Let us look at some of the anomalies which we have now as between the unemployment insurance scale and the Unemployment Assistance Board's scale. The right hon. Gentleman drew a sharp distinction between what you pay for and what you do not pay for. What you pay for you get whether you need it or not, but what you do not pay for you get according to your needs. But to the unemployed man it does not matter a brass farthing whether it is called unemployment assistance benefit or unemployment allowances. To the man and wife under unemployment insurance there is a payment of 26s. per week. Once they have run out of that, and their economic position is more desperate than it was before because the man has been out longer, it is no satisfaction to them to know that now they are to receive 24s. instead of 26s. Their human needs are there. If, however, that married couple are fortunate to have a child, it does not matter a brass farthing to them whether they are in unemployment insurance or whether they are receiving money from the Unemployment Assistance Board; both scales happen to be 28s. per week.
Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Assuming that they have a basic rent?
Mr. GREENWOOD: I shall have something to say about rent a little later. I have not overlooked that point. Where,

861
however, the family increases you get a growing disparity between unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. I do not mind people on transitional payment here and there being better off than they would have been, but I am pointing out that the Government are laying up trouble for themselves, if they think that people who are outside unemployment insurance, although it is true that they have been in before, are to be better off than the people inside. If that be so, clearly there is something wrong with the unemployment insurance scheme, and the logic of that is that those scales ought to be revised.
As regards the Regulations themselves, an effort has been made to convey an impression of generosity on the part of the Government. We have already had it said to us that people on transitional payment will be £3,000,000 a year better off. That will not mean very much on the average among a million people and their dependants, but I will let that go. The Regulations give an air of generosity. But, in fact, when you examine them they really maximise the income which is taken into account and minimise the amount that goes into the applicant's home. Every device is used to swell out what appears to be the family income, and every dodge is used to reduce the amount that goes into the applicant's family. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends during the course of the three days' Debate will be able to develop those points. I think it is true that the Regulations tend to magnify the resources available for the home. That is not new. It is to be found in the Act of 1934, which pretends that the 5s. over the £ of a disablement benefit is available for the home, when, in the opinion of the Ministry of Pensions, the 25s. was really needed for the man himself. It is so with the allowances that are made in respect of health insurance and so on. The Act swells out the family income beyond what is actually available in the home.
We get it, first, in the question of the definition of earnings. The right hon. Gentleman has done something to relieve the minds of some of us as to what "net earnings" mean, but I am bound at this point to enter a protest against the way the House is being treated in this matter. We have the regulations, we have the White Paper, which is absolutely meaningless
862
and just a mere paraphrase of the regulations, and we are treated this afternoon to new sub-regulations which we never heard about until we heard of them from the Minister. Now there may be a White Paper put in the Library of the House of Commons in which we shall be able to see this growing volume of sub-regulations which are regulations under the regulations which are now before the House. We are glad to have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman—we shall wish from these benches to probe the matter a little further—that earnings mean net salary less the employé's share of contributions payable under the National Health Insurance Acts, the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts and the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and any other sums the deduction of which is authorised by Statute. Now the right hon. Gentleman tells us this afternoon that certain items, though not authorised by Statute, but being the common custom of the trade will be regarded as net earnings. If that be so, these regulations are improperly drawn and ought to be withdrawn, because it is very difficult to accept the assurance of the Minister, on a document which will have statutory effect, when the allowances which can be taken into account are confined to those which are authorised by Statute, and the Minister tells us that others are to be regarded as net earnings.
Mr. STANLEY: The words used are "net salary or wages," and I am informed that the legal interpretation of the use of these terms means whatever the amount is after the deduction of these customary items.
Mr. GREENWOOD: If that be so, of course, we are relieved, but I hope that my hon. Friends will put case after case of deductions which are non-statutory and which obtain their force from custom or from agreements between trade unions and employed, and are as much a part of the expenses of a man as statutory contributions, and, if there are any of those which are not in, we think that they ought to be included. There is a provision made in Regulation III on the Determination of Need which turns on the meaning of the word "substantial." This is a case of an attempt to swell what appears to be the family income. As I understand it, it is a device for pretending

863
that a man, wife and child have 28s. a week when they have not, and when they might have only 26s. We want to know what "substantial" means. Every penny is a substantial figure to the unemployed family. If this regulation is to be used where the means of the family fall just a little short, it means that a large number of people for the purposes of these regulations are to be assumed to enjoy an income which in fact they do not possess.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to Regulation V (3) on personal allowances where allowances are being assumed in a purely arbitrarily fashion. Father is to be allowed to keep his first 5s.—it is very good of the Unemployment Assistance Board so meticulously to regulate the financial affairs inside the family—and in the case of a son or daughter, one-third and so on, the assumption being that the son or daughter, both of them saving to get married, are to be satisfied, if they are earning £l a week, with 6s. 8d., and the board are going to pretend that 13s. 4d. of that £ goes into the home for the purposes of household expenditure. All this jiggery-pokery about personal expenses is purely fictitious. Those sums will not, as a matter of fact, inure to the advantage of the housewife's pocket. In other words, the Regulation with regard to personal allowances is again a pretence and an assumption that working-class families have available for expenditure on family purposes more than they actually have.
In the case of earnings of the family, again the same kind of thing applies. People are to be assumed to put into the pool of the family more than, in fact, will actually be the case. On the other hand, I think that it is true that the Regulations tend to scale down what appear to be the standard allowances. It is clear that the more you bolster up what appears to be the household income, the more you automatically reduce the amount of money that goes into the home under this scheme. The matter does not rest there. Regulation III would enable the officers of the board to refuse assistance to a man and wife with only 23s., or some sum approximating to that. Where there is a large family, on the theory expounded by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon that overhead charges remain permanent and therefore
864
the cost per head diminishes, the amount of assistance is to be correspondingly reduced. Theoretically—and the right hon. Gentleman used that word on more than one occasion—that may be so, but whether in practice the total family expenditure per head decreases by an amount which would justify a reduction per head in the amount of assistance is a matter of very grave doubt.
The right hon. Gentleman seems quite pleased with his provision about rents. I think he is pinching the poor both ways on the rent allowance. I noticed how he won cheers from hon. Members sitting behind him when he said that it would be a monstrous thing to pay the whole of the rent, because it would mean that the landlord would exploit the poor. There were resounding cheers from hon. Members opposite. That is an interesting argument to be brought forward. What will the position actually be? It may be this, that in certain areas—I would cite mining areas, where there are large numbers of colliery cottages rented at low rents, and agricultural areas—where a man and wife will probably in no case get the 24s., but where they may be reduced below the Poor Law scales now operating in those areas. I am convinced that in the lowly-paid areas, and in those the mining areas must be included, where there are low rents, and where people have become accustomed to a low standard of rent, and where they have, I will not say enjoyed but obtained public assistance on a scale higher than others, in large numbers of eases those people are going to be very much worse off than they were before.
If the right hon. Gentleman is right about his £3,000,000, I make the prophecy that there will be no increase going into the depressed mining areas of this country under the rent provisions. If I understand the meaning of the Regulations, it is that less money will be going into the mining areas than is going in now. At the same time that the Government are providing £2,000,000 for charitable and semi-charitable work in the depressed areas, it may well be that they are taking £2,000,000 from the miners' homes. In the case of the high-rented areas the same kind of difficulty will arise. There, the whole of the rent is not payable. A proportion of it is payable, and that is defended on the ground that it would be wicked to pay the whole

865
of the rent because of the possibility of exploitation. The conclusion is that if the whole of the rent allowance be not paid and the family presumably has to pay it, there is going to be less available in the family for food. Therefore, the principle of need by which the right hon. Gentleman professes to stand is being destroyed and you will, in fact, especially in high-rented places like London, penalise the people who are going to pay excessive rent, which they are only able to pay at the expense of the stomachs of their children.
Another way in which there is an attempt to minimise the allowances is under Regulation VI, with regard to wages. That is an attempt on the part of the board and the Government to anchor down allowances to the level of the wages paid in the low-wage districts. Under the Poor Law, however reluctant the Poor Law authorities may have been to do it, able-bodied men engaged in employment have had to be subsidised out of the rates by outdoor poor relief because their wages were inadequate to prevent destitution. I know the argument on the other side of the House. It is the argument of the Speenhamland experiment where unscrupulous farmers, knowing that the parishes would make up wages to a living level, went on steadily reducing wages. In all the books of economic history we know that the poor were pauperised, but nobody ever said a word about the wicked farmers. I suppose that it was considered a sound economic action on their part.
Either the Government are going to make payments according to needs under Part II, in which case the wages paid, if the man is working, are quite irrelevant, or they are not. It is possible, in spite of the command from Parliament in the Act that they should have regard to needs, that they will not have regard to needs where wages are low, for fear of pauperising the poor. That is the dilemma into which the capitalist system has fallen, and it is not for us to get it out of the dilemma. The Government cannot ride two horses at once. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do!"]—at any rate, not successfully. If they establish the principle of need, they have no right to bring in the qualification that ordinarily the wages paid should set a limit. I am aware that there is Regulation V on page 7 and Regulation VI on
866
page 8. There are powers of dispensation. These are the only parts of the scheme which show any elasticity whatever. The whole of the Regulations are based on arithmetic. They have been so generalised and degraded that we have now got human needs in nearly all cases put into terms of pounds, shillings and pence. The arithmetic is based on generalities, but generalities cannot apply to the majority of individual cases.
What does the right hon. Gentleman mean in his reference to local commissars exercising discretion? I do not know how many local commissars he has in London, but I should imagine that they are going to have a pretty difficult job if they are to examine the personal circumstances of every applicant and, what is more, the personal circumstances of every member of the household. Our impression is that this generous provision for dispensation will not be widely used, nor is it intended by the Government that it should be widely used. Just as we have this afternoon regulations within regulations, so as regards the unemployment assistance officers up and down the country there will be secret circular within secret circular, telling them how to deal with individual cases which the Unemployment Assistance Board have never seen except, to quote again the word of the Minister, "theoretically."
A word about the adequacy of the scale. The right hon. Gentleman tried to dispute the validity of any kind of comparisons. He said, "Of course, if you accept the British Medical Association's scale you should accept it for everything. If you accept the scale of the Merseyside Social Survey Committee you should accept it for everything." My reply is that as regards the question of ascertaining the food values and human needs as regards food, it is far better to place reliance on the British Medical Association than on a non-medical body like the Merseyside Survey Committee. While I complain about the price that the British Medical Association put upon their food values—it was not their job to do that—we are entitled to say as regards food needs that there is no higher authority that we can accept than the British Medical Association. As regards other needs, I am prepared to accept the Merseyside Survey Committee's report, because they were dealing with things

867
within their knowledge, and that would not apply to the other elements in the cost of living if the British Medical Association had tried to elaborate the scale.
The first point in regard to the British Medical Association scale is that examinations which have been made by working-class women of experience, who can be relied upon to buy in the best possible market, show that it is impossible to buy the amount of food laid down in the British Medical Association's scale at the price suggested by the British Medical Association. Here is one case in point where the medical officer of health for the Lancashire town of Middleton says that the prices are higher within that area than in the British Medical Association's scale. He estimated that it would need 24s. in the town of Middleton to buy the food which the British Medical Association said could be bought for £1. That means that the estimate of the British Medical Association, not in terms of food values but of the money needed to buy that food, is about 20 per cent. wrong, because the prices are 20 per cent. higher than they estimated.
I am not blaming the British Medical Association for not being able to change calories into pounds, shillings and pence, but I could give the House a list of places showing that the scale of the British Medical Association as measured in money is hopelessly below what would actually be possible. In some towns it would need 25s., 26s. or 27s. to buy the amount of food which the British Medical Association suggested could be bought for £1. In the Prime Minister's own division of Seaham, in Durham, the price that would have to be paid for £1 of foodstuffs on the British Medical Association basis would require something like 22s. 6d. That makes any disparity between the Unemployment Assistance Board's scale and the British Medical Association's scale all the greater, because the amount of food which the British Medical Association suggested could be bought for that amount of money cannot be so bought. It is clear to those who have examined the regulations and gone through the scales and tried out various sizes of families, which I spent part of my week-end doing, that there is a very considerable disparity in many cases.
868
I do not want to go into details but no doubt many examples will be quoted of families of varying sizes and the amount they will receive as compared with what is necessary to meet the barest physical requirements of life. I am certain that if you examine the British Medical Association scale as it stands, not subject to a 20 per cent. increase in costs, you will find that there is a serious disparity between that scale and a reasonable allowance for the barest physical needs of life, which means that the Government are not, in fact, meeting the minimum physical requirements of the people which is what they set out to do. I am not going to say much about malnutrition, except that I cannot understand the attempts of supporters of the Government to prove that malnutrition does not exist. I am not going to pretend that we are on the whole a C 3 nation, that there is evidence of malnutrition everywhere, but I do say that when people try to belittle the effects of malnutrition they are not acting in the public interest. It was the chief medical officer of the Ministry of Health who said that malnutrition was judged objectively; he does not see the cases, but we have a certain volume of evidence that under the existing standards of unemployment insurance benefit, or transitional payment, numbers of people, especially young people, are suffering from malnutrition, and, unless the scheme is sufficiently generous to meet all reasonable physical needs, the amount of malnutrition which exists to-day—I will not magnify it—will increase.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the scale was generous. I could bring cases to prove that public assistance authorities in the areas where poverty is worse, and where they need help most, have to pay more than would be paid under this scale. There are a large number of people within the area of the London County Council, under the Poor Law, who will be better off than they would be under Part II of this Bill, and the whole of that money comes out of local resources. We need not regard this proposal of the Government as generous, because quite clearly nobody knows, not even the Minister himself, how much it is going to cost when it is working. Nobody has any idea. The right hon. Gentleman says that it all

869
depends on how the scheme is administered. We are not satisfied that a scheme which is bound to be administered on mathematical lines, and with a minimum of consideration for individual cases, is likely to be more generous than the somewhat clumsy system under which transitional payments are made at present. Largely because of that I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman for a definite statement that he will undertake a revision of these Regulations after they have had a very short run. I do that not merely because of Mr. Speaker's Ruling, for which the House is very much indebted. We have the position now that the Government so cunningly drafted the Section in the 1934 Act that they have completely humbugged the House of Commons, and put this House in a position of impotence. We can do nothing at all, not even after a three days' Debate, to alter any one of these Regulations. If a single word is altered, if a single alteration is made in a scale, the Regulations fall to the grounds. If hon. Members are dissatisfied with some of these Regulations, they have no means of expressing themselves; they have to vote against them all—which they will not do—or swallow some Regulations which they do not like. That is not treating the House fairly.
The scheme is working, as I said it would on the Second Reading of the Bill. I remember the jeers of Tory Members when I said that it was a Bill to bureaucratise the Poor Law system. It has done so with a vengeance. We are now faced with a body of Regulations which this House is impotent to modify in any way. Because of that, and also because of the fact that the Minister does not know what the scheme is going to cost—does not know what is going to come out of the washing next Saturday—I ask for a pledge from the right hon. Gentleman that within three months of the Regulations coming into operation there shall be a reconsideration of the position and the introduction of the necessary amendments. We do not regard these Regulations with enthusiasm. Certain of them we regard with dismay, and some with positive fear. We are satisfied that what was said from these benches during the passage of the Bill will prove to be justified by experience in the administration of the Regulations.
5.54 p.m.
Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I do not agree with everything that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), but I heartily concur in his remarks about the difficult position in which the House finds itself in considering these Regulations. When the Bill was under consideration, we on these benches protested, again and again, against the fact that we were unable to amend or modify in any way these Regulations. Is is true that there are not many precedents for amending Regulations made in pursuance of a Statute, but there is not a single precedent where matters of such great and vital concern to such a large number of people in the country have been dealt with by way of Regulations and not by Act of Parliament. When matters of such high importance are dealt with in this way, and the House of Commons can neither amend nor modify the Regulations, there is a real abrogation of the power and authority of this House. We should like to put on record again our most emphatic protest against this way of dealing with this important matter.
We shall all be grateful to the Minister of Labour for the explanation he gave of the Regulations, but, in spite of that, I have one serious complaint to make, either against the right hon. Gentleman or his Department. By a direction in the Unemployment Act it was necessary that these draft Regulations should be formulated and presented to the Minister of Labour on or before 28th October. It was provided that this was to be done within four months of the passing of the Act, and the Act became law on 28th June. These Regulations were, therefore, in the hands of the Minister on 28th October, and they were not presented to the House until six days ago—11th December. There cannot have been any amendment upon the part of the Minister because if there were it was necessary, under the Act, that a special Memorandum should be presented to the House giving the reasons for the amendments. Therefore, the Minister of Labour has not altered these Regulations. In fact he has been sitting on them for at least six weeks, and then the House is given six days in which to consider them. They are very technical and complicated, and every hon. Member who represents an industrial constituency is deeply concerned with their effect, and

871
is most anxious to have as long a time as possible to study them and also to consult people in his constituency. In fact, he has only had last week-end in which to consider the effect of the Regulations upon the people he represents, in spite of the fact that they must have been in the Minister's hands for six weeks. Perhaps we may be told the reason for this unnecessary delay, which has rendered more difficult the task of this House in considering these Regulations to-day.
I also endorse the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wakefield on the subject of the Memorandum. It is entirely inadequate, and tells us nothing which it is not possible to gather from the Regulations themselves. The other place has been in a much better position. The Special Orders Committee in the other place was able to meet the Solicitor to the Ministry of Labour and he gave them not only the information contained in the Memorandum, but, as I understand, a great deal more as to the inquiries which have been made by the Unemployment Assistance Board with regard to rents, the practices of public assistance committees and the way in which these figures have been arrived at. If that information had been supplied to this House, it would have been much more useful than that which is contained in the Memorandum. Perhaps we can be told whether the Memorandum was prepared by the Unemployment Assistance Board or by the Ministry of Labour. Is it simply the interpretation put on these Regulations by an official of the Ministry of Labour, or the interpretation placed upon them by the board itself? I pass to the actual terms of the Regulations. Already a reference has been made to paragraph III, and the use of the word "substantial"—
"an applicant shall not be deemed to be or not to be in need of an allowance (as the case may be) by reason only of the fact that his available resources are less or greater than the amount at which his needs would he so assessed unless the amount by which they are so less or greater is substantial when considered in relation to all the circumstances of the case."
That does give to the unemployment assistance officer a quite unnecessary and very dangerous discretion. Perhaps we may be told exactly what are the limits of that discretion, exactly how far the unemployment assistance officer will be
872
able to go. The scale for a man is 10s. If a man has 15s. will the assistance officer be able to say to him, "You have the greater part of this, so we do not think it worth while to trouble about the rest." It may be that only very small fractions will be treated in that way, but even if it is only a small fraction of a shilling, suppose it is only a difference of 3d. between the man's income and the scale, is there any reason why he should not be at liberty to apply week by week in order to receive that 3d. if he wishes to do so? It is precisely this sort of small grievance which brings the particular officer, and ultimately the whole system of these regulations, into disrepute. I hope we shall have some reason given showing why it is not possible to adhere more rigidly to the scales instead of giving the officers this very dangerous discretion.
Then on page 3, it is remarkable that the first three items show a reduction on the present scale of transitional payment, or anyhow a reduction compared with certain areas—I do not say every area. We have not had sufficient explanation from the Minister why there should be any reduction at all. Last summer we restored the cut in unemployment benefit, and in some areas that was followed in the matter of transitional payments. When in 1931 the original cut was made one of the principal arguments used by the Prime Minister was about the cost of living having fallen. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the cost of living had gradually fallen during the last year or two. I have not with me the figures of the present cost of living, but I think I am correct in saying that food prices have been going up during the last 12 months. Does the Minister think that this is a time when we ought to be reducing the income of many thousands of people who are now drawing the transitional payment? There was scarcely a word said in justification of the reduction which is involved in the first three items of the scale.
I pass to the children's allowance. Let me say that I want to review these Regulations as impartially as I can. I think that every hon. Member will be glad that it has been possible to increase the amount of the children's allowance, at any rate in many cases. I would draw attention to one feature—the increase to 6s. in the case of children between 14

873
and 18. That may have most admirable results. I think it may help to remove some of the opposition which undoubtedly exists amongst wage-earners to the raising of the school-leaving age when they know that if a child is kept at school and is not bringing home any wage money it may bring home 6s. in the way of relief.
The Minister referred to paragraph (d) at the end of the scale, and I would put to him a question about the words:
"in addition to not more than two adults,"
Why are those words included? I followed closely what the right hon. Gentleman said on the subject. He stated that 4s. was to be provided in the case of the single child. I think everyone appreciates that as a family grows larger the cost per head must in some respects diminish. I think that will be admitted on all sides of the House. But take the case of a man and wife living in a house with one child, and suppose that the householder's brother is living with them. If the householder's brother is himself unemployed and is drawing the 8s. under this scale, or whatever the amount may be, are the needs of the first child any the less by reason of the fact that the brother is living in the house and is receiving no more than is sufficient for his own need? I think this paragraph is too tightly drawn with the words "in addition to not more than two adults." Those words do not really achieve the object which the Minister had in view.
I come to a much more important part of the Regulations, and that is the part dealing with rent. On paragraph (a) the Minister said it was necessary to have some upward limitation in order to avoid exploitation by landlords. I should not have thought that that was a very great danger in the case of this class of tenant, because in the majority of cases they will either be living in rent-restricted houses or in corporation and slum clearance houses. The danger is not as real as the Minister thinks.
Much more serious to my mind, certainly in some parts of the country, is paragraph (b) on page 5, which deals with cases where the rent is less than the basic allowance of 7s. 6d. I do not dissent from the principle of a sliding scale in the matter of rent. The regulations are obviously an attempt to apply the principle of "to each according to his need";
874
but I do suggest that, at any rate from the point of view of some parts of the country, the basic rent has been fixed too high. The figure that is given is 7s. 6d. Suppose that the rent that is paid is only 5s. That would be a very frequent occurrence in my own constituency, and I think in some other parts of Scotland. That means that 2s. 6d. is going to be deducted from the provisional assessment. If there are special circumstances it is true that the reduction will be something less; it might be 1s. instead of 2s. 6d. But there is no definition in these regulations of "special circumstances." It is rather open to question whether the phrase "special circumstances" means the special circumstances of the householder or special circumstances over the district. I have read as carefully as I can both the regulations and the Memorandum, and I am forced to the conclusion that this means special circumstances for the household. Therefore, we cannot assume that the 1s. 6d. rebate will be given in any particular case.
Dealing with these figures where there are no special circumstances, assume that a husband and wife were receiving this scale of 20s. Assume that they are living in a tenement and that their rent is 4s. Their income is going to be 24s., minus 3s. 6d., or 20s. 6d. Take the scale of my own constituency, which is typical of many. They will receive 20s. 6d. as against 26s. at the present time. That is a very grave deduction indeed, and as against 23s. 3d. before the cut was restored in the last Budget. It may very easily happen in the case of people living in a very low-rented room or house that something like 20 per cent. of the income that they are now receiving will be taken away as a result of these regulations. The whole House, irrespective of party, rejoiced last year when the cuts in benefit were restored, and when in many cases that restoration was followed in the matter of transitional payments; but in a case such as I have outlined to the House you are going to have a far more severe cut even than the cut imposed in the national crisis of 1931. It needs more justification than the Minister has yet given us for such a very severe reduction.
There is one other point arising out of this question of rent. In the next paragraph reference is made to the question of house property. It is stated that:

875
"All money and investments treated as capital assets belonging to the applicant or to any other member of the household of which the applicant is a member (exclusive of the capital value of any interest in the house in which the household resides) shall be aggregated."
It is to be taken into account according to a certain scale. A man owns his house. I understand that it is to be exempted from consideration according to the scale that follows in that paragraph. But when we are dealing with the question of the basic rent, suppose that a man owns his house, suppose that he happens to have bought a house through a building society; all he will have to pay then is the rates. Suppose that the house is 7s. 6d. a week. The rates may be 2s. Are you in a case like that going to take the whole difference between the basis rent of 7s. 6d. and the amount that he happens to pay in rates? You may be deducting 5s. or 6s. If you do that you destroy the exemption for house property. I appreciate that among this class of unemployed there will not be a great many who own their own houses, but it is quite obvious that there will be a certain number, and the board think so, because they have made special provision for them. That point is rather obscure and it should be cleared up.
Now I come to the crux of the whole matter, and that is the question of the family contribution. I speak with some interest on this subject because I have taken every opportunity since I have been a Member of the House to raise this particular aspect of the means test. I am entirely in favour of the principle of a sliding scale, and I have frequently advocated it in this House, because I have always felt that it was unjust that if the wage-earner of a family, part of whose earnings had to support his family, were able to go out and by additional exertions to increase his earnings, it was a very hard thing that the whole of that increase should simply be deducted from his family assessment, and that he himself should get no benefit from his increased exertions. But I do think there ought to be a certain level below which it should not be allowed to slide. A very low minimum is fixed here; in fact there is no minimum at all, because the amount fixed is one-third of any amount up to £1. This matter was dealt with by the Royal Commission, and
876
on page 289 of their Report they made one suggestion:
"An illustration of the application of this principle is a rule whereby of the income earned by a member of the household a minimum sum, and in addition a proportion say of one-fourth of the earnings in excess of that amount, should be allowed as personal income, the balance only being brought into the estimate of the income of the household of which he is a member."
The Government have adopted one part of that recommendation but have ignored the other; they have adopted the sliding scale principle, but ignored the recommendation that there should be a minimum. I have followed as carefully as I could the method of assessment to be employed, and, if I interpret the Regulations correctly, it is to be done in this way. First, the officer will make out the scale of allowances for the applicant and his dependants; secondly, he will make out the scale of allowances for the wage-earners in the family dealing with them apart from the dependants; and, thirdly, he will make allowance for the personal requirement of the wage-earners. All these three items will be added together and the total will be deducted from the provisional assessment, and if there is any balance, that balance will be the final assessment. I am sorry to go into this matter in so much detail, but it is of considerable importance to know the precise method which is to be adopted.
Every Member who represents an industrial division is naturally concerned with the effect of the Regulations upon his own constituency, and, like a great many other hon. Members, I spent some time this week-end in endeavouring to ascertain what the effect would be in my own constituency. The House will perhaps permit me to give one or two examples showing the difference between what is being done by the public assistance committee in Dundee at the moment and what will be the effect of these scales. The first example is that of a household of six members, three of whom are wage-earners. These examples I may say were provided as typical cases by the Director of Public Assistance. This is the case of a man and wife with one dependant idle, and three workers in the household, one of whom is earning 21s. 6d., the second 26s. and the third 24s. The man has a pension of which 3s. 9d. is taken into account.
In Dundee the system is that the first 21s. of a worker's earnings is ignored.

877
Over and above that they go to the maintenance of his family. I think it is a little more in Glasgow, but I believe that figure to be typical of some of the rather more generous public assistance committees. I say "rather more generous," but I do not think anybody would suggest that it is too generous that a wage-earner should be allowed to keep, for his own personal requirements, 21s. out of his own wages. Under that scale the amount of benefit or what we should call under these Regulations the provisional assessment, would be 97s. 6d. From that the earnings, 83s. 9d. in all, are deducted, leaving an assessment to the applicant of 13s. 9d. That is the amount that is being paid at the present time. As I have worked it out the scale under these Regulations in this case the scale for the whole household will be 56s. From that, it will be necessary to deduct 5s. 2d. because of the provision as to basic rent bringing it down to 50s. 10d. To that will be added 23s. 2d. which is the amount of the personal exemption or personal allowance for the wage earners, bringing it up to 74s. The total income of the wage earners is 75s. 3d., so that there will be an assessment of nil, if my figures are correct. In that case under the present arrangement, under the public assistance committee, there is an assessment of 13s. 9d. but under these Regulations, if I am right, there will be an assessment of nothing at all.
I have another example, perhaps rather more unusual. This is the case of a family of 12. There are two workers bringing in between them 52s. 4d. and two others under 18 bringing in 16s. 9d. and 13s. 1d. respectively. I shall not weary the House by going through these figures in detail, but I have worked them out in precisely the same way as in the first case, and I find that under these Regulations there will be a nil determination, whereas under the present arrangement in Dundee there is an assessment of 25s. 8d. for that particular family. One other example. This is a case which was given to me in Dundee last week-end of a man himself unemployed, whose wife was earning 25s. The present arrangement is that he is assessed provisionally at 17s. His wife has a personal allowance of 21s. making a total of 38s. From that, here 25s. earnings are deducted, leaving an assessment of 13s. Under the Regulations the provisional assessment
878
will consist of 24s. for man and wife plus 5s. for personal allowance making a total of 29s. From that 25s. will have to be deducted leaving a final assessment of 4s. as against 13s. at the present time.
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is a very serious matter indeed that there should be these enormous reductions in the incomes of certain families. I am willing to admit that in certain cases where a number of children in a household are growing up a higher amount will be payable than at the present time. But the difficulty over the means test has always been in regard to these family contributions. All the bitterness and resentment has arisen out of the question of family contributions—out of the fact that if the father or some other member of the household merely wanted a few pence for some small personal requirement, he might have to go to one of the wage earners in the family and cajole and persuade him to give the money out of his scanty wages. That has been a source of difficulty all the way through. In Dundee we succeeded in removing a great deal of the difficulty when we reached the personal allowance of 21s. but, if I have worked out these figures correctly, it would appear that the effect of the Regulations will be that a great deal of the bitterness which we thought we had disposed of will arise again.
The Minister referred to increased expenditure, and I understood him to say that if the numbers remain as they are at present there will be an additional £3,000,000 going into the pockets of the transitional class—that the number of people who are on transitional payments, would get £3,000,000 a year more. I can see that it would be a very powerful argument in favour of the regulations that there should be this large sum, in addition to what has gone before, going into the pockets of the transitional class. But is all this money going into the pockets of that class? It seems to me that there may be certain deductions and that a certain amount of the money will go, not into the pockets of the unemployed but in relief of rates. Under certain Statutes local authorities have power to make remission of rates on the ground of poverty. It is done in my own constituency. Last year we remitted, I think, over £3,000 to people who applied on the ground of poverty. Of those people a great many

879
must come under the jurisdiction of the Unemployment Assistance Board, and there is no reason why any corporation should remit rates or give back sums that have been paid in rates, if those sums are being taken into account in the assessment of these allowances. The number of those applications will inevitably fall off and, in fact, part of this sum—I do not know how large a part because I do not know how many municipalities indulge in this practice—is bound to go not to the relief of the transitional class but to the relief of the ratepayers.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a White Paper which he proposed to lay on the Table or to place in the Library, and I understand that it is to refer to certain special allowances which he has in mind. I would ask him to go a little further and to let us have a report on the working of the whole system, say, after three months, and also that the House should have an opportunity of debating it. In some districts there may be a glaring disparity between what is happening now and what will happen under the Unemployment Assistance Board.
To sum up, there are certain advantages in these regulations which I have endeavoured to acknowledge, and which I do not think any fair-minded person would deny. On the other hand, there are certain very serious criticisms. I do not think there is any justification for reducing the rate for the man and wife, or for the single man or single woman. Certainly we have heard none as yet and I am sure there is no justification for dealing so much more harshly with the question of the wage-earners' contributions. That is going to mean a great falling off in standards in those places where there have been comparatively generous public assistance authorities. It may be said that in some areas where the public assistance committees have not been so generous the standards will rise but it seems to me, on the whole, that this is a levelling down rather than a levelling up. I hope the Minister will be able to give us a satisfactory answer. I shall listen to that answer with an open mind. But unless I get satisfactory answers to the points which I have put, I, for one, cannot take any responsibility
880
by my vote for these regulations being put into force.
Finally, let me put it to the House that these Regulations are not sacrosanct. It is true that we are not able to amend or modify them in this House, but there is nothing in the Act to prevent the right hon. Gentleman taking them back or to prevent the Unemployment Assistance Board making a fresh set of draft regulations. This is a matter upon which the House of Commons speaks with a great deal of experience. There is scarcely any Member representing an urban or industrial district who has not in the last three years taken part in the Debates on the means test, and probably hon. Members here are able to speak with as much experience and authority on the means test as even the advisers of the Unemployment Assistance Board. If the right hon. Gentleman finds that there is a great volume of relevant criticism, not from one quarter only but from all parts of the House, I hope he will consider the advisability of withdrawing these regulations and bringing forward fresh draft regulations which, while preserving the better features here contained, will remove some of the objections to which this Debate may call attention. I hope in that way the Minister will meet the feeling which, I believe, is going to be expressed from all quarters of the House.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: I support the regulations most enthusiastically, and I should like to congratulate our old friend the President of the Unemployment Assistance Board on the splendid work that they have done in producing them. The Labour Amendment describes them as inadequate, but if they are inadequate, taking the cost of living to-day, how much more inadequate must the allowances have been in 1930, and still more in 1924, when the Labour party were in power? The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who opened the Debate for the Labour party, said it would make no difference to the unemployed whether they came under the insurance scheme or under these regulations, but surely he must realise—at any rate, everybody else realises it—the enormous distinction that the man who is drawing benefit under the insurance scheme draws that as a right, in return for the payments he has made, and

881
draws it regardless of what his means may be, whereas the man who draws benefit under these regulations only draws what is necessary, having made allowance for his means, to keep him decently. The man who is drawing unemployment benefit can, of course, have his benefit supplemented under the regulations, but what he gets in benefit under his insurance is the absolute minimum, and nobody can take anything away from it. It is his right, and there is no means test attaching to it, so that he is very much better off than the man who is merely under the regulations.
Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman objected to the proviso that the unemployed must not be paid more than the employed. Surely the Labour party cannot stand for the unemployed being paid more than the employed? I thought that, at any rate, was beyond their ideas. What about the employed man who has to find a proportion of the money out of taxation? What would he say if he had to pay more for the unemployed than he was getting himself? The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) objected to the deductions for rent, but if a couple are paying 7s. 6d. rent and 24s. is the proper allowance——
Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I never said 24s. was a proper allowance.
Mr. PETO: The hon. Member was arguing on the deduction for rent, but the less rent you are paying, the more you have for the other necessities of life, and it is right that this scale should be proportionate. The hon. Member seemed to object to the fact that the levelling in some cases might be downward. When we discussed in this House the anomalies which existed in parts of the country in regard to unemployment relief, nobody thought the highest possible scale in any locality would be chosen as the basis—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because there are two sides to this question, as the Minister pointed out.
Mr. A. BEVAN: There is your side, and there is the poor man's side.
Mr. PETO: But the poor contribute, just as the rich do, towards unemployment benefit. You cannot get away in any part of the country with that sort of argument, because it was all thrashed out at the last General Election. The
882
poor employed as well as the rich have to find money for the poor unemployed. I want to deal in a few words with what the Minister said, that the manner in which the Regulations are Carried out is very important. I entirely agree, and I have some suggestions to make to my right hon. Friend from that point of view. I am thankful to see that the Regulations are flexible. I had a horror of putting a cast-iron scale on every part of the country. These Regulations are very flexible, and in the last two Clauses, in particular, they give a very great discretionary scope. But they are complicated.
The hon. Member for Dundee spent his week-end working out examples, which I, at any rate, found difficult to check without pencil and paper, and I would urge on the Minister the importance of making these calculations absolutely clear to the recipients of the money. People will stand a great deal of hardship, but they will not stand injustice, whether imaginary or actual, and I think it is very important that everybody who gets the money should know how it has been calculated. A man cannot now appeal to his Member of Parliament, I am thankful to say, and it will not be a vote-catching question in future, but it will be a question of justice, which is much more important—to do what is right by the people. I would suggest that the calculations will have to be put on paper, no doubt for record under a series of headings. Why should not the recipient of the money be given a copy of that calculation, so that he may know exactly how his allowance has been arrived at? It would prevent an enormous amount of ill-feeling and a feeling of injustice if the people saw exactly what extra allowances had been made, and why, and what deductions had been made, and why.
There is another point. The circumstances of the unemployed may change very rapidly. People may be working one day and not another day, members of a family may be working short-time or overtime, unemployed one week and employed the next, and I think it is important that these officers should turn round very quickly and be able to alter the allowances at very short notice and make them retrospective to the moment when the change of circumstances occurred. In my own constituency I have found that such complaints as you get

883
are largely due to a change of circumstances which has not been caught up quickly enough, and the household have felt that they were losing money which they ought to have.
One other point is this: If we are going to distribute under this scheme something between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 a year, I suggest that every effort should be made to see that that money is spent to the best possible advantage for the people who are getting it. An official will go round and will doubtless be very-busy. He will have a great many homes to visit in a very short time, and he will not be able to go into more than the various necessary details to find out the figures he requires from that household. I think that he ought to be supplemented, if possible, by some woman, on the Octavia Hill principle, under which a woman went round to collect the rent, and gave advice as to working the household in doing so. I think some woman, either a voluntary helper or a Government servant, should be able to go round at regular intervals to these homes and offer helpful advice as to the spending of the money. People may say that that is interference, but surely we are entitled——
Mr. DINGLE FOOT: At present they do it only at election times.
Mr. PETO: I do not think it is done at all, except under the Octavia Hill system, and under this scheme, after all, we are paying out the money, whereas under the Octavia Hill system they were collecting the rents. They will have far more power to influence the people and are far more likely to be listened to. Everybody knows cases, unfortunately, where what is a sovereign to one family is only 15s., or possibly 10s., to another, owing to the inefficiency of the heads of the household, and it is our duty as a nation, in distributing this money, to try to bring about still greater efficiency in its spending. I do not mind about a couple living in a house by themselves and spending their money on themselves—they can spend it as they like—but in other cases it is the children who suffer. I hear of cases in my own constituency when I go and ask about the adequacy of scales of relief. I am told that it is all right as long as a woman is a good manager, but we have cases where she is
884
not, and it is for the sake of the children that I think that some advice ought to be given to the household as to the best means of spending the money.
6.40 p.m.
Mr. A. BEVAN: I hope the constituents of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. G. Peto) will read to-morrow his admission that he desires to be relieved of the responsibility of defending the poorest of them on the Floor of this House, and prefers to hand that responsibility over to a board over which he has no control, although in the latter portion of his speech he claimed the right, when taking the money round, to give his impudent advice to the family as to how they should spend it. That was a characteristic Conservative speech, and it is indeed characteristic of the attitude of the Conservative party to this matter ever since it has been before the House. We warned the House when the Bill was before it that all that many hon. Members were seeking was an alibi for not having to discuss the conditions of the unemployed. We said that the board would be entirely beyond the control of the House, and they said, "Excellent; that is precisely what we want, because we no longer wish to have the responsibility."
Mr. PETO: Individual cases, I said, would not be brought before Members of the House.
Mr. BEVAN: But the hon. Member has already been pointing out that the most excellent feature of these Regulations is the flexibility which will be allowed to the officers, and the whole matter, when reduced to the locality, becomes one of the individual. It is the individual, not a mass, who desires to be defended; it is the individual who is oppressed, it is the individual who is helpless, it is the individual who has no appeal. It is that very individual who appeals to a tribunal—which meets in camera and has none of the force of public opinion raised against it—a helpless man, who has no chance of presenting his case to the public or of mobilising public opinion; and you call that protection. The hon. Member is a most unworthy representative of his constituents, and the only thing which reconciles me to listening to him is the certain knowledge that men like him will not sit in this House very much longer.

885
The next alibi we get is that, after all, these Regulations are flexible. The first alibi during the passage of the Bill was, "Wait until you see the Regulations, because you will not know what the second Part of the Bill means until you see them." That was the alibi that Member after Member in all parts of the House used. It was used by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour himself, who, on very many occasions in the Debate on the Bill, made no bones about answering the discussion by saying, "All this is conjecture, hypothesis; wait until you see the Regulations, and then you will know." Now we have had the Regulations, and he says, "We must not take too much notice of what the Regulations say, because they are so flexible, and they might be something other than they are when they are carried out." Another alibi. I do not suppose there has ever been a Government in modern times so abominably cowardly as this Government and so afraid to put its proposals before the people.
If, in the course of what I am going to say, I use expressions of indignation, I hope to justify them before I have finished. We are accustomed to discuss these human matters in a spirit which utterly fails to bring to the Floor of the House the depth of passion that exists in the country. We discuss them as though they were abstruse, academic matters. We are discussing here the lives of 4,000,000 people and the members of their families whose earnings will be affected. We are therefore considering anything between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 people, and we are parting with these powers for the last time until this board is good enough to give us a further opportunity of discussing how we shall behave towards the poor. I have been making investigations over the week-end, and I have consulted with the public assistance authority of the county of Monmouth.
I am very sorry for the Minister of Labour. He must look upon the Prime Minister who is sitting by his side as his most deadly enemy because whenever you want to break a Minister you always give him the worst jobs. In the last few weeks the Minister of Labour has been given the two worst jobs that any Minister could be given. He was first given a Bill to distribute old boots among the unemployed under the Distressed
886
Areas Bill. Now he has been given the task of putting through the House Regulations which, when they are carried out, will give rise to the bitterest passions throughout the distressed areas. I ask hon. Members who sit behind the Government to consider their position. They have been shedding crocodile tears about the condition of the distressed areas and congratulating the Government because at last they have faced the problem of the distressed areas. The Government are now engaged in carrying through the House Regulations which will brutally impoverish the condition of all the distressed areas. That is true because in those areas are the more humane local authorities whose scales will be reduced under the Regulations. The public assistance officer of the county of Monmouth calculates that these Regulations will take from the county between £200,000 and £250,000 every year over and above what they are losing at the moment.
Mr. MAGNAY: Is there not a contra account to the benefit of the local authorities in respect of the reduction of the rates?
Mr. BEVAN: I am not speaking of the local authorities. I am speaking about the people who live in their districts. This money will not be lost by the local authorities, but by the recipients of transitional payment. You have just elected commissioners who are to be sent into the distressed areas to distribute £2,000,000 in various forms. You are taking from the distressed areas by these Regulations much more money than you are sending the commissioners to spend. The House of Commons in this business has reached a depth of hypocrisy that human language cannot describe. You might have had the decency not to talk about distressed areas and not to bring in a damnable Bill—[Laughter.] What is the hon. Member laughing at? The hon. Gentleman must realise that here we have a last opportunity of putting on the Floor of the House the case of men a lot better than he is.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I was not laughing at that. I was obviously laughing at the adjective which the hon. Gentleman used. I will certainly not answer his last observation.
Mr. BEVAN: The adjective was deserved. There can be no greater hypocrisy than to bring before the House of Commons a Bill to relieve the distress which you say exists and then follow it up with a Measure that makes the distress worse. If that is not hypocrisy, the English language has lost its meaning. The Minister of Labour spent a great deal of time in explaining the best features of these Regulations. He did not say a word about the worst. He made no attempt to justify the reduction of allowance from 17s. to 10s. for a man over 21 years of age. Will be get up and justify it? Will any hon Member argue that a man who has been idle for 26 to 52 weeks can be kept on 10s. a week? If hon. Members will not justify it, let them have the guts to go into the Lobby against it.
Mr. DENVILLE: Do not bully us.
Mr. BEVAN: I shall wait and see how the hon. Gentleman and his friends act. It is very difficult for us to face these things with complacency, but if we cannot succeed in stirring the House of Commons, we shall succeed in stirring the country. Is there any justification for this reduction? The local authorities in many of the distressed areas have taken the Government at their word. They said through the mouth of the Attorney-General some years ago that they never contended that the Unemployment Insurance benefit was fixed at a level to maintain a recipient, but that it was considered to be only an assistance to supplement their other resources. That was a statement made about the 17s., but 7s. is now to be taken off. Will the Government justify it? The Minister of Labour did not say a word about it. A sum of 2s. is taken off a man and wife, but if they have a son over 21 years of age, 7s. is taken off. If there is a second son at home, he does not even get 10s.: he gets only 8s. There are hundreds of families in that position in my area. The principle of these Regulations is that the allowance is raised as the child grows older, but you pay only 8s. for a man of 21 years of age, and for every member of the family over five, they lose 1s. each. You pay 10s. for the first son if he has been idle for a year, and 8s. for the second and each additional son.
How do the Government justify it? They may justify it to themselves here,
888
but how will they justify it in the country? If hon. Members opposite think they can justify it, I will take the platform with any Member in any constituency and give them the opportunity to see if they can get their constituents to vote that even 17s. is an adequate allowance for a man over 21. In the case in which 7s. is taken off there are no other resources. It is not the exceptional case, but the standard case. There is no flexibility in the Regulations about that. It is an instruction to each unemployment assistance officer. If the rent is 7s. 6d. and you give the full 2s. 6d., the position is still that they will lose 5s. or 6s. a week and more if there is a young man who gets 8s. I take the standard case. I do not shelter behind the exceptional case because, if I did, the Parliamentary Secretary would reply that the Government have made provision for flexibility. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) treated this flexibility as his alibi when the Bill was before the House. He said that when the board was set up they would have the power to raise the benefit above the standard allowance. The instruction in the standard case is to reduce the scale by 7s. per week. I hope that before this three days' Debate is over hon. Members will not only go into the Lobby, but will defend this on the Floor of the House.
When we leave the income and go to the other side of the balance sheet and consider the resources that are to be taken into account, the behaviour of the Government becomes obscene. In that case they say that a young man who is working should be kept on a standard of domestic comfort equal to 10s. a week. They say to a young man who is working underground, "The home in which you live, the table at which you eat, the clothes you wear, the roof that is over your head, the domestic amenities of your household, shall be based upon an expenditure of 10s. a week."
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: That will not cover his clothes.
Mr. BEVAN: He will have 11s. 8d. left if he earns £2 a week. Out of that 11s. 8d. he has to provide himself for compensation for working at all and for any additional amenities that he may want, and out of it, of course, he is expected to save enough money to get

889
married decently. The facts have only to be put to show the utter absurdity and inequity of the position that is being forced upon our people. Hon. Members seem to imagine this to be a very amusing business. Over 50 per cent. of my constituents are idle, and there are 26,000 men on transitional payment in my county. When these Regulations are understood, they will send a shudder of dismay through every town and village in Monmouthshire. That county has been assessing the claims for transitional payment on grounds which the Ministry of Labour has been afraid to tackle. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. Why has it not tackled them then? Representatives of the local authority in 1932 put their case to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour, and the Government dare not interfere with the scales, because they could not make a case for refusing them, and they cannot make a case now. All that they can do is to bring a skeleton before the House in the hope that nobody will see what flesh is going to be put on it.
In assessing transitional payment, the Monmouth County Council said that in their opinion no man who was working ought to be expected to work upon a standard of living of less than 32s. a week. If there were a second earner in the household, he ought not to be expected to exist on a standard of life less than 25s., and, if there were a third, 20s. I ask hon. Members: Is that unreasonable? Is 32s. too much? The other day you were all weeping crocodile tears about the Gresford disaster. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] You were—and now you are saying that you will not vote for more than 10s. for the men who face these dangers. We said, in the Monmouth County Council, that a man ought not to be expected to work underground at a standard wage of less than 32s. a week. Is that too much?
Mr. DENVILLE: The hon. Member has made a definite accusation that we were hypocritical about the Gresford disaster. I say it is damnable to make a statement like that, which is untrue.
Mr. BEVAN: If you only did your job in the House of Commons you could stop these disasters. You would not send men down a pit to face those dangers to live on a standard of 10s. a week. That is the
890
position. We said that 32s., 25s. and £1 was not an unreasonable scale. The Government did not think it was so unreasonable; at least they were afraid to fight it. If it were right then, is it wrong now? Why did they not fight it? Because if it had been fought, the country could see the issues involved in the scales before the House. But they can hide them here in this way, and can hide behind them. In our county now, if you have got these decisions concerning a family all of whom are unemployed, and with no resources whatsoever, they all get the maximum allowed under the unemployment benefit scale because it was thought that nobody should be asked to live on less than the scale of unemployment benefit. If this scale goes through, a household like that will lose £1 14s. a week. That is the situation.
These scales will not bear examination. When the Bill was before the House we said that not only would you take the capital savings of the applicant for benefit into account, but also the capital savings of the other members of the household. That was denied by hon. Members who were only looking for alibis. Now it is admitted in the Regulations that not only are the savings of the applicant taken into account, but also the savings of persons who are not applicants at all. A lad in the family who has saved up a bit of money; an uncle, an aunt or anybody living in the household will have his or her capital taken into account if it amounts to more than £400. This is an instruction to break up the household. That is all that it is. Do you imagine that an aunt or an uncle with £500 or £600 is going to stay at home keeping the family until their capital is reduced to £400 and then lose a shilling a week on the income from that? Will the right hon. Gentleman defend that? It is said that a man will not lose a 1s. a week, because he can only have his actual income from the £400 taken into account, so that the actual income in these cases is assumed to be always less than 1s. a week for £25. If that is so, you are not saving the savings of the man with £300, but taking his capital by assuming that he is earning 10 per cent. on the £300. On which petard is the Government going to be hoist? Is the argument that they are actually protecting the savings of the man? If that is so, why do they claim to make a concession

891
in the case of the £400? They know that the whole position taken up by them is an indefensible one. You can go through these scales one after another and riddle them.
The right hon. Gentleman defended the principle that the unemployment insurance benefit or unemployment assistance ought never to be more than normal earnings. The principle should be good, if we accept the Minister's statement, but the figures are all bad—and it is the figures on which the unemployed will live, and not the principles. It is the aggregate possible earnings of all the members of the family that are to be considered. But the Minister does not go anywhere near them. He is going to give 10s. to a person 21 years of age. You have given him the principle, but it does not come anywhere near the figure. If you were giving him something like 30s. or £2 a week you could then apply the qualification and say that he was not to have more than his normal earnings. But you are only giving him 10s., so that the principle will not apply to him at all. These are some of the considerations that have been weighing on our minds. It is quite true that in some parts of the scales you are easing the position, particularly for the young children. That is perfectly correct, but it is being done at the expense of the adults. It is only a few families, where there is a man and a wife and a few children with nobody at all earning and with no resources in the household, that will get some benefit out of this. But the normal working-class family will not benefit under the proposals.
I have not patience to go through these Regulations item by item. Some hon. Members find them complicated, but I do not find them complicated at all. They are perfectly simple. They represent on the part of the Government a most brutal attempt to reduce the standards of life of the people. They represent a cowardly attempt to make the right hon. Gentleman an instrument to drive the dagger of poverty further into the heart of our people. They have lived in those valleys now for 10 or 12 years in growing misery and growing despair, with no hope of escape, with no chance of educating their children and with no chance of looking forward to a life of expanding opportunity. And after all this, Government comes
892
along and drives them down lower again and says: "You have learned the lesson of poverty so much, you have learned it so well, that we will give you another dose of it." This damnable Government does not deserve the confidence of any people, and if I were a young man I would be ashamed to ally, myself to such a conspiracy.
7.9 p.m.
Sir ROBERT ASKE: I suppose there is a natural tendency on the part of everyone to consider these regulations from the standpoint of those whom they represent. I acknowledge that in a very large number of instances, these regulations will improve the lot of the unemployed in the area which I represent. That is in the main due to the fact of the children's allowances, the rent allowances, the provisions for sub-letting, the new provisions with regard to the exemption of part of the earnings of the applicant or his wife, and the provisions with regard to old age pensions, orphans pensions and unemployment benefit. But when one has to consider the regulations, one has to regard them as a whole. And the fact that there has been justice done in a great many cases will not justify injustice if it be done in other cases. Your justice to one does not justify an act of injustice to another, and it is necessary therefore to consider the regulations as a whole. I have to admit, as hon. Members who spoke previously have done, that we have some instances also where these regulations will prejudicially affect our people.
I thought our standard in Newcastle was so low, that our people had been treated in such a niggardly way, that it was impossible to treat them worse—but there are some cases under the new regulations where they will be treated worse. One of them, curiously enough, is the same as the case given by a previous speaker, namely, the 24s. for a man and wife. After the Unemployment Act was passed we made a great effort, not merely on the Tyne but in many other areas in Durham and Northumberland, to secure for those on transitional benefit that the allowance for man and wife should be 26s. As a result, there are many hundreds of people in these areas who have been receiving 26s. a week in transitional payment, although the public assistance scale was only 24s. That was justified because the public

893
assistance authorities felt that it was necessary to make that extra 2s. allowance to keep these men on transitional payments fit for work when the opportunity of work arose. As a consequence, many of these people have since been getting 26s. a week, like those on standard benefit. That is to be taken away, and if, in addition, one takes into account the rent allowance—many of these people are living in one room and paying a rent of, say, 5s.—it means that instead of getting this 24s., they are only getting somewhere between 21s. and 22s. 6d. So that in all those cases the people will be worse off. In my view, the allowance of 24s. for two persons living alone is not enough, and we expected that there would be more than an allowance of 24s. for a man and wife. I venture to say that there will be universal disappointment that the scale is placed as low as 24s. One can give a large number of illustrations. I will give one more. In our area, where a widower has a daughter of 16 or over acting as a housekeeper for her father, the public assistance committee has generally treated those two persons on the basis of man and wife—a very useful and proper provision. Under the old scale they received 24s., but now their position will be made worse.
One of the main questions which arise under these regulations is the calculation of the family resources, and that is based upon the resources of the members of the household. What is meant by "members of the household"? What is meant by "household"? There is no definition in the regulations, and I find it impossible to arrive at any definite conclusion as to what is intended. This has been a matter of the greatest difficulty in the administration of transitional payments. In that case the words may not have been "members of the household," because they vary; in some cases it was "residing with parents" or "residing with relatives." I think the use of the words "members of the household" in the regulations widens the whole basis of "residing with relatives." We have had difficulties of this kind: A son takes a sub-let room in the house of his parents. He lives in that room and arranges for all his own meals apart from his parents. Is he a member of the household? If, in addition to that, he takes certain of his meals with his parents, but only some, does that make
894
him a member of the household? If he lives in a room in some other building and drops in for dinner or tea with his parents occasionally, does that make him a member of the household?
All those are practical difficulties which arise, but the matter is simply left with the statement in the Memorandum that each case has to be treated as a question of fact. If one is to put in a definition I suggest that it must at least be that every person who lives in the house of the applicant and shares the table and the same living room with the applicant must be deemed to be a member of the household. Assuming that to be so, where does one get to with regard to the calculation of resources? We find that the members of the household are divided in the regulations into three categories. First of all we have the wife, husband, father or mother of the applicant, who are treated in one category; the son or daughter, and the brother or sister of the applicant, are treated in a different way; and all other persons are treated in a third way. I put this point to the Minister. Assuming that in the third category there is a workmate of the applicant, no relation to him but living in the house of the applicant, sharing the same table, sharing the same living room. Is he not a member of the household, although he is no relation whatever? Surely he is; he must be; because there is nothing in these regulations to say that the member of the household must be related to the applicant.
Mr. STANLEY: You are not suggesting that he is living there free?
Sir R. ASKE: Certainly not, and neither are the sons and daughters nor the brothers or sisters living there free. If they are working, they are all making their contributions. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that those in the second category, the sons and daughters and brothers and sisters, who are working and earning money, are living there free? They are members of the household. I suggest that the cousin of the wife or the uncle of the wife are members of the family. They would be members of the household. See how their resources have to be brought into account. All except one-third of what they earn has to be counted. Say the wife's uncle is earning 40s. a week. About

895
£1 of what he earns has to be deducted from what the applicant is to receive under these regulations. If that is the construction of these regulations, and I suggest that it is, the position is perfectly preposterous. These distant relatives or persons who are no relatives at all have no responsibility, legal or moral, for the maintenance of the applicant or his children They certainly will not contribute the rest of their income to the applicant for the maintenance of himself and his children. Why are they to be brought into account at all?
One passes to the second category, where there is a nearer degree of relationship. Take the case of a brother or sister of the applicant. I suggest that in these cases, and, indeed, in all these other cases, there is one logical basis which could be adopted as a basis on which the resources ought to be calculated. All of these people, the brothers and the sisters and the sons and the daughters, who are earning money, who are living in the same house as their father and mother, are all being assessed as lodgers in the place, and I suggest that if one reckoned a sum such as those persons would have to pay if they lived in some other building or in some other household and deducted from that sum the reasonable cost of their maintenance, and called the rest "the resources of the household" that would be a reasonable, proper and logical basis on which to treat this question. For example, supposing a son is living with his parents and is earning 40s. a week. Assume that he would have to pay 25s. a week for his board and lodging in some other place. Supposing you say the cost of his food, his maintenance, would be 8s. a week, which would correspond to this scale, that leaves 17s. a week. I suggest that that is the maximum which ought to be regarded under any reasonable system as the amount to be brought into account as the resources of the applicant.
Another point that is, I suggest, a fair subject of criticism in these regulations is Regulation III, dealing with the discretion of the unemployment assistance officer to refuse to make an allowance if the difference between what the applicant has and the scale is what is termed, "Not substantial." What is meant by "substantial"? Does it mean 1s., or 2s., or 6d., or what? If one looks at the scale
896
one finds that a sum as small as 6d. is taken into account in determining the difference in respect of children between one age and another. Why, then, not have placed here a limit as to what the word "substantial" is to mean? I think that discretionary powers in matters of this kind are most dangerous. These people are to be assessed by an insurance officer who may be in good circumstances, and if there is an appeal the members of the appeal tribunal will not be in impoverished circumstances, and what might be a matter of no substance whatever to them may be a matter of the most vital importance to those who are getting only 24s. or 30s. a week. I suggest that this is a matter which ought to be determined by metes and bounds in the regulations, so that no insurance officer or appeal tribunal can reduce any person to any extent below this scale.
One finds the same thing when one comes to look at Regulation VI (2), which authorises a reduction in the scale where special circumstances exist. There is no definition of "special circumstances." I ask the Minister whether there is, in fact, any limit. Whatever view the Minister chooses to take is in no wise binding upon either the unemployment assistance officer or the appeal tribunal. They are the autocrats, the arbiters, in matters of this kind, and anything which they choose to regard as special circumstances will be without appeal. Supposing the insurance officer or the appeal tribunal say to a man, "You were drunk last week," or "We find you have been betting recently." Are those special circumstances? Could they say, "If you can afford to get drunk or to gamble you are evidently getting too much, and we are going to reduce your allowance"? Supposing they say, "We consider you have not been genuinely seeking work lately." Is that a special circumstance?
Illustrations of this kind show how eminently dangerous provisions of this sort are, and I take the view that there ought to be no circumstances whatever under which the insurance officer or the appeal tribunal can reduce the allowance to be made to the applicant below this fixed scale. If special circumstances are to be brought into account, I suggest they ought to be specifically and clearly stated in the regulations. I think this sub-clause is the "nigger in the wood pile."

897
It places every applicant entirely at the discretion of the insurance officer, in the first instance, and subsequently at the discretion of the appeal tribunal, and all these allowances can be reduced at will as long as the officer chooses to say, or the appeal tribunal choose to say, that in their opinion they are reduced for something which they regard as special circumstances.
There are two questions which I should be glad if the Minister would be good enough to answer. It has been the practice, certainly in the part of the country with which I am concerned, in assessing transitional payments, not to take into account what the applicant gets from allotments, but there is nothing in these regulations, which will allow that state of things to continue, unless it be regarded as one of the special circumstances. That would be a matter for discretion. If the applicant earns money, part of that money can be disregarded, and if the applicant has certain capital assets they can also be disregarded; but under paragraph V (3) the resources of the applicant in that respect are not to be disregarded. I should like to know whether, in the Minister's view the produce of allotments, which affect so many hundreds in the North East, is to be brought into account.
The next question relates to Regulation VI (3), under which a final assessment may be increased to provide for needs of a special character. Under Regulation VI (2) it may be increased where special circumstances exist. Are those two regulations subject to the provisions of Regulation VI (1), which puts a maximum on the amount which the applicant can receive? The last question is this: Will payment run as from the date of application or from the date of determination or some other date? Great difficulty has occurred about this in the case of transitional payments. In many areas there has been a kind of waiting period during which the applicant has not been able to receive payments, and in cases of necessity they have been presented with food tickets to tide them over until their assessments were made. I suggest that it is of the greatest importance that payments should run as from the date of application. I should be very glad if the Minister would be good enough to explain whether that is the case or not.
7.33 p.m.
Mr. McGOVERN: I do not intend to deal with the regulations at any great length. I heard the Minister present them and explain them to the House in a very full manner, and he gave us that genial smile of his in discharging what was obviously a very disagreeable job. He is as nice a gentleman as ever robbed the poor of this country. He came to the House with a difficult task, in presenting the regulations for discussion. I want to emphasise the protest which was made by the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) and others, regarding the lack of time afforded us to get a thorough understanding of the regulations. We have been told that they were treated in a much fairer manner in another place. To issue these complicated regulations during a week-end, and to expect hon. Members, with all the tasks and duties that they have to perform—if they perform them in a proper manner—thoroughly to understand them in order to conduct proper criticism of them in this House is not playing cricket.
None of the Scottish Law Officers is present on the Government Front Bench. I do not complain of that, having regard to the miserable surroundings in the House, with its empty benches; even a cup of tea, or something stronger, is desirable. I suggest that the Law Officers might from time to time call together, say the Members for Scotland, in connection with these regulations, and go into them in detail before the Regulations are discussed in the House. The discussion is a sham and a fraud, because we come here to let off air, and at the end we can only condemn the regulations by going into the Lobby against them and compelling the Government and the board to consider them afresh in a more humane manner, so as to give more generous treatment to the unemployed of this country. We know how difficult our situation is in a Parliament where the Government have docile supporters and can depend upon the Whips to drive them into the Division Lobby on the plea of loyalty. The Government and the Prime Minister, who have plums to give to their loyal supporters, can always depend upon being able to drive them like sheep into a pen. We do not discuss these regulations in a fair manner, but from the various party points of view, and, in presenting them, the Government and the Minister expect their supporters to rally

899
behind them in the Division Lobby. Hon. Members may say what they like in the Debate, but they are all more or less political yo-yoes that are run up and down a string and who dance to the tune of the Government.
I resent having to come here to discuss or to make suggestions in regard to these regulations when it is obvious what is happening. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour listens to the Debate. He is weary, wishing that it were all over, and I do not blame him. At the end, he might put up a sort of sham show by rebutting the arguments of his opponents although sometimes feeling deep down in his heart that some of the criticisms have been humane and ought to be carried into effect. That is a very serious criticism of the regulations. Hon. Members ought to have known that we were giving complete power to the board and taking it from this House. The senior Member for Dundee also raised a point in regard to which I shall be interested to hear the answer. He said that the regulations had been in the hands of the Minister for something like six weeks. I do not know whether the point has been replied to, because I have been out once or twice, but it is a very severe criticism. What was the difficulty about the regulations? Were there differences in the Cabinet about them, some Members wanting to pay more and others to pay less? Where did the Prime Minister stand, that man of humanity whom we have at the head of the Government? Was there any difficulty in regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the business Shylock of the Cabinet? I think we are entitled to know those things. The regulations have been in the Government's hands for six weeks; they have been thrown about and discussed in the Cabinet, and the House has no explanation of why they were not in the hands of Members at an earlier date.
The ruling class and the Government of this country are cunning. They make a pretence of allowing criticism and suggestions in the House of Commons for three days, while they are taking to themselves and to their board dictatorial powers. In Germany, Hitler simply issues his decrees, and there is no discussion. That is more honest than this attempt to make us feel that we have some power. The Government have taken
900
away all power from us in connection with unemployment. I do not want to say this unfairly, but the process began when the Labour Government gave a board, an outside body, power to issue regulations under the Anomalies Act. The Members who represented the Independent Labour party protested at that time. The present Labour Members, with one or two exceptions, including the spokesman to-day, not only denounced those who protested, but censured them and put them in the pillory for daring to protest at the taking of power out of the hands of the Houes of Commons and placing it with an outside body. We ought to understand thoroughly where this process began. Those hon. Members who protested under the guidance of my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), were very wise in their day. They saw the beginning of a dangerous precedent which would be used by future capitalist Governments.
In recent months in this House I have heard shipowners put on poor relief and given millions of pounds which have been taken out of the poor people of this country. Those people walked away with a large amount of swag in bygone days. But when we deal with the poor of this country—look at the House. Last week in connection with the India Bill the House was packed, excitement prevailed when we were dealing with Bombay and Delhi. When we come to deal with Dervaig Street in my division and Rose Street in Gorbals, or the Calton district of Bridgeton, it is a different question. The Unemployment Assistance Board are established, the Government have dictatorial authority, and the shackles are imposed on the poor of this country. We are seeking to extend the shackles and to make them fast upon the people of India. That is an outstanding feature of the House; when we are discussing what is to be paid to the poor, hon. Members have gone off. They are not interested, but they will roll up at the usual hour and go into the Division Lobby to cast their votes for something that they have not discussed and which in some cases they do not understand.
I have had a telegram to-night from the Glasgow Corporation and signed by the Town Clerk. They say:
"Unemployment assistance regulations. Corporation regard effect in Glasgow of proposed scales of payments as attack upon

901
present standard of living of unemployed also as inimical to physical well-being and prejudicial to continuance of family life. Earnestly request you to support proposals for rejection of said regulations."
No instructions are necessary so far as we are concerned. We are always prepared to oppose anything of this nature which tends to reduce the standards of the poor. We are told by various hon. Members that the proposals of the Government are good and bad, that benefits will be conferred upon certain people in some areas, and that there may be a little increase in the scales that are paid in certain areas. In the short time which I have had to examine the proposals, I have come to the conclusion that the board have robbed Peter to pay Paul, but have given Paul only a portion of that which they have taken from Peter. Therefore, in a general way, the workers are much worse off to-day than they were before. A great deal has been said about the rent proposals. Under these regulations, a man and woman with one child are to be given 4s. for the child, but, before the extra 2s. is given, 2s. will be taken from the father and mother, as compared with the scale that is paid in Glasgow. If their rent is under 7s. 6d., another 1s. 6d. will be taken off, which will make them 1s. 6d. worse off than they were before these regulations were issued.
In Glasgow an extra 1s. is given by way of supplementary benefit to the children of unemployed men, so that they get 3s. for each child, up to a maximum of 40s. Under these regulations the unemployed of Glasgow, of whom there are well over 100,000, are going to be a great deal worse off. I have always been strongly in favour of taking rent into account if it were done in a humane manner, because I have never understood why a man who was paying 16s. or 17s. in rent should not get something in respect of his extra rent, because he had either to take it out of the stomachs and off the backs of his children or go back to the slum whence he came if his unemployment should continue. During the General Strike, I myself was unemployed for something like 4½ months. I received 26s., and 2s. for a boy. I had a girl over 16 who was at school, and for whom nothing was paid. Out of that 28s., I had to pay something like 17s. a week rent, and, if I had not had some reserve, I should have had the magnificent sum of 11s. with which to keep four persons, replace the wear and
902
tear of clothing, and provide all the essentials of a house—coal, electricity, gas and so on. That cannot be defended.
Let us have an end to this hypocrisy. We see from time to time the sordid life of places like Brighton, with its trunk crimes, and people hold up their hands in horror at the depths of iniquity to which the people have sunk; but Governments and boards come along and issue regulations even curtailing the allowances paid to unemployed single persons. I say to the Minister, the Government and the country that no young woman can live on 14s. a week if she has no parents and no friends who can supplement that money. We find, in the courts in Glasgow and elsewhere, shop-lifting cases from time to time. Women are driven to the extremity of seizing a pair of stockings in a store because they are so reduced by unemployment, and their standards are so low, that they must either resort to petty thieving or something of a worse character in order to supplement what is allowed them. I would like to see the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Labour, or the Parliamentary Secretary, or any Member of the board, placing their daughters on a 14s. standard of existence and expecting them to keep body and soul together and maintain decency throughout life. A Government that can give £21,000,000 to shipping companies within the last six months can afford not to cheese-pare and reduce in the way they are doing in connection with this Bill. They ought to be generous to the unemployed. They are driving men and women down into the depths of poverty and despair, into a state in which they feel that every man's hand is against them because of their continuous unemployment and the reduction of their standard of life.
To return to the rent scale, the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has pointed out in this House in connection with housing—and he was complimented by the Secretary of State for Scotland on what had been done—that a Labour authority in Kilsyth had built good houses and let them to unemployed people, and people who had no wages, at 3s. 9d. and 4s. a week. Under this Bill those benefits, conferred by a progressive and humane local authority, will be taken away. Can the Minister defend that? Can the Government defend it? It is simply an attempt to

903
bolster up the wishes and desires of property-owners who have been antagonistic to the low rents that were competing with their disease-ridden slum properties, for attempting to let which they would, if they were given justice, be put before a firing squad. Now there will be an incentive to local authorities to say, "What is the use of providing the unemployed with houses at 3s. 9d. or 4s. a week if the Government are going to take the benefit for their funds?" and, therefore, local authorities may get back to the previous high rents. Probably that is what the Government are driving at, in order to assist their moneyed supporters, the owners of slum property.
If the Government had been fair, if they and the board had said they were going to establish in this country a subsistence level of, say, 22s. 6d. per week, and that every family would have guaranteed to them in addition the rent they paid, because that would give them the protection of a roof, while one might not have agreed with the scale one could have understood it. If you are going to take from the man who pays less than 7s. 6d., why not be generous and give to the man who is paying over 10s? Are you going to drive him back into the slums if his unemployment continues? The answer will be given that power is given to the boards in the localities, but one knows the niggardly, cheese-paring, Scrooge mind of these individuals, who are always thinking how they can squeeze pennies out of the poor in order to teach them that their masters are great men, that they ought to be humble in their walk of life, and appreciative of what is given to them in connection with this relief.
The ruling class take their relief. Let me give the contrast of a foreign princess who has been given £15,000 a year—who came over here from a foreign country and married a member of your Royal Family, who is given an addition of £15,000 a year to his income. Then consider the fact that in a family of five the allowance for a girl of 21 and over is reduced to 6s. a week. What can she get on 6s. a week? What could the Government get? What could the Prime Minister get? It is about as much as they would give to a man to take them round the golf course and carry their clubs for an afternoon's golf. This is the way the poor are treated. No wonder
904
they have the utmost contempt for the Government of this country. I say here that this Government are the greatest gang of crooks that ever occupied the Treasury Bench in the history of the country. They are robbing the poor. They are plundering the poor. By tariffs, subsidies and quotas they are filling the pockets of the rich of this country and taking from the poor. These regulations ought to be treated with the contempt they deserve. Instead of raising the standards of life of the people, the Government say, "Ah, but you must take into account the low wages paid in industries in certain areas." Therefore, they are going to back up the low wages. They are going to see that employers who pay 26s. and 28s. a week are protected by a low standard of relief and unemployment benefit. With them it is a case of, "Your friends and my friends, and we will skin the working class together." They say they will give 4s. to the first child, that they will take 2s. from the father and mother in certain areas and pay an extra 2s. to the child. Then they go to the wireless and say, "We are giving 4s. to the unemployed man's child."
In Glasgow a certain scale was laid down for men, women and children, and there was a limit of 40s. We disagreed with that, and thought it ought not to be imposed. The Bill says that, if a man earns 32s. a week in employment as a stair-lighter, he must only be paid 31s., although to-day he may be drawing the full amount of 40s. in Glasgow. And yet these humbugs come along and attempt to delude people into thinking that they are giving something, and are humane in their treatment of the unemployed.
I am not at all disillusioned as regards these proposals. I have heard the speeches that have been made, and the criticisms that have been put forward. I am bound to say here to-night, but I want to say it in all fairness and in the most friendly manner, that when the Labour party criticise these proposals I want to know from them whether, if they get into power in this country, they intend to give to the unemployed the scales of allowances which they are proposing, and for which they stand here to-night? We went round the country to convince the people that, if the Labour party got power out

905
of the hands of the Liberals and Tories, they would allow £1 a week to the single people, 30s. to a married couple, and 5s. for each child, and, believing that they were serious in their intentions, we supported them in the country. When we came into the House we proposed their scale and went into the Division Lobby in favour of it, but, because we did that, they censured and dragooned the Independent Labour party members for proposing what they are proposing here to-night. Are they serious in their intention to carry their proposals into effect? Are they determined that, given the opportunity, they will allow the unemployed these scales? Never mind seeking party advantage and votes; I want to know, in relation to the workers outside, whether they are serious in that intention, because a large number of them went into the Lobby in favour of 2s. for the unemployed man's child, 17s. for a man, and 9s. for a woman, during the period when the Labour party was in office. They have defended that policy on the platform; they have said that they were right and we were wrong. If they propose this to-night, or to-morrow, or on Wednesday, they will be saying in effect that we were right and they were wrong. Will some of their spokesmen give us an answer from the Front Bench as to whether they intend to carry this into effect?
As I stated at the outset, the regulations are to my mind a sham and a fraud. I do not expect humane treatment from this Government. It is led by a man who is prepared, in my estimation, to sell his very soul for the right to run the Government of this country and to be looked upon as a great man among those in financial and capitalist circles in this country. He has betrayed the interests of the workers. We have watched his "bricks-and-mortar" Socialists—the men who are always practical, who are always telling us to be practical. Socialism was always unpractical, but they say, "Build a brick at a time. Brick by brick we will build steadily the New Jerusalem, for the waves will lap away the foundations of the old society." That was the Prime Minister in his writings and his speeches. He is the greatest humbug of modern times. He is leading this Government, and he is leading it, as he led the Labour party, to destruction. When the workers of this country have the opportunity,
906
there will be an overwhelming defeat of this Government. They will go down as a Government of crooks and sharks, who filled the pockets of their friends and stole from the poor, the blind, the widows and the orphans in order to give to shipowners and farmers and capitalists in industry in this country.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: I read a lot before I came to the House of the discussion on the Unemployment Act and I spoke about it in the country, and I am very glad of the opportunity of speaking on these scales. The memorandum says:
"The final regulation contains three important provisos. The first gives effect to the principle that in normal circumstances an applicant shall not receive as much from the board in the way of allowances as he would have received in wages had he been at work."
I should like to know whether that means when he is working full time or part time. I have a case in my division where an able-bodied man who got two days' work in a week earned 15s. 1d. When he comes up for transitional payment, is the board going to assess the 24s. for him and his wife on the basis of the 15s. 1d. that he earns, or will they decide that it is not what is earned but what he could earn if he worked a full week? If he works for six days, he will earn £2 5s. Will they take into account the part-time unemployment pay that he draws? He will get 18s. plus 15s. 1d. which makes 33s. 1d. Will they hold that his average wages are 15s. 1d., because, if he works three days in the next week, he will earn 22s. 6d.? I have another case of a man with 10 children under 14 years of age. When he draws full-time unemployment benefit he receives 46s. His wages last week were £1 5s. 3d. He had three days off at 8s. 1d. a day. He gets Vs. 8d. a day when he is drawing unemployment benefit. I and my people desire to know whether you will call his wages £1 5s. 3d. or £1 5s. 3d. plus 23s., which is three days' unemployment benefit?
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has put up a very forcible case about maintenance in the home. According to the regulations, no matter who they are in the home, they are only allowed 10s. for maintenance. That means that a young man working at the coal face has to live on 1s. 3d. a day,

907
not as much as some Members pay for a drink. That is 3½d. per meal, to say nothing of going to a football match or the pictures or buying a suit of clothes, and surely these people want a little relaxation. If he earns £1, 3s. 4d. of it has to go towards the maintenance of his mother and father, and that is deducted from his wages.
Taking it further, if the son happens to be in fairly regular work and comes home with £2 a week, the father and mother get 15s. out of the second pound plus the 3s. 4d. out of the first, which means that the son is relieving the State of 18s. 4d. out of the 24s., leaving only 5s. 8d. If there be a second son, the scale says that it does not take as much to keep him as to keep the first. If one be 28 years of age and the other 23, I say he can shift as much across the table as his brother. He wants as big a dinner, and he wants as much as far as everything else is concerned; but the Government say that he can be kept on 2s. a week less., 8s. a week for a healthy strong youth who has to maintain himself so as to keep in work and not be thrown on the sick list. The Press generally regard these proposals as sent from Heaven. It is like fruit dropping off the tree into the mouths of people who are lying idle and lazy. If these two lads are at home, they have to maintain their parents and they do not get a penny piece. Take the scales for the girls. I am sorry that there is no lady Member present. I am delighted that no lady Member has had the courage to defend these things as yet. The scales say that a young woman only requires 8s. to keep herself. No matter what she is working at, whether in a factory or a shop, it will take 1s. 1½d. a day to keep her. If there be a second female in the house, the allowance is 1s. a day, or 3d. a meal. It will drive lads and lasses out of their homes when they find that the full responsibility is put upon them.
The scales deal with the savings of a thrifty husband or wife There is a passage in the Scripture that says:
"Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you."
I want to twist that round a bit. The President of the Board of Trade speaks in the country about the little thrifty man with a pound or two in the Post
908
Office or in a building society as the chap that the country depends upon and the man that we look up to. He is the man who is going to save the Government at the next election, because he has a few pounds, and he is afraid that the Socialists will want to run away with it. Suppose a man has £325 in the Post Office. He comes up in front of this officer. The regulations state that the officer must carry out the regulations. He is not going to stretch or bend them, but will carry out these regulations, which state that, after the first £25, the man is to have 1s. knocked off each additional £25. If he has saved £300 he gets nothing at all until he has spent his £300. A thrifty man comes before the officer, who says: "Let me look at your bank book, your co-operative book, or your Post Office savings book." The man says, "I have so-and-so," and the officer looks at him and says, "Depart from me. I never knew you, you thrifty man. Why have you saved anything at all?" The officer then turns to another man, who has invested his money in Scotch whisky or Bookmakers and has not a penny, and says, "Come ye blessed of the grand, National Government and inherit at least 24s. provided for you by the Unemployment Assistance Board." I have heard thousands of men up and down the country say, "We are not going to save any more or attempt to put anything by, because when we do, instead of looking upon us as the backbone of the country, they look upon us as the scum and scoundrels of the country, and they will not give us anything at all." I say to the President of the Board of Trade that, if these people are the backbone of the country, the Government have gone behind them and struck them to the heart through the backbone as far as this matter is concerned.
Our people are bitterly opposed to the assessment which provides that the young man who has been a steady son at home and has saved a few pounds is to have his savings, whatever they may be, put into the pool of the savings as far as his mother and father are concerned. He may be saving up for a home of his own. It is the natural course of things that he should want a home of his own, and yet the Government say to this young man, "You have no prospects of a home of your own unless you buy your home on

909
tick." They will not give him a chance to save anything so that he can start a home of his own on a straight book. If young people have not a straight book when they start in life and they have a debt around their neck to begin with, it takes the very soul out of them. These proposals are not helping these people in any shape or form, and we shall go into the Lobby against the regulations.
We on these benches, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said, believe that it is wrong for legislation to be put upon the Statute Book whereby a committee appointed by the Government can lay down regulations, and that when they are brought into this House we cannot amend them by a single word, comma or fullstop. We have to take them as they are. That is worse than the actions either of Mussolini, or of the other fellow who is in Germany. The people of the country are, without doubt, waking up to-day, and when hon. Members opposite go to the country, instead of them benefiting, as some of them believe, as a result of the introduction of these regulations, scores of them in industrial constituencies will find that the places which know them now will know them no more.
8.20 p.m.
Mr. CONANT: After listening to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) and to other speeches we have heard from the party opposite, one may perhaps gain the entirely erroneous impression that the conditions of those who are unemployed, after these regulations have been passed, will be worse than they were under a Labour Government, or even than they are at the present day. That is by no means the case. Hon. Members opposite may no doubt be able to put up individual cases where conditions under the regulations will be worse than they were before, but, taking the unemployed as a whole, undoubtedly their situation will be improved. It will be improved upon their position at the present day and very greatly improved upon their position at the time when the Labour Government was in office. I would only refer hon. Members opposite to the considered opinion which is expressed by their own daily newspaper, the "Daily Herald," which described these regulations as a definite advance in the
910
standard of life of the unemployed. Hon. Members opposite may not agree with that opinion, but it was the opinion of the "Daily Herald" when the regulations were published.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: What was the date of the issue of the "Daily Herald"?
Mr. CONANT: The 12th December. It was in an editorial of the "Daily Herald." Hon. Members opposite have devoted the greater part of their speeches to a criticism of the scales laid down in these regulations. Without question, the scales can very easily be criticised, and anyone can say that they should be increased, but even of greater importance in these regulations than the scales laid down are the principles upon which the needs of an applicant for assistance and of those dependent upon him are to be determined, and the principles upon which the resources of the applicant and members of his household are to be taken into account. The scales can no doubt be adjusted if the necessity for adjustment should arise. If, for instance, the cost of living should substantially rise or fall, the necessity would arise for an adjustment in the scales laid down in these regulations. If it were found necessary to vary the unemployment insurance rates, probably it would be considered desirable that these scales should, at any rate, be re-examined. But the scales in any case only represent a guide to the normal case which the officer of the board will have to meet, and there is in every instance the overruling regulation—Regulation No. VI, paragraphs (2) and (3)—which, in any case where the needs of the case justify it, enable additional payments to be made over and above the scale allowances.
By these regulations we are making a really fundamental change in the system by which the unemployed are to be assisted. At the present time the assistance given is regulated by the amount of unemployment insurance benefit. Insurance benefit represents the topmost limit of assistance that can be given, and in future, under these regulations, assistance will be limited by need alone. In fact, one can say that, whereas in the past assistance has been given up to a maximum, in the future it will be given up from a minimum. Without in any way

911
desiring to undervalue the services which the local authorities of this country have rendered in the administration of the needs test—an extraordinarily difficult task which they have on the whole carried through with very great care—yet it is a fact that in many parts of the country very serious and very real injustices exist.
It is my view that by these regulations most of these injustices will definitely be wiped out. This sense of injustice has been created far more by the lack of uniformity in administration and by the varying methods adopted by the local authorities than by the actual amount which have been handed out as assistance. The lack of uniformity is met under these regulations by the laying down of a scale which takes account not merely of the dependants of the applicant but also the cost of the maintenance of those dependants. That, it seems to me, is an extremely important and a very fair principle. It is entirely different from the old system which laid down a flat rate payment of 2s. per child. Quite clearly, the cost of maintaining children must vary according to the age of the child.
The scales which are laid down, to which hon. Members opposite take such exception, are intended to include food, clothing, light and fuel and the rent which the applicant can be expected to pay under normal circumstances. On account of the shortage of housing in this country, there are many families who are compelled to pay far higher rents than they might in times of greater numbers of houses, be expected to pay, and there is an additional allowance to be given in those cases where the rents actually paid exceed what are considered by the board a normal amount. Conversely, in the lesser number of cases where an exceptionally low rent is paid. The difference will be deducted from the scale. I believe that to be a fair principle and it will be regarded as such by those whom it is intended to assist.
I suppose that the most of the grievance against the needs test arises out of the assessment of the income of the household. Some hon. Members, particularly on the benches below the Gangway, who have not decided to follow the party opposite in altogether repudiating the means test, have come to the conclusion, when they saw how unfairly in some parts of the country it was being administered, that
912
it would be better to assess the allowances to be paid upon an individual rather than a family basis. I have always felt that the family basis was the only fail-basis to adopt in this country, because a member of the family has clearly a greater responsibility towards that family than has the community as a whole, and if you leave out of account the resources of the individual members of the family you make a demand upon his neighbours for assistance which in the first place ought to be provided by members of his family.
Although the responsibility for assisting a man rests in the first instance within his family, the fact has not previously been recognised that the responsibility of members of a family may vary within the family itself. That is a principle which is recognised by these regulations, and which I believe will be regarded as an eminently fair principle. It is brought out in particular in regard to the assessment of the capital resources of the members of the household and in regard to the personal requirements on earned income. In both these cases one finds that the degrees of responsibility within the family are defined. In the assessment of the capital resources of the family the savings belonging to the applicant himself, the wife or husband, as the ease may be, and the mother and father, are taken into account to a greater extent than are the savings of the other members of the family. Those in the first group, that is, the applicant, the husband or wife, or mother or father, are expected to contribute something more than they would normally expect to receive as income from their capital, if invested, whereas the more distant relatives of the applicant, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, cousins or other people living in the household, are only expected to contribute towards the household so much as they may actually receive in income. I believe that to be a fair principle. It has never been recognised before except in the case of a few local authorities, and I believe that on the whole it is a sound principle.
In the case of the earned income belonging to the members of the household, we find that the degree of responsibility within the family is defined in even more detail, because in these cases there are not two grades but three. The applicant, the husband or wife, mother or

913
father, are allowed to keep for personal requirements the first 5s., or half their earnings, whichever may be the less. Those are the people who have the greatest responsibility. In the next category come the sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, who keep one-third of the first pound, and a quarter of the remainder. In the third category we have the other and more distant members of the family, who keep one-third of their whole earnings. There the scheme goes on a sound principle, and it is because I believe that these regulations will be recognised as fair and just by those among whom they are to be administered that I believe they will prove acceptable.
I cannot understand the attitude of the party opposite. Their criticisms have all been directed against the figures which are included in the regulations. The figures, the details and amounts of the scales do not represent the extent of the difference between those of us on this side of the House and the Opposition. Hon. Members opposite disagree entirely not only with the figures included in the regulations but with the principles on which they are based. But it is not right to imagine that if they were to assume control of the Government of this country they would immediately raise all the scales included in these regulations. They do not agree with the principle or with the scales. They do not believe that assistance should be given according to the number of children or the ages of the children in the family. They do not believe that people should be assisted according to the amount of rent they have to pay. They have thrown that idea overboard long ago, because that requires a needs test. Hon. Members opposite have said that again and again. Their principle has been, and it has been stated from those benches on many occasions, to assist the unemployed on a flat rate basis because that is the only way in which the unemployed can be assisted without an investigation being undertaken into the needs and resources of the applicant, to which they object.
I believe that these regulations provide an infinitely fairer method of providing for those who are unemployed than any system of flat rate payments, whatever scale may be decided upon. They provide a vindication for those who have always
914
stood by the needs test principle. We have always recognised the injustices which have been inevitable in its administration, but we have believed that the principle is so important that we must try to find a fair method of administering the needs test. I believe that these Regulations do provide a fair means of doing that. As the Minister said, administration alone can show whether that is so. There is a tremendous responsibility left to the discretion of the officers of the board, and I believe that they will rise to the occasion and that upon this basis we shall see that the needs test can be fairly administered. When it can be shown to the country that the means test can be administered with fairness to the unemployed, we shall find the party opposite returning to their old love and supporting the principle that public money should only be distributed to those who need it and in accordance with their need.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Conant) has stated our case fairly. We have never been in favour of what is called the means test, and we stand by that decision. We argue that a certain rate should be fixed for every family, and that they should have a right to it without any inquiry into their means. We say that the rate of unemployment benefit is not high enough and should be raised, and that anyone unemployed should, be entitled to it, whatever the income of the household may be. I want to draw the attention of the Lord President of the Council to the rather serious position in which Parliament finds itself. The regulations do not allow of any alteration. That, to my mind, is a travesty of Parliamentary government. We can examine and criticise, but we cannot alter them in any iota. Even if any Member of the Government feel that there should be an amendment in any particular case, he cannot make the alteration because he knows that the whole arrangement will be defeated if one of these regulations is altered in any particular point. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council is a great Parliamentarian, one of the greatest of the present day. He believes in democracy and fair argument, which means that the combined wisdom of all hon. Members in the House should be utilized

915
for the benefit of the country. It cannot be utilized on an occasion like this.
On ordinary occasions we may get the Government to see the force of our arguments and they may bend to the will of the House, but in the case of these regulations that cannot be done. I am not surprised that there are not many hon. Members present. Realising that no change at all can be made in these regulations an hon. Member, unless he has his point of view to put, will say that he may just as well keep away, that it is no good his attending because he can exert no pressure, and that his opinions will carry no weight. I hope that the Lord President of the Council will consider this position, and try to get it altered. It is a travesty of government that no matter what hon. Members may have to say it has no effect whatever. I appeal to the Minister of Labour that he will not delay too long before he comes to Parliament again. We have put forward certain points which at the moment cannot be accepted, but I hope it will not be long before he comes forward with proposals for incorporating into these regulations the points we have suggested. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about uniformity, and I agree that it is a point for which I have argued. About two years ago I argued that we were not being treated fairly in Lancashire, seeing that the unemployed were not being treated on the same basis as those in other parts of the country. On that ground I welcome this change. When I appealed to the Minister that the scale in Lancashire should be raised there was no idea in my mind that it might mean a reduction of the scale in other parts of the country. In our trade union when we try to raise the basic rates of pay for Lancashire miners it is understood that the wages of miners in other parts of the country shall not be reduced if they are higher. If the rates in Lancashire are raised it does not mean that the rates in other parts of the country should be reduced to the same level. If in Scotland or in South Wales they are getting a shilling or two more they should be allowed to carry on in the hope that the rates in Lancashire will in time be lifted to their level. I am told that in Durham and South Wales higher rates are paid than are allowed in these regulations. I do not propose that in raising the scales in Lancashire you should bring
916
down the rates in South Wales but that if there is uniformity we might raise the rates in Lancashire without bringing down those in other parts of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the question of payments was connected with two factors, first, those who receive, and secondly, those who have to find the money, meaning, I take it, that the taxpayer has a right to have some voice in this matter. I hope this point will be followed more closely by the Government when they are doling out subsidies to shipowners and to the beet sugar industry. I hope they will then remember that the taxpayer should be considered. That is not the argument when subsidies are being given or payments being made to high personages. When pensions are being granted to people who have done certain things for the State, when grants are given in excess of their needs, I hope the Government will have some consideration for the taxpayer, and will say that he has a right to be considered as well. I hope the Government will tell us how the appeal tribunals are to be appointed. Who is to nominate them? It is well that we should know all these things. Then there is the question of the capital assets. The right hon. Gentleman said that an important change had been made, and that other members of the family were being brought in. Before, as I understand it, the capital assets of the applicants only were taken into consideration.
Mr. STANLEY: What I said was that there were two important extensions in the regulations as compared with the provisions of the Act, and that both these extensions are in favour of bringing in members of the household.
Mr. TINKER: I understood that, apart from a man and his wife, the assets of other members of the family were not examined. To my mind to bring in the capital assets of any member of the family other than the man and his wife, is entirely wrong. Who is responsible for the statement as to the household income? Suppose there is another member of the family who has some money saved. The applicant makes his claim for assistance. He is asked what money is coming into the household. Is he to make a statement as to what the other man has, or has every member of that family to send

917
a statement to the committee as to what they have got? If so, will it be a punishable offence if they do not disclose the truth? I can see a tremendous difficulty here, and I warn the Government that they are exceeding all the canons of English law in making one man disclose what he has so as to affect the benefit of another person. It is not done in connection with Income Tax. I ask the Minister to consider this question of false statements made to the assistance committee. Who is to be liable? The person who makes the false statement or the applicant?
In the course of his speech the Minister spoke of what are called payments out of wages, and said that they were to be taken into consideration. I know that certain statutory payments are exempted, for instance the payment for insurance. Take the case of a miner. Will the Minister agree that the following payments will be excluded from what is called the means of the household? I have here the weekly pay-sheet for the past month of a collier. He paid for the clubs at the colliery 5½d. for the month, which was stopped at the colliery office; for the hospitals the average payment is 5d. per week; for the check-weighman at the pithead a statutory payment of 9d.; for the pit sharpener 2d.; for the nursing home 1½d.; and there is another item of a penny a day or 5d. a week. Apart from insurance money there is a total payment of 2s. 4d. a week. Is the 2s. 4d. to be excluded from the assessment of means when the time comes? Of course on top of this payment there is the 6d. for the miner's union. Then among the miners we have what is called an old age pension. When a miner reaches 65 years of age and has had a continuous membership for five years he gets 7s. 6d. a week for 26 weeks. Hitherto that 7s. 6d. has been treated as money going into the household. Will that pension or a portion of it be excluded from the assessment under these regulations? If it cannot be done now will the Minister give consideration to the matter with a view to some future change?
Finally, I want to deal with the very serious position caused by the direct reduction of the payment to a man and his wife under this scheme. Hitherto a man and wife without any assets when on
918
transitional payment got 26s. Under this arrangement they will get 24s. To my mind that is entirely wrong. At least I would have expected the Government not to have made a reduction in such a case, and I think they have made a great mistake. There are many households in which it is extremely difficult to exist on 26s., let alone 24s. I think the Government have acted wrongly, first of all in putting down any basic rate, and, what is more grievous, in failing to allow Parliament to have a voice in the changes that are being made. Parliament should have had the liberty to give a shilling here or a shilling there without necessarily altering the whole arrangement. I plead with the Lord President of the Council, who is a great parliamentarian, to have regard to the position in which Parliament will find itself unless the opinion of Members can be freely expressed in legislation.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. T. SMITH: We have heard a great deal about the regulations not being capable of Amendment, and I agree with every word that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has said upon that point. In looking carefully through the regulations I notice on page 7 what appears to be a misprint or something, as to which I would like guidance. In Regulation V, paragraph 3 (2), there occur the words:
"In the case of capital assets belonging to a member other that."
Should not the word "that" be "than"? If not, will the Minister try to explain what is meant by the sentence with the word "that" in it? Would it be in order for the Minister to alter the word from "that" to "than," or must the whole of the regulations go through as printed?
Mr. STANLEY: It is obviously a printer's error.
Mr. SMITH: But is it a printer's error? Surely the officials of the Ministry are not so dense about the use of the English language as not to have noticed the word? Surely they have perused the regulations very carefully to see that there were not printers' errors before this document was put before the House?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): In reply to the hon. Member, I would point out that this paper is only

919
a print of the regulations. The actual regulations are not before either the hon. Member or me, and I do not therefore know in what form that particular sentence appears.
Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: On a point of Order. Could you inform us where we can see the actual regulations in order that we may see whether this document is accurate or not? It may be that the 10s. mentioned is a misprint also, and should be 20s.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: To answer that question is beyond me. There must be an official draft of the regulations somewhere. What the hon. Members have before them are printed copies. Probably the word "that" is a printer's error.
Mr. T. SMITH: I want a definite decision on the point. We have been told that these regulations are almost like the laws of the Medes and Persians, and that we are not permitted to amend them by as much as a comma or full stop. I am surprised that a Minister of Labour who has so many capable officials has not seen that the word "that" is misplaced. The House should know exactly what is the position with regard to this particular word. If this sentence goes through as printed, for the life of me I cannot understand what interpretation the assistance officer will place upon it. Perhaps the Lord President of the Council can help us. He has great Parliamentary experience and is a stickler for procedure. We must insist upon an explanation of the point. Perhaps the learned Solicitor-General, who is present, will be willing to clear away the mystery. We have been told that we are not permitted to amend these regulations in any shape or form and I would like a definite ruling upon this point before proceeding.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Since the hon. Member first raised this question I have been making inquiries, and I understand that a copy of the regulations was definitely presented to the House and is now in the Library. That is the official copy of the regulations. That is the answer to the hon. Member's question, but I do not know whether it is the same as the printed copy to which the hon. Member has referred.
Mr. SMITH: I think that the matter ought to be cleared up one way or the other before we proceed any further. To me the matter is so important that I want a definite decision upon it. An alteration to this word may alter the whole meaning of the paragraph and I would like some guidance in regard to it.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As I say I have not had the advantage of reading the copy in the Library, and therefore I cannot say whether the printed copy now before the House corresponds exactly with it or not, in regard to this particular word, but the copy in the Library is the official copy of the regulations which, if this Resolution is passed, will come into force.
Mr. SMITH: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I think it will be agreed that this matter ought to be cleared up before the House continues the Debate. I must frankly say that I am surprised that, with a Minister of the ability of the right hon. Gentleman, with a Department which possesses very capable officials and with a Front Bench on which we are told there are some of the ablest lawyers in the country, the House should be allowed for five hours to discuss regulations in which there is either a serious misprint or else phraseology which makes this particular sentence meaningless.
Mr. LOGAN: I beg to second the Motion.
8.58 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I unfortunately have not had time and I am sure other hon. Members have not had the time to study the official copy which is in the Library, but I think it is obvious that the word to which the hon. Member refers is a misprint.
Mr. LOGAN: We have not got the other copy and we do not know whether it is correct or not.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think it is obvious that the word is a misprint. Even if it should be found in the official copy it is obviously a misprint. As I understand the Rules of the House it is always possible under them—and indeed under the rules of any common sense body, of which this House is the most

921
signal example in the country—to correct a misprint of this character, even if it has escaped the attention of the most vigilant and able people as such mistakes sometimes do.
Mr. LOGAN: But are we not told now that the statement before the House is only a printed copy of the original? Therefore nobody in the House can say that what is before us is an exact copy of the real thing with which we are supposed to be dealing. Can we not have the actual copy placed before us?
8.59 p.m.
Mr. BUCHANAN: We are to be congratulated at all events on the fact that somebody on behalf of the Government has intervened in this Debate, other than the Minister who opened it and whoever is going to reply on Wednesday. The Solicitor-General at least has deigned to intervene on this point and I suppose we may regard that is being complimentary to us. We were told earlier that this document could not be altered by us. It is no use the Solicitor-General now telling us in a sort of highbrow fashion that this being a common sense Chamber a mistake of the kind that has been pointed out can easily be put right. If this were a common sense Government we would not be doing business like this at all. But is there any common sense body which would bring forward regulations of this kind and then tell the assembly to which those regulations were submitted, "You cannot change a line of them"? If you claim to be a common sense body you ought to proceed on a common sense basis. If this were a common sense business chamber this thing would be subject to amendment, and, if any mistake were found in it, whether a printer's error or a clerical error, that mistake could be put right.
But that is not the basis on which we are proceeding to-night and the Solicitor-General's rather superior talk does not carry us any further. He has not answered the point which he is entitled to answer. Can we alter or can he alter this document in any way? If he can make an alteration in it, can it not be altered in other respects as well? He has told us that this is an obvious misprint which can be put right but that is not the point. The point is, are we to be allowed to amend this document or
922
not? I must ask the Minister who has, I see, been in consultation with his officials, what is to be done about it. Is the document to be altered and if so how is the alteration to be made? We are told that there is a draft copy somewhere about and that, possibly, the draft copy is correct. That may be true but that is not what we are considering here. I therefore ask the Minister to let us know how this alteration is to take place. I submit that he is entitled to no more privileges than the Opposition. If he can make an alteration so can we. If this document is going into the melting-pot I welcome the fact, but the Minister and the Solicitor-General must not claim any superior privileges over the rest of the House.
9.3 p.m.
Sir S. CRIPPS: This is a question of first-class importance. It is a new procedure by which great measures of this sort are passed into law without the possibility of amendment. It may be that in this case it can be said with some plausibility that this is a clerical error, but supposing there was a doubt as to whether it was a clerical error or not. Let me assume for instance that one of these figures, one of the sums of money mentioned on page 4 had been misprinted. Supposing I were to say, following the example of the learned Solicitor-General, "It is quite obvious that no sensible person could possibly have put in a figure of 10s. as the sum necessary to support a male member of a family of 21 years and upwards and it must be a clerical error." That would be a perfectly sensible observation to make. Is the House to accept my word for it, that that is a clerical error and, if so, is the House thereupon to change it and to pass these regulations with something else substituted for the 10s.? If the House is not to accept my word, then I suggest that the House ought not to accept the word of the Solicitor-General. The document deposited in the Library which is not in the House at this moment, which nobody can see at this moment, is probably an exact reproduction of the document before us, off the same printing machine.
This so-called clerical error is a matter on which I should like to ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Who is to decide whether it is a clerical error or

923
not? Suppose the Government say it is a clerical error and we say it is not, is there to be a vote of the House as to whether it is or is not a clerical error? We take the position that this is not a clerical error, and it is not agreed in this House that it is, and I suggest that there is nothing in the Standing Orders of the House in these circumstances that entitles anybody to make any alteration of this document whatsoever. A mere assertion by a member of the Government or any other Member that this or that is a clerical error does not give anybody the right to have an alteration made, and I should like to ask your Ruling, first of all, as to how the House is to determine whether it is a clerical error, if it is alleged to be a clerical error, and, secondly, what steps we can take to see that no alteration is made, as we deny that it is a clerical error.
9.7 p.m.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As regards the first point raised by the hon. and learned Member, I do not know what is to decide whether it is a clerical error or not. Obviously, it is not a matter for me to decide from the Chair. With regard to the second point, he asks how the House is to ensure that the document is passed in the form in which it is originally presented to us. I imagine that the original document would settle the question. If it were not passed in that form in point of fact, the Resolution would probably be ultra vires and the Act would have no effect.
9.8 p.m.
Mr. STANLEY: I submit that, to the knowledge of every Member of this House, there have been many occasions when Bills have been discussed in Parliament.
HON. MEMBERS: Bills!
Mr. LUNN: But we cannot have an Amendment to this.
Mr. STANLEY: I am speaking of Bills whch are capable of amendment and where, therefore, a misprint could have been corrected by an Amendment put down and moved, and I say that every hon. Member knows of cases where in fact such a misprint has been corrected by the House without Amendment moved
924
or passed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I say that it is within the knowledge of every Member of the House. The position is that officially the printing of this document is not within the responsibility of the Ministry, which submits the Bill, or the regulation, or whatever it may be to the authorities of the House as a typescript document. The printing of the document is done by the House and under the authority of the House and not of the Ministry, and, as I say, ever since I have been in the House it has been the custom, whenever there has been an obvious misprint of this kind, for it to be put right without an Amendment being moved. Say, for instance, you had not a misprint as here, which creates another word, but a misprint which, as very often happens, does not make a word at all, or where a letter is dropped out. Every hon. Member must have seen in documents submitted to the House misprints of that kind, and I challenge any hon. Member to say when an Amendment has been put down to leave out that misprinted word and to put in the right word. The House being responsible for the printing, the House corrects the printing errors, if any, that may appear.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. A. BEVAN: On a point of Order. It is incorrect to say that occasions have occurred in the House when on the Second Reading or the Committee stage of any Bill a Bill can be amended for a clerical error unless there is a Report stage, and there is no Report stage if there is not some other Amendment. The Government themselves cannot correct even a clerical error on the Report stage unless an Amendment has been accepted to the Bill, and it must be an Amendment to another portion of the Bill, so that the right hon. Gentleman's point is not correct.
I myself went the other day to see the Clerk at the Table and Mr. Speaker in connection with an Amendment to the Electricity (Supply) Bill, and the Ruling there was that as there had been no Amendment accepted to the Bill itself, the Government themselves were debarred from amending the Bill on the Report stage. There is no Report stage on any Bill if there are no Amendments accepted, so that a clerical error cannot be put right here and must be put right

925
in some other place. But there is no other place on this occasion, I submit, and no Report stage, and no Committee stage, by the act of the Government themselves. There are no Amendments, by the act of the Government themselves, and furthermore I submit that there is no agreement in the House that this is a clerical error. The Government have on many occasions sought by subterfuge to obtain powers from the House that the House never intended to give, and I submit that there is only one thing left for the Government to do on this occasion, and that is to withdraw the Resolution.
9.12 p.m.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must point out that orders come to the House to print a document, whether it be a Bill or a Resolution. I have known of cases of a Bill where, when the printed text of the Bill has not corresponded with the text as presented by the Member in charge, it has been treated as a printer's error, and that has been amended in consonance with the text as presented by the Member. That has not been treated as an Amendment. In this case with which we are now dealing, I have not seen the text of the regulations as presented, and I do not know whether this printed document now before the House is in point of fact an accurate transcript of the text, and I am not in a position to rule whether or not this is a clerical error.
9.14 p.m.
Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour or the Lord President of the Council to allow the Debate to be adjourned. It is rather more important than this particular incident. We are discussing these regulations under what we consider to be duress, because of what the Government themselves put in the Bill, which is now an Act, and we were told by Mr. Speaker to-day categorically that no Amendment could be moved. Speaking not as a lawyer, but, as a layman, I understand that Mr. Deputy-Speaker has ruled that if this went out from the House as it is, it would be ultra vires for the Government to alter it—it would be passed in this fashion—and therefore we cannot consent to the Government, simply because they have a tremendous majority, taking
926
it into their hands to alter the rules and the law as governing our procedure. When an Act of Parliament is passed, the Executive has no right to alter a comma. I put it to the Solicitor-General whether that is not the fact. The Government have not the least right to change anything, and it cannot be done by the House.
The Government in this case have expressly ruled out any amendments. They may say that this point is absurd and that the word "that" makes the regulations absurd. That may or may not be so. There are a lot of absurdities in these regulations from our point of view. We do not know whether they are put there from the original copy of the document, but that, in my view, does not matter at all. What does matter is that the House is being asked to establish a precedent by passing these regulations and then allowing the Executive to alter them afterwards. I do not think it matters perhaps what one says, because no one on the Front Bench whom it is important should listen is listening to me. I may be saying nothing of any value, and I know that Ministers must consult about this point, but I want them to get the point of my argument. Mr. Speaker has definitely ruled to-day that no amendments can be made. Therefore, I think the Lord President ought to agree to adjourn the House, and let us have a new print of the document so that we can have the matter dealt with in a constitutional manner. I am certain that auyone who considers this matter fairly will agree that that is the only logical and constitutional way of dealing with the situation.
9.18 p.m.
Mr. JAMES REID: Everyone on all sides will agree that the Government have no more rights in this case than in any other case to make alterations. The first thing to do is to find out what is in the principal document. If it turn out that in the principal document the word is "than," the fact that there has been some misprint by those officials of the House who are responsible does not affect the matter one way or the other. The House is obliged to the hon. Member for his vigilance in discovering this point, because there might have been a certain amount of doubt about it if it had slipped everyone's notice. Once the point is

927
raised, however, nothing further can be done to clear it up until we find the principal document. If it bears the word "than," there will be no difficulty.
Mr. LANSBURY: Even if the document be found, my contention is that Mr. Speaker has ruled that these regulations must be accepted as they stand. We wanted to do certain things, but he categorically ruled that the regulations must be taken as a whole or not at all. The Government cannot play fast and loose. They have no more rights and privileges than ordinary Members when it comes to accepting the Ruling of the Chair.
Mr. REID: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure nobody on this side of the House would desire to support the Government in claiming any privileges of that kind, and the Government would not desire to claim them. No doubt Mr. Speaker will keep us right in this matter, but I understood Mr. Deputy-Speaker to rule that these prints were not the ruling documents. The ruling document is something which is not at present in the House. That document has to be found, and no doubt it will be produced shortly. Let us assume that the word "than" is in the original document. Then that is the end of this interlude. If, on the other hand, it turns out that the word stands as "that," it seems to me, speaking without any further consideration than anyone else has bad at the moment, it will be impossible to amend it. Suppose the Government thought it was not worth while to withdraw the regulations on the ground of that misprint, but allowed them to go through, they would have to be construed, if necessary in the ultimate resort, by a court of law.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Is not this an example of the Prime Minister's muddled way of doing things?
Mr. REID: I do not see the Prime Minister's hand behind all these things. Other Members of the Government are responsible, too, and I do not think we need drag the Prime Minister into it. Let us assume that the regulations go through not amended, and that the word "that" stands in the official print issued by the Stationery Office after these regulations
928
have become law. They will have to be interpreted by somebody ultimately and the ultimate authority for interpreting anything is a court of law. According to my knowledge, I think that any court which has the task of interpreting this particular paragraph in its present shape would not have the slightest doubt that the word "that" was a misprint. It is a cardinal principle of law that, whether it be a deed, a will, or an Act of Parliament, any court is entitled in considering any document to put right a misprint.
Mr. McKEAG: My hon. Friend will admit that the court would apply a very different rule in interpreting a will from that which they would use in interpreting an Act of Parliament.
Mr. REID: I accept that it is much easier to assume when you are interpreting a will whether there is a mistake than when you are interpreting a printed Act of Parliament. I quite accept the qualification which has been suggested by the hon. Member who sits below me, that where you are dealing with a written document, such as a will, the court is much more prone to accept the theory that it is a misprint, and the court may well accept that theory in a written document where it would refuse to accept that theory in the case of a printed document issued under authority. It seems to me that what must be done is this: If the Government have discovered that this really is an error in the principal document and that it cannot be put right, because obviously amendment is out of the question, there are two alternatives. One is to withdraw the regulations and substitute a new draft and the other alternative is to let the regulations go through. I know that hon. Members disagree with this alternative, but surely——
Sir S. CRIPPS: Is there any suggestion that this House should pass a regulation which the hon. Member admits is nonsense and rely on the courts to make some meaning of it? I should have thought that the courts have said enough about legislation coming from this House without perpetrating absolute nonsense.
9.27 p.m.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I have a feeling that for the sake of the dignity of this

929
House the sooner we come to a conclusion in this matter the better. I confess that 20 or 30 years ago I might have taken up a point like this with enthusiasm had I been in Opposition; but it seems to me, from the place where I now sit and at my advanced years, to be a point of a somewhat trivial nature. The original document I have here, and it does appear that one letter has been misplaced. But I think, after listening to the discussion and after seeing the effect it has had at this time of the night upon the House as a whole, I should be perfectly prepared to ask the House to adjourn now, so that we can provide a clean copy containing the word "than" instead of "that." After all, we shall only lose an hour and a-half. But if we adjourn it must be on the understanding that at any rate we get these regulations by Wednesday night. I think that will give us ample time for the Debate, but we must get these regulations through before the Christmas Adjournment. I think that the House recognises that. On that understanding, I am perfectly willing to accept the Motion.
9.29 p.m.
Mr. LANSBURY: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I would like to say that the right hon. Gentleman has met us in a proper manner. I am only sorry that he did not do it earlier. I think that when you are passing Acts of Parliament it is just as well that you should be careful over small things. Now that the point has been conceded we will go home.
Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

SUBMARINE CONTRACTS (ELECTRIC BOAT COMPANY).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir F. Thomson.]
9.32 p.m.
Mr. MORGAN JONES: I wish to draw attention to a matter which I raised in Question 29 on the Order Paper this afternoon. I gave notice at that time
930
to the First Lord of the Admiralty that I would raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment because of the reply he had given. I gathered that it would be convenient to raise the matter to-night, and I accordingly gave notice to the First Lord of the Admiralty that I should raise the matter at 11 o'clock. I cannot complain if the right hon. Gentleman is not present in the House at the moment for he could not have anticipated the collapse of the Debate at so early an hour. It will suffice for my purpose to have the Solicitor-General present, because the point really is a point of law rather than a point of Admiralty practice, although it is perhaps a little of both. Perhaps I had better recall to the House the precise terms of my question to the First Lord of the Admiralty. It was as follows:
"To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is aware that Sir Charles Craven informed the Electric Boat Company of America, on 6th January, 1933, that the Admiralty had promised Vickers, Limited, an order for His Majesty's ship 'Clyde' (a repeat of the 'Thames'), but that the contract was not to be given officially until after the letter had been received in America, and that he asked the American company not to let the information get into the hands of the American navy department; and whether he intends taking action under the Official Secrets Act in respect of this action by a British firm."
Those were the terms of my question, and, by the courtesy of the First Lord of the Admiralty, I have a copy of the reply which he gave to me. I am sorry that I am not able to accept it as an adequate reply to my question. I should like to put the Solicitor-General in possession of the precise terms of the letter to which I refer, so that the point at issue may be clearly before the House. I am, quoting from the actual Minutes, issued by the United States Printing Office, containing the report of the proceedings of the Special Committee which has been set up by the United States Senate to conduct an investigation into the munitions industry of that country. The letter to which I refer is to be found in page 333 of the report and is called "Exhibit 23." It is headed "Confidential" and is from the Naval Construction Works, Barrow-in-Furness, dated 6th January, 1933, and is addressed to "H. R. Carse, Esquire, Electric Boat Company, 40, Wall Street, New York.":

931
"My dear Mr. Carse,
You will be glad to know that I have now received a letter from the Admiralty saying that the contract for His Majesty's Ship 'Severn' (the 'Thames' repeat), will be placed with us, and I expect to receive it within a few days' time. Immediately I do I will credit your account here with the sum of £7,500 and send you a cable.
At the same time, the Admiralty also promise us"—
This is the vital point—
"the order for His Majesty's Ship 'Clyde' (another repeat of the 'Thames'), but in this latter case they will not give us a contract until after the end of March. In other words, they will have to withdraw their promised order for the second ship if Geneva or any other troublesome organisation upsets the large submarine. In view of this I am not saying anything publicly about the 'Clyde,' and I would suggest that it would be wise that Spear should not let the information get into the hands of your Navy Department until after I can tell you that we really have a proper contract. Cammell Lairds will get the two small S boats. On the whole, I am very pleased, because it is impossible in these days of starvation of shipbuilding to get all the submarine orders.
With every good wish for 1933.
Yours very sincerely.
(Signed) CHARLES W. CRAVEN."
That is the letter to which I referred in my question, and as the Solicitor-General will have observed, I wanted to know whether to communicate this information to this American counter-part, shall I call it, of this British firm is not to act in a way that is prejudicial to the interests of this country. It is a case of one firm placing another firm in possession of knowledge not only as to what is to be done during the current year, that is 1933–34, but as to what it is anticipated the Admiralty will do in the consecutive year, 1934–35.
The question I raised with the First Lord of the Admiralty was whether such an act does not come within the terms of the Official Secrets Act. I should not dream of attempting to make any reference to the report in the newspapers of current proceedings under this very law, because that would be highly improper, but it is important that we should know whether a firm of this sort is acting properly in communicating information of this kind to an American firm. It is true that this American firm has business relationships with the English firm and, so far as I can see, very profitable relationships too, for without doing anything at
932
all themselves, so far as I am aware, they get a nice little present of something like £7,500, with pleasant anticipation of further benefits to come. The simple point is whether this action does or does not fall within the terms of the Official Secrets Act; and, if it does, why is it that proceedings are not taken—not against the American company, for they, of course, are outside the operations of our law—but against this gentleman who communicates this information to his American confrères on the other side of the ocean?
9.41 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was, perhaps, rather slow in leaving the Chamber, and when the hon. Gentleman rose to say, very courteously, that he did not complain of the absence of my right hon. Friend, I sat here because I thought I might be of use in taking a note which I could communicate to my right hon. Friend when he arrived. Efforts have been made to reach him, but my hon. Friend has concluded before he has arrived.
Mr. JONES: I do not complain of that.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member is kind enough not to complain about that. Also, I am sure that he will not expect me to give anything except a most very general answer to the point which has been raised, because I could not possibly do otherwise. I only heard of the matter from my hon. Friend, and it would be quite improper for me to do so. As the matter has been raised, I would only point out this fact which, indeed, I take from my hon. Friend's speech, that the communication to which he referred was one from a British firm to what he describes as their counterpart in America. Clearly the fact that one person in business having got particular information talks about it or discusses it or discloses it to his counterpart, whether in this country or America, is something which I should have thought, so stated, was quite clearly outside anything which was contemplated by the Official Secrets Act, because if a Government gives an order—I am speaking quite generally—to a particular firm, that firm, in order to fulfil the order, may have to communicate the fact to

933
other persons in the business. That is a general aspect of the matter which strikes me at once, and I am afraid beyond that general statement it would be quite impossible for me to go at the moment, and I must ask the House and my hon. Friend to excuse me further.
9.44 p.m.
Mr. JONES: I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman did not quite seize the point. I am not complaining so much of the communication of the actual order for 1933–34—that I understand—but what I am raising is the propriety or otherwise of intimating to this American gentleman, Mr. Carse, that in 1934–35 there was to be a further order, but that Mr. Carse must not communicate that to the American Government. The Solicitor-General quite rightly says that he has not had notice of the point, and I do not complain if he asks for time to consider it, but that is the point with which I am immediately concerned—the promised work for 1934–35. If that is information which it is not fit for the American Government to know, how came it to be fit for the American Mr. Carse to know? Another point which arises is how does Sir Charles Craven come to know of it. Although he is not himself in the Admiralty, necessarily he must have business relations with the Admiralty, and how does he know what the Government are going to do in 1934–35? He knows what the Estimates were for 1933 and 1934, but on what authority is he informed what is going to happen in 1934–35? That is the point for consideration.
9.45 p.m.
Sir S. CRIPPS: May I say a word on this subject in order to ask the Solicitor-General to bear in mind this aspect of the case? The letter which has been read sets out a promise which the Admiralty have made of certain future business for Sir Charles Craven's firm. He says:
"In other words, they will have the right to withdraw their promised order for the second ship if Geneva or any other troublesome organisation upsets the large submarine."—
That, presumably, is referring to the Disarmament Conference—
"In view of this, I am not saying anything publicly about the 'Clyde,' and I would suggest that it would be wise that Spear"—
934
presumably that is Mr. Carse's man who is in contact with the Navy Department of America—
"should not let the information get into the hands of your Navy Department."
One thing is clear; Sir Charles Craven has no control over Mr. Spear, but he is afraid that Mr. Spear might communicate the fact to the Navy Department in America, and, realising that it would be wrong if the information got into the hands of a foreign Government, via Mr. Spear and the Navy Department, he is asking that Mr. Spear shall not let the information get into those hands.
What right has Sir Charles Craven to communicate information which he clearly sees will get to Mr. Spear? It is not a case, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, of a man discussing with his foreman or manager or someone who has to carry out the work—not that there was any work to be carried out. Work might have materialised in the future, but this was not something which actually had to be done. Suppose that Sir Charles Craven had—as he might have had, for all that I know—a similar arrangement with Krupps, and that he had written to Krupps saying, "We have a contemplated order but we ask you not to let the German Government know," or to a French firm, say the Comité des Forges, saying "We ask you not to let the French Government know." He would thereby be risking a matter, which might clearly be covered by the Official Secrets Act, coming to the knowledge of the very people from whom the Official Secrets Act was designed to keep it.
A prosecution is going on at the present moment, I understand from the papers, in which an officer from Woolwich Arsenal is alleged to have tried to communicate information to Government contractors at Imperial Chemical Industries; not to a foreign firm, because there is no suggestion that the information might have got to a foreign Government. The Government contractors were dealing with the very subject matter that was communicated, and that officer is being accused—whether rightly or wrongly does not matter here—of infringing the Official Secrets Act. Surely it is an infinitely more serious matter for Sir Charles Craven to communicate a secret from the Admiralty to a person over whom he had no control

935
and who he feared might communicate it to a foreign Government.
I ask the Solicitor-General to make an investigation into the relationships between Sir Charles Craven and Mr. Spear, and to ascertain whether Sir Charles Craven had any means of binding Mr. Spear to keep any secret. If Mr. Spear were an employé, circumstances might be different because he might be bound by confidence as an employé would be bound to his employer. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should ascertain whether there
936
was any such power in Sir Charles Craven to see that this secret did not go any further than Mr. Spear, or whether Sir Charles Craven was merely expressing a pious hope—knowing of the risk that he was taking—that the risk would not materialise because Mr. Spear would not do that which Sir Charles Craven had no power to prevent him from doing.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes before Ten o'Clock.

  MARRIAGE (AVERAGE AGE).
  MARRIAGE (AVERAGE AGE).
  INLAND WATER SURVEY.
  INLAND WATER SURVEY.
  CONTRIBUTORY OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  CONTRIBUTORY OLD AGE PENSIONS.
POST OFFICE.
  RADIOTELEPHONE SERVICES (WEST INDIES).
  RADIOTELEPHONE SERVICES (WEST INDIES).
  CONVEYANCE OF MAILS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  CONVEYANCE OF MAILS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
AGRICULTURE.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  MILK (PUBLICITY).
  MILK (PUBLICITY).
  HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY.
  HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY.
  BROADMOOR ASYLUM (STAFF).
  BROADMOOR ASYLUM (STAFF).
  BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (STAFFS).
  BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (STAFFS).
  PROPOSED NEW PEOPLES PALACE.
  PROPOSED NEW PEOPLES PALACE.
  MILK (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  MILK (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  SPAIN (BRITISH TRADE DELEGATION).
  SPAIN (BRITISH TRADE DELEGATION).
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (STATIONARY VEHICLES).
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (STATIONARY VEHICLES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

NATIONAL GALLERY (OVERSEAS LOANS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to authorise the lending overseas of pictures representative of British art comprised in the collections of the National Gallery, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

REGIMENTAL CHARITABLE FUNDS BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision as to the disposition of certain regimental charitable funds, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
Petition for a Bill to effectuate the withdrawal of the people of Western Australia from the Federal Commonwealth of Australia and for other purposes, read.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, in presenting this Petition on behalf of the Government, the Parliament, and the people of the State of Western Australia, I only wish to say this, that the right of petitioning the Crown and Parliament for the redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the Constitution, and it is in order to afford the State of Western Australia facilities for availing themselves of this right that I am presenting this Petition to your Lordships' House.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the statement which has been made by my noble friend Lord Aberdeen in referring to this Petition seems to me to raise matters of grave constitutional importance having regard to the relationship between the Dominions and this country which is at present in force. I do not think that the position in relation to these questions is free from doubt, and I do not think it is one that we can hastily determine. In these circumstances, before the Petition is actually received, I should be grateful if your Lordships would give me a little opportunity of considering the issues involved and, perhaps, of tendering advice to your Lordships, preferably when we reassemble at the end of next month. If your Lordships would do that, I hope by that time to be in a position to offer your Lordships some advice as to what seems to be the most convenient course of dealing with the questions involved.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
Petition ordered to lie on the Table.
WORKINGTON GAS ORDER, 1934.
BISHOP'S STORTFORD GAS ORDER, 1934.
BERKHAMPSTEAD GAS ORDER, 1934.
EASTBOURNE GAS ORDER, 1934.
DURSLEY GAS ORDER, 1934.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion as to Special Orders standing in my name.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REGISTRATION AND REGULATION OF OSTEOPATHS BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK rose to move, That the Select Committee have leave to hear Counsel for and against the Bill; and to examine witnesses on oath. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I hope that this Motion which I am about to move will be of a purely formal character. Last week there was a debate on the

423
Second Reading of the Bill and it was duly carried. Your Lordships agreed that a Select Committee should be set up to consider it, and at the same time permission was given to call witnesses. At the time I intended to ask your Lordships whether you would agree also that that Committee should hear Counsel for and against the Bill and be empowered to examine witnesses on oath. If your Lordships would agree to that, I feel quite sure that not only will it facilitate the proceedings of that Committee but it will be of great help and advantage in elucidating the proper solution or result from the proceedings. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Select Committee have leave to hear Counsel for and against the Bill, and to examine witnesses on oath.—(Viscount Elibank.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and leave given accordingly.

INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion of Viscount Halifax to resolve, That this House accepts the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform as the basis for the revision of the Indian Constitution and considers it expedient that a Bill should be introduced on the general lines of the Report, and on the Amendment moved by the Marquess of Salisbury to the foregoing Motion, namely, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House is unwilling to pronounce in advance an acceptance of far-reaching recommendations on Indian Constitutional Reform until it has had the opportunity of considering and approving the particular recommendations of the Joint Select Committee to be adopted by the Government and proposed in the concrete form of the provisions of a Bill."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, the present moment is not the time for a detailed survey of the Joint Select Committee's Report. During the course of this debate, which has been a very helpful one for those who will be taking part in the discussions on the Bill when it is before your Lordships' House, many points have been raised. Some of them undoubtedly are of vital importance;
424
others again, although important, may be more conveniently dealt with on the Committee stage of future proceedings. Yet again there are others concerned with the machinery for carrying out the recommendations of the Committee which perhaps may better and more conveniently be left to be drafted by constitutional experts. Nor would it be fitting on this occasion to tread the well-worn and familiar path and describe the course and progress of the advance towards the plan for conferring greater responsibility upon Indian Legislatures, which began as far back as 1858, and has made slow but sure progress ever since. Let me rather deal with several of the questions which excite the greatest controversy—namely, first, that which concerns responsibility at the Centre; second, that which causes acute anxiety, namely, the transfer of law and order; and third, as to how the Report of the Committee differs from and strengthens the safeguards recommended in the White Paper.
Before discussing these several matters it may be useful to refer to the unanimity which the present debate has disclosed as existing among members of your Lordships' House. No one has suggested, indeed nobody either in or out of the House has suggested; that we can stand still and do nothing. We are all agreed that we must go forward. We are all agreed that a large measure of provincial autonomy is desirable. We are all agreed that whatever measure is passed ample powers should be taken in the Bill to prevent a dangerous situation arising. We are all agreed that the Governor-General must retain control of the Army and foreign affairs.
Let me then first address myself to the question of responsibility at the Centre. Here again there seems to be some measure of agreement. As far as it is possible to gauge opinion it is agreed by nearly everybody in Great Britain, both inside and outside this House, that the ultimate goal to be striven for is an All-India Federation. The Statutory Committee clearly were of that opinion. In a statement recently issued representing the Minority recommendations of certain members of the Committee, it is expressly stated on page 20 that the federal objective need by no means be abandoned. The difference then between those who agree with the Committee and

425
those who do not is chiefly that the former are willing to decide on and grant some measure of responsibility at once, or as soon as may be, and those who disagree are anxious to try out provincial autonomy first and to leave over the question of responsibility at the Centre to some distant and uncertain date.
The advantages or disadvantages of these views will appear most clearly by an examination of two questions. First, what would be the probable effect of a grant of provincial autonomy only? Second, what is the value of responsibility at the Centre? First, it appears to everybody, as I have already ventured to suggest, that the establishment of a large measure of provincial autonomy is desirable. It does not mark arty new departure, but the next stage in the path which India has long been treading and in the opinion of many has long been promised. It is the natural development of the policy which we have steadily pursued for over seventy years. To that extent it has the advantage of satisfying Indian ambitions. Assume such a policy alone to come into force and see what is likely to happen. You will be creating eleven autonomous Governments in the Provinces whilst leaving the present Centre untouched. This surely cannot be a wise course.
The great danger in the present world situation is the tendency of States or communities to shut themselves up in watertight compartments, or, adopting another metaphor, to build walls round their territories which make trade, human intercourse, and all the advantages derived therefrom more difficult and more complicated to carry on. One would have thought that our present political philosophy was in favour rather of breaking down all such obstructions and impediments between nations. What would be the effect in the next generation of erecting these eleven autonomous Governments? Would they not tend in the absence of some strong controlling Centre to diverge further and further apart instead of getting together and establishing that unity or inter-communication which, at any rate as between the component parts of an Empire, is a consummation devoutly to be wished? It is not for me here and now to comment upon the wisdom of any declaration that the Provinces are autonomous communities within the British Empire, but
426
there are some who think that it may cause great difficulty to the Empire in the future. What, think you, would be the effect of eleven autonomous Provinces going their own way on questions of law, trade and commercial discrimination? The danger of such a policy would seem to be that before long instead of having what we all desire, a united India, we would have eleven disunited Provinces, each of them jealous and watchful of the others and between whom there is likely to be friction giving perpetual trouble to the home authorities. This view, my Lords, is no idle speculation but one derived from our experience of the past.
There has been for years a long and steady process of administrative devolution from the Government of India to the Provincial Governments which has profoundly affected the whole structure of Indian administration. This has produced, as the Report itself points out, three important results. First, it has tended to remove provincial administration from the immediate purview of His Majesty's Government and by thus weakening the direct accountability of Indian administrators to Parliament, it has rendered inevitable the introduction in some degree of local responsible government. Secondly, it has tended to make the Provinces the centres of the development of Social Services; and thirdly, it has tended to transfer to the Provincial Executives the prime responsibility for the preservation of law and order. If these have been results over a period of years when the Provinces have not had anything like the authority which all Parties are now prepared to give them, what is to be expected when enhanced powers are given to them? These tendencies will grow more rapidly both in point of time and in point of substance.
Consider for a moment another side of the question—that is to say, the effect that the pull of eleven autonomous Provinces will exercise upon a Centre constituted as the present one is. Here again, it is not necessary to indulge in idle speculations, for again the experience of history comes to our aid. What has been the result of the composition and powers of the present Centre? Many of its members are quite irresponsible. They are not restrained by the knowledge that they themselves may be required to provide an alternative

427
Government. Their opinions have been uninformed by the experience of power and they have shown themselves prone to regard support of the Government policy as a betrayal of a national cause.
My Lords, it is a commonplace in the history of our own country during the last fifty years, that nothing steadies a wild politician so much as experience of office. Nothing educates a critic so much as the duty, when he is called upon to perform it, of constructing a policy. Yet it is clear from the history of the last twelve years that the Assembly has in fact from time to time influenced the policy of the Government. It is to be feared that the pressure exercised by eleven autonomous Provinces having more power than ever before will still further weaken the already weakened Centre till it becomes almost impotent. A strong Centre is surely necessary for the existence of a number of autonomous units. To fail to provide it is like building an arch without the keystone. Once it is proposed to create eleven autonomous Provinces, two choices remain open to you. There will be the choice of seeing them in a few years independent units, or, in order to prevent this, the choice of some central authority which on vital issues will enable these autonomous Provinces to speak with one voice and to the same effect. As it seems to many of us, no more disastrous policy could be pursued than that of conferring provincial autonomy only with the Centre as it now exists. We have yet to hear what is proposed to be substituted for the present Centre.
Let me now turn to responsibility at the Centre. I assume for the purpose of the discussion of this point the creation of the autonomous units in eleven Provinces. Everyone is already agreed that on certain matters there must be some central control. Those matters are defence and foreign relations, which are to be reserved to the Governor-General. They at once bring in another consideration and that is the States which are ruled over by the various Indian Princes. Provinces and Princes are alike interested in these two matters. What other matters are there in which Princes and Provinces are also interested? Look for a moment at the map of India. Neither the Provinces nor the States are
428
tracts of country in a ring fence. The Princes do not own all the land south of a certain latitude any more than the Provinces own the land west of a certain longitude. The Provinces and the States are bound up together. To use quite a trivial metaphor, they are not unlike a jig-saw puzzle. But there are obviously many questions upon which, although they may have different opinions, they have the same interest and an interest which is best attained by mutual agreement after mutual discussion.
Further than that, it is obvious that there are great tracts of country in India composed of both States and Provinces. The needs and interests of Southern India as a whole may be very different from the needs and interests of Northern or North-West India and yet there may be certain considerations of an overriding character where their needs and interests are the same. There are some people who fold their hands and say that India is so divided both by religious beliefs and different civilisations that it is quite impossible to unify it. It is urged that the passions which divide Hindus from Moslems are deep, tragic and irreconcilable, and therefore the only refuge—a counsel of despair—is to do nothing. In answer to that, the first question is: Is unity desirable? If it is, I refuse to think that a project for unification is impossible for Great Britain to pursue and accomplish after centuries of political education, experience and compromise. The different orientation of politics leading to a rivalry, not between Hindus and Moslems, but between different parts of India as a whole, will be the first step towards determination of an age-long religious strife.
What is the greatest need of India as a whole? If one had to sum it up in one word, one would feel disposed to say "stability," and in stability is to be included a number of subjects. The stability which enables India as a whole to exist without fear of hostile, foreign invasion. The stability which enables the Indian all over India to pursue his professional business in peace and quiet and to conduct freely his trade not only with his immediate neighbours but with those further afield. The stability which comes from order, peace and settled government, the rule of law and material prosperity. The stability which comes

429
from similar laws and economic freedom. Above all, the stability which comes from free intercourse instead of from carping at one another from behind walls of any description.
The greatest factor to ensure such a stability is to be found in unity—a united India, or rather an India united for many purposes of mutual interest, an India well administered. Over and above that, if it is clear that on the creation of eleven autonomous Provinces it is necessary to have a strong Centre, any course which leads to its stability and adds to its strength is one to be examined, welcomed, and, if possible, adopted. It is therefore obvious that if you do desire stability in India, if you do desire mutual laws and economic freedom, if you do desire to confer added strength, stability and prosperity on India as a whole, it is more likely to be achieved by an All-India Federation, imperfect and restricted though it may be, than merely by a British India Federation. Consider the advantages of an economic policy vitally affecting the interests of the whole which can be discussed and agreed to by an All-India Federation. At the present moment tariff policies in which every part of India is interested are laid down by the Government of India and a British India Legislature in which no Indian State has a voice, although the States constitute only slightly less than half the area and one-quarter of the population of India. Above that, a common company law for India, a common banking law, a common body of legislation on copyright and trade marks, a common system of communications are at present almost impossible, but on all these points a Federation as now contemplated would have power to adopt a common policy.
No one who has thought of, and worked on, this problem for some years will under-estimate the difficulties attendant on such a proposal. They are obvious to anyone after the first week of his study of the subject. There are difficulties of distance, there are difficulties of population, there are difficulties of religion, difficulties of tradition, difficulties of modes of government, difficulties too which perhaps are the hardest to overcome. difficulties of sentiment, because against these hardly any argument prevails. Once, however, we are
430
all agreed upon the advantages of our goal, that of a united India, the fact that there are difficulties on the road, a Slough of Despond or a Doubting Castle, ought not to deter us from an endeavour to realise our ambition. Again let it be said that they are not difficulties British brains and British courage, after centuries of political experience und practical common sense, will not be able to solve. The attempt is worth the while. Disastrous as it would be to do nothing, it would be even more disastrous to set up provincial autonomy without a strong and suitable Centre. Let me also ask you, my Lords, carefully to consider what is likely to happen in India if after all these years, all these Conferences, all this weariness, all this expectation, nothing in the way of a responsible Centre is set up. It is almost possible to see some Providence in the timely declaration of the Princes in favour of an All-India Federation.
Let me now turn, if only for a few moments, to the second question, that of the transference of law and order. No one can approach this subject without anxiety. But consider what is involved in granting provincial autonomy. To preserve order and uphold the law is the primary duty of every Government, and indeed a condition of its existence. To create a representative Government in the Provinces and to free it at the same moment from all responsibility for law and order is a contradiction in terms. In an attempt to grant the substance it would be in fact only giving the shadow. Do you imagine that those upon whom you proposed to confer such an illusory form of government would not see through the real meaning of what you intend to give them? Representative institutions in our country go back for centuries, but representative institutions without responsibility have long been an anachronism. What do you imagine would be the result in India of such a policy? Year after year you would have fierce agitation for a grant of the powers which you have nominally bestowed, but which in reality you have refused to hand over. Besides, let the point again be stressed that it is responsibility which makes a man.
Grant them the right to exercise authority and to maintain order, and the lessons of history teach you that you will achieve the desired result. Should you

431
not do so, the very people who ought to maintain law and order will be those who will be most troublesome and most difficult to deal with. It will be part of their policy to make your own maintenance of law and order as difficult and as interrupted as possible. Do not, however, imagine for a moment that if the Provinces get this concession, all will be well from the moment they obtain it. It will not be. They may burn their fingers, but the burnt child dreads the fire. Experience is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other.
Doubtless there are difficulties which may take place with regard to terrorism in Bengal and with regard to the Secret Service, but your Lordships must not forget the difference between the recommendations of the White Paper and the recommendations of the Committee. Additional precautions have been taken by the Committee with regard to the functions and powers of the Governor in respect of law and order. Let me again put them on record: (1) The prior consent of the Governor given in his discretion is to be required to any legislation which would amend or repeal the Acts in force in any Province regulating the Police force, civil or military. (2) The consent of the Governor given in his discretion is to be required to the making or amending of any rules under the Police Acts which in his opinion relate to or affect the organisation or discipline of the Police. (3) The instrument of instructions is to require the Governor to give directions so as to prevent the disclosure of the names of those who have given information as to terrorism. The names will remain secret and undisclosed. (4) To combat terrorism, the Governor is to have a special power over and above his special responsibility to combat the activities of terrorists or, if necessary, to create new machinery for the purpose. (5) The Central Intelligence Bureau under the new Constitution is to be assigned to one of the Governor-General's reserved Departments as part of its normal activities.
Finally—and I think that we are indebted for this, if I may say so, to the assistance of the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, who from the very first pressed it upon us—the Governor-General's rules of executive business are to be required by the Constitution Act to contain a provision laying upon Ministers the duty of
432
bringing to the notice of the Governor any matter under consideration in their Department which involves, or is likely to involve, any of his special responsibilities and laying upon the Secretaries the duty of bringing to the notice of the Ministers and of the Governor any matters of the same kind. This is a provision of the first importance. Many of your Lordships whom I have the honour of addressing have had experience of office in Governments in this country, from time to time, and will recognise it as axiomatic that the wise and able Minister is not the one who settles a crisis when it has arisen, but the one who takes early precautions to prevent a crisis arising. Not only is this method wise, but it is easier to nip trouble in the bud. So far with regard to law and order.
Let me turn to the third question—how the Report of the Committee differs from and strengthens the safeguards recommended in the White Paper. Some of the changes I have already referred to, but there are others of great importance. Let me instance two only. First of all, the recommendation that the election to both Chambers of the Federal Legislature should be indirect, and not, as proposed in the White Paper in the case of the Lower Chamber, direct. Personally I regret that it has not been found possible to comply with Indian wishes and sentiment upon this matter, but the arguments against direct election seem overwhelming. They were felt by and recorded in the Second Report of the Federal Structure Committee as far back as January, 1931.
It is unnecessary to enlarge upon them. Popular representation according to the accepted canons of Parliamentary government can hardly be found in a system which provides for the election of members by an average number of 5,000 electors scattered over an average area of some 4,000 square miles, and this difficulty cannot be removed by an increase in the average number of the electors by the lowering of the franchise. An increase in the number of the voters in such vast constituencies would merely increase the difficulties of establishing contact between a candidate and the voter. It is to be hoped that when the time has arrived for Elections in India it will be seen that, however ideal direct

433
election may be, the wise course is to adopt the system of indirect election. It is better to accept the practically possible rather than to refuse it for the sake of striving for the ideally perfect.
Another point upon which the Committee differ from the White Paper is with regard to the accession of the States. It has already been dealt with, and therefore I content myself with merely referring to paragraphs 156 and 157 of the Report, and emphasising the point that it is by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament that Federation is to be brought into being.
Time forbids my going further into matters, but let me finally point out that the Constitution is a rigid Constitution, which those who work it will not be able to alter at their will. Certain matters in the Constitution Act are to be capable of alteration by Order-in-Council, and certain other matters to be prescribed in detail by Order-in-Council, but no Order-in-Council for either purpose is to be made unless it has been approved in draft, with or without modification, by both Houses of Parliament. No constituent power is placed in the hands of the Indian Legislatures enabling them to alter in any respect the provisional Constitution, but a procedure is to be provided by the Constitution Act, whereby any Resolution passed by a Legislature in India recommending such an alteration should be secured consideration by His Majesty's Government.
To sum up some of the main differences between the White Paper and the recommendations of the Committee, they are: (1) Tightening up of the regulations securing law and order; (2) the duty of Ministers to warn the Governor of the likelihood of his having to use his special responsibility; (3) indirect election instead of direct election for both Chambers of the Federal Legislature; (4) provisions as to the accession of States; (5) provisions as to the method of making alterations in the Constitution Act.
But, my Lords, to conclude, those who are opposed to the Government's policy quite rightly make repeated references to the risks which are being run. They are perfectly entitled to do so; but I venture to suggest to them that when they are deliberating upon these risks two points should never be absent from their minds. First of all, it is with Empires
434
as with individuals, you have to take risks. It is a law inflexible and inexorable that he who will not risk cannot win. Look back on our history. Remember the risks we have run, both in peace and war. Where should we have been if we had not taken them? Success generally attends those who act and it does not attend those who are timid and balance everything. Secondly, you must not fix your eyes upon the risks arising from the recommendations of the Committee alone. It is not a question of risk, but it is a question of choice of risks. Which is the greater risk? Is it the greater risk to carry out the recommendations of the Committee or to neglect and refuse to carry them out? Are you to pay no attention to Indian hopes, Indian desires, and Indian ambitions? Are you to pay no attention to what they, at any rate, think are promises and pledges? Which do you desire? Do you desire an India companioned by content, or an India disgruntled, disappointed and sullen, an India who will not co-operate with you in your commerce or your administration of the country, an India who will boycott your trade and endeavour to throw every obstacle in the path of government? To these questions there can be but one answer.
How are you to obtain the desired result? A nation may be governed by force or with the consent and co-operation of the governed. Utterly without consent one can be at no man's commandment living. Empires may be won but cannot be kept by the sword. For a time force may prevail, but during that time your military expenditure will increase, your civil revenue will go down, and the end of such an era is inevitable. And besides it is not by such a method and such tradition that we have maintained and shall continue to maintain our rule. My Lords, let us put, if only for a moment, the extremes side by side. On the one hand you have those who desire to confer provincial autonomy only. On the other hand you have those who wish to go far beyond anything recommended either in the White Paper or in the Report of the Committee, and to confer upon India extensive powers amounting almost to independence. Between these two extremes I ask your Lordships to declare for and steer a middle course—a course which is the one recommended by the Report of the Committee, a course

435
which will prevent us from any reproach that we have not carried out our promises, a course which I for one, at any rate, believe will bring not only peace and prosperity to India, but will strengthen and perpetuate the bond by which our Empire is held together.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have felt some hesitation in taking any part in this debate, because my direct concern with Indian affairs dates from almost twenty years back, and so much has happened in the course of those twenty years while your Lordships have to deal with existing conditions, that I feel I can contribute little of value to the debate. At the same time, having spent six years at the India Office, and having there and in the course of visits to India known personally all the leading figures of that time, both among the Indian Princes and among Indian politicians, I do not like to remain altogether silent. But I cannot pretend to examine the details that have to be considered, some of which have been so powerfully dealt with by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and I will set out a few considerations which induce me to give general support to the Report which has been the issue of these many inquiries and Conferences in which, unfortunately, I have been unable to take part.
I think it may be worth while to glance at the manner in which in the nineteenth century this country had to meet the problem which confronted it after many years of peaceful penetration of trade, and after victories gained over European rivals and over various dominations in India. That problem might have been met by saying: "There are two ancient civilisations, Eastern and Western, to be treated on a footing of equality, and each with much to learn from the other." For instance, our Western conception of the Christian religion, which might tend to throw excessive emphasis on the merits of that faith merely as an ethical system, might he elevated and strengthened with closer contact with the more contemplative and spiritually-minded Indian. And in the sphere of government—Indian government being in question—we might have looked back through Indian history to the days of Akbar and considered the methods of different rulers, Moslem, Mahratta, Sikh and other Indians, and the Ministers who advised them—those of them who were the most broad-minded
436
and the most humane. We might also have said: "Let us limit so far as we can our annexation of Native States to cases of absolute misgovernment, or where no inheritance could be found, and even there as little as possible if means could be found to continue Indian government." If this system had been carried out by sympathetic administrators of the stamp of Sir Thomas Munro, and Mount Stuart Elphinstone, or men of high imagination like Sir Alfred Lyell, it is very possible that by now there might have been a federated India, prosperous and content, which would have spared your Lordships from having to consider these problems to-day.
But events did not so work out. The nineteenth century witnessed a great deal of bloodshed and fighting in India, some of it inevitable, some of it inexcusable. It also witnessed a number of annexations of Native States, not all of them by any means obligatory. It saw too the creation of the Indian Civil Service—that body which, for its courage, its devotion to duty, its humanity and its self-sacrifice, has made all Englishmen proud. And it is mainly due to that Civil Service and also, of course, to some of the great men who have filled the position of Viceroy, that we are able to say, without maintaining that our Government of India has been perfect, that at any rate we need not make the abject apologies which some people seem to think to be necessary for our continuing to remain there. But it is also true—and this, of course, came into being especially after the Mutiny—that there was no attempt to treat India on anything like a footing of equality. We did claim to take a position of racial superiority. That showed itself in a great number of ways. The retention of the use of the English language as a medium of education was probably inevitable. So probably was the introduction of English justice. But in introducing English justice it was not necessary to throw roughly aside, as was done, the practice of Indian justice, and to apply our methods to oriental conditions utterly unsuitable to them.
Then again, in the mere matter of dress. I do not know whether any of your Lordships ever saw or heard of a work over which people smiled fifty years ago, the account of an Indian Judge

437
written by his nephew. Bengal now writes as good English as Bloomsbury, but in those days a good deal of Indian English was marked by extravagant phraseology and by the amazing interpolation of foreign languages. In this case the Judge who had discarded the Indian dress in favour of coat and trousers, was descrii3ed by his admiring biographer in the phrase: "With him it was esto perpetua in the pantaloon." Well, that article of clothing has very much gone out of fashion among the younger generation in England, but in those clays it undoubtedly was the opinion of Indians most friendly to the British connection that the adoption of English dress was a passport to the favour of the Government.
These, of course, are trivial matters, but what we did was to impress upon the educated Indian mind that our English Parliamentary system was the only one which a self-respecting people could hope to regard as the proper system for themselves. I do not know whether some of your Lordships may remember a book written in the last century by the philosophical statesman Sir George Cornewall Lewis, entitled "On the Government of Dependencies." In the course of that occur these sentences:
"The Constitution of the local Government ought not to be conceived in a form, or its provisions expressed in terms, by which the inhabitants of the Dependency might be naturally led to suppose their country a virtually independent State. The English Government in framing the political institutions of its Dependencies has not been sufficiently careful to give such a form as might suggest the idea of their subordinate character. So far indeed has it been from observing this caution that it has formed them after the model of the Supreme Government and has acquiesced in the use of forms and language by the Legislature of the Dependency which seem to imply that its Government was co-ordinate with and not subordinate to the Government of the dominant country."
Of course, Sir George Cornewall Lewis was not thinking of India but was thinking of the North American and West Indian Colonies, some of which, as we know, have quite literally fulfilled the prophecy that he made; but the principle is everywhere the same, and I cite it on the ground that having persuaded thoughtful and politically-minded men that an imitation or reproduction of the British Parliament is the only form of government which free and self-respecting
438
people can hope for, you cannot now turn round, as some people would like to turn round, and say: "Well, Parliamentary government does not carry the prestige which it did. In some parts of the world we see that great countries have set it aside in favour of entirely different systems. Therefore do not proceed to go further in forming a Parliamentary system in India, but wait and see what turns up, and in the meantime be content to leave things as they are." That, I venture to say, is an altogether impossible line to take.
I should now like to say one word about provincial government. Ever since I thought about Indian matters at all it always seemed to me that the line of advance was through giving further responsible powers to the Presidencies and Provinces. That, of course, was no novelty, because many years ago Mr. John Bright took up the same line very strongly; but, of course, the objection always was that which the Lord Chancellor has just developed—namely, that you ran the risk of destroying the unity of India altogether if you made the Provinces too independent and too powerful. I confess I was impressed on the occasion of the last sitting by a remark which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, on the point of starting from the foundation instead of trying to work downwards. I remember having a long conversation on that subject with Mr. Gokhale, who, I suppose, most of us will agree was the ablest Indian politician we have known, and he strongly took the view that to start by giving more influence and more work to local authorities was the proper line of advance. I wish that had been done, but at that time his supporters—I think most of them—had become much more fascinated by the idea of obtaining more power and more activity in legislative bodies than in anything which could be done by local bodies. I entirely agree with the view which has been further developed by the Lord Chancellor, that having instituted provincial autonomy it would be almost approaching a farce not to give the power of preserving order to the Ministry. Of that I have not the faintest doubt.
I hope it may be assumed that when the House divides to-morrow there till be a large majority in favour of considering the recommendations of the

439
Report in the form of a Parliamentary measure. Noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench are not prepared to support it on one or two grounds, very moderately and clearly set out by those who have spoken on their behalf. Their first complaint was that the Report did not, in terms, do anything to assist, I presume, their object of obtaining more political power for the Indian cultivators and industrial workers. I take it that the reply to that complaint must be that this is a measure of political reform not one of social amelioration, and that it will be for the Indians themselves in the future, having obtained this large measure of political influence, to go forward in the direction in which those noble Lords probably would approve, but that such provisions could scarcely form part of this measure.
The second reason which leads the Opposition to abstain from voting is that there is no mention in the Report of Dominion status. That is one of those cant phrases of politics which has been popular because it is undefined. In one sense, I think, in the estimation of the world and certainly at Geneva, there is no country which holds a higher position than India among all those that owe allegiance to His Majesty. But it is also, of course, the case that the phrase has been taken to mean some system of government very much on the lines of the Government of Canada, which, owing to quite recent practice, involves the complete absence of British troops from the country. Those noble Lords desire a term to be mentioned, a term of twenty or at the outside of thirty years, at the end of which that form of responsible government should have been achieved. It seems to me that it would be altogether unwise to attempt to mention a date, even an approximate date, for the assumption by India of those powers. I do not think the Government of the day has any more right to do that than it has to indicate what the income Tax should be at that remote date; and for this reason: that if such a promise were made it would have to be so hedged about by the consideration of possible contingencies that it would lose the greater part of its value. Who can say that the Empire, or some part of it, may not be at war at the time mentioned, and, therefore, I cannot help regretting that noble Lords holding those views
440
have thought it necessary on those grounds to abstain from voting for the Report, much of which they favour.
But I should like to make an appeal to some noble Lords opposite, not to those who, like the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, whose absence from the debate we all deplore, after a careful consideration and study of the question, and large experience, have decided that they are not able to concur in the main provisions of the Report. Those noble Lords must, of course, form and stick to their own conscientious opinion. But I feel that on the Benches opposite there must be a great many others who without pretending to a thorough knowledge of Indian matters, or to a complete study of all the Papers which have been produced by the different Committees of Inquiry, yet feel that it would be better to wait, that there is, after all, not very much hurry; and, therefore, that it would be wiser to go slow. I beg to say in reply that I think that is not a wise attitude to adopt, and for this reason.
I am sure that every vote which is given to-morrow in opposition to the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, will be taken in India as representing a desire to postpone indefinitely further advance. This question has to be considered as a whole, and, as previous speakers have pointed out, you cannot introduce a Bill including some of the principal provisions of the Report if you strike out some of the others which are really complementary to them. Therefore, as I say, every vote which is given against Lord Halifax's Resolution will be regarded, not as a plea for delay, but as a refusal to proceed. It is not, I think, unfair to say this, because the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in his initial speech did not confine himself to advancing reasons why consideration might be delayed for a few months, but protested in strong terms against many of the principal provisions which, as we know, will form part of the coming Bill.
I would therefore beg noble Lords who do not consider themselves pledged, by a study of the question, to oppose the Resolution, to consider whether, even if they do not feel able to support it, they cannot agree to stand aside for the moment, because I am quite certain that the figures when they reach India will have an effect on public opinion which I

441
am bound to say the figures of Divisions in this House do not always carry all over the world. I say this because I have sat for many years in this House, probably longer than most of those who will take a part in the. Division to-morrow. I have witnessed two abortive attempts to carry a Home Rule measure for Ireland brought in by two Governments—quorum, pars parva fui. I remember the creation of the Australian Commonwealth, of which I naturally highly approved although I took no part in its inception. Among all my recollections of this House I think the pleasantest is that it was given to me to be in charge of the measure for creating the Union of South Africa. I am not sure that any of these measures, or any other measures or votes to which we have consented in this House, was of intrinsic importance equal to that which we are considering to-day. If the criterion to be taken is the number of those who owe allegiance to His Majesty whose welfare is affected by this measure, then this measure is the most important with which any of us have ever had to deal. I trust, therefore, that when Parliament passes the measure, it will be passed not in a spirit of tardy acquiescence but in a spirit of general and cordial agreement.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I have had the honour of being an Indian Governor and I therefore feel bound as a member of this House—and indeed one of the oldest members—to declare the opinions which I have formed to the best of my ability and as conscientiously as I am able. I must confess, however, that it is only with great reluctance that I have brought myself to the discharge of that duty as I am no talker and I have reached the age when there is every inclination to leave everything to those younger men who will live to see the fruit of their works. I realize, moreover, that I have long since been placed upon the shelf.
I should, however, like to remind your Lordships that I was an advocate of political reform in India thirty years ago, that is to say before any or your Lordships, except a very few members who still survive, had given the matter a thought. I am still in favour of the progressive development of self-government in India, but only by gradual stages in accordance with the declaration which
442
was made by Parliament in the Government of India Act. I was fortunate enough to be Governor of Madras at a very interesting time which might well be described as the turning point of political evolution in India, and when I returned to England I was one of the very few members of the Conservative and Unionist Party who gave wholehearted support to the Morley-Mints Reforms. That was a long time ago, but in common with all those who have lived and served in India I have been giving constant thought to this Indian question for many years past, and I may say that the course of events in India and the manner in which our policy in regard to the government of India has been drifting has caused me almost daily unhappiness and anxiety.
It is too often forgotten that those who are outside of Parliament and Party politics but are in one way or another concerned with India, have not had to wait for the White Paper or the Report of the Joint Select Committee to form general opinions as to the state of affairs in India and the necessities of the case. They have had before them from day to day evidence just as abundant as that which was brought in more concentrated forms before the Round-Table Conferences and the Joint Select Committee. That evidence was furnished in the first place by the wholly admirable Report of the Statutory Commission which may be regarded as evidence of overwhelming authority. Next there has been the news of all kinds from India published in the daily Press as well as the newspaper reports of proceedings at the several Conferences and Committees. And lastly there has been the evidence furnished by a flood of books and pamphlets written by Englishmen and Indians of eminence and authority as the result of direct and recent experience. Just as an instance I may tell your Lordships that I know for a fact that my old friend and political associate for many years, Sir Henry Page Croft, has read well over 900 books on India and has devoted many hours a day to the study of the Indian question for the past few years. The members of the Joint Select Committee are, therefore, not the only persons who have been devoting months and days and hours to the study of this question. There are others who have been doing

443
the same thing but in a rather different way.
Can it be said, my Lords, that those who have sat at round tables in conference and have pored over documents which were mainly official are the only persons who can form a right judgment in this matter? There is an old saying that in certain circumstances a man cannot see the wood for the trees, and I think it is applicable to those who have been cribbed, cabined and confined for their study of this question. The interesting confessions of those who have described their conversion to the view of the Majority of the Joint Select Committee do not impress me. When a jury of British citizens has been shut up for a good many hours to consider their verdict the time always comes when those who entered the discussion with more or less open minds feel obliged to give way to the members who had made up their minds in the first instance. I should be a much happier man than I have been for some time past if I could give my whole-hearted support to the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee, if I could say to the Government without any misgiving or qualm of conscience that I think they have decided upon the best possible course, and that I believe that constitutional reform on the lines proposed will bring about peace and contentment in India. It is most painful to be obliged to disagree with men whom I respect and admire, with whom I am in political association, and among whom are many personal friends.
It seems almost presumption to disagree with men of such eminence and proved ability and to back your opinion against the opinion of those who have worked so long and so diligently. But a council of experts does not always arrive at decisions which are acceptable to the general public. A British jury, if I may quote that instance once more, from another point of view, has to give its verdict according to conscience in spite of the persuasive oratory of brilliant advocates and sometimes in contradiction to the summing-up of a learned Judge. This matter has to be decided by Parliament, and the duty of Parliament is to reflect the opinions and wishes of the whole body of electors; that is to say of ordinary people with very little particular knowledge of the question at issue.
444
Now, my Lords, from the point of view of the man in the street it, seems to me that the Government are proposing to give to India something that she does not want, something that she cannot afford, something which will do no good, and may possibly do great harm, to the masses of the peoples in India, and that the Government propose to do this at a time which is singularly unpropitious. Let me take these four simple points in order and try to prove that I am only stating facts which cannot be denied. I say that India does not want the scheme of the White Paper. What are the facts? They are that at least 95 per cent. of India's peoples know nothing whatever about the White Paper. The 5 per cent. who may have heard of it are divided into conflicting sections that regard the scheme only from the standpoint of their particular race, creed, caste or profession. There is only one point on which they are all agreed, and that is in objecting to the very proposals which we are told will alone make India contented. A powerful section of the Hindu Congress refuses to accept the White Paper or the Communal Award of the Prime Minister which is the basis of the whole scheme because it gives some protection to minorities. The Gandhi section neither accepts nor rejects the Award but is determined to bring matters to a deadlock with a view to fighting for the complete independence of India, with the right to secede from the British Empire. The left wing of the Congress, which is strong in the industrial centres, has adopted a Communist policy, inspired from Moscow, which aims at abolishing the Princes, big landlords and the British connection.
There is, moreover, a new movement in India which has been strangely ignored in this country and it is that of the orthodox Hindus, who have been roused to action by a fear of the dangers to their religion and customs which they think the White Paper proposals would bring about. This awakening of the orthodox Hindus has been ignored by all our politicians, who regard their opposite numbers in India as the only persons who can voice the views of India. But these orthodox Hindus are about half the population, excluding the Outcasts, and it is worth while to quote what was said on their behalf by the Chairman at a recent conference in Calcutta:

445
"As Sanatanists we believe in a spiritual Swaraj, not in a barren and useless political emancipation. We have no quarrel with the Government or their officers and representatives. If we have any right against our Sovereign, it is to invoke his protecting hand against the enemies of our religion."
Now, whom do these people regard as "the enemies of their religion"? It is the unorthodox Hindu politicians whom the White Paper will put in power. I do not see how we can disregard the views of 150,000,000 people in British India to whom their religion and the customs based on it are the only things they really care about. I doubt very much whether the Joint Select Committee have given sufficient attention to this aspect of the case. It seems to be strangely ignored in that curious paragraph of the Report which refers to the emergence of a body of central opinion.
The sturdy Sikhs of the Punjab, and the Hindu minorities in the Punjab, Sind, North-West Frontier Province and Bengal are violently opposed to the White Paper because the Committal Award would place them permanently under a Moslem majority. The Sikhs are even threatening to fight rather than submit to this. Where do your peace and contentment come in? It is true that the Moslems, who number nearly one-fourth of the population, are quite disposed to accept the Communal Award, but only because it will give them a majority in Bengal and the key Provinces of the North-West and enable them to combine in order to fight against the certain Hindu domination of the Central Government. They are anticipating, just as Mr. Gandhi does, a fight to the death between Hindus and Moslems. Again I ask, how can you count on peace and contentment if you pass this measure as it is? The Indian Christians, who number over 6,000,000, and to whom the most reverend Primate did not seem to make much reference, complain (I quote their words) that
"though their fundamental rights are seriously threatened by the White Paper they were not given a hearing before the Joint Select Committee."
As for the Princes, it is sufficient to say that they are full of anxiety and have not yet arrived at a considered decision.
In face of these facts who will venture to say that India is demanding and crying out for this scheme of constitutional reform? The noble Marquess who has just sat down seemed to think that a plea
446
for delay would be regarded with consternation in India. I venture to disagree with him. I think it would be welcomed by half the people of India, if not more.
My next point was that India cannot afford to have the White Paper scheme at present. The Joint Select Committee admit that their proposals will cost very nearly £5,000,000 sterling per annum. They also admit that special emergency taxation and special economies are still in force and that these in fact represent together a sum of £12,000,000. Thus India at present is short by £17,000,000 of revenue necessary to restore her to financial normality and meet the cost of reforms. The Committee, however, do not say where these £17,000,000 are to come from. They content themselves with a vague expression of hope and belief that the financial problem is "in process of solution." But even £17,000,000 is not a full estimate, for we have learnt from Sir Malcolm Hailey's Memorandum that even more would be required. It follows, therefore, that these constitutional proposals are at present impossible on financial grounds and we are asked to vote for them on the supposition that some miracle will improve the financial position of India. Are we really to believe that the money will be extracted from the pockets of the people and their buried hoards of treasure by this strange "magnetic power" of which we have been told by the noble Viscount, the mover of the Resolution? Will not the people of India say, and say with some justification: "You have forced this new system upon us and it is therefore up to you to pay the Bill"? Will the British taxpayer be willing to finance this specious Home Rule for the futile propitiation of Indian politicians?
My third point was that the time is singularly unpropitious, and I do not think it can be denied that a period of economic depression and frantic terrorism is not a good time for the introduction of constitutional reform. It cannot be too often repeated that the real grievances of India are economic and not political, and it seems to me, therefore, that our paramount duty is to maintain the protecting hand of British rule until India is able to share in a revival of economic prosperity throughout the world. It is all the more important to maintain the protection of British rule until we have purged the country of that

447
terrorism which is described in the note furnished to the Joint Select Committee by the Secretary of State for India with its appendix which we find in Volume II of their Report—a dreadful and terrible document.
In these circumstances would it not be the better, safer and more courageous policy to face these facts and place them quite frankly before the peoples of India, to say to them: "You have seen what earnest and protracted consideration we have given to your demands for a larger measure of self-government. You have seen how far most of us are prepared to go, but you must recogise that the time has not yet come for so large a step in advance. It would not be giving your politicians a fair chance if they were obliged to inaugurate and work this new democratic Constitution at a time when the people cannot bear any further taxation, and while the terrorists are still active. You must, therefore, be content for the present with a further experiment in provincial autonomy, while we continue to protect your frontiers and maintain that law and order without which all your endeavours to develop political consciousness and promote social reform are bound to be in vain."
The ultimate sanction for law and order in India is, of course, the British Army, and there cannot be any real self-government in India while India has to depend upon British soldiers. And do not let us forget our own point of view, which must be that British troops should not be jeopardised in any cause for which the British Government is not directly responsible. If the peoples of India have any real wish for self-government, and any real understanding of what self-government means, the first thing they have to do is to devote all their energies to that Indianisation of the Army which we are now facilitating to the best of our ability. No better earnest of our good faith could be given than by what we are doing in that respect. We have every right to be in India, and it follows that the duty of Parliament is to maintain unimpaired that existing partnership which is of mutual benefit to India and Great Britain. In other words, we must preserve our commercial, industrial and financial interests in India.
Now we are told in a somewhat didactic and superior manner that trade
448
depends upon "good will," and we are meant to infer that good will on the part of India depends upon political concessions to Indian politicians. There is absolutely no justification for that argument, which reminds us painfully of all that was said and done before Home Rule was conceded to Ireland. The same kind of thing was said by the same men who are saying it now in regard to India, but we cannot forget that their views and their confident anticipations have been completely falsified as regards Ireland. There is plenty of good will in India already, and we can keep and increase it if we maintain our responsibility for law and order, and continue to protect the people from oppression. There is no other way of doing it, and it is quite certain that political reforms which will not alter the mode of life of the people will not affect the good will upon which trade depends.
The peoples in India wish to buy our goods, and especially our cotton cloth, because it is better than their own. They are only prevented from doing so by the high tariffs which Indian politicians have imposed at the bidding of the mill-owners of Bombay and Ahmedabad, and we have it from those same politicians that they intend to discriminate further against us if we give them the power to do so. The proof that our goods are preferred is to be found in the fact that Indian merchants are constantly sued in the Courts for imitating British trade marks on their own goods. When the boycott—which was yet another imitation of Irish methods of political agitation—was organised by the Congress Party in 1930–31 it only succeeded where dealers could be intimidated, or even terrorised by bombs, into abandoning the sale of British cloth. But that boycott began to fail as soon as the Viceroy issued an Ordinance making intimidation with picketing illegal, and in many cases the Ordinance had immediate effect. I have these facts from men who have quite recently retired from India, and I would give your Lordships chapter and verse if time permitted.
The proposal to which there is most objection is that of granting responsibility at the Centre and incorporating Federation in the scheme. I shall not repeat all the reasons for that objection, and I intend to confine myself to one point

449
which, so far as I am aware, has not yet been touched. We are told that the chief object of that proposal is to maintain the unity of India. I submit that no Parliaments and no laws can create, or even preserve, national unity when the people are divided by conflicting interests arising from race and religion, and from unalterable geographical and economic circumstances, unless the form of government be autocratic. The story of Indian unity in the past is familiar to all and the more complete unity which has resulted from British rule has been due to two main causes. The first of these is the presence of the British Army in India, as a defence against external foes and the ultimate guardian of law and order. The second is that use of the English language which has been rendered indispensable by the adoption of our system of government and law, and the introduction of instruments of European civilisation. These real causes of unity are not going to disappear at once, or for some time to come, and yet the Joint Select Committee tell us in their Report that unless their scheme is accepted "the prospect of an All-India Federation will disappear, perhaps for ever, but certainly for many years to come."
Does not that statement reveal an utter lack of confidence in the efficacy of the plan proposed Has the federal scheme so little substance? Is it merely a thing of vapour which will blow away unless it is immediately liquefied? I cannot believe that. If the idea of an All-India Federation is a good thing, as indeed I believe it to be, surely it will keep for a few years? What are ten years, or even fifty years, in the life of a nation which has a future? I cannot see why the Princes and peoples of India should not be allowed to evolve their own scheme for the United States of India. If we really intend to make the All-India Federation self-governing, and to give it a status comparable to that of the Dominions, surely we ought to let it be based on Indian ideas? But the Princes and the Provinces have not yet had time to develop any definite notions as to their ultimate goal, and it would therefore seem to be the wiser course to let them settle down to peaceful experiment in provincial autonomy, and to find out for themselves upon what terms they can
450
really unite against the time when our protection will be withdrawn. It seems to me that the Princes at any rate will wish to see something of provincial autonomy in British India before they can form a fair judgment as to the possibilities of federal co-operation for the good of India as a whole.
We have been told that "a strong wind of nationalism" is blowing across the Indian Continent and the whole of Asia. Why not give that wind a chance of clearing the air and blowing away the dust and microbes of present controversies? Mr. Baldwin has told us, with superb confidence, that if we adopt the scheme of the Joint Select Committee we retain India for ever, but that if we reject or curtail it we shall lose India within two generations. He did not explain the reasons upon which he based that prophecy, and I do not think that it has made any impression upon most of those who have passed the better part of their lives in India. I think I am right in saying that there was no member of the Joint Select Committee who had spent more than five years in India, and then only in exalted positions which are far removed from the lives of the Indian masses. I myself am much more fearful of the prophecy which was made long ago, and by a man who knew more about India than Mr. Baldwin—the, prophecy that if we ever lost India it would be upon the floor of the House of Commons. My Lords, I live in dread lest the fulfilment of that prophecy may be at hand.
There are no possible consequences of our action in India that we need apprehend so long as we do without fear or favour that which we believe to be right, and are not influenced by any considerations other than our responsibility for the welfare of all classes and conditions of people in India and the maintenance of our own just rights. The things above all others that we have taught the people of India is that they can look to us to see fair play between them in all disputes, great or small. What they most respect is the courage of the British officer or official to be an impartial umpire or referee in any circumstances. It is a conspicuous characteristic of the Indian to how to just authority, and we cannot go wrong if we adhere to the letter of the great Proclamation made by Queen Victoria,

451
as indeed we may justly claim to have done thus far.
There is only one unconditional pledge that has ever been given to India, and that is that pledge to the Princes of India which has been renewed by each Sovereign and was reaffirmed in the Royal Proclamation at the inauguration of the Chamber of Princes by the Duke of Connaught on behalf of the King-Emperor. That pledge declared that it is the determination of His Majesty the King-Emperor "ever to maintain unimpaired the privileges, rights and dignities of the Princes of India" and it concluded with the words:
"The Princes may rest assured that this pledge remains inviolate and inviolable."
My Lords, that pledge is sacred, but it cannot he kept if the Princes are unduly pressed to enter a Federation in which they will inevitably be subordinated to the self-governing democracy of British India. There is only one way in which that pledge can "remain inviolate and inviolable," and that is if all the Princes enter the Federation of their own free will and accord. That is the paramount and compelling reason why the adoption of the federal scheme should be postponed. The proposal made by the Statutory Commission that there should be a Council of State seems to me to be a wiser policy, in that it would give to the Princes, and also to the Provinces, the necessary opportunity of forming their own ideas on this vital question, and would not involve any irrevocable step that might cause the violation of the great and solemn pledge of the King-Emperor.
THE MARQUESS or LINLITHGOW: My Lords, it is always a pleasure, whether we agree with him or not, to listen to the noble Lord who has just sat down. He always knows his mind and exactly how to express it. I shall try in a moment or two to touch upon one or two matters which he has raised. In the meantime, I should like to be allowed, as Chairman of the Joint Committee, to associate myself with the expression by the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, of the sad loss which the Committee suffered by the deaths of Lord Burnham and Miss Pick-ford. The House will perhaps allow me at the outset to say how grateful I am for the many kind words that have been used here and in another place about my
452
service in the Chair. It has been a great privilege to serve such a Committee, and I desire to acknowledge the unfailing support and kindness extended to me by every one of my colleagues. The Report is before Parliament. Every member of the Committee did his utmost to make it a document worthy of the great issues with which it seeks to deal. No Committee can ever, I conceive, have worked in greater harmony or with more readiness to hear every point of view. Some sections of the Committee did not feel able in the end to vote for the Report, but every section is entitled to claim that it contributed its full share towards the shaping of the Report.
Next the House will, I am sure, desire me to say how greatly the. Committee—and Lord Halifax has already mentioned the point—appreciated the help and counsel of the delegates from India and Burma. I think that Parliament owes a great debt of gratitude to those ladies and gentlemen, who were ready to journey far from their homes, often at great personal inconvenience, in order to place their able services at our disposal. I think there is a good deal to be said for the view that those of us who have had, shall I say our generous fling in the multifarious pages of the Report, ought to content ourselves at this stage with trying to help the House with any points of difficulty or of obscurity that may have appeared, and I certainly do not desire either to be too controversial or to speak at any great length this afternoon.
Before I proceed to other and more disputed matters, may I say this word about Burma I understand that His Majesty's Government accept the Joint Select Committee's recommendation for the political separation of that country from India. With the details of Burma's proposed Constitution, Parliament will deal when the Bill is before us. To-day I content myself by voicing what is, I am quite certain, the wish of the whole House—namely, that Burma may prosper greatly under any new Constitution, and that her sons and daughters may find, within the constitutional field, political contentment and ample opportunity to serve their motherland.
To revert to India and to one of the topics mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Amphill, I think it may be some service to the House if I

453
say a word about the financial aspect of the scheme of reform. Let me say at the outset that no one familiar with the position would pretend that in this respect it is altogether comfortable. Having said that, however, I would ask the House to remember, in surveying the Indian position, that the whole world is only now beginning to emerge from a prolonged and severe financial crisis, a crisis that has plunged whole Continents in misery and want; that has destroyed credit upon a prodigious scale; and that has led to the collapse of the currencies of more than one important country. This then is not a moment when you would expect to find the finances of India, or of any other country, in any very comfortable position.
First of all, what are the estimated costs of the proposed reforms in the Provinces and at the Centre? I think it will probably be for the convenience of the House if I give all money values in sterling. In order to set the Provinces going, the following costs will be incurred:—New expenditure on what I may call overhead charges, that is to say, upon the Legislature and so on, £500,003 (Rs. ¾ crore); loss to Indian revenues by the separation of Burma, S1,500,000 to £2,250,000 (Rs.2 to 3 crores); and subventions to Provinces in deficit on the basis of the 1934–35 Budgets as well as to Sind and Orissa, £2,250,000 sterling (Rs.3 crores), making a total in the provincial field of £4,250,000 to £5,000,000 sterling (Rs.5¾ to 6¾ crores). I shall have something more to say in detail later, but for the purpose of comparison I turn at once to the Centre. The only immediate and compulsory new charge involved in the setting up of the Federal Centre will be about £500,000 sterling (Rs.¾ crore) on new overhead charges; and even if the full ultimate cost of the settlement with the States were added—and that, of course, will not mature for some years—the total charges at the Centre would only be about £1,250,000 sterling (Rs.1¾ crores)—that is to say, £4,250,000 to £5,000,00 sterling in the Provinces against £1,250,000 on the Federal Centre. The weight, then, of financial difficulty is in the Provinces and not at the Centre, and those who assail upon financial grounds the scheme for a Federal Centre for All-India, while themselves advocating provincial autonomy,
454
are taking up a position that is, I submit, quite untenable.
Let me go one step further in analysing the position. What I have called "overheads" and the loss of Burma revenues clearly mean an additional burden on India, though not, I contend, one of unmanageable proportions. But the subventions to Provinces are in fact a redistribution of existing charges. It is, of course, true that so far as provincial deficits are now being covered by borrowing but in future will be met from revenue, the charge on the present generation will be increased; but even this, in the long run, means no more than a transfer of the burden from certain provincial taxpayers to taxpayers all over India. Similarly, in the case of Sind and Orissa, the charge for deficits in these areas (excluding the new "overheads") is to-clay borne by taxpayers in Bombay or Bihar and Madras, and will be merely spread over a wider area in future.
I asked the House a moment ago to bear in mind the financial circumstances and difficulties of the whole world. How do the finances of India stand to-day measured in the light of these circumstances? She has balanced her Budget; she has throughout the crisis honoured her obligations; her currency is sound and her credit is good. Three and a-half per cent. India stock may be bought in the market to-day at 98. I say that is a position of which India and this country may well be proud. I think it is true to say, applying the best judgment I can to this matter, that the best opinion available, including that of the Federal Finance Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Eustace Percy, is that if the price level of agricultural products, by far the most potent factor in India's finances, follows a course that it is now reasonable to anticipate, the resources of India will be found, with prudent management, able to bear the cost of the proposed reforms.
In this connection when we are thinking of India let us never forget that agricultural countries, while they are the first to feel the brunt of falling prices, possess great resiliency and power of recovery. Past experience in India, if we look back over her financial history, proves that she is an outstanding example of this truth. If, unhappily,

455
the unexpected should occur and prices and revenues fall, then we shall have secured the position to this extent, that whatever may be in the Act, if our recommendations are accepted, the inauguration of the Federation cannot take place until both Houses of Parliament have presented an Address to His Majesty praying that this Proclamation may be issued. In paragraph 157 of their Report the Committee say they approve this proposal:
"because Parliament has a right to satisfy itself not only that the prescribed number of States have in fact signified their desire to accede, but also that the financial, economic, and political conditions necessary for the successful establishment of the Federation upon a sound and stable basis have been fulfilled."
If the price level of agricultural produce falls to any considerable extent, I have no hesitation in affirming the view that not only would Federation at the Centre be beyond the financial capacity of India but so indeed would provincial autonomy, and so indeed, if prices fell to the point at which at the worst of the crisis they touched, would the present system and scale of expenditure in India prove ultimately impossible.
When we are dealing with finance and with the complicated and often technical operation of estimating revenue and expenditure under conditions not yet experienced, I think we are all of us bound to depend in a great degree upon expert advice for the material upon which to exercise our judgment. I think, too, that in measuring the weight—I do not desire to overstate the case at all—which ought to be attached to various and sometimes conflicting opinions in the matter of finance, the House should not lightly reject the advice and views placed before the Joint Select Committee by the Secretary of State and his advisers, available in the Minutes of Evidence, fortified as he was, and is, by day to day communication with the Viceroy and Governors and their officers throughout India, and in particular by Sir Malcolm Hailey, a former Finance Member of the Viceroy's Council and till last week senior Governor in India, whose views are set out in Record No. 1 of the Joint Select Committee, and to whom the Committee, and I think Parliament, owe a great debt of gratitude for his services.
Not less impressive, I think, if the House will bear with me, are the opinions
456
of the two Finance Members of the Executive Council of the Governor-General who held office immediately before the present Finance Member. Sir Basil Blackett is reported in The Tinges, when speaking at Liverpool on July 25, to have said:
"I hold that opponents of the White Paper have made altogether too much of the financial problems involved. They add together the increased expenditure due to reforms, the existing provincial deficits, the revenue lost to the Centre by transfer to the Provinces, and the revenue transferred to Burma. They then say that the cost of the reforms is £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 or some such total. This is clearly an arithmetical fallacy. The extra expenditure attributable to the reforms is something under 22400,000 a year, not an extravagant figure for Indian taxpayers to find for the purpose of securing for themselves self-government and a Federal Constitution. Even if the amount lost by India to Burma (which is, of course, gained to Burma) be added, the figure is still below 24,000,000 a year. After being in charge for a long period of the Central Government finances I am not likely to under-estimate the task involved for the Central Government; but I hold that, given a reasonable rise in prices, time problem is not likely to prove very difficult of solution; and it would be a great gain for all to have the financial position of the Provincial Governments secured."
Sir George Schuster, then Finance Member, speaking in the Legislative Assembly on 20th April, 1934, used these words:
"Statements have recently been made in England by former officials of the Government of India who, if I may say so, seem to arrogate to themselves an authority to speak on these subjects which increases in proportion as their direct experience of Indian administration grows out of date; statements have been made that there must be some enormous adventitious increase to India's public revenue—and one speaker has put the figure at 220,000,00 or something like 30 crores—before it will be safe to start the new Constitution. I cannot understand this line of argument."
He went on to say:
"All the Governments, both Federal and Provincial, are going to have—as Governments are having in every country in the world—an extremely difficult time, unless there is a fundamental improvement in the situation. But that does not mean that the new Governments cannot function."
I make no excuse for having asked the House to listen to the views of Sir Basil Blackett and Sir George Schuster, apart from the present holder of the office, the two last incumbents in that position in the Government of India which in this country we know as the Chancellorship of the Exchequer. These men are of the school of those that have made the finan-

457
cial system of India and her financial condition the admiration of the whole world, and I respectfully suggest that until good reason is adduced to the contrary, we shall be wise to rely upon their opinions. I think I have shown that the difficulty of finance, so far as that exists, attaches far more to provincial autonomy than to federation at the Centre.
Let me now deal, quite shortly, with some of the other objections to the scheme of reform advanced by those who would, I understand, grant provincial autonomy but who would withhold federation and responsibility at the Centre, for the present. It is a little difficult to disentangle their arguments, but these are some of those which are adduced in respect of their case. It is said that communal differences so divide India as to make any system of representative Government quite illusory, and my noble friend Lord Salisbury, in moving his Amendment, made great play with creed registers. But where do these difficulties mainly arise? If they do arise it is not at the Centre but in the Provinces. Then it is alleged that the effect of the Communal Award is in the same direction. Do those who mean to introduce only provincial autonomy propose to disregard altogether the Communal Award, and the problem with which it seeks to deal It is said in vague terms that Indians lack Parliamentary and administrative experience. Is that circumstance of no importance in the provincial field where the greater part of administration work falls to be done?
Then, again, charges of nepotism and corruption are heard. Where are those failings (if indeed they exist) most likely to appear—at the Centre, or in the autonomous Provinces where the great bulk of appointments must lie, and where minor officials are in touch with the general public in town and village? Another and much favoured assertion is that since it is our duty to secure the welfare of the masses, we ought to preserve the Central Government in its present form. But where will lie at least ninety per cent. of the matters that interest and affect the great mass of the population from day to day? Why, in the provincial field of activity, which our critics are perfectly ready to make autonomous. Then, finally, we are told, in highly picturesque language, that the safeguards are perfectly useless. Do our
458
critics, when they set up these great autonomous Provinces, intend to introduce no safeguards into the Constitutions?
The truth is, and the more you study this problem the more evident it becomes, that these arguments, if they are good, are arguments against the grant of autonomy to those great Provinces, which in area and population are, many of them, as large as Italy or Great Britain. And if no one, so far as I know, has suggested that there should be no constitutional advance in the Provinces or elsewhere, that I suppose is because everyone recognises that to stand still or to attempt at this stage to go back is not practical politics. But if you go forward and set up these great autonomous Provinces, will it not be wiser to make provision at once for a system of government at the Centre which will establish the unity of India, which will bring to your councils the representatives of the ruling Princes, and which from its nature will work in harmony with the Provinces, and so provide a check upon centrifugal tendencies if they should arise?
I do not desire to inflict upon the House arguments already heard. Your Lordships will have applied your minds to the first forty-four paragraphs of the Report of the Joint Committee, and you will be familiar with the considerations that have led the majority of the Committee to recommend the inclusion in the Bill of provisions for the setting up of an All-India Federation. Those considerations, if I may say so, have already been admirably restated in speech after speech in this debate. I should, however, like the House for a moment to consider one or two things that will follow if, within a reasonable time after the establishment of provincial autonomy, you do not inaugurate a measure of responsible government at a Federal Centre.
Remember that you are going to have in these great autonomous Provinces which everyone means to set up, a quickening of political thought, and you are going to bring within the influence of political activity millions of men and women not at present subject to it. Now if there is one demand upon which all politically minded Indians are united it is the demand for a measure of responsible government at the Centre. Whatever the merits of the Constitution, that is the object of passionate desire. Of

459
that there is no doubt whatever. Refuse that demand and you will have every Provincial Legislature deliberately and persistently employed as a lever to discomfort the irresponsible Centre. The Central Legislature will devote every ounce of its strength to rendering the life of the Central Executive as difficult as it can, while at every Election, whether provincial or for the Central Legislature, there will go forth from every platform in India a flood of propaganda directed against the Central system of government. But the Central Executive, if you leave it as it now is, will have no public platform, no Press and no friends in the constituencies to explain and defend its policy and actions and to refute the charges of its critics. It will have to try to govern India against a steadily rising tide of public suspicion and dislike. Those are conditions of a kind that cannot for long endure in any country.
There was one matter raised by my noble friend Lord Phillimore in his thoughtful speech about which I should like to say a word. The noble Lord was dealing with the desirability of creating conditions in which indigenous systems of government might make their contribution to India's future. That is a matter which has been much in my mind and in the minds of many of us, and I for one have all along felt that in the meeting of these two very different systems of government at the Federal Centre, the British type as developed in British India, and the Indian States as representing the indigenous form, would lie exactly the field for experiment, adjustment and development that Lord Phillimore has in mind.
To change again the subject, I am confident that this House will not allow its judgment to be influenced in the least degree by criticism levelled against the composition of the Joint Select Committee upon the ground that many of its members had, before their appointment, expressed views upon the merits of the issue referred to them and that, therefore, the Committee was not a judicial Committee nor its findings unbiased. Is it really suggested that, when a great problem such as that of the future Constitution of India has been debated for seven years, you are going to find thirty-two members of Parliament who have never previously formed a view or uttered a word about it? Suppose that
460
in 1907 my noble friend and kinsman, Lord Rankeillour, had decided to appoint a Committee to examine the problem of our fiscal policy. Where would he have found his band of men uncommitted, one way or the other, unless indeed he had shipped to this country ad hoc a boatload of Esquimaux? Criticism of that kind does not ring true, and, if my noble friend will allow me to say so, I think it had better not have been levelled.
I do not suppose Parliament has often before been called upon to decide an issue more far-reaching than that with which we are now confronted, for its outcome must profoundly affect future relations between Great Britain and India and between India and every other part of His Majesty's possessions. It must affect their relationship, both constitutional and economic, and what in the outcome will prove even more significant, it is destined profoundly to affect that body of human values and their interplay which are implicit in the word status. But that is not all—and here I agree with my noble friend the Marquess of Zetland and the noble Lord opposite, Lord Strabolgi. That is not all, for the decision which this House will give to-morrow night is certain to influence the whole future relationship between the civilisation of the West and that of the East. We seek to deal with the political symptoms in those regions only for which we are responsible. But the basic causes of those symptoms are not confined to British territory in the East, and very plainly you may see them at work across the five and a half thousand miles from the Delta of the Nile to the Yellow Sea and beyond. Throughout that vast area and those immense populations, in varying degree and form, you may everywhere discern the opposition of those two great systems of life and thought.
Beyond any doubt, pressure is rising at their points of contact. These are conditions in which, sooner or later, la major adjustment must be made. The scheme of constitutional reform in India, now before the House, is nothing less than an attempt to establish betimes and in orderly fashion the beginnings of a new relationship between East and West. I think there is good hope that it may succeed. I think, too, that it constitutes a policy worthy of this great country, and I trust that it may receive the sup-

461
port of this House, and that your Lordships will support the Resolution moved by my noble friend Viscount Halifax.
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords, I think I deserve a little sympathy in having to speak immediately after the noble Marquess, who has made such a magnificent contribution to this debate. I rise to address your Lordships as a member of the Joint Select Committee who voted against the Report, and I beg now to support the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. My reasons for voting against the Report are, in the main, the same as those which caused the noble Marquess and my noble friend Lord Rankeillour to take that course. I do not stand before your Lordships as one who culls himself a great expert on India. Sixteen years service in India, fourteen years of which were spent in an Indian Service, were quite sufficient to teach me how impossible it is in that time, or even in a longer time, to arrive at any complete understanding of the processes of thought and reasoning of the inhabitants of that great sub-continent. I think that exactly the same would be said by those who can go back twenty years, thirty years, forty years, or even half a century. Endeavouring with sympathy to understand, in the end they are completely baffled.
Serving on the Select Committee, one was naturally immensely impressed with the deep knowledge of Constitutions possessed by members of the Committee, knowledge that was an indispensable asset in dealing with the very difficult problems which confronted us. No less was one impressed by the great knowledge and experience of ex-Viceroys and Governors, Secretaries and Under-Secretaries of State, who, after all, are the men who have had to deal with the machinery of government as they have found it in the last twenty odd years. It was, of course, difficult for me to make any contribution in discussions touching high statecraft, which was completely outside my experience, as no doubt your Lordships were aware when you elected me to serve on the Committee. But, at any rate, I was able to be a very interested if silent listener. If fine points of constitutional law and practice are beyond me, I could, at any rate, claim a closer
462
acquaintenance than all but one of the Select Committee with those who form the great bulk of the population of India. Very often one thought that the great masses of India were completely forgotten, that their interests were not taken into consideration, which seemed to us two on the Committee, at any rate, quite wrong, when they form no less than 90 per cent. of the whole population.
I agree entirely with the statement which appears in the introduction of the Report on page 5, that it is not wise to judge the political consciousness of a people by the standard of the least, instructed class. Nevertheless, it is the duty of Parliament to see that as far as possible the interests of any large section of the population are riot unduly sacrificed, to see that all sections of the population, rural and urban, literate and illiterate, receive fair consideration and fair play. It was a great difficulty for the Joint Select Committee to hold the balance equal, and it was because it seemed to me that the balance was unduly weighted in favour of a vociferous minority that the Report did not satisfy me. There is art old saying in India, "The silent babe receives little milk." Well, my Lords, 90 per cent. of the population are silent, and the remaining 10 per cent. extremely vocal. In all the cloud of witnesses who appeared before us, where were the men representing the 90 per cent., the men behind the plough? It is perfectly true that their brief was held with great ability by several of those who have served in India, notably Sir Michael O'Dwyer, Mr. Lyall, Waris Amir Ali, and one or two others; but the great weight of evidence was from the other side.
The most reverend Primate read to your Lordships a certain part of the Preamble of the Government of India Act, dealing with the development of self-governing institutions, and I do not think anyone can say that that sentiment has not received very great attention. But may I read just one more portion of the Preamble:
"And whereas the time and manner of each advance can be determined only by Parliament, upon whom responsibility lies for the welfare and the advancement of the Indian peoples:"
I would underline the last dozen words. What are the important things that promote the advancement and welfare of the

463
Indian people? I suggest just those things that enable them to develop their land, to farm successfully and to market their products. Those are the matters that concern them: irrigation, forestry, communications, and that great work, one of the greatest works ever brought into being by the late Lord Curzon, the Agricultural Department. All these things are of the highest importance, and are far more important than many of the things which take up an immense amount of space in the Report and an immense amount of time in this debate. The Simon Commission were perfectly definite about these things and their suggestions were quite contrary to the recommendations contained in this Report. They insisted that recruits should be brought into the Services from outside India, and one is afraid that if this does not happen, if these all become Provincial Services, then there will be a loss of efficiency and the peasants of the country will be the worst sufferers.
The noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, and the noble Marquess who has just sat down have said that those of us who plead the cause of the rural population should not oppose the grant of federation if we are prepared to swallow provincial autonomy. There is this point that I would make in answer. I certainly hold the view that if our plan is adopted and if provincial autonomy alone is granted, then supposing that things in the Provinces go very wrong Parliament will be able to interfere and take such action as will restore the situation. If federal government is granted then the control of Parliament will be very much reduced. That, at any rate, is one answer to a charge of inconsistency which has been levelled against us.
Now I would like to refer for one moment to the speech made by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. His words, must say, filled me with some apprehension, largely because he dealt solely with the intelligentsia. He seemed to think of them alone and nothing of the rural population. I desire to be very brief and to take up as little of your Lordships' time as possible, but I hope that I may not sacrifice accuracy for brevity. The impression which I gained from him in part of his speech was that because there are certain numbers of students, professors and others, who are educated, and because they have certain
464
hopes and aspirations, taught by us, therefore we should follow the recommendations of the Report because otherwise the only alternative is what I think he called "naked repression." How far can that argument be carried? Are we to suppose that those educated persons to whom he referred are going to be satisfied with this report? Have we not evidence that others who are leading opinion in a rather extreme way in India desire far more? Will his argument apply equally when they ask for a vastly greater measure of self-government?
Those who are most extreme desire that we should leave India—that we should withdraw. How far does the noble Marquess's argument carry us then? All I can say is that if we are to withdraw from India, then undoubtedly the history of India will be repeated. There will be invasion after invasion, and I do not think that there will be any liberty seen in those days. Educated youths may face up to the invaders and quote John Stuart Mill to them as long as they like, but I am afraid that the invaders will be hard-hearted enough not to listen. We have a trusteeship for the whole population and not merely for one section of it.
Next I would like to deal with one or two remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, whom I am sorry not to see in his place. I would suggest respectfully that in his recent tour in India the study of military problems was completely omitted. He talked about "a rough-and-tumble Army" officered by Indians for the defence of the Frontier. The noble Lord, Lord Belhaven, quarrelled with that idea, and I entirely agree with him. I do not quite know what a rough-and-tumble Army is. I know only two kinds of Army; one is a good one and the other is a bad one. There is only one standard and one kind of discipline and training, and that is the best. In regard to Frontier warfare I have had only a little experience, taking my turn in dealing with small expeditions after outlaws and raiders, and I have commanded a regiment in a small campaign of two or three months. I am a very nervous man, and I must say that I thought that Frontier warfare was the most nerve-wrecking experience that I have ever endured, an experience which necessitates the highest discipline and the best training.

465
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven, that if there is any deterioration, if there is any slackening in the matter of the efficiency of our troops on the Frontier, we invite attack from the frontiersman, who may be supported by others. The noble Lord has talked about what happened in the days of Ranjit Singh. He has been dead and burnt these many years, and times have changed since then. I hold it as an axiom that we should never gamble with the security of India, and I therefore disagree entirely with every single word that the noble Lord said on this subject, and I sincerely hope that he is not held to be an expert on military matters in the councils of his Party.
The noble Lord also touched on the question of the Indianisation of the Indian Army, and I would speak with great care on this subject. There is no one who hopes more than I do that the experiment which is being tried to-day may be successful, and I hope that those Indian gentlemen who are wearing stars on their shoulders to-day and those who are in training at Debra Dun may do everything to uphold the great traditions of the Service to which they will have the honour to belong. We know—we have had evidence to that effect, and I have heard it privately—that they are being given every chance, that in officers' messes of British officers they are received as gentlemen and as brothers in arms, which does not surprise me.
One word about the position of an officer in the Indian Army, because I can speak with some experience. The position of an officer in the Indian Army differs very considerably from that of an officer in the British Army. An officer in the Indian Army has to know far more about his men. He has to know their family histories, he has to know all about their feuds, their law suits and a hundred other things which never affect the officer in the British Army at all; and only when he knows these things does he acquire the confidence of his men. It remains to be seen whether the Indian soldier will transfer his devotion, which some of us have experienced, to officers of his own kin. They have not the same detachment that we have. We are neither Hindus nor Moslems; we have no relations in the ranks; and in time of riots and civil commotion, when communal
466
feeling runs high, may it not be more difficult for them than for us? Then again on active service, when their men are tired, wet, cold and hungry, will they be able to stir them up and keep them going? The answers to all these things are in the future. Tests can never be made by examinations nor in the piping days of peace on the barrack square. These gentlemen—I can say it because I know it—are content to await the test, which can come only on active service, and if they are content, I submit that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, might be equally content to wait.
The noble Lord criticised the numbers of Indian gentlemen who are receiving Commissions. If he had carried his inquiries a little further he would have known that military service does not make a great appeal to educated Indians. Most of them very much prefer the professions where there are less strenuous exertions and greater emoluments. During the War, 350,000 men were recruited in the Punjab. Of those, there were 70 men of education; that is all. An attempt was made to raise battalions of educated men. The total recruited was 200. It was as ignominious a failure as the attempt to raise troops in Bengal. When they had attained a certain pitch of training, there was a plan that they should go out on some field firing exercises, but it was found impossible, because it was known for a certainty that the half who were Mahomedans would shoot into the Hindus who comprised the other half. We are going slowly with it. We have magnificent young men at Debra Dun, and no one is dissatisfied with the quality, but we must have quality before quantity.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer. In regard to the noble Lords opposite, I submit that if they understood the reality of the conditions under which rural India lives, their attitude would be entirely different, and they would join with us who are critical and nervous about the measures proposed in the Report. I think we all know that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has very tender feelings about the interests of those whose, path through life is difficult, but the Labour Party do not appreciate the difference between India and this country. They have seen through history certain measures adopted

467
for alleviating distress and redressing ills and injustices, and they hope that similar measures will do exactly the same in India. I am afraid that they are entirely wrong, and that exactly the contrary will be the result. I will conclude by saying that we must remember the words of Mr. Baldwin, when he pleaded the cause of the men who fought with and stood by us in the Great War. Apart from the Princes very few of the intelligentsia did much, but, to their great credit, the men who fought with us and stood by us were the men of rural India, who are in danger of being forgotten in this Report.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not think I should be doing otherwise than expressing your feelings when I say with what pleasure we have listened to the speech of the noble Marquess who was Chairman of the Committee, and to whom I think the country owes a great debt for the extraordinary work done in that capacity. I am glad the noble Marquess addressed himself to the question, amongst others, of finance. I do not intend to entrench upon the main ground on which many of those more competent to address your Lordships have spoken, but I think that on the question of finance too little has been said. Yet everybody realises that unless there is a sound system of finance, and unless the difficulty of the Provinces can be met, the whole of this system may be jeopardised. I fully accept after some study of the figures the observations made by the noble Marquess. He said that these great deficits which are anticipated, and which according to many members of the House may amount to as much as £16,000,000 or £20,000,000, are grossly exaggerated, and he has given your Lordships figures which, if I were to put them in a nutshell, really amount to a deficit, unless there is an improvement in trade, of about £24,000,000.
I am not sure that he allowed for all the pitfalls. I think it is common ground that any serious increase of taxation in India is practically impossible. The Income Tax presses quite severely enough. To raise the Salt Tax is, I think, regarded as practically impossible; but where I think the difficulty is coming is from the direction on which the noble Lord who has just sat down had occasion to speak. Look at the position with
468
regard to the Army, and if I trouble you for a very few moments it is because I do happen to have had experience, having served in the War Office here. I know two things, and one is that whenever there is a shortage it is to the Army that the Chancellor of the Exchequer immediately turns for a reduction of expenditure. The Army is short at this moment, according to the figures presented to me, of some £4,000,000 of money. There have been reductions of pay which were temporary, and also there have been other reductions which were not temporary at all, but a postponement of necessary services in order to reduce the expenditure of the year. I am informed that sooner or later £4,000,000 extra must be paid for the Army.
I want to put this question. It is all very well to say that the Viceroy has the maintenance of the Army in his charge. You may say also that the collection of sufficient revenue may be obtained from Federal sources, including Customs, but the Viceroy is responsible for the whole of the Services, and how can he certify £4,000,000 extra for the Army and leave the Provinces £4,000,000 short? As my noble friend said very truly, it is only when you come to a campaign that you know what an inadequate Army may mean. I have fought this battle over and over again, and I have been told over and over again by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a reduction of 5,000 men may not be felt and will equalise his Budget. I think we ought to have a little more minute figures even than those given by the noble Marquess to show that the shoe is not going to pinch at the very outset and imperil the whole edifice.
I would also like to speak on the question of time—the time for introducing these reforms. I suppose we should all agree that by every canon of procedure we ought to introduce these reforms gradually. On the other hand, by every person of real experience in India who has spoken we have been told that the whole advantage will be lost if we do not introduce them at once. But the general consent seems to be that progress must be established. That appears to be the opinion of a most remarkable chain of Viceroys, and to that has been added the testimony which appears in the Life of Lord Minto. There appears a fact

469
hitherto unknown—namely, that he was in advance of the Secretary of State, Lord Morley, in regard to these reforms.
I would like to give you one other piece of testimony. It happened that when the Montagu-Chelmsford. Reforms were under consideration there was a Committee practically similar to, though riot so far-reaching as, the one which has just sat, and the time came when it was perfectly clear that the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms would not be carried through Parliament in the form in which they had been brought in. It happened that I was engaged, with one or two others, in the negotiations which ensued between Mr. Montagu and the Conservative Leaders as to these reforms, and the point to which they v ere willing to go. If there was one man among Viceroys who I think was filled with an ardent desire for the protection of the weak, and the remedying of injustices, if there was one man who, more than any other ruler of India in the last fifty years, believed in a benevolent despotism as between West and East, it was Lord Curzon. And I well remember that of the three men who had to settle the terms on which the Conservative Party would deal with this matter, Lord Balfour and Lord Lansdowne were of opinion that the compromise would be accepted, and Lord Curzon said: "You may accept this compromise, but you will have to go a great deal further within a very few years—probably in ten years from now." I think that that is a not unimportant addition to the evidence of Viceroys that we have already had.
And may I say one word upon another matter upon which I had some personal knowledge? Mr. Baldwin the other day asked his Party in a considered speech not to allow themselves to be placed in this matter in the same position as that in which they found themselves in the course of the Irish trouble. I have not, I think, troubled your Lordships for something like thirteen years on any Irish topic, although I was concerned in all these negotiations, and I am not going to do so to-night; but I do say this, that when in the year 1918 the conviction came to a large number of persons that the time had come when the concession of a Parliament must be made if all Ireland was to be kept together, and when at that moment Mr. Redmond came and made the offer to serve under Lord Carson to keep all Ireland together
470
under a National Government not dissimilar to that which was afterwards formed in this country, the frustration of that effort was not due to the forces of revolution, but to the forces of reaction. Do not, I beg you, let us fall into the same abyss again.
If we are going to give this concession we have to remember the strong views of all those who have served there, and who know the country, not one of whom rises to say that you can put this off without fear. It is riot an ideal settlement, but may I remind your Lordships in one sentence that the greatest law-giver in ancient times, who, to all readers of the classics is an agreeable memory, Pericles, was asked: "Have you given the Athenians the best laws which you could give them?" He said: "No, I have not. I have given them the best which they are able to bear." My Lords, I think the situation is not unlike that to-day. They may not be ideal laws, but they are the best which, for both countries, they will bear at the present moment. And at all events, when we come to vote to-morrow, it is not as if we had a clean sheet. If we go into the Opposition Lobby against this Resolution, we have to vote against practically the whole of the experience massed in this House of all those who have served longest in the country. We should have, besides that, to put behind us the most minute and longest consideration of any topic, so far as I can remember, which has been brought before Parliament in living memory, perhaps at any time since the trial of Warren Hastings. In those circumstances, though we must have doubts, though we must have some feeling that we are almost gambling with this question, we must remember that since the Irish question was settled, and since Lord Curzon gave his advice, the world generally has gone forward by leaps and bounds, and it is not for us to stray behind when advice and opportunity guide us.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, this debate has ranged over a very wide field, and produced a number of admirable speeches, not the least admirable of which, if I may say so, was the speech to which we listened just now, the very authoritative speech from the Chairman of the joint Select Committee. Arguments have been used on one side and

471
answered on the other, and I have no intention of repeating any arguments that have already been used. I intervene only for the purpose of putting shortly an argument before those of your Lordships who may not be as familiar with the details of the Indian constitutional problem as the members of the Joint Select Committee. The issue before us is a very simple one; the issue is whether to-morrow night, at the end of our debate, we are to vote for the Resolution moved on behalf of the Government by the noble Viscount, or the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. Whatever may be the difficulties and the complexities of the Indian constitutional problem—and I know as well as anyone how great they are—that issue is quite simple, and it is one on which we can all have opinions; and though we may not be Indian experts, I, at any rate, have never taken part in a Division in this House with greater confidence and with less doubt as to the side on which I should vote than I shall when I vote to-morrow for the Resolution moved by the noble Viscount. I will tell your Lordships why.
The terms of the noble Marquess's Amendment are very plausible, and they were defended in a speech of great force and vigour, which delighted us all. Whether we agreed or disagreed with the noble Marquess, we all welcomed the vigour with which he addressed us, and we all hope that he will return from his long voyage with health greatly restored. The noble Marquess said in effect: "We, the members of the Joint Select Committee have discussed this question now for nearly two years. We took all that time before we could make up our minds what Report to submit to Parliament; whereas you, my Lords, have only had our Report in your hands for a bare fortnight, and yet you are asked in that short time to commit yourselves to a decision on the merits of the case." That is a very plausible argument. But what are the facts? The first fact is that your Lordships are not asked to pass judgment between a Majority Report and a Minority Report; you are merely asked to say in what form the Government shall introduce a Bill and lay it before your Lordships. Further, we the members of the Joint Select Committee did not discuss this question for eighteen months: the greater part of that time was spent
472
in listening to the opinions of witnesses who came before us.
That is what the Committee were appointed to do. Because Parliament, as a whole, could not hear all these divergent opinions, both Houses set up a Select Committee to do that work for them. Surely it was the intention of each House of Parliament, when it set up such a Committee, that after hearing all the evidence they should decide not what Bill we should pass but in what form legislation should be submitted to Parliament for its consideration? What would be the use of setting up a Committee to do all this work, what would be the use of delegating these powers, unless you were prepared, after they had heard all the evidence and discussed the matter, that the Government should accept the recommendations of the Majority of that Committee? That is all that the Government are asking us to do by this Resolution—to authorise them to introduce a Bill based upon the Report of the Majority of the Committee. They are not asking you to delegate your legislative functions or to say that the Committee shall decide for you what Bill shall be passed. They are merely asking you to authorise them to introduce a Bill on these lines.
I ask you for a moment to put yourselves in the position of the Government. The Government have been asked in Parliament whether, when the Report of the Joint Select Committee was made public, they would give to both Houses an opportunity of discussing it, and they replied that they would. Supposing they had done otherwise, supposing they had said "No, we do not wish that Parliament should discuss this Report at all but that it should wait until we introduce the Bill," would not the noble Marquess have been the first to criticise them for weakness and to say they did not dare submit the recommendations of the Committee to the consideration of Parliament? Yet when they do the obvious and straightforward thing the noble Marquess describes their action as unprecedented, nay, even unconstitutional. There is the difficulty in which the Government are placed, and I hope your Lordships will show in the Division to-morrow night that they have taken the straightforward and obvious course, the only course they could have taken, in submitting to your

473
Lordships the Resolution which was moved by the noble Viscount.
But let us be in no doubt as to what the consequence of a vote in support of the noble Viscount's Resolution means. No one who votes for that Resolution to-morrow must be held to be committed to approval in advance of any clause in the Bill which the Government may subsequently introduce merely because such a clause is in conformity with some recommendation of the Majority of the Select Committee. Obviously we all retain perfect freedom in our attitude towards every clause of the Bill which the Government will subsequently introduce. Having sat on the Select Committee and listened to all the conflicting opinions which were brought before us, I am well aware of the immense difficulties of this problem. If I had any interest in so doing I could make a very damaging speech against the proposals of the Majority of the Select Committee. I agree with the most reverend Primate in that respect. We have only got to cite the variety of opinions which were laid before us by witnesses from India in order to show how little unanimity of opinion there is even amongst Indians themselves on this question. Yes, it is very easy to criticise. It would be very simple to make a damaging speech against any proposal that has been made from any quarter on this constitutional question, but I submit no one has a right to criticise the proposals of the Majority of the Committee unless he is prepared to recommend an alternative which, in his opinion, would solve the difficulties better.
Let it be said in justice that the noble Marquess who moved his Amendment has such an alternative. He and the friends who agreed with him on the Select Committee submitted an alternative proposal to the Committee. It is in the records of the Proceedings, and the noble Marquess has even taken the trouble to furnish us with a printed document containing his alternative proposals. I notice that he does not recommend your Lordships to approve these proposals. If he had done so, if that had been the nature of his Amendment, I could very easily have shown that all the objections that could be brought against the proposals of the Majority could be urged against the proposals of the noble
474
Marquess, and a good many more. He does not only not remove the difficulties of which he complained, but his proposals would create many which those who have knowledge and experience of India could point out were even greater than the difficulties which exist in the proposals of the Majority.
Again the noble Lord, Lord Snell, and his colleagues, the Labour representatives on the Select Committee, had also an alternative. I also had an alternative proposal with regard to the form of the Central Government which I recommended to my colleagues and for which I found no support. If any of these alternatives were before your Lordships, and you were being urged to accept them in place of the proposals of the Majority, I should be prepared to argue either for or against them; but no such recommendation is made. These alternative proposals did not receive the support of the Majority of the Committee, and the outstanding fact about the Majority Report is that it embodies the maximum of agreement that could be obtained both in this country and in India on this very difficult question. It does not obtain unanimity either here or in India. No proposal could. But the Report of the Majority of the Committee does secure the maximum support of all those who have studied the question both in this country and in India, and that is the reason why the Government have chosen it as a basis for their legislation.
I asked you just now to put yourselves in the position of the Government; and I do feel in this connection that a very special tribute is due to the Secretary of State for India for his conduct through all these years of this great and difficult question. The Secretary of State took office soon after the Simon Commission had reported and just after the first Round-Table Conference had been set up. At that time he was necessarily ignorant of the vast and complicated details of the Indian constitutional problem. He brought to the study of that problem a fresh mind, a mind which, if it had any bias at all, was biased by a traditional Conservative attitude. No one could say that when the Secretary of State took up the study of this question he took it up in the spirit of a rash man. He took it up in the spirit of an experienced Conservative statesman. Since then he has sat through all

475
these three Round-Table Conferences for two years. He has made an intensive study of the whole question, and at the end he produced on behalf of the Government the White Paper.
Since then he has continued his work on the sittings of the Joint Select Committee. He has listened to all the opinions, he has read all the documents, he has answered innumerable questions, he has stood examination and cross-examination in every single detail, and from every point of view in this complicated problem, and, as a result of all that work, he has confirmed some of the opinions which were expressed in the White Paper and modified others. No predecessor of the Secretary of State has ever, I think, had such an intensive training in the study of this particular constitutional problem, and I am quite certain that no predecessor of Sir Samuel Hoare had ever such a mastery of all its details as he has. And the result is the Majority Report of the Select Committee.
No one, of course, is under any obligation to accept the authority of the Secretary of State, and I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, this afternoon professed to know far better than the Secretary of State, with all the knowledge and information at his disposal, both what India wanted and what India could afford. Speaking for myself, I can only say that if, in discussing any detail of this constitutional problem, I was unable to secure the agreement of the Secretary of State, I should feel very humble in the extent to which I held to my opinion, and I should feel far more certain, if I could get him to agree with me, that I was right in the view which I held.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, deprecated the fact that the Secretary of State had been a member of the Joint Select Committee. Whatever may be the theoretical objections against such a course, I have no doubt whatever that the procedure was amply justified by the example of the present Secretary of State, and I am sure that all my colleagues on that Committee, whatever their views may be on anything else, will agree with me that his conduct throughout was truly admirable and extremely helpful to all of us. I may say that if I was able finally to agree with the Majority in submitting their Report to Parliament, it was largely due to the
476
arguments used by the Secretary of State in our proceedings and out of my great respect for the authority which he commanded.
Your Lordships may not be familiar with all the details of this constitutional problem, but you are not asked to express any opinion upon them. There 'are in fact three alternatives—the draft of the noble Marquess and his friends, that of the Labour members of the Committee, and, finally, the draft of the Majority. With the main lines of those three alternatives and the points of difference between them all your Lordships, I am quite sure, are familiar, and, as between them, there can be no question whatever as to which has the greater authority. The Government in this matter were bound to follow the Majority. They could not do otherwise. I agree with the noble Lord who spoke last; I do not think there has ever been a question which has been studied more carefully, more profoundly than this one, and no policy has ever been submitted to Parliament with a greater authority. That is the second reason why I have no hesitation in voting for the Resolution moved by the noble Viscount.
My third and last one has relation to the position in India. When I was in India the greatest difficulty which I encountered—and I think the noble Viscount will bear me out in this—was the uncertainty which existed as to the future in the minds of those who co-operated with us. And it was a difficulty which it was impossible for us to remove. It is customary in these debates to refer to the opinions of Congress. The extravagance of their demands is given to us as an excuse for doing nothing. Their criticisms of everything that is offered to them is pointed out to us as evidence that we have failed to satisfy Indian opinion. Those who argue in this way speak as if Congress was India. It is nothing of the kind. The Government of India is far more representative of India as a whole than Congress politicians. I have no hesitation in making that assertion, for the Government of India is able to speak in the name of officials, in the name of the Army, in the name of the Police, in the name of the Princes, in the name of the fighting races, and in the name of both the Moslem and Hindu communities, whereas the Congress politicians cannot even speak on behalf of one of the great

477
communities. There is no comparison between the authority of the two.
But it is also true to say that that argument can only be maintained so long as the Government do command the support of these people, a support which it is essential for them to retain. Therefore, when I speak of Indian opinion I am thinking of those on whose co-operation I had to rely, and on whose co-operation future Governors and future Viceroys will also have to rely. If the Amendment of the noble Marquess were carried tomorrow night, no matter what may have been the motives of your Lordships in voting for it, these men, the men who have co-operated and worked with us in the past, will be profoundly discouraged. It is not a question of whether we have satisfied Congress demands or not, but the men who have supported us, worked with us, co-operated with us, will be profoundly discouraged by such a vote. If your Lordships carry the Government Resolution, and carry it, as I hope you will, by a large majority, you will put new heart into these men; you will strengthen their hands; you will enable them to feel that the faith that they have always had in the British connection has been justified. The whole Government in India will be strengthened in consequence. So, my Lords, I ask you in the Division to-morrow, by the votes which you then record, to make easier the task of those who have responsibility for government in India, and to reduce, at any rate, the uncertainties which now exist in their minds, to increase the confidence with which they will continue their work—work the object of which is to make stronger the ties which unite our two countries.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hope most sincerely that it will not be looked upon as impertinence if one, like myself, who has such complete lack of qualifications, intervenes for a few minutes in this debate. I intervene merely as one who feels very much the tremendous responsibility which rests upon every member of your Lordships' Horse and every member of Parliament in connection with this Indian question. I am not one of those who can claim extensive knowledge of India. I have not been a member of the Joint Select Committee, I have not been a Pro-Consul, I have not been in the Services in India. I served on the East
478
India station, but all I saw of India was on the horizon. Therefore, I cannot claim to know anything of India from the point of view of experience.
The thing that makes me profoundly anxious with regard to this question is first of all that we are being asked to pass a Resolution which invites the Government to bring in a Bill based on the Majority Report of the Joint Select Committee. As I see it, such a Bill must inevitably be one to weaken British authority in India. We are dealing with a country—a sub-continent we are told—inhabited by 352,000,000 people, and of-those people I think only some 28,000,000 altogether can read and write. It seems to me that to give a full fledged Western democracy to such people, with all the machinery of elections and everything else, is simply to risk the most appalling disaster. It is not as if they had centuries of political progress such as we have behind us. They have nothing to help them. They have only very limited experience of Parliamentary government, and that experience has only been gained by individuals who have been very carefully selected and specially chosen for it.
Members of His Majesty's Government have repeatedly told us that responsibility at the Centre—in other words a Federal Government—is not possible without some of the Princes. What I want to ask some member of His Majesty's Government to tell us is the number of Princes whose adherence it will be necessary to obtain. As far as I can see, the only information so far given on that point is in the form of a declaration made by the Secretary of State, and that declaration was made some considerable time ago. On March 27, 1933, Sir Samuel Hoare, speaking in another place, said:
"The House will see that the test which we propose is the test of the entry of Indian States, representing half the population of the States, and half the States entitled to seats in the Upper Chamber."
But Sir Samuel Hoare, when it was suggested in another place that fifty-one per cent. of the Indian States would have to come in before Federation could be granted, said he had never heard of it. I do hope some member of His Majesty's Government will tell us exactly what is the position.

479
Then I should like to know what is the attitude of the Princes themselves. We have not very much information about that. It appears very doubtful, to put it mildly. Certain correspondence which no doubt your Lordships will have seen appeared in the Morning Post—and I fancy in some other newspapers as well—some little time ago, in which it was stated that the Princes would certainly not come into Federation unless the requirements which they had laid down were fulfilled. That shows that the assent of the Princes is very doubtful. I should like to know from some member of His Majesty's Government—and I think we should be told, if possible, before to-morrow night—what the real chances are of the Princes coming in. We are told that political India is not entirely in favour of this scheme, and, in fact, rejects it. I believe it is true to say that every single Indian who advocated the White Paper policy, in any shape or form, was beaten in the Elections which took place in India the other day. If that is so, it is hardly an encouraging circumstance for those of us who think that if we are to have a Bill framed on the lines of the Majority Report of the Joint Select Committee, or on the lines of the White Paper, we should carry Indian opinion with us.
I am sure that every member of your Lordships' House must have been delighted to hear the magnificent speech, as it seemed to me, of the noble Marquess, the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee. It carried me back a long time, for nothing has interested me more than to see the oratorical and political triumph of my old "fag." The noble Marquess was, I think, the first of those who have spoken in your Lordships' House to give us some of the details of the cost of this scheme. That is one of the things I very much wanted to hear He said—I took down his words for the sake of greater accuracy—that the Indian economic problem was not comfortable, and he gave us certain figures with regard to cost. It is obvious that those figures are only provisional, but I hope that a representative of His Majesty's Government will tell us whether we are going to be asked to foot the bill, and if so, to what extent. I hope a representative of His Majesty's Government will tell us because it has been said by other speakers that it is
480
really impossible for this country, or for India, in the present economic circumstances, to face large extra items of expenditure.
I hope that we shall be told the whole truth with regard to this economic position, for it is one of the things that make me very anxious indeed. The cost of the reforms in India cannot, I think, be exactly and precisely confined to India. There is a further possibility as to the way in which the cost may conceivably fall upon this country. I refer, of course, to those millions of our people who are either wholly unemployed or only partially employed, and to the others who are happily still employed and who depend for their living upon Indian produce. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Derby, who is looked to by everybody throughout the length and breadth of the country as being the great spokesman of Lancashire opinion, intends to intervene in this debate; but there are many of us who are deeply anxious with regard to the possible effects upon Indian trade of any legislation following upon the White Paper.
I noticed a speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Derby, a short time ago, wherein he stated that if the Amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, stood alone he would have found very considerable difficulty in voting against it, but he said he really could not vote for it because he felt that it had to be taken in conjunction with speeches and utterances of others who agreed with the noble Marquess. I can quite sympathise with that point of view. At the same time I do not think we can be asked to do anything or to agree to anything which is possibly going to have the effect of still further adding to the number of people in this country who are out of work. At the present time, when one of our most frightful problems is that of the depressed areas, I submit that we ought to go with the greatest caution into anything which may have such an effect.
There is another circumstance which makes me very anxious indeed. I am not aware of a single member of His Majesty's Government or of a single Member of Parliament who supports them, who at the last General Election said anything whatever on the subject of India. I was at that time actually working in the Conservative Central Office and

481
I had peculiar opportunities of seeing the Election addresses of a great many Conservative candidates, but I never came across a single reference to India in any of those I looked at. The country, I submit, never understood and certainly never realised at the last General Election that if they returned to power a Government to deal with the urgent economic situation—as I am sure they did elect them—that Government would be likely to deal with the question of India without first consulting the electors. The only utterance we have had is an utterance of the present Prime Minister six years ago, that he looked forward to giving full Dominion status to India.
There is a suspicion which has been alluded to publicly, and therefore I think I do no harm by alluding to it again, that there may possibly have been some sort of arrangement behind the scenes of which the country knows nothing with regard to this Indian problem. If there was, I only hope that it will be stated by some member of His Majesty's Government. The only occasion upon which anybody can say that this matter has been before our people at all is when it was referred to a carefully packed meeting of the Conservative Party Council the other clay. That, in my submission, is not a substitute for consulting the country on the matter. I do feel that before anything of such tremendous magnitude is done, before such a terrific responsibility is assumed even by a National Government, the National Government really ought to consult the people in the matter.
The Joint Select Committee made very little material alteration in the White Paper, but they have certainly increased the safeguards; and that brings me to a point about which I am particularly anxious. I do not suppose that any Government would have dared to introduce a Bill based upon the Report of the Joint Select Committee without having any safeguards at all. Therefore I think we may assume that the matter of safeguards is one of the first importance; in fact numerous speakers have referred to it. That carries us back at once to the Irish situation, which is one of the things which make so many of us profoundly anxious to-day. Take the Irish Treaty. There were eighteen clauses in the Irish Treaty. Of those eighteen clauses five were concerned with the possible entry
482
of Northern Ireland into the Free State; two were concerned with matters which, relatively speaking, were really unimportant; and eleven clauses were concerned solely with safeguards.
One of those safeguards dealt with the Oath of Allegiance; that has already gone. Another dealt with the Governor-General, who is now, we are told, a "rubber stamp." A third dealt with the limitation of the armed forces and the formation of auxiliary forces; that seems to have gone altogether. Another was a covenant to pay pensions to civil servants who were compulsorily retired; that matter has been before your Lordships' House several times already, and we know that that has gone. Ireland's share of the National Debt was provided for, and that has been waived; and all the clauses providing that the relations with the Imperial Government should be the same as the relations between this country and Canada have gone altogether. Surely we ought to be warned by such an experience.
We are told that we need have no anxiety in the matter because there is really no analogy between Ireland and India, as we do not propose to withdraw the Army from India. What an admission that seems to me to be! Does it mean that the present scheme of the Majority Report has got to be entirely dependent upon the Army and that we may have to employ the Army to enforce the safeguards and that kind of thing? After all, the Army was not very far from Ireland, but we see what happened in Ireland. It seems to me that the position is going to be impossibly difficult for the Army in India. I am not a military man, as I have explained, but I do not think that it requires a military man to judge that. When you are going to hand over wireless, railways, posts and telegraphs, arms, ammunition, explosives, and the Police to Indian administration, surely in certain circumstances, if you have a hostile India or an India which is set against you, it is going to make it almost impossible for the Army to operate. I leave alone entirely the question of the possible refusal of supplies; I do not want to press imagination too far.
Another important safeguard which is proposed in the Majority Report is that the Governor-General or the Governor of

483
the State, as the case may be, should intervene on occasion if he thinks that intervention is required. But imagine for one moment what the Governor-General or the Governor of the State has got to think about if he does intervene. He has the certain knowledge that he will be attacked up and down India everywhere by democratically elected people. Not only that, but he will be attacked at home. Questions will be asked in the House of Commons as to why he has so acted, and probably the Secretary of State or somebody of that sort will have to justify his actions here. It seems to me that it is putting a tremendous responsibility on one individual, a responsibility which is almost too great for anybody to bear. It seems to me that once you have got representative institutions and responsible government in any Dependency, it does not matter how much you may restrict it, the Imperial Government can do absolutely nothing if the responsible Government chooses to defy it.
If legislation is brought in on the lines of the Majority Report, and if we accept it, and if we grant responsible government at the Centre, a Federal Government, it seems to me that the moment we do that we take a step from which there never can be any going back. The last speaker poured scorn upon the idea of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that we should go very slowly, and grant responsible government in the Provinces, and wait a bit for responsibility at the Centre. It seems to me that that is a matter of common prudence. We are told by many who have intervened in this debate that it is an absolutely impracticable suggestion. I am not convinced that it is. At any rate it seems to me to be merely a counsel of prudence, and that is why I do not feel able to bring myself to support the Motion introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax. I feel that it is a gamble, and I am not prepared to go that far in a step of such first importance as this is. I feel deeply the responsibility resting upon me, and I was and am determined in no circumstances to give a silent vote. Therefore I have tried, without taking up too much of your Lordships' time, to give the reasons why I cannot possibly support the Government in this matter, and
484
why I shall follow the noble Marquess in support of his Amendment.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, it is with infinite hesitation that I take up any of your time so late in the evening. If I do so it is because I have not merely lived in India, but did so in rather unusual circumstances. I held neither an official, military nor commercial position, and therefore I have seen the country from a somewhat unusual angle. I naturally had not access to official sources of information enjoyed by many other noble Lords, but perhaps on that account I came more directly than some into contact with the man in the street. It is really his position under the reforms of which I should like to speak, and of his position as I saw it.
Primarily I think some protest should be made against the attitude, which I have found only too often adopted, of treating Indians as a backward race. The other day I read a pronouncement on India by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, who claimed to speak with authority on India, primarily as an Irishman—a somewhat Irish claim—and secondly as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, before whom many Indian cases had been tried. As a proof of Indian ignorance and backwardness, the noble and learned Lord quoted a case in which the question to be decided was whether a certain idol should be draped or nude. I do not think that is necessarily a reasonable conclusion from that case. Have there not been cases before the English Courts where the question most hotly contested was whether banners should be hung in certain churches, not to go into other more intricate questions of ritual? Surely people who find the draping of a church a matter of impassioned interest, have no right to criticise Indians who attach importance to the draping of an idol.
There are, of course, immense differences between the different races in India, but I think undoubtedly the vast majority of them are of very considerable and very lively intelligence, fully able to grasp political ideas—as fully able, in fact, as many Europeans, and more able than some. There are probably many European countries who do not govern themselves according to our standard of self-government, but who have magnificent records in history and contrive to govern

485
themselves to their own satisfaction, at any rate. Educated Indians have under our tutelage been brought up on the political thought of England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and they have imbibed the principles on which our democracy stands. I believe the merest "failed matric." in India will quote you Burke's speech on Conciliation with America. It really is not unnatural that they should expect us to extend to them the principles we have taught them, and should be bitterly disappointed if we refuse to do so, and naturally should suspect sinister motives, even if they do not exist. The great majority of Indians may he illiterate, but illiteracy is not synonymous with stupidity, and so far from illiteracy exposing the peasant to the machinations of the agitators, I suspect it would be more likely to protect him.
How quickly political ideas spread, and how fully they are grasped, in India, has been a matter certainly of very great surprise to me. While I was there, what was particularly noticeable was the difference between the first and second civil disobedience movements. The first was almost entirely urban, and the second reached almost to the most remote district, and caused embarrassment to the most remote District Commissioners. India is undoubtedly changing with incredible rapidity, and for this reason the latest authorities are the best. People with the most extensive experience of India very quickly become out of date, and there is an Indian susceptibility which it seems to me is not quite fully appreciated. That is their attitude to this matter of the status of India as a British Dominion and of Indians as free and independent subjects of the Crown, entitled to manage their own affairs. They have been repeatedly assured by various statements on behalf of different Governments, one of whose spokesmen was Mr. Churchill himself, that Dominion status for India was the object and, in fact, the immediate object of this policy, and attempts to whittle down these declarations have made Indians intensely anxious, and I think rightly indignant. They are therefore extremely keen that some such declaration should be included in the new Constitution. Such a declaration, I am absolutely convinced, would enormously help
486
the chances of acceptance of this Constitution by the Indian people.
Another objection, of which I heard a great deal whilst I was in India, was that at the time of the publication of the Report of the Statutory Commission for every line of concession there were twenty pages of safeguards. Well, that is of course a purely psychological reaction, but it seems to be a very natural one, and one which it would be advisable to consider. The word "safeguard" is a very unpleasant one, and one that is much resented. It is probably too late to change it now. And the administration of the safeguards will undoubtedly depend upon the Governors who are sent out to administer them. As was the case under the Canada Act, they may not prevent the growth of an Indian democracy, but let us hope that there will be sufficient Elgins forthcoming so to administer the safeguards, or rather to refrain from administering them, as to develop democracy in India.
Great anxiety has been constantly expressed lest we hand over the masses in India to a small literate class. Surely, the very best defence for the masses would be the widest possible franchise. The technical difficulties of adult suffrage are obvious, but surely they are not insuperable; and if Indian democracy is to develop, adult suffrage is perfectly essential. With a fully extended franchise special representation for labour could probably be dispensed with. Obviously, with a limited franchise such as that offered such representation is absolutely essential. It may have the useful result of teaching labour her strength and how to use it. Let us hope so. No such considerations, however, seem to apply to commerce and industry. Anyhow, if representation is to be given to commerce and industry, which in virtue of their wealth must be more than adequately represented, surely the representation of labour and capital might be made numerically equal. The power of capital must inevitably be stronger, but at least the numerical strength of capital and labour might be made the same.
It is very late, and I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but I should like to say a word on behalf of a community for whom I have a very deep sympathy, and I am sure your Lordships will have,

487
the Anglo-Indian community. They seem to me to have been perhaps a little neglected. They are people who are very peculiarly our own responsibility. One of the reasons why the Communal Award raises such very strong feeling is that on the number of relatives or co-religionists an Indian may happen to have in the Government depends his chance of employment on the railways or in the Secretariat. The Anglo-Indian has no such protection. When an Anglo-Indian makes good, he quits his community and returns to England. They are people who, apart from our obvious responsibility, have served us faithfully, and to whom we owe a great deal. Before Indian clerks were available Anglo-Indians supplied the personnel of the Government in India and on the railways. Without them our government and our trade could never have been built up. It has been suggested that it would be a gracious act on the part of the British Government to take over the charges of the Ecclesiastical Department. This would seem to be the merest justice. A far more gracious act would be to do something on behalf of this invidiously placed community. Could not the British Government—at some expense, but not too colossal an expense—perhaps endow schools or scholarships to Universities for this community, and thus place them more on a level with their more favoured, or rather more protected, rivals? The generosity of such an action, I am quite certain, would be enormously appreciated by Indians in India, and would enormously increase their respect for us.
The most surprising part of the Report is the particular tenderness with which the landlords of India have been treated. Why a community which must inevitably have such colossal influence has been treated as if it was weak and defenceless, and needed special protection, is very obscure. Perhaps members of the Committee, themselves landlords, thought they were protecting their own most estimable class. Speaking myself as a landlord, I should very much dislike to call Indian landlords my fellows. Indian landlordism is a very different affair from landlordism here in England, and as it is one of the abuses which an Indian democracy will have to deal with at once, it is natural that the landlords should seek all the protection that they can get. But that they should be given it by
488
Englishmen of any Party is amazing. It is, in fact, shocking. That, moreover, in certain Provinces, as it seems, Second Chambers are to be created, apparently expressly in order to protect these landlords, is appalling. Their influence is bound in any case to be enormous, and surely they need no more.
The overwhelming impression of India, to which the display of the Princes cannot blind us, is one of intense poverty. The revenues of India are literally made up of mites. I will not weary your Lordships with figures of the average incomes of Indian ryots, but they are so small that it is amazing that men can live on them, more amazing still that they can raise families upon them, and positively astounding that they can pay taxes. The revenue is drawn from sources so impecunious that it is a moral duty to see that those revenues are expended in the most economical manner possible, and, above all, not on political luxury. For this reason my noble friends on the Committee were opposed to Second Chambers in the Provinces and at the Centre alike. The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, drew attention to the expenses which would be incurred by this new Constitution. If the suggestions of my noble friends were followed, undoubtedly these expenses would to a certain extent be cut down. Every saving in India is undoubtedly a great saving. It seems to me, apart altogether from this reason, that the fact that these Second Chambers should be created to protect a vested interest with a Constitution granted by the democratic Mother of Parliaments as the vesting instrument is shocking.
That the problem is incredibly complicated and difficult is obvious to all your Lordships, no doubt, but there is one attitude which surely does not help anything: it is the attitude of self-righteousness which Englishmen are inclined to adopt when they consider the Indian problem. Surely this is not justified. Why did the English go to India? It was not the British Crown that sent forces to India to rescue the Indians from tyranny and oppression, from famine and disease. It was the old "John Company" which in the interests of their trade and for the extension of it gradually conquered the whole sub-continent. If that unification of India has produced also peace and

489
tranquillity that is for Indians a happy chance; these were equally essential for the trade of the Company. If irrigation and communications have been built, these were not charitable endeavours. If the admirable fight against famine and disease has been largely successful, it has also had the profitable result of preserving consumers for commerce and producers for industry.
If, on the other hand, we look at the social side we find a far less creditable position. Fearful of disturbing our trade, we have left undisturbed and perpetuated abuses under pretence of consideration and respect for religious and communal feeling. Our sole effort to improve such conditions, I think I am right in saying, was the abolition of suttee, and even the passing of the Sarda Act abolishing child marriage was the act of an Indian Parliament. Of course it may be said that reforms of this kind come better from Indians themselves, from within, than from the British Government, from without. That seems only an additional reason for creating at once a Parliament responsible for such reforms and able to enforce them. Probably most of the opposition to Parliamentary advance in India comes from those who fear loss of trade. The noble Lord who spoke before me, in fact, drew particular attention to the prospective loss of trade to Lancashire. Such an attitude is perfectly natural, if not perhaps extremely admirable. But our pledges to India must be implemented, and that quickly, if we are to retain any trade at all. Probably it is consciousness of losses suffered by trade, the figures for which I have never seen—probably they would be difficult to compute—which has led the European commercial community in India to change its attitude radically towards Indian difficulties, and to take up an attitude far more liberal, far more generous. I urge your Lordships, therefore, to consider whether it is not advisable both on ethical and material grounds to implement our pledges and to give to India the Dominion Home Rule we have promised her.
THE DUKE OF ATEOLL: My Lords, at this late hour of the evening I am sure the noble Lord who has just spoken will excuse me if I do not follow some of the arguments he used in a well-thought-out speech. I rise to give my support to the Amendment moved by the noble
490
Marquess. Rarely can this House have been asked to commit itself on a, question of such tremendous importance to this country and to the Empire with so little time to digest proposals of vast range and complexity. Noble Lords who served on the Joint Select Committee have, of course, full knowledge of what the Report contains, but I submit it is impossible for any of us who have not so served to have been able, in the three weeks that have elapsed since the Report was published, to have sufficiently mastered its contents to be able to come to considered decisions on the very grave questions with which it deals. And that really is my answer in short to the noble Earl who spoke from the Cross Benches. Yet, when two or three weeks ago one of your Lordships asked that this debate should be delayed until the New Year, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House stated that in that case the Government's Bill would probably have been introduced into another place before your Lordships had considered the Report. That statement implies that the Government Bill must be already in draft before the Report of the Committee has been approved by Parliament.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: The noble Viscount says "No." I am wrong. But I should have thought it was inconceivable that any Bill dealing with all the recommendations of the Joint Committee could possibly be drafted between to-morrow and the beginning of February, with the Christmas holidays intervening. Moreover, the Report appears to be based on an assumption which now appears doubtful—namely, the belief that the Indian Princes as a whole, or a large proportion of them, desire the proposed Federation and insist on the great transfers of responsibility to the Federation which the Report proposes. In paragraph 32 we read:
"The Princes have stated clearly in their declaration that they are willing now to enter an All-India Federation, but only if the Federal Government is a responsible and not an irresponsible Government."
But it was stated two days ago in another place that as long ago as April last a letter had been received from five leading Princes of the Chamber of Princes, including the Chancellor and the Pro-Chancellor of the Chamber, to the effect

491
that they would not be prepared to enter the Federation under the terms set out in the White Paper. The Member for Chichester, to whom that letter had been addressed, stated that he had had information that the Princes in question had carefully examined the Committee's Report—of course I do not know, but this is what we are told—and were satisfied that it did not grant the majority of the amendments for which the Chamber had stipulated as a condition of entry into the Federation.
There is, therefore, I think, obvious reason to doubt whether the Princes as as whole, or a majority even of the leading Princes, desire Federation. That being so, it appears to me to be wasting your Lordships' time and to be hardly consistent with the dignity of Parliament to ask your Lordships to commit yourselves to proposals which, before Parliament reassembles, may have been put out of court, so to speak, by a refusal of the Princes to accede to them. The Chamber of Princes, I understand, is not to meet until January to consider them. But there is a further point which I feel bound to mention here. It has been said that the Viceroy has exercised personal pressure on the Princes. I am not suggesting it, of course. The Viceroy has denied this, and of course we accept his statement. But as he went out to India on the nomination of a Government pledged in outline to the scheme adumbrated in the Report and has often publicly stated his belief in it—I am not suggesting that he should not—can it be wondered at if Princes, who have an enormous respect for the Viceroy, as representative of the King-Emperor, find it difficult to express openly the fears many of them evidently entertain with regard to it?
Further, can it be denied that the policy of the Government is to offer inducements to certain Princes to adhere to the Federation? In 1932 a Committee known as the Indian States Financial Inquiry Committee was sent out to enquire into and report as to the conditions on which the States might agree to federate. The Committee recommended that the States which paid tributes of money to the Government of India should have these tributes gradually remitted to them by the Central Government over a period of years, and payment should also be made
492
to certain Princes for territories ceded by them at different times to the Government of India. These remissions and payments would amount, I think, to something like £750,000 in a year, or over one per cent. of the present Indian Central Budget. It is important to note that the Committee, in paragraph 435 of their Report, emphatically state that these remissions or payments are to be made only to Princes who join the Federation.
They add that they were not empowered to make recommendations for the settlement of financial questions outstanding between British India and the States upon any other basis. In other words a system of inducements, bribery and of threats was suggested, because if they did not accept the inducements they were going to be financial losers and were practically to be put into outer darkness. In connection with this it should also be observed that the Joint Select Committee referred to "complicated financial adjustments" discussed by the Indian States Financial inquiry Committee, and state that they "endorse the main principles" on which the Committee's Report is based. As the Government have approved the Report of the Joint Committee, presumably they also approve of these monetary inducements euphemistically described as "complicated financial adjustments."
I observe indeed with concern that the Lord President of the Council, speaking in another place on Wednesday of last week, referring to the question whether inducements were being offered to certain Princes or not, appeared to condone such a procedure by reminding honourable members of the bribes offered to secure Scotland's consent to the Act of Union. But, surely, my Lords, we hope and believe that our standards of public morality and conduct have advanced since the year 1707? Bribery, then rampant in our public administration and our electoral system, has long since been made illegal, and is now regarded as shameful. I cannot help, therefore, expressing my deep regret that one for whom I have so great a personal regard as the Lord President of the Council, and who above all men is the soul of honour himself, should seem to think so lightly of the use of such political methods in India to-day.

493
But more precious inducements than money are being offered to certain very influential Princes. The Hindu state of Mysore, the second largest in India, with a population of six and a-half millions, besides remission of an annual tribute of about £187,000 per annum, is being encouraged to believe that its request to have retroceded to it the civil station of Bangalore will be granted in the event of its coming into the Federation. Bangalore, as your Lordships know, has an exceptionally good climate, and the civil and military station there has been occupied for considerably over one hundred years, not only by British troops but by many civilian residents, British and Anglo-Indian. When Mysore was handed back to the present dynasty in 1881, a Treaty was made under which it was agreed that the civil station would remain under British administration so long as British troops were kept there. The Secretary of State has announced in another place that the troops are not to be removed. Yet the Mysore Government has asked for the retrocession of the civil station, and the Under-Secretary of State stated last week that the Government had the matter under consideration.
Indeed, I hold here a newspaper report of an interview given as long ago as last March by the Prime Minister of Mysore to a deputation from the mercantile community of Bangalore, in which the Prime Minister stated that "partial retrocession had been decided on, and that there were certain details connected with it that needed further discussions with the Government of India." As this statement goes much fluffier than that made by the Under-Secretary of State last week, I would ask the Leader of the House to inform us to-morrow whether any decision has been taken by the Government on this important point. There are said to be about 130,000 residents in the tract of land in question, 2,700 of whom are Europeans, 5,500 Anglo-Indians, and over 30,000 Mahomedans. A memorial of protest against the proposed retrocession was sent to the Viceroy in February last by the Bangalore Trades Association, in which grave fears were expressed on grounds of educational administration, of hospital administration, of legal status, and other matters in regard to the proposed transfer. In September a renewed protest was made, not only by the Trades
494
Association, but by associations of ratepayers, and by the Anglo-Indian Association of Bangalore. More recently 30,000 Moslems in Bangalore civil station have vehemently protested against being transferred to a Hindu State.
It is also important to note that the Anglo-Indian Association is opposed to this transfer, because two or three weeks ago a well-known newspaper published an interview with Sir Henry Gidney, who has represented the Anglo-Indian community at the Round-Table Conference and on the Joint Select Committee, in which Sir Henry expressed approval of the proposal. An unsolicited cable was immediately received by a member of another place, asking her to make known that the Anglo-Indian Association in Bangalore "dissented entirely" from Sir Henry's view. A statement to this effect was sent to the newspaper in question, but as this was not published I am glad to have this opportunity of making the views of the Anglo-Indian Association known to your Lordships. Now, the Mysore Government is said to have raised this matter of the retrocession of Bangalore in the years 1912 and 1024, but the matter cannot have got very far then, as it never reached the stage of public discussion, and I feel that the fact that it is being openly discussed now cannot but give rise to the belief that the Government of India are to-day willing to consider what has formerly been refused, in order to bring Mysore into the Federation. Anyhow that is what is believed in Bangalore itself. The Joint Memorial of September last, already referred to, states that
"it is common knowledge that Mysore, which has so far declined to enter the Federation, has now consented to do so, provided the subsidy"—
that is to say, the tribute—
"is abolished, and the civil and military station handed over to them. This we know is what she has been urging for some time, partly culminating with a definite stipulation, as the price of her participation in the new federal scheme."
But it is not only citizens of Bangalore, British and Anglo-Indian, whom it is proposed to hand over against their will to a Hindu State.
This has been also proposed in the case of a community of some two thousand persons at Tangasseri, whom it

495
is proposed to transfer to the rule of the State of Travancore. All but one family of the two thousand are Roman Catholics, who are protesting vehemently against being obliged to become citizens of a Hindu State. I have always understood that to transfer British-Indian inhabitants against their will to an Indian State is in direct conflict with the long-established custom of the Government of India. The significance of these attempts to force British subjects to become citizens of Mysore and Travancore respectively becomes clear when we realise what the Report proposes as the main condition precedent to setting up a Federation. This is not to be the adherence of a substantial majority, or indeed of any majority of the 560 States as a whole, or of the 235 States represented in the Chamber of Princes, but the adherence of States representing not less than 50 per cent. of the total population of the States and not less than 50 per cent. of the seats proposed to be allotted to the States in the Upper Federal Chamber. My Lords, a few of the Indian States are so very much larger than others that, to meet the condition in regard to population, the adherence of only nine of the largest States is necessary, or one twenty-eighth of the States represented in the Chamber, and to fulfil the second condition, only twenty-seven, or about one-eighth of these States. Mysore is the second largest of the States and Travancore is the third. The adherence of these two States would therefore go far to provide the population necessary and to meet the first condition. It would, indeed, provide more than a quarter of the necessary 50 per cent. of the total population of the States. That is the reason why such interest is taken by the Government in these two particular States.
As the question of these transfers of population is not referred to in the Report, and, being an administrative matter, is not likely to be referred to in the Bill, I have felt bound to bring it to your Lordships' attention as a matter vitally concerned with the setting up of an All-India Federation, the main proposal of the Report. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, referred this evening to the nation of India. Did I believe or know that India
496
was a nation instead of a conglomeration of nations between whom there is very little love lost, and speaking I think over one hundred and twenty dialects, I would not be so doubtful as I am today of the success of the White Paper scheme. But it is obvious to me that in asking us to approve a Report as the basis of a Bill which we have never seen, the Government are, in effect, asking us to sign a blank cheque on a matter of transcendent importance. I, for my part, feel that I simply cannot do it, and I am therefore going to support the Amendment of the noble Marquess. In conclusion, my Lords, may I apologise for keeping the House so late in order to say things with which I know a great many of you certainly do not agree.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hastings, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, before the House adjourns, it may be for the general convenience if I mention what I think is not in the Notices, that is, that it has been found possible to arrange for your Lordships to meet at three o'clock to-morrow afternoon. That will ensure that we are able to get the Division at a reasonable time. I am also glad to tell the noble Lord opposite that I have been able to make a similar arrangement for Wednesday, which will give rather more time for the discussion of matters in which I know he and those associated with him take special interest.

EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY.
Petition of Admiral Sir William Henry Dudley Boyle, K.C.B., Earl of Cork and Orrery in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the Elections of Representative Peers for Ireland: Read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.