Sitting of 5 July 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (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, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (South Middlesex and Richmond Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to the London Midland and Scottish Railway," presented by Sir Godfrey Collins; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act of 1899) to be considered To-morrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ALIENS (ENTRY PERMITS).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiries into the wages and conditions of employment in the French firm at Mossley, Lancashire?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): My authority in this matter is limited to the issue of permits for the employment of aliens, and the information which I have obtained does not appear to me to justify the withdrawal of the permits which have been issued to this firm for the temporary employment of a limited number of aliens on the salaried and supervisory staff. I should perhaps add that the whole question of working conditions in this industry, in which general wages and hours agreements have been terminated, is receiving my consideration in consultation with employers' and workers' representatives.
    Mr. DAVIES: Does the Minister realise that the question is directed to find out whether the Ministry of Labour will lay down conditions so that foreign capitalists shall not exploit the labour of British subjects? It is not directed against aliens coming here to work under certain conditions.
    Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member must understand that the only power I have is with regard to the employment of certain specified aliens who are working in this factory.
    Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inquire into this problem of foreign capitalists exploiting our own workpeople and degrading their conditions of employment below the standards which are ordinarily applicable to British firms?
    Mr. STANLEY: The general question of the hon. Member is one which is worthy of consideration.

    DERELICT AREAS.
    Mr. MACMILLANasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any of the reports of the commissioners appointed to investigate conditions in certain distressed areas; whether he intends to publish these reports as and when received; and whether he expects to be able to make a general statement before the House rises for the Autumn Recess?
    Mr. STANLEY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday by the Lord President of the Council to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. MACMILLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question, as to whether he intends to publish these reports when they have been received? I do not think that is covered by the previous reply.
    Mr. STANLEY: I believe that one report has been received, but it has not yet been studied.
    Mr. MACMILLAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when the further reports will be received, and whether they will be published?
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from which district a report has been received?
    Mr. STANLEY: Not without notice.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the money to be collected through pilgrimages to cathedrals is intended to be of benefit to the unemployed, he will take steps to see that no money distributed to unemployed persons under this scheme shall be taken into account under the means test?
    Mr. STANLEY: I have no power to apply any special rules in this connection, but, having regard to the manner in which I understand this money is to foe allocated, I see no reason to anticipate that difficulties in connection with the assessment of transitional payments are likely to arise.
    Mr. BATEY: Does the Minister of Labour realise that unless he takes some steps in the matter of this organised effort for the unemployed the amount they receive will be deducted from any benefit they get under the means test?
    Mr. STANLEY: In view of the particular allocation indicated for this money, I think that is a difficulty which is not likely to arise.
    Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that this money to be given to the unemployed will not be deducted from them under the means test?
    Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member is assuming that the intended allocation of the money is to the individual unemployed man or woman.
    Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that that is not the case; that this organised effort is a fraud? In their advertisement, they say that the money is being received for the benefit of the unemployed.
    Mr. STANLEY: I understand that the actual allocation is 50 per cent. to the Personal Service League, 25 per cent. to the National Council of Social Service, and 25 per cent. to cathedrals cooperating.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does it follow that these organisations will disburse that money to the different individuals? I have a case where 5s. was deducted—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must ask his question.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to protect an unemployed man who gets a sum of money from this organisation from having that sum deducted under the means test?
    Mr. STANLEY: I cannot answer a hypothetical question.
    Mr. BATEY: This is so important a matter and the answer of the Minister of Labour is so strange, that I beg to give notice that if there be an opportunity to-night I shall raise it on the Adjournment.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that certain applicants for transitional payments in the County of Durham, who have been receiving the maximum amount to which those in benefit are entitled, have been refused the 1s. 9d. per week increase in their allowance; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. STANLEY: I understand that the Commissioners for County Durham have revised their scale as from 1st July, but it must be borne in mind that transitional payments are determined with reference to an applicant's needs and there are, no doubt, cases in which the applicant's circumstances do not justify an increase in the amount previously allowed.
    Mr. LAWSON: Does that mean that a man may be on transitional payment, receiving the full amount, and that he does not get the 1s. 9d., the 10 per cent. cut, restored to him automatically?
    Mr. STANLEY: If the hon. Member will read my answer, he will be able to form his own judgment.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Newcastle-on-Tyne Public Assistance Committee has refused to increase assessments of need for transitional payments by amounts corresponding to the increase in standard benefit, on the ground that such increases would be illegal, as they are bound by the Order in Council, 1931, to assess transitional cases on exactly the same standard as that applying to ordinary able-bodied relief; that the public assistance committee claims that this interpretation has been confirmed by the Ministry of Labour; whether he confirms such interpretation; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to remedy the matter?
    Mr. STANLEY: I understand that the Newcastle Public Assistance Authority have, except in one limited class of case, restored the scale which they had in operation prior to the "cuts" made in November, 1931. The Order in Council of 1931 does not prescribe any scales, but it expressly requires public assistance authorities to deal with applications for transitional payments as if they were estimating the need of an unemployed able-bodied person who had applied for public assistance. I have no power to dispense with this requirement, which must therefore regulate the position, as it has done for the last two or three years, until the new arrangements under the Unemployment Act which has just been passed come into force.
    Mr. LAWSON: Am I to take it that the public assistance committee have deliberately refused to restore the 1s. 9d. on transitional payment?
    Mr. STANLEY: I do not think the hon. Member is justified in reading all that into the answer I have given.
    Mr. LAWSON: We really must have an answer to this question, because I have the case of a man in Durham who is only receiving 9d., and there is another case at Newcastle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a plain answer on this matter, because the report and the correspondence issued shows that the public assistance committee have refused to restore the full 10 per cent. to people
    2046
    on transitional payment and rest their decision upon the Order-in-Council. Has it been confirmed by the Minister of Labour?
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask whether, in view of the contradictory interpretations with regard to this Order, my right hon. Friend will once for all lay down a rule by which various organisations and societies will be guided?
    Mr. STANLEY: In answer to the last question, a circular wes seent out on the 24th May and a copy of it is in the Library. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) will find all the information he requires set out in the answers I have given.
    Mr. LAWSON: Does that mean that the public assistance committee were within their rights in refusing to restore the 10 per cent. to people on transitional payment?
    Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member will see that clearly set out in my answer.

    UNEMPLOYMENT ACT.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state when Part II. of the Unemployment Act will come into operation?
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the appointed day under the Unemployment Act?
    Mr. STANLEY: I cannot say definitely when these dates will be, but every effort will be made to complete the necessary arrangements at the earliest possible date, so that the first appointed day may be fixed shortly after the regulations have been approved by Parliament after its reassembly in the Autumn.
    Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand from that reply that the appointed day is not likely to be fixed until after the House meets in November?
    Mr. STANLEY: I do not think I am entitled to assume that the House is going to meet in November, but, in view of the immense amount of preparatory work that has to be done, there can be no question of the appointed day before the House rises.

    STATUTORY COMMITTEE AND ASSISTANCE BOARD.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the names of the persons that he has selected to serve on the Statutory Committee under the Unemployment Act, Part I, and also the names of the persons to serve on the Unemployment Assistance Board, together with the names of the Chairmen for both positions?
    Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to announce the names of the members of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee and of the Unemployment Assistance Board, respectively?
    Mr. STANLEY: I hope that it will be possible shortly to announce the membership of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee to be appointed under Part I of the Unemployment Act. The membership of the Unemployment Assistance Board, under Part II of the Act, was stated by the Prime Minister in reply to the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Lawson) on Friday last.

  ACCOUNTING AND TABULATING MACHINES.
  Mr. R. T. EVANSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether offices where machines are used for accountancy purposes are subject to Home Office regulations and inspection?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): No, Sir. The use of the ordinary accounting or tabulating machines in offices has not been regarded as making the Factory Acts applicable.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask one of his inspectors to go to some of these offices and see the machines now in use, which are as dangerous as if they were machines in a factory?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member has evidence to show that there is any danger about these machines, I shall be glad to consider it.

  POLICE.

    HOUSING.
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Home Secretary (1) what progress is being made with the scheme to provide modern section houses, or, alternatively, reconditioning the existing one, in which about a quarter of the constables of the Metropolitan Police reside and which are at present out of date from the point of view of comfort, privacy, and feeding arrangements;
    (2) what steps he is taking to provide the two modern up-to-date and properly-equipped section houses for the Metropolitan Police that have been recommended and which are urgently required, one north of the Thames and one south?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am glad to have an opportunity of making a statement on this important matter, which I am aware has aroused a great deal of public attention. I have myself visited a number of these houses, and am convinced that the need for improvement is urgent. The Commissioner in his Annual Report for 1933 suggested the provision at an early date of two new up-to-date section houses. I have now approved the provision of four such houses to be constructed as soon as possible. Two will be reconstructions of existing section houses north of the Thames, and the third, a new section house on the south side. They will comprise all the various improvements which were referred to in the Commissioner's Annual Report as necessary to bring the present section-house accommodation thoroughly up to date. At the same time, a general programme is being drawn up with all possible speed for the building or reconstruction of other section houses on modern lines.
    Brigadier-General NATION: Will my right hon. Friend say when the general scheme is likely to be put in hand? Will it be this year or next year?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, I hope that with regard to four houses immediate steps will be taken to deal with the matter.
    Brigadier - General NATION: What about the general scheme?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As soon as I am able to get it finally settled.

    SHORT-SERVICE CONSTABLES.
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the; Home Secretary how many short-service constables have joined the Metropolitan Police since the inception of the new system; and whether he is yet in a position to state if the system is working satisfactorily?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: On the 2nd instant, 103 short-service constables were serving in the force, 35 undergoing training as candidates and 30 accepted and waiting to commence training. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

    NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY FORCE.
    Mr. POTTER (for Major JESSON)asked the Home Secretary whether he will furnish the House with a return of the total strength of the Northumberland County Police Force and with a return of the number of dismissals, rank reductions, and voluntary resignations in that force during the last two years?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The authorised strength of the Northumberland County Constabulary is 331 of all ranks. The Chief Constable informs me that during the last two years one man has been dismissed, three were required to resign, and two resigned voluntarily; and that there were no cases of reduction in rank.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (DISORDER).
  Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Home Secretary what has been the nature of the response elicited by the invitation to leaders of all parties to consult as to the best method of guaranteeing order in public meetings; and whether any legislation is in contemplation before the Recess?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statements made on behalf of the political parties during the course of the Debate on the Home Office Vote on the 14th June. I am at present engaged in reviewing the whole problem, and when my proposals have been formulated I should be glad to have an opportunity of discussing them with the leaders of the Opposition. As at present advised, I do not contemplate introducing legislation before the Summer Recess.
  Mr. MAXTON: Was not the nature of the Home Secretary's undertaking on the day of the Debate—I am speaking now subject to correction—that he would consult the parties before formulating his proposals, rather than afterwards, as he suggests now?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Certainly, before formulating them to this House, but I must have a clear view of what I would propose in order that I may discuss it with the Leader of the Opposition and see how far we can come to agreement.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Seeing that the Opposition have more difficulty with their extremists than other parties, does the Home Secretary not think that he ought to consult them as to what he will do to guarantee free speech for than?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I propose to consult them.
  Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Would it not have been more correct for the Home Secretary to have said, "Leaders of the Oppositions" in the plural?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have said that I am going to consult all parties.

  FATAL ACCIDENTS (REMOVAL OF BODIES).
  Mr. LAWSONasked the Horn Secretary whether he is aware that considerable distress is caused to relatives of persons who are fatally injured just within the boundaries of one coroner's jurisdiction while their homes are in another; that the bodies sometimes lie for two or three days in the mortuary before such bodies are conveyed to the homes of relatives; and whether he can take such steps as will avoid the unnecessary pain arising from this practice?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Section 14 of the Coroners Amendment Act of 1926 empowers a coroner to issue a burial order at any time after he has viewed the body, and I have no doubt that coroners generally are ready to avail themselves of this power in proper cases.
  Mr. LAWSON: In view of the very bad case that I brought to the right hon. Gentleman's attention, where a man's body was brought from the pit to Gateshead, just over the border, and then was

  2051
  taken away by the policeman, cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something to modify the position in cases where there are two areas of jurisdiction?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that in that case the body was removed before the coroner had an opportunity of going into the matter. It is essential that the coroner should give an order.
  Mr. LAWSON: Is the Home Secretary not aware that the bodies always are removed immediately from the pit to their homes, but in this case it was simply a matter of the coroner's fees, I understand?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am very anxious, of course, to obviate any kind of unpleasantness in dealing with this problem, but it is essential, from the point of view of the coroner, that the removal of the body should not take place before he gives the order.
  Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of this particular case and the general unsatisfactory working in the case of fatal injuries and seriously injured persons on the roads, would my right hon. Friend consider setting up a Departmental Committee in order to find out how far overlapping exists and try to straighten out the present unsatisfactory condition of things?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am prepared to consider the whole matter. I cannot commit myself to what action I shall take.

  ARREST AND PROSECUTION, STRATFORD.
  Mr. GROVESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that William Church, of 80, Windmill Lane, Stratford, E.15, a painter and decorator by trade, was visited in December, 1933, by detectives at 8 a.m. and put up for identification on two separate occasions, and then charged with falsely uttering goods for sale, but was acquitted; whether he is aware that the defence of this innocent man cost £20; and, as no compensation has been allowed him, will he consider the case and grant compensation to cover the man's expenses?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have made inquiries about this case, which had not
  2052
  previously come to my notice, and am informed that Church was arrested in December last as answering the description of a man wanted for larceny by means of a trick. He was identified by two persons who had complained of being defrauded and was committed for trial on two charges but was acquitted at the County of London Sessions. I can find nothing in the circumstances of his arrest and committal for trial which would justify any payment to him from public funds.
  Mr. GROVES: Is the Home Secretary riot aware that the verdict was that this man was innocent? Therefore, the identification parade cannot have been correct. As the man has been wrongfully arrested and put to expense, surely his case should be considered? Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department informed him that on 24th June this man was again arrested and put up for identification but not identified, and therefore will he see that the police now leave the man alone?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have looked into the matter, as far as I have been able, and I have no reason to suppose that the police acted other than properly. I am not aware of the ground on which the court came to its conclusion, and I have said that as far as the police are concerned I have no reason to suppose that they acted improperly.
  Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the second arrest, and, if not, why is he not?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, I am aware of it.

  RUNAWAY HORSES, KENSINGTON.
  Mr. GROVESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the courageous act of Snowie Thompson, an Australian cowboy, who, in Kensington High Road on 9th June, noticing a pair of horses attached to a van dashing dangerously out of hand and likely to injure people in the streets, brought the horses to a standstill, thus probably saving injury to many people; and whether, as Mr. Thompson sustained a broken collarbone and many bruises, necessitating his absence from duty, he will take appropriate steps to give recognition to such cases of bravery and pay compensation for injuries sustained?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I had not previously heard of this incident. I will make inquiry and communicate with the hon. Member.

  EDUCATION.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many children are concerned where the local authorities have put in operation the raising of the school age from 14 to 15; and how many cases are there where maintenance allowances have been made?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): Approximately 13,200 children are affected during the current school year, 1934–35. During the year ended 31st March, 1933, the latest period for which figures are yet available, (maintenance allowances were granted by one of the six local education authorities concerned to 378 children over the age of 14.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Would the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind, as the Labour party have agreed, when they raise the school age, only to give maintenance in necessitous cases, that if the Government decide to raise the school age it will not be half as expensive as it would have been if the Labour party promised maintenance grants to all?

    BOOKS.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that, although the film "Invisible Man" is not permitted for exhibition to children under 16 years of age, the book is used in the elementary schools; and whether he will state the grounds upon which such permission is granted?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: As regards the first part of the question the use of particular books in public elementary schools is not subject to the permission of the Board of Education. The second part of the question therefore does not arise.
    Mr. GROVES: But surely the elementary schools are under the supervision of the Board of Education, and when any such pratice as this is adopted the Board should put it right?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: If His Majesty's Inspector found an unsuitable book in a
    2054
    school, he would report the fact and steps would be taken to secure its withdrawal.
    Mr. GROVES: How is it that the British Broadcasting Corporation, or rather the Film Board, decided that this film was not suitable for children, while His Majesty's Inspectors decided that the book was fit for school?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: It cannot be assumed that the film corresponds to the book.

    WEST RIDING, YORKSHIRE, EDUCATION COMMITTEE.
    Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the conversations have taken place between the West Riding, Yorkshire, Education Committee and His Majesty's Inspectors; and, if so, whether a report has been submitted to his Department?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The Board have received a report of the discussion between representatives of the local education authority and His Majesty's Inspectors, and are now in communication with the local education authority in the matter.
    Mr. SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) when a decision is reached?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Yes.

  HOUSING.

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that many of the tenants affected by the Birmingham Corporation's scheme of slum clearance in Emily Street are desirous of staying in their present houses; and whether it is the intention of the Government that the owners of well-kept property in that area shall have the same treatment as is to be shown in respect to property which has been neglected?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The Emily Street Compulsory Purchase Order is the subject of a public local inquiry being held this week by one of my inspectors, at which all those concerned may appear and make

    2055
    objections which will be carefully considered before my decision is reached. The compensation payable in respect of houses which are not unfit for human habitation or dangerous or injurious to health but are required for the proper development of the cleared area will be on the basis of market value.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Minister of Health whether he received a report from the general inspector of the district referring to the action of the Colne Town Council in evicting people from houses in the Windybank area of the Colne slum-clearance scheme without providing alternative accommodation; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have received a preliminary report from the general inspector who is still in touch with the town council who are the responsible authority in this matter.

  BAN KSTAFFS (TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP).
  Mr. R. T. EVANSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the rules governing the conduct of civil servants in relation to membership of trade unions apply equally to the staffs of trustee savings banks?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir.
  Mr. EVANS: Then the National Debt Commissioners do not in any case instigate oppressive action on the part of local banks in the matter of the freedom of their employés?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  WOMEN WAGE-EARNERS.
  Colonel CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Health (I) whether he will state the percentage in England of married women wage-earners to all women wage-earners in 1911, 1921, and 1931;
  (2) what was the total percentage of women wage-earners to all women in England in 1911, 1921 and 1931?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The best information available is that provided by the 1921
  2056
  and 1931 Censuses with reference to women employés, i.e., women in gainful occupations in the employé capacity, excluding those of the employer and managerial classes and those working on their own account. As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the tabular statement:

  England and Wales.

  —

  Age 12 and over in 1921.

  Age 14 and over in 1931.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Proportion of Married Women "employés" to all Women "employés"

  12·6

  14·9

  Proportion of all Women "employés" to all Women.

  29·7

  31·4

  Corresponding figures are not available for England alone or for 1911. The age limit given of course applies only to unmarried women included in the figures.

  OAT PRODUCTS (STOCKS IN BOND).
  Mr. WHITEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of foreign oat products in bond on 1st April and 1st June, respectively?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The quantities of oat products covered by the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1934, in bonded warehouse on the dates specified were as follow:

  1934.

  Cwts.

  1st April

  …

  …

  …

  18,647

  1st June

  …

  …

  …

  14,740

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (INTEREST).
  Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total sum of outstanding loans from the Public Works Loans Board to local authorities where the rate of interest is in excess of 5 per cent.; and whether, in view of the conversion of national loans from 5 per cent. to 3½ per cent., he has considered similar relief for local authorities?
  Mr. COOPER: The liability of the State to ensure the payment of interest on local loans stock is a continuing one and is not affected by the current rate of interest on gilt-edged stocks. Concessions to borrowers could only be made by asking the taxpayer to provide a direct subsidy and the Government are not prepared to take that course. The total of loans outstanding where the rate of interest exceeds 5 per cent. is about £89 millions, but a very large proportion of that sum relates to loans under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, under which any annual loss incurred by a local authority in excess of the produce of a penny rate is borne by the Exchequer.

  SMUGGLING OFFENCES (PENALTIES).
  Mr. HENDERSON STEWARTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the case of two men who were recently fined at Portsmouth £74,709 for smuggling 4,463 lb. of tobacco; and whether, as the maximum alternative sentence is six months' imprisonment, he will take steps to strengthen the law as regards penal-

  —

  1929.

  1930.

  1931.

  1932.

  1933.

  Number of cases in which prosecutions were undertaken under Section 7 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1926, for failure to keep proper books of account or in which a charge under that Section was included:

  Prosecutions

  19

  21

  16

  18

  14

  Convictions

  16

  19

  16

  17

  12

  Number of prosecutions ordered for misdemeanours under the Bankruptcy Acts on reports lodged by Official Receivers.

  40

  46

  31

  40

  45

  MIGRATION.
  Mr. POTTERasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of emigrants from this country to the Dominions during the last five years; and the number of immigrants of British nationality into this country from the Dominions during the same period?
  Dr. BURGIN: The number of British emigrants from the United Kingdom to the Dominions (excluding the Irish Free State) aggregated 182,287 in the five years 1929 to 1933, and the number of British
  2058
  ties, other than fines, for smuggling offences?
  Mr. COOPER: My attention has been drawn to this case and I have noted the suggestion made by my hon. Friend.

  BANKRUPTCY ACTS (PROSECUTIONS).
  Mr. POTTERasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the number of prosecutions which his Department undertook against debtors under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Acts for failing to keep proper books of account in respect of each of the last five years; and what were the consequences of such prosecutions;
  (2) the number of prosecutions which his Department has instituted against debtors for misdemeanours under the principal Act and amending Acts of Bankruptcy in respect of each of the last five years?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  immigrants into the United Kingdom from the Dominions 171,429.

  SCOTLAND.

    LAND TENURE (SHEEP STOCKS).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that landowners in Skye have been relieved by the Department for Land Settlement from their obligation to take over sheep stock from their tenants at way-

    2059
    going; and under what statutory authority are State funds being used for this purpose?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend is not aware that landowners in Skye have been relieved by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland from any obligation to take over sheep stock from their tenants at waygoing. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a smallholder on State-owned land in Glenelg, Inverness-shire, who vacated his holding a year ago, has not yet received payment from the Department of Agriculture for the sheep stock he was compelled to leave; and if steps will now be taken to pay the ascertained value of the sheep retained by the Department?
    Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Gentleman's question appears to be framed under a misapprehension. No payments are due by the Department of Agriculture to the outgoing smallholder in respect of sheep stock. The sheep stock on the estate is held by a club, in which the smallholder had a share. On vacating the holding the smallholder was tendered the value of his share, which was determined in accordance with the rules of the club.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the observations of the Scottish Land Court upon the management of the sheep stocks on State lands controlled by the Department of Agriculture; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy the defects indicated by the court?
    Mr. SKELTON: The attention of my right hon. Friend has been drawn to the terms of the observations of the Scottish Land Court, dated 9th June, to which the hon. Member probably refers. These are at present under consideration.

    FIRTH OF FORTH FERRIES.
    Mr. H. STEWARTasked the Minister of Transport what has been the average number of vehicles carried per day and per week by the Firth of Forth ferries at Queensferry since the new ser-
    2060
    vice began; and what was the latest ascertained total of vehicles crossing the Forth by the Stirling road bridge?
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend has no particulars as yet of the volume of traffic carried by the ferries. At the point nearest to the Stirling road bridge at which figures were taken in the traffic census of August, 1931, the daily average number of motor vehicles was 5,531, and of horse-drawn vehicles, 71.
    Mr. STEWART: May we take it that there are no figures for this service for later than three years ago?
    Captain HUDSON: That is so. It is a new ferry service, and I understand my hon. Friend has not yet got the figures.

    DISTURBANCE, BRIDGETON.
    Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. McGOVERN)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a member of the Glasgow Town Council was present in a public house in Bridgeton on Saturday evening, 23rd June, and mainly responsible for the rioting that occurred; and the reason why the police failed to arrest him when they arrested others responsible for it?
    Mr. SKELTON: I am informed that no member of the Glasgow Town Council was present in the public house referred to when two men were arrested on a charge of breach of the peace but one member is alleged to have taken part in a disturbance which subsequently occurred outside the public house. The police having recognised him and being fully occupied in dealing with the disorder and retaining custody of 12 prisoners, decided not to arrest him. They have, however, reported him to the Procurator Fiscal of Police.

    MILK MARKETING SCHEME.
    Mr. H. STEWART (for Duchess of ATHOLL)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the producers of certified and Grade A milk in Scotland have requested an opportunity of being heard by the Departments of Agriculture and Health for Scotland on certain matters affecting their position; and whether he will arrange that such an opportunity should be given at the earliest possible date?
    Mr. SKELTON: Yes, Sir. Arrangements are being made for the producers of certified and Grade A milk to be heard by the Departments at the earliest possible date. My right hon. Friend desires me to add that they were not, he finds, received by the Investigation Committee on 3rd July, as stated in his reply to the Noble Lady last week.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    OFFICERS' PAY.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether one-half of the pay of officers in the Royal Air Force has now been restored as compared with the time when the cuts were made in 1931; and to what extent colonial allowances have been reduced and at what date?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The economy cuts in the pay of Royal Air Force officers made in 1931 have been restored to the extent of one half. As regards the second part of the question, certain reductions of colonial allowance have been made in Egypt and other commands where the Royal Air Force allowances follow the Army rates. I am sending particulars to the hon. Member as the details are too long for a Parliamentary reply.
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that the net result of all this is that Air Force officers are substantially worse off, even allowing for the 50 per cent. restoration, than they were in 1931?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps my hon. Friend would wait until he gets the full reply.

    ARMAMENT TRAINING (ADDITIONAL RANGE).
    Mr. SIMMONDS (for Mr. McKIE)asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he has any information to give regarding the proposed aerial bombing station at Luce Bay, Wigtownshire?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I can only say that a proposal for establishing an additional range for armament training is being examined, and Luce Bay is one of the sites under consideration,

  REGENT'S PARK.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether
  2062
  he will place four garden benches in the small circular rose garden leading out of the Hylas garden of St. John's Lodge, Regent's Park, and two in the recesses in the gravelled alley leading from the same small garden?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Six seats have been placed in this garden, and I will take an early opportunity of seeing myself whether it is necessary or desirable to add any more.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, as a result of his decisions, he will, in order to afford the public undisturbed enjoyment on Sundays of the Botanical Gardens, Regent's Park, during the height of the summer, transfer next year the structures put up for theatrical performances to the open area of Regent's Park, or obtain permission for the promoters to use Crown property occupied by the Bedford College open spaces, and at the same time turf or bed out the Botanical Gardens areas now covered with cinders and brick chips, and with tennis courts not used on Sundays?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not prepared to disturb the arrangements made for theatrical performances in the Inner Circle Gardens, but the work of laying out the remainder of the grounds, a great deal of which has already been done, will be continued over a period of several years as funds permit. Consideration will also be given to the future of some of the tennis courts on the termination of the present contract for their use.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is there any particular reason why these 3,000 seats should be appropriated, to the detriment of the public?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am sure it is not at all to the detriment of the public that we should have an open air theatre in London, and this is one of the few places available, where the conformation of the ground coupled with the trees and shrubs in the background renders an open air theatre possible. I have constant evidence of the appreciation of the public for the open air theatre in Regent's Park, and of the great addition that it has been to the amenities of London.

  ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister whether he will state when the Economic Advisory Committee last met; and if it is intended that it shall in future meet regularly?
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): While the work of the Economic Advisory Council is confidential, I may explain that it is continuously carried on through regular meetings of two main standing committees—one on economic information and the other on scientific research—and in addition there are standing and ad hoc committees to deal with specific problems as and when required.
  Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that the Economic Advisory Council itself has not met for something like two years, and is it not about time that such an important body was called together again?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Why on earth should it meet? The Board of Exchequer never meets, but it does its work expeditiously.
  Mr. MANDER: But in view of the fact that a number of very important public men are on this Council and that the right hon. Gentleman has said that there are several sub-committees, apparently presenting reports from time to time, should not the Council have an opportunity of considering those reports at rather shorter intervals than every two years?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I think my hon. Friend a little misapprehends the nature of this body. It is in fact a panel of experts who are chosen for all kinds of work in connection with economics and research. The main body are employed on the various committees and are always working. They prepare reports, as has been said, for the use of the Prime Minister and for the Government of the day. They are at the service of whatever Government may be in power. They were set up by the late Government. They were employed by them; they are employed by the present Government, and they will probably be employed by the next Government. There would be no advantage I can assure my hon. Friend in the procedure which he desires.
  Mr. COCKS: When may we expect some results?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    ACCIDENTS, STIRLING AND HAYDOCK.
    Mr. CAMPBELL KERasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information to give regarding the recent accident at Polmaise Colliery, Fallin; and what inquiries are being made to ascertain the cause of the accident?
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAMasked the Secretary for Mines if he can make any statement regarding the serious cage accident at Polmaise Colliery, Stirling; will he state whether the accident happened on a Sunday morning; whether the men who had already gone down the pit or were involved in the accident were expected to work as miners at the coal face or repairers; whether his attention has been called to the suggestions made at the annual conference of the National Union of Scottish Mine Workers on 30th June on the subject of cage accidents; and whether any consideration will now be given to such suggestions as a means of avoiding such accidents in future?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I very much regret that a serious overwind took place at Polmaise No. 3 Pit on the afternoon of Sunday, 1st July. The shifts were changing at the time and 13 men were involved, six in the ascending cage and seven in the descending cage. All of them were injured, and two, I am sorry to say, have since died. The House will, I am sure, join with me in sympathy with the relatives and friends of the deceased. With regard to the detailed points, I am informed that the day shift, which was ascending, had been engaged in the full work of the mine, including coal-getting, but that the afternoon shift was to do preparation and repair work only, and that no coal-getting or coal winding was intended to be done on that shift. Inquiries by the Divisional Inspector into the cause of the accident are still proceeding. I have seen a Press report of the proceedings at the recent conference referred to, but I have not yet received any communication on the subject. I would point out, however, that the subject of precautions against overwinding is already being thoroughly investigated by a Departmental Committee which has nearly completed its inquiries.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Were the men on the forenoon shift engaged on the coal face?
    Mr. BROWN: I have answered that question in the reply already given.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether these men had been working from 7 o'clock on the Sunday morning until 3 o'clock in the afternoon?
    Mr. BROWN: I cannot answer a de tailed question of that kind until my inspector's inquiries are complete.
    Mr. G. MacDONALD: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether his Department approve of Sunday work?
    Mr. BROWN: I have said many times from this place that the Department do not approve of it, but I have always pointed out that under the law we have no power to prevent it.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to expedite the report of the Departmental Committee which has now been sitting for 14 months?
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows that this is a very difficult and complicated question, and I have already told the hon. Members to whom I gave the original reply that the inquiries are almost finished and that the report may be expected soon.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is only two months since the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mrs. Shaw) raised this question in connection with a case in her division of a miner who was killed where there had been work on Sunday; and that a week before I raised the matter of excessive overtime being worked in the mines outside Glasgow on Sunday, and that nothing is being done, and here we are raising another question—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not use the opportunity of putting a Supplementary Question for the purpose of making a speech.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: There are others who make their questions far longer, with all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am always very particular about this.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to ask the Minister himself if he is aware that it is quite impossible for the mines to be looked after in the manner they ought to be when they are being worked every
    2066
    day in the week; and what is he going to do to see that the machinery about the mines is looked after in the way it was looked after before they worked so much on Sundays?
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member and the House will know well that my Department is persistently at work seeing that the law is enforced.
    Mr. LAWSON: May I ask when the hon. Gentleman is going to go into this matter of regular Sunday working?
    Mr. BROWN: This is only incidental to the major question raised, and I could not debate it at Question Time.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the inquest held at Haydock, near St. Helens, on Thursday, 28th June, on a man who was killed at Old Boston Colliery on 25th June, when the evidence given proved that the deceased and his workmate had commenced work at 7 a.m. and the accident happened at 6 p.m., 11 hours underground; and will he say what steps he will take in the case as this was a breach of the 7½-hours Act?
    Mr. E. BROWN: It appears from the evidence available that there was a breach of the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, in this case, and I am considering the question of taking proceedings.
    Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the second accident in a short period when overtime has been proved, and will he ask his inspectors to pay close attention to this matter?
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows that they are paying close attention to it, and, not only so, but we have recently made the most exhaustive inquiry into the whole problem throughout the county of Lancashire.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the coroner who conducted the inquest on this man intimated that he was staggered to know that men were working 12 hours at the coal face, with only half-an-hour break, and that this man was killed as a result also of working on a Sunday? What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about it?
    Mr. BROWN: I have already informed the hon. Member who asked the question

    2067
    that I am considering taking proceedings, and the House will not expect me to say-more than that.

    BOTHWELL CASTLE COLLIERY, BOTHWELL.
    Mr. D. GRAHAMasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will cause inquiry to be made into charges of breaches of the Mines Act at Bothwell Castle Colliery, Bothwell, Lanarkshire; and, if it is found that they have occurred, will he state what action he proposes to take to ensure that the law will be properly observed at that colliery?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I do not know to what the hon. Member refers. No allegations of breaches of the Coal Mines Act at this colliery have reached my Department. Perhaps the hon. Member will let me have any facts in his possession.
    Mrs. SHAW: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a telegram has been received stating that there has been no breach of the Mines Act at Bothwell Castle Colliery?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that men went down the pit at seven in the morning and worked there till five in the afternoon, and will not that be considered as a breach of the law?
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member is making allegations of which he has not given me evidence. If he will give me facts which I can have investigated, I will give him a reply, but I cannot reply to these vague assertions.
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am asking the hon. Member to make these inquiries through the mines inspectors. I am not engaged at that colliery. I can only give the information that is supplied to me, and I am asking that the mines inspectors should inquire at that colliery whether those allegations are true or not.
    Mr. BROWN: I have asked the hon. Member if he will give me the information, and I shall then be very glad to make the most exhaustive inquiries.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS' DEPOSITS.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Postmaster-General the amount held by the Post Office from telephone sub-
    2068
    scribers' deposits at the end of 1933; and the approximate amount of revenue derived as interest on the deposits for the year 1933?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The amount was £2,936,519. No part of the deposits is invested, the money being largely used as working capital and consequently no interest is received.

    TELEPHONE KIOSKS (RURAL AREAS).
    Mr. RHYSasked the Postmaster-General the principle upon which some telephone kiosks in rural areas are erected without guarantees being required?
    Sir E. BENNETT: The present practice is to provide one kiosk without guarantee in association with each rural automatic exchange. Otherwise a kiosk is not provided without guarantee in replacement of an open telephone call office in a rural area unless the estimated annual receipts will suffice to cover the full annual costs of the kiosk.
    Mr. RHYS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Department does in fact put up kiosks in other neighbourhoods without a guarantee?
    Sir E. BENNETT: There are exceptional cases in which, I am sorry to say, we make mistakes. We over-estimated the amount that was going to be received from a kiosk in two cases, but in those cases we have faced up to the fact and borne the loss. The two villages are Christmas Pie and Send Village.

  PALESTINE (IMMIGRANT ARABS).
  Major MILNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what restrictions there are on the immigration of Arabs into Palestine and the return of Palestinian Arabs to their own country from places to which they have emigrated, respectively?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Arabs who are not Palestinian citizens desiring to enter Palestine as immigrants are subject to the same restrictions as other non-Palestinians. These restrictions are set out in the Palestine Immigration Ordinance and Regulations, of which I will send a copy to the hon. and gallant

  2069
  Member. The Ordinance provides that persons habitually resident in Trans-Jordan may, unless the High Commissioner shall otherwise direct, enter Palestine direct from Trans-Jordan although they are not in possession of passports or other similar documents, but such persons are not permitted to settle or take up employment in Palestine unless they can qualify as immigrants under the Immigration Ordinance. There is no restriction on the return to Palestine of Palestinian citizens who have emigrated from that country, but persons who have been granted certificates of Palestinian citizenship, or of naturalisation as Palestinian citizens, are liable to lose that citizenship if they have been for a period of not less than three years ordinarily resident out of Palestine and have not maintained substantial connection with that country.
  Major MILNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are complaints from Palestinians who have migrated to America and are not permitted to return or have some difficulty in entering the country if they desire to do so?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. I have not heard of any complaints.

  PACIFIC PHOSPHATE COMPANY, LIMITED.
  Major MILNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to give details as to the profits of the Pacific Phosphate Company, Limited, in relation to Ocean Island, the amounts paid to the shareholders, and the natives, respectively, during the latest year for which information is available, and the terms on which native labourers are now employed?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have received a report from the High Commissioner giving particulars as to royalties and other payments made by the Pacific Phosphate Company, Limited, during the financial years 1918–19 and 1919–20; also as to the conditions under which native labourers are now employed on Ocean Island by the British Phosphate Commissioners. I shall be glad to send a copy to the hon. and gallant Member. Particulars as to the profits made and distributed by the Pacific Phosphate Company are not available in the Colonial
  2070
  Office. As the hon. and gallant Member is doubtless aware, the company has ceased to exist.
  Major MILNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman of the opinion that the natives are properly remunerated and properly treated nowadays?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Oh, yes.

  AIR ARMAMENTS.
  Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Lord President of the Council whether the Government still propose to endeavour to obtain a convention at Geneva for the general reduction or limitation of air armaments by international agreement, in view of the fact that it is proposed to make immediate increases in the British Air Force?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander), to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. ADAMS: While thanking the Lord President for his answer, may I ask what inference the House and the country are to draw from the speech of the Noble Lord the Air Minister on the 27th June in another place?
  Mr. SIMMONDS: Is it not a fact that one of the disabilities of our representatives at Geneva has been that, when they have suggested the reduction of other air forces, they have found that we have virtually no Air Force to reduce, and is it not a fact that if the Government were to strengthen our Air Force, there would be a better opportunity for obtaining a disarmament convention?
  Mr. BERNAYS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that no increase in the Air Force will be decided upon unless and until the Disarmament Conference breaks down?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I could give no such assurance.
  Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will my right hon. Friend consider the obligations which this country has undertaken under the Covenant of the League of

  2071
  Nations, and arrange that the forces of this country shall be equal to the fulfilment of those obligations?
  Mr. BALDWIN: That, of course, is a very grave responsibility that rests on the Government at any time in this country.
  Mr. ADAMS: May we not have a clear answer to the question that I asked?

  BRITISH ARMY (TERRITORIALS' DEPENDANTS).
  Mr. SUTCLIFFEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the fact that dependents of some of the Rochdale Territorials who attended their annual training recently were compelled to apply for out relief during such period; and whether he will consider the advisability of making arrangements for covering such expenditure out of War Office funds?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I am aware that the position of some territorials is unfortunately as stated in the first part of the question. With regard to the second part of the question, I should be glad if my hon. Friend would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir R. Aske) on the 14th June.

  LEONARD ROWLAND HILL (SUICIDE).
  Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. McGOVERN)asked the Home Secretary whether an inquest was held on the death of the gunman, Mr. Hill, who was alleged to have shot himself in a wood; if he can state the type of bullet extracted from his body and also the types of revolvers used by Hill and the police officers; and what revolver the bullet came from?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: An inquest was held on 31st May and was reported in the Press on 1st June. Evidence was given to the effect that Hill when discovered was holding a pistol to his head and fired it before he could be arrested. The bullet passed through his head and was not recovered. I have ascertained that the pistol used by Hill was a.38 Colt auto-
  2072
  matic; and that the only police officers at the scene who were armed were carrying.45 Service Webley revolvers. The coroner's jury after an inquiry conducted in the manner prescribed by law returned a verdict of felo de se, and I know of no ground for questioning this finding.

  IRELAND.
  Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. McGOVERN)asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Government are prepared to consider the ending of the dispute between the Irish Free State and this country on the basis of a united Ireland under one Parliament?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The position of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in this matter has been set out in paragraph 4 of my despatch of the 9th April, 1932, to the Minister for External Affairs of the Irish Free State (published in Cmd. 4056) as supplemented by the reply which I gave in Parliament to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) on the 15th April, 1932. I have nothing to add to those statements.
  Mr. MAXTON: May I ask if that is the right hon. Gentleman's last word on the subject?
  Mr. THOMAS: There can be no last word, but, if my hon. Friend means that either this Government or any other Government would coerce Ulster into an agreement against their will, he does not understand the position.
  Mr. RONALD ROSS: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the liberty and the freedom of the people of Northern Ireland cannot form part of any bargain?
  Mr. HEALY: Did not Mr. de Valera make clear to the right hon. Gentleman during the discussions that he could secure the friendship of the Irish people by abolishing partition and setting up one Parliament for the Irish nation?
  Mr. THOMAS: The Treaty provided for agreement on condition that both sides were willing to come to terms. No one knows better than the hon. Member that recent events in Southern Ireland are not calculated, to put it no higher, to inspire Northern Ireland to enter into any agreement.
  Mr. R. ROSS: Are we not supposed to have bought the friendship of the Irish Free State already by the Treaty?
  Mr. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Treaty has not been carried out by this Government—
  HON. MEMBERS: By the Free State.
  Mr. MAXTON: I recognise all the difficulties of the situation, but does not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman holds his present position offer an unrivalled opportunity for this country to go into the whole Irish problem in a new spirit?
  Mr. THOMAS: There is no Member of the Government who would not welcome a settlement, but we do not get a settlement by capitulating to terms which in the end would be more disastrous than the existing situation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. EDWARDS: May I ask the Lord President of the Council the business for next week.
Mr. BALDWIN: On Monday: Supply (13th Allotted Day), Committee, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Vote.
Tuesday: Supply (14th Allotted Day), Committee; but an agreement has been come to, to suit the convenience of the whole House, to enable a Motion to be put down in regard to the shipping industry, and the Debate will be on that subject on that day.
Wednesday: Second Reading of the Colonial Stock Bill; Report and Third Beading of the Shops Bill [Lords]; and Motion to approve the Amendment of the Hops Marketing Scheme, 1932.
Thursday: Supply (15th Allotted Day), Committee, Colonial Office.
The business for Friday will be announced later.
On any day, if there is time, other business will be taken.
Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the Lord President of the Council a question? I have not had an opportunity of giving him notice because the circumstances arose only in the last hour. With regard to Tuesday, the right hon. Gentleman knows that I am keenly interested, and
2074
my constituency is considerably involved, in the shipping industry. The Committee upstairs which is dealing with the Incitement to Disaffection Bill has decided to meet on that afternoon. I want to ask if the Lord President can do something to make it possible for hon. Members who are working on that Committee to be present when the shipping question is being discussed.
Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid the meetings of Committees upstairs have nothing at all to do with the Leader of the House. I would point out that if it be the fact, as I have no doubt it is, because the hon. Member says so, that the Committee will sit in the afternoon, the Debate on shipping will run to 11 o'clock and I doubt very much whether the Committee upstairs will sit as long as that.
Mr. MAXTON: I am really anxious to get something done in this matter. I do not know whether it affects any other Member of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are leader of a party!"] I am not laying stress on that point; but certainly I belong to a party which tries to do its work efficiently. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the important part of the Debate will be at the beginning, when the Ministerial statement will be made, and that is precisely the time at which the Committee have arranged to meet—at four o'clock. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for the arrangement of the business of Committees, but I am quite sure that, if he cared to meet a Member of the Opposition, some word from him to the Ministers who are responsible for that Measure could easily secure some readjustment.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I venture to support the appeal of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I have found myself in somewhat similar difficulties owing to my membership of the Joint Select Committee on India, and I cannot help thinking that the House is in some danger of depriving itself of assistance that it would wish to have by the simultaneous meeting of Committees and the House. I hope that my right hon. Friend, in view of the circumstances of this case, will feel that it is not beyond the scope of his authority to call the attention of the Chairman of the Committee to the circumstances and ask

2075
whether the Committee could not meet earlier in the afternoon and finish its sitting at 4 o'clock instead of beginning it then.
Mr. LAWSON: May I supplement the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton by saying that I think it can be accepted that there has been no undue prolongation of Debate in that Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I ask any hon. Member to look at the number of times we have met. There is a more important fact still, that on two occasions when it has not met one half of the Government Members were not present. The Committee has also been suspended on various occasions and has eventually adjourned. I really think the right hon. Gentleman might give this matter serious attention, because it really is not fair to ask us to meet in the afternoons.
Mr. PETHERICK: Will the right hon. Gentleman, who is asked to use his influence in that direction, very fully examine the case, and I think he will realise that that Committee have sat on a very large number of days and that it is a Bill which contains only four short Clauses?
Mr. REMER: With reference to the announcement of business and the statement that any other business may be taken, will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the point that the Silk Duties (No. 1) Order should not be taken without notice being given to those Members who are interested in that subject?
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 40.

Division No. 318.]

AYES.

[3.45 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Clarry, Reginald George

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Cobb, Sir Cyrll

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hales, Harold K.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Colman, N. C. D.

Hanbury, Cecil

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

Conant, R. J. E.

Hartington, Marquess of

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Cook, Thomas A.

Hartland, George A.

Atholl, Duchess of

Cooke, Douglas

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Baillie, Sir Adrlan W. M.

Cooper, A. Duff

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cranborne, Viscount

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Crooks, J. Smedley

Holdsworth, Herbert

Balniel, Lord

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

Hornby, Frank

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Cross, R. H.

Horsbrugh, Florence

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

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

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

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

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

Beit, Sir Alfred L.

Curry, A. C.

Hurd, Sir Percy

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Davison, Sir William Henry

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Dawson, Sir Philip

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

Bernays, Robert

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Jamieson, Douglas

Bossom, A. C

Denville, Alfred

Ker, J. Campbell

Boulton, W. W.

Dickie, John P.

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Doran, Edward

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Duckworth, George A. V

Knight, Holford

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Llonel

Knox, Sir Alfred

Brass, Captain Sir William

Duggan, Hubert John

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Broadbent, Colonel John

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

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Dunglass, Lord

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

Elmley, Viscount

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Lindsay, Noel Ker

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

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Llster, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

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

Burnett, John George

Everard, W. Lindsay

Loftus, Pierce C.

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Mabane, William

Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fox, Sir Gifford

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

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

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

Glossop, C. W. H.

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)

Goff, Sir Park

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

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

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Grimston, R. V.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Christie, James Archibald

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E

Martin, Thomas B.

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Stones, James

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Rea, Walter Russell

Strauss, Edward A.

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Remer, John R.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Milne, Charles

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Rickards, George William

Sutcliffe, Harold

Moreing, Adrian C.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Tate, Mavis Constance

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

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

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

Ross, Ronald D.

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

Moss, Captain H. J,

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

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

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Munro, Patrick

Runge, Norah Cecil

Train, John

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Tree, Ronald

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

North, Edward T.

Salmon, Sir Isldore

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

Nunn, William

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

O'Connor, Terence James

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

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

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

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

White, Henry Graham

Palmer, Francis Noel

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Patrick, Colin M.

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Peake, Osbert

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Pearson, William G.

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Wise, Alfred R.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Womersley, Sir Walter

Petherick, M

Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Potter, John

Somervell, Sir Donald

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

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

Radford, E. A.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

George Penny.

NOES.

Banfield, John William

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Batey, Joseph

Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

Maxton, James

Buchanan, George

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Milner, Major James

Cape, Thomas

Healy, Cahir

Owen, Major Goronwy

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Jenkins, Sir William

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cove, William G.

Kirkwood, David

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Lawson, John James

Tinker, John Joseph

Daggar, George

Leonard, William

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Logan, David Gilbert

West, F. R.

Dobbie, William

Lunn, William

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Edwards, Charles

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

McEntee, Valentine L

Wilmot, John

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Mainwaring, William Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Question put, and agreed to.

BILLS REPORTED.
  TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (STEYNING AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MILFORD HAVEN) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BURNHAM AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill,
Finance Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Renfrewshire County Council (Eastwood and Mearns) Water." [Renfrewshire County Council (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899 and 1933, relating to Dundee Corporation." [Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  RENFREWSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (EASTWOOD AND MEARNS) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 167.]
  DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 168.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Mr. Emmott and Lord Fermoy; and had appointed in substitution: Mr Lewis Jones and Mr. Soper.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Betting and Lotteries Bill [Lords]): Mr. McCorquodale; and had appointed in substitution: Viscountess Astor.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Consideration as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There are two Motions for the recommital of the Bill on the Order Paper. They both agree, not upon the same subject, but upon the same sort of subject, and I think it would be convenient if one Motion were made of them. I understand that the Movers, the hon. Members for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) are agreeable, and, if that be so, I shall put them as one Motion.
  3.56 p.m.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 11, page 6, line 29, standing on the Notice Paper in the names of Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. Leonard, and Mr. Kirkwood, and in respect of the Amendment in Clause 11, page 6, line 22, standing on the Notice Paper in the names of Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Maxton, and Mr. McGovern."
  The procedure of the House is, I understand, that only one Motion may be made at a time. With the permission of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and, in view of the fact that the Motion which he proposed to raise contained very largely the same point as in the Motion for recommittal on the Order Paper in my name, I can conveniently move both Motions as one. When the Bill was in the Scottish Standing; Committee we put down these Amendments in order that the matters mentioned in them might be included in the Bill in common with other disregards. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was good enough to say that he thought there was some point in them and that further consideration would be given to them, and he would endeavour upon the Report stage to give us information as to whether any of the Amendments could be accepted. Evidently it is impossible for technical reasons for those matters to be discussed upon the Report stage, inasmuch as they would entail a charge, and it has therefore been necessary for us to put down the Motion asking for the recommittal of the Bill in order that we may have an expression
  2088
  from the Scottish Office as to whether they have given consideration to the points, as they promised to do when the Bill was in the Scottish Grand Committee.
  3.58 p.m.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Allow me to thank you personally, Sir, for conveying to us your views on this matter, which I readily accept. I associate myself with the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). I trust that the Government will accept the principle that the Bill should be recommitted in order that they may indicate which of the proposals they are now prepared to accept.
  3.59 p.m.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I propose to accept the Motion for recommittal, and I am obliged for the manner in which it has been moved, because undoubtedly it facilitates business. Reconsideration of the four topics dealt with in the Amendments has shown me that there is only one of the Amendments, namely, the first, which I am able to accept. In accepting the Motion for recommittal, I gather that I do not imply that I accept all the Amendments.
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Sir HENRY CAUTLEY in the Chair.]

  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Outdoor relief to members of friendly societies, etc.)
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 22, at the end, to insert "or trade union."
    Mr. SKELTON: I wonder if I might make a suggestion? I do not know whether, in Committee, we might discuss the whole four Amendments on the Paper together, although, of course, if necessary, a separate Division could be taken on each one.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I understood from the Under-Secretary that he was going to accept the first Amendment. Could we not dispose of that, and then get on with the other Amendments?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: As I understand that the Under-Secretary is going to

    2089
    accept this Amendment, I will not prolong the proceedings except to say that I am glad the Government are accepting it. I do not think that anyone would wish to penalise a man who makes his trade union his friendly society, and, in so far as the Minister already accepts the trade union as a society for health insurance purposes, I cannot see any point for leaving it out here.
    M P. MACLEAN: In this Amendment an effort is made to correct an anomaly, namely, that workers who have made a certain class of friendly society their benefit society shall have a portion of their benefit disregarded, while others who have made another class of society their friendly society are to have the whole of their benefit assessed by the public assistance committees.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: It does not touch approved societies. It touches trade unions pure and simple. The reason we do not say "approved societies" is because one or two trade unions, for their own convenience, are not approved societies, and which, if we used those words, would be left out. It is right that they should be covered, and I use the term "trade union" because it covers every union which, in its wisdom, pays sickness benefit apart from State benefit.
    4.2 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: With a desire for brevity equal to that of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I will not "ay more than a few words. On the Committee stage I found that various investigations into a rather obscure region were necessary. Those investigations have convinced us that it is well to add trade unions, for the reason that there are a considerable number of trade unions which do pay sickness benefit, but which have not organised themselves as definite friendly societies. Those Members who were on the Committee will recollect that, generally, my object in dealing with this was to keep the Poor Law of England and Scotland more or less in line in the matter, so that where there was an Amendment it should be common to the two countries. Technically, I believe, the words "trade union" seem to break that rule, but in fact administratively I find there is a gap which is more easily covered in England. I am informed that, though it is impossible under the words
    2090
    of the Act, administratively it is the case that in some cases sick pay from a trade union is disregarded under the friendly society rule. I will not detain the Committee to give the reasons why, from an administrative point of view, it is not so easy in Scotland; but we think it better to lay down definitely that this shall include trade unions, for the reason that the administrative control of the central department over a local authority in some respects in Scotland is different. That is why we accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    4.5 p.m.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, at the end, to insert:
    "and
    (d) any maternity benefit."
    Mr. SKELTON: Will the hon. Member accept my proposal to have a general Debate on the three Amendments?
    Mr. MACLEAN: I will deal with the three Amendments together, and, if they are not going to be accepted, will take three Divisions. The Amendments in our names are for the purpose of disregarding in the assessment of Poor Law relief
    "any maternity benefit; any weekly payment by way of compensation under the enactments relating to workmen's compensation; and any pension under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and any other income by virtue of the provisions of that Act, or from any charity for the blind."
    With regard to maternity benefit, we consider that the Assistance Board under the Unemployment Act makes a disregard where the husband and wife have been working and each has qualified for what one might call a double maternity benefit. One of these is disregarded. We consider that in those circumstances we ought at least to make some disregard where there is only one maternity benefit, because any Member of this House who takes a live interest in his constituency—and I am certain that all Members do—will realise that in a great many cases where maternity benefit is being paid, the bulk of that benefit is paid away in fees to a doctor or in expenses to a nurse, and that the family derive no financial benefit. In a very large number of cases no individual, including the mother and the newly-born child, benefit from the actual payment of the maternity benefit. The entire sum, and sometimes more, goes in payment of

    2091
    the necessary expenses due to the birth of the child.
    We consider, therefore, that where this happens, a public assistance committee ought not to take into consideration the amount that is paid for maternity benefit where that sum has to be expended in the necessary expenses of their birth. There is justification for the Minister accepting, if not the disregard of the whole of the maternity benefit, at least a portion of it. We believe that we are on sound ground in that we have already agreed to disregard a certain amount of sick and other benefit coming into the house, and as this is a benefit where, in many cases, very little or none of the benefit can be looked upon as being expended in the ordinary necessary expenses of the household, but purely for the purpose for which that money is granted as a benefit, we trust that the Minister will consider, in some way at any rate, disregarding, if not all, at least some portion of the benefit.
    The next Amendment relates to the disregarding of
    "any weekly payment by way of compensation under the enactments relating to workmen's compensation."
    Not only on this Bill, but also when the Unemployment Bill was before the House, we were told that the main reason why the Government agreed to disregard a certain proportion of the benefits which were being paid to disabled ex-service men was that they had been wounded while serving their country in the late War. Because of the service they had given to the country, the Government felt justified in disregarding a certain amount, up to £1, of any wounds or disability pension which the ex-service men were taking from the Ministry of Pensions. We submit that it is not merely when fighting in wars abroad that service is being given to the country. It is now recognised by various Acts which have been passed, not merely by this Government but by previous Governments, that the working classes of this country who are producing and distributing wealth, are also engaged in the service of their country, and if one of these individuals who is working either in a mine or shipyard, or following any other occupation, no matter what it may be, is injured in the course of his employment and unable to
    2092
    follow his occupation for a period of time, and receives on account of his injuries, compensation up to a certain sum, then we contend that that individual is just as much entitled to receive consideration on the part of the Government, and have a certain amount of his pension disregarded, as in the case of the ex-service man who was wounded when fighting in the Great War. Consequently, we add that particular class of individual to those whom we desire to see having part, at least, of the sum he receives, disregarded when being assessed by a public assistance committee.
    The last point to which I wish to address myself is that in the third Amendment which proposes to disregard
    "any pension under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and any other income by virtue of the provisions of "that Act, or from any charity for the blind."
    I submit that on this question, whatever one's views may be about the other two categories included in the two previous Amendments, at least there must be general sympathy from every part of the Committee. We ask that blind persons, even if there may be only a few, who find themselves compelled from time to time to seek assistance from a public assistance committee, if they are in receipt of a blind person's pension or some charitable donation, either weekly or at periods which are not consecutive, shall have the amount of assistance which they are thus receiving disregarded in the same way as the ex-service man who has up to £1 of his wounds or disability pension disregarded for assessment for public benefit. As a matter of fact, some of these ex-service men are in receipt of pensions because, through shock or explosion, they have lost their sight. The House and the Government are agreeing to disregard up to £1 of the pension in such cases, and we consider that there ought to be, in the same way, some disregard of the amount received by the ordinary blind person, who may have been born blind, or may have become blind as a result of his employment or of sickness or shock suffered otherwise than in war.
    The Minister has accepted the previous Amendment, as we hoped he would, because the Bill as it was first drafted shut out one class of friendly society, and made possible a rather remarkable

    2093
    anomaly where one individual had made his trade union his friendly society, while another individual, living close beside him, had joined one of the ordinary friendly societies. In the one case the amount was disregarded, and in the other case it was not. The Minister, in settling that point, has removed what would have been a harsh anomaly affecting a number of people in working-class areas. I suggest that, if he does not accept, either wholly or in part, the three Amendments which we are now discussing, he will again find that anomalies will arise, which those who suffer from them will consider to be harsh and unjustifiable, owing to the fact that, while others are in receipt of a higher rate of public assistance because amounts which they receive in respect of certain things from which they suffer are disregarded, they, who suffer just as much but from different causes, are not haying any of the sums that they receive on account of their suffering disregarded by the public assistance committee. I trust, therefore, that the Government will give very serious consideration to this matter, and will agree to disregard at least some portion of the sums received by people in the three categories I have mentioned.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I understand that, before I came into the Chair, it was arranged that the three Amendments of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) should be discussed together, the hon. Member having the right, if he so desires, to take Divisions on them separately.
    4.19 p.m.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I desire to support the appeal which the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has made in connection with his three Amendments. Up to now the Under-Secretary and the other Ministers who have been assisting him have met us in a fairly friendly and reasonable manner on a number of Amendments which we have moved, and I may add that, if the same spirit of reason and concession were shown by all sections of the Government, there might be an argument for continuing to have a National Government instead of a party Government. With regard to maternity benefit, I do not think that any Member of the House would attempt to argue that the hon. Member's Amendment is in any way unreasonable. The
    2094
    maternity grant of 40s. is given, generally speaking, to a class of people who have very poor incomes, and at that time there are medical fees to be paid and, as a rule, the expense of nurses and outside help, and a great deal more money is required to keep even a working-class home running at that period than at any ordinary period. Anyone who comes in contact with working-class life will know that in many such homes people not only fail to meet their expenses at that time, but have to run into debt, and, therefore, I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to see if it is possible to disregard the whole of the maternity benefit, in order to give a little ray of sunshine, comfort and assurance to the woman and to the home at that very difficult period.
    As regards compensation, the hon. Gentleman may not find himself able to disregard the whole of the compensation coming into the home, because there is a divergence of opinion on all local authorities, even those where working-class people are in control, as to the amount of compensation that should be disregarded; but I think it would be reasonable to expect that, as the hon. Member for Govan has argued in connection with War Pensions, at least 50 per cent. of the compensation should be disregarded, as is done under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think we might reasonably ask the Government to make that concession without their considering our demand too extreme. It might be argued that there are different types of cases, but we know that in a large number of cases special expenditure is necessary at such a time. Many men are very badly injured, and have to have special treatment; and, after all, the compensation is given as a right, as a sort of solatium to the man because he has been injured in the course of his employment. Therefore, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to see if it is not possible to disregard at least 50 per cent. of such compensation, as is the case under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
    Blind persons are in a different category altogether. The ordinary blind man or woman who receives a pension of 10s. a week has that amount supplemented by various local authorities. In Glasgow, I think, it is made up to £1, and in a large number of areas it is made up to 15s. a week. One knows that there are many items of extra expenditure in the

    2095
    home of a blind person, such as payments to boys and girls for running messages and payments for conducting the blind person through the streets, which have to be incurred because the blind person is denied that greatest gift to man, the power of sight. The total number of cases is not tremendously large, and I think that, apart from party ideas, any man or woman in this House would be prepared, as regards the maternity grant and the blind person, to concede anything in reason. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give serious consideration to this question of blind persons, and see whether it is not possible to accept the Amendment. Already £1 a week is disregarded in the case of an ordinary able-bodied person with all his faculties, and it must be realised that the blind person is certainly in a much worse plight. On these general grounds I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to grant what the hon. Member for Govan has asked, because I think it is extremely reasonable.
    4.27 p.m.
    Commander COCHRANE: Both the hon. Members who have spoken have been more emphatic in their remarks with regard to blind persons than on either of the other points raised by these Amendments. I recognise to the full the purpose that they have in view, but I suggest to the Committee that to accept this proposal would be to proceed on wrong lines. Hon. Members will recollect that at the present time, when anyone who is in receipt of a blind person's pension reaches the age at which he might receive the old age pension, he becomes in fact worse off than he was before, owing to what appears to be a defect in the Act. That is a case which clearly calls for a revision of the Act, and I believe that the only satisfactory way to deal with this problem of blind poor persons is to take them off the Poor Law and deal with them in a special class, as blind persons, by a special pension scheme. If, however, the present proposal of the hon. Member were to be adopted, it would have the effect of anchoring blind persons more firmly to the Poor Law, and obviously, when a new Measure was brought in, it would be said that, since special exemption was given to blind persons already under the Poor Law, it would be unnecessary to do anything else, For that reason I feel
    2096
    that I cannot support this present Amendment, although I am in whole-hearted sympathy with the idea that blind people should receive from the State whatever is necessary to enable them to maintain themselves in reasonable comfort.
    4.28 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane) has started on the same lines on which the Under-Secretary made himself famous when the Bill was before the Committee. Whenever the hon. Gentleman opposed any of our Amendments, he informed the Committee that, if he were to accept the Amendment, it would not have the effect that the Movers of it desired. That is tantamount to what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire. Evidently he is an apt pupil of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and it is about time that he was setting up house for himself, instead of following in the footsteps of the Under-Secretary. He says that he would have supported the Amendment if we were going to treat blind persons in a special class outside the Poor Law, but we have not the choice. If there were a choice here, it would be a different matter, but we have no choice; there is no alternative method. No one knows better than the hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire that the Government are eternally telling us that they have not time to bring in any fresh legislation, and, as his suggestion would mean fresh legislation, it would simply mean putting the matter off. We desire all the Scottish Members of the House, in particular, to face up to this problem and support us, because, when we are talking with them apart from our official capacity, they always support us on all these proposals that we are bringing forward. They sympathise with the blind, but it is not sympathy that we want. Here is an opportunity for Scottish Members, irrespective of their political point of view, to put their sympathy into practice.
    I hope the Under-Secretary is not going to resist the Amendment, but if he does, and we are forced to divide, I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends will not go into the Lobby against us. We are far too generous about this idea of saving the time of the House, The House never saves any

    2097
    time of ours, and we get no concession. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) made an appeal to-day for common courtesy from the Lord President of the Council, but he got no concession whatever. I hope Scottish Members will stand up for Scotland against all comers. The man in the street who does not know the politicians in here would not believe that we have to stand here on every occasion when this question arises and appeal on behalf of the mothers of the poor. Here is something which the Scottish Office could easily do without them damaging their reputation. It would enhance their reputation if they accepted these Amendments and played the part that they would like to play, though it calls for a little courage.
    I do not like this idea that is trotted out every time we bring something out, that it has to be in line with England. Why should it be in line with England? Do you think we are going to follow the English? Evidently, because we have had certain concessions in Scottish Bills which were not in line with English Bills, the Secretary of State has got into trouble with the Cabinet. I think it is very wrong. The Scottish Office ought to stand on their dignity. We shall have to get a fair do, and we are not getting a fair do. The Under-Secretary again to-day resisted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), because it would not conform to what is going on in England. The thing is ridiculous. We are not going to be trailed at the heels of England. This is a Scottish Measure, and we ought to get what we can prove is compatible with what is right and just for Scotland irrespective of England. We have nothing to do with England. We are a distinct race, We have a distinct code of laws. We have our own Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State is a Cabinet in himself. [Interruption.] There are some Members who have been here for some time. One of them got a knighthood for being secretary to Sir Hamar Greenwood, and he is behaving like a jackass.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must withdraw that remark.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: If you say so, Sir, I will. The Secretary of State is a Cabinet in himself. He is the Minister
    2098
    of Agriculture and the Minister of Fisheries—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to argue that the fact that these Amendments, if accepted, would not conform to the law of England is not a reason why they should not be accepted for Scotland, but he is now developing his argument into the exact constitutional position of Scotland.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I only wanted to show hon. Members, whom it was your duty, Sir, to keep in order, that there is nothing outrageous in what I was saying. It is not I. I have to deal with the material that is at my hands—this Committee—and to give them a little information. If I had an intelligent audience I should not need to come under your lash. That is my misfortune. We have no right to be trammelled by what England has done or is going to do. It is what Scotland is going to do that we are discussing, and the effect that this is going to have on the Scottish people. I resent the Under-Secretary resisting my hon. Friend's Amendment.
    Mr. SKELTON: I think the hon. Member is rather anticipating the remarks that I am going to make. It seems rather unnecessary to assume my argument in advance.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The House will judge whether my statement is correct or not. The hon. Gentleman said that the difficulty was that, while this worked out of England, that was not to say that it would work out in Scotland.
    Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Member is extending my words beyond my meaning. I will deal with it in my reply.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Our next Amendment deals with maternity. The Bill will affect the very poorest in the country, who have no one to look after their interests except us. There are philanthropic organisations and missionaries and people who do work of that kind who can speak of the awful state of poverty and degradation. They try to ease the burden, but they do not touch the fringes of it. Charity does not touch the fringes of the problem. In this glorious age of abundance of everything that man requires to lead an intelligent and happy life, the death rate from maternity, particularly among this class, is as severe

    2099
    to-day as it was 50 years ago. It is true that we have made great headway and that the death-rate has been reduced among that class of the community who have been able to have the benefit of the application of science at childbirth, but among the section of the community with whom we are now dealing the death-rate is as savage, cruel, callous and prevalent as it was 50 years ago. The Secretary of State for Scotland is the Minister of Health for Scotland, and he is responsible in this matter. The office of Secretary of State for Scotland is the highest honour that Scotland can confer on one of its sons, but along with that high honour comes great responsibility. I say to him in his presence and in the presence of his officers that the responsibility in this matter is his. We have come forward to offer the Secretary of State for Scotland a way whereby he may be able to mitigate the terrible tragedy which is being enacted in our midst. We ask him to give us this concession and then we will not divide the Committee, but I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), that unless we are given the concessions dealt with in the Amendments we shall divide the Committee on three separate occasions.
    4.47 p.m.
    Mr. JAMES REID: I cannot help thinking that there must be some misunderstanding about these Amendments. Everybody on both sides of the Committee is fully agreed that in the case of maternity the family or the woman requires for the time being more than the normal weekly amount which would be payable if she were in ordinary health. With regard to the provision contained in the second Amendment, I have some difficulty in framing in my mind a case in which such circumstances could arise. Everybody in the industrial sphere now goes to Part II of the Unemployment Scheme, and I have some difficulty in seeing how a man drawing workmen's compensation can fall under the Poor Law at all. There may be a few cases.
    Mr. McGOVERN: We are dealing with people who have gone on to the Poor Law, who may not be able-bodied, who, therefore, are in a different category altogether, and who will be dealt with if the family income justifies it.
    Mr. REID: I agree that there is a point there. I would remind the hon. Member that these people receive sick pay of 5s. at least over and above the normal amount. I think every body will agree that blind persons must have more than the normal income of the ordinary pauper in possession of his full faculties. These Amendments have been drawn up on the assumption that there exists in Scotland to-day a hard and fast uniform scale which will be applied by the authority to every person irrespective of whether he is blind or not and to every woman whether it be at the time of childbirth or otherwise. If there were any evidence that local authorities in Scotland apply a hard and fast scale irrespective of circumstances, I should be inclined to support these Amendments, because it would plainly be a wrong method of administering the law. On the other hand—whether it be observed in all areas I do not know—the law is that the relieving authority has to consider the whole circumstances of every applicant. Nine out of 10 cases are so similar in their circumstances that what is in effect a fiat rate is applied to them. When they come to the tenth case, the woman at the time of childbirth and the blind person and so on, it is the duty of the authority to apply a different measure than they would apply to the ordinary person. If there were any evidence—and I have never heard of it—that in any area everybody is treated alike, whether blind or not, whether there are special circumstances or whether it is at the time of childbirth or not, there might have been a case for these Amendments. If, as I believe, local authorities make allowances for cases of childbirth and for poor people the position is already met. Surely, hon. Members opposite do not mean that a woman at the time of childbirth shall get the normal rate and then the addition which the local authority makes to the normal rate in respect of the circumstances of childbirth, and over and above that the maternity benefit. That, in effect, would mean that the special circumstances were taken into account twice over, and I am sure that nobody would put such a case.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Deal with the special rate.
    Mr. REID: I understand that it is the duty of the local authority in a case where

    2101
    a person has a special need, as in the case of a blind person, to give more by way of relief than would be given to an ordinary able-bodied man. I do not know whether all authorities do that, but they certainly ought to do so.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Some of them do that. Take the Glasgow Public Assistance Authority. They do not give any increase during the period of maternity, and I think it would be true to say that they disregard the 40s.
    Mr. REID: They assess the extra need owing to the circumstances of childbirth at 40s. That is their assumption. It may be a right assumption or a wrong one.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The woman does not get that sum; it goes to the doctor and the nurse.
    Mr. REID: No doubt. The whole point seems to be that for a certain period there is an additional need in the family because the doctor and others have to be paid, and it is for the public assistance authority to fix the additional need for the period. I understand from the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that in his area the public authority take the view that the additional need should be fixed at 40s., and that 40s. in effect comes into the family in addition to the normal Poor Law allowance.
    Mr. McGOVERN: The hon. Member is getting it all wrong. I want to make sure that he is not putting up a case of his own and knocking it down again. We are dealing with realities. In Glasgow they give, in most cases, 2s. a week to the woman for the whole period of maternity and during that period she receives 40s. maternity grant. It is true that they also give an extra 2s. in respect of a child under 12 months.
    Mr. REID: Let us suppose that for the period before childbirth occurs the amount goes up to 22s. and that after the birth of the child it will probably go up to 24s. In addition to that sum coming into the family there is also the sum of 40s., and the local authority take the view that the sum of 40s. is to meet additional expense incurred during the relatively short period of childbirth. If that is to be disregarded and if the local authority agree that the right sum is 40s., is it the intention, if the Amendment be
    2102
    carried, that 80s. should come into the family?
    Mr. MACLEAN: No. I am sorry the hon. Member has got himself into difficulties because of the way in which the three Amendments are being moved. We wish the 40s. to be compulsorily disregarded because at the present time, although that money normally goes to the family, it is not actually paying for anything which the woman requires during the period, since the bulk of it, if not all of it, and sometimes more, is required to meet doctors' and nurses' fees. That is our point. The point the hon. Member is making is that the particular sum of 40s. is an additional income. We point out that it is not an additional income. It is set aside for additional expenditure in the household during that particular period. The hon. Member was regular in his attendance when the Bill was before the Standing Committee, and he will remember that the Under-Secretary made an admission that in spite of the fact that a provision in the Health Act of Scotland had been on the Statute Book for 10 years imposing a compulsory disregard on the part of local authorities of the 40s., many local authorities had refused to operate it thereby breaking the law. When we brought the case before the Scottish Office, it refused to put the law into operation and compel those recalcitrant local authorities to carry out the law of Scotland as it had been passed by this House. We want the Amendment made in this Poor Law Bill so that the local authorities will be compelled to act upon it and not leave it to voluntary agencies as is the case at present.
    Mr. REID: I agree that in the case to which the hon. Member refers there was some question of disregard of the law, but it is news to me that anybody should disregard not only the law, but humanity as positively to reduce the income of a poor woman at the time of childbirth. If the hon. Member wants to make certain that no addition to the 20s. which normally comes into the family shall be diminished at the time the 40s. is recovered, I doubt if there is a single area in Scotland where that has ever been disregarded at any time. It is extremely unlikely, certainly I have not heard of it. I am confining myself to finding out what is meant by the Amend-

    2103
    ment. The 20s. allowance is coming in every week and then for a certain time an additional 40s. comes in. I take it that the Amendment means that the 20s. allowance shall go on week by week and that the 40s. allowance shall be disregarded.
    Mr. MACLEAN: It means that the amount that is being paid in public assistance to the family continues to be paid, but where the woman is confined the 40s. received as maternity benefit is earmarked for the payment of expenses and ought not to be taken into consideration by the public assistance authorities in assessing the needs of the family for the succeeding weeks, and that there shall not be any reduction of the 20s. allowance.
    Mr. REID: I have not heard of any cases where there have been substantial reductions of the ordinary weekly grant following on the receipt of the 40s.
    Mr. MACLEAN: While there may not be, looking at the matter generally, what may be considered large reductions, it is certainly the fact that some authorities take into consideration the 40s. paid for a certain period and calculate it for the purpose of disallowing a small sum of 1s. or 2s. a week off the other weekly allowance. They say with respect to the 40s. "This is an additional sum coming in. Your assessment has been 20s. a week, but you are now getting an additional sum. Therefore, your needs are less and we shall reduce the amount that you receive by 1s. or 2s. a week." That is what we want to avoid.
    Mr. REID: It is important to get the matter put right. I would sum up my views in this way, that if there are cases in which there have been substantial reductions of the weekly payments, following on the receipt of the 40s. allowance, then there is a case either for this Amendment or at least for some alteration in administration. But I have not heard of such cases, and I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us from the experience of the Department whether they know of any cases where there have been substantial reductions of the ordinary normal weekly income by reason of the receipt of the 40s., that is, the 40s. being counted as income instead of being regarded as a sum appropriated for a special purpose, as I think it ought
    2104
    to be. If so, there is a case for such an Amendment. But if such cases are practically non-existent, then the Amendment is not required. Somewhat similar considerations apply to the other two Amendments. If the first Amendment is unnecessary, then a fortiori the other Amendments are unnecessary. I should like to have a statement from the Under-Secretary of the experience of the Department as to the administration of public authorities with regard to lowering the amount of relief.
    5.5 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: We are now dealing with Poor Law cases. Let us bear in mind that we are trying to bring the Poor Law somewhat into line with the provisions of the Unemployment Act. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. J. Reid) has given some thought and time to the question of unemployment insurance, and he knows that under the unemployment transitional payment scheme the Poor Law authority are the assessing authority until the new law operates. Under that law, to show that the Government themselves realise that the 40s. allowance has been taken into account and that they thought there was a danger of that being done again, under the Unemployment Bill they exempted the 40s. Before the Government took action of that kind they must have been faced with two considerations, either that that was being done or that there was a possibility of its being done.
    Mr. SKELTON: Surely there is a much simpler explanation, although it may not be the right one. In the Unemployment Act administration is to be under one unit for the whole country, and therefore it is highly desirable that you should have things in black and white to prevent local alteration. The point is that each locality shall assess things on its own lines and therefore there is nothing like the same necessity for a rigid rule.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The point that arises is that the Government found that the Poor Law authorities were taking the 40s. into account.
    Mr. SKELTON: There is nothing in the Unemployment Act to justify the proposition just laid down by the hon. Member.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In my opinion there is. I go further and say that in Scot-

    2105
    land now certain authorities have taken into account the allowance for maternity benefit in respect of certain people who are on transitional payment. We are now dealing with two classes, the residue left who are not covered by the Unemployment Act, the residue of the able-bodied, and we are also dealing with what we call the sick poor. I apply this argument to all the three Amendments and not merely to the question of maternity benefit. The residue left is estimated at 10 per cent. in Glasgow, and I think that figure will not be far wrong for the whole of Scotland. The man who is in insurance gets compulsorily two things, exemption in respect of maternity benefit and exemption in respect of 50 per cent. of workmen's compensation. What of the case of a mart who decides that he will take a risk and will not remain unemployed and he spends what funds he has, perhaps £100 or £200, in starting a business? He is doing something which every Member of this House is constantly applauding. What is there wrong in the man doing that? But when he has done it and he finds that he has lost his £100 or £200, and is broke, he is treated differently from the man who is in unemployment insurance, and who may have been unemployed for five or six years. Is there any justice in that? My complaint is that a man under the Unemployment Act may have been unemployed for six or seven years and he gets a 50 per cent. exemption for workmen's compensation and also exemption in respect of the £2 for maternity benefit, but the man who goes to America or elsewhere overseas, at the behest of the Government, the man who has more than £4 18s. a week, and the man who starts a little business of his own, get none of these benefits.
    Mr. SKELTON: It is not true that he does not get any of these benefits. The Poor Law authority have an option to grant them.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: By Statute one man may get them under unemployment insurance, but it is left to the good will or the bad will of a particular local authority to say whether the other man is to get the benefits. The Government have taken a certain view of this question in connection with unemployment insurance, but we have here a stronger case than under the Unemployment Act. Under
    2106
    that Act there is a National Board to regulate matters, but in these other cases it is left to the option of a good or a bad local authority. We have been told that local authorities cannot disregard these matters just as they like. I differ from that statement. We have Glasgow carrying out what the hon. Member says and Lanark refusing to do it. In my division we have the law being carried out but across in Rutherglen they do not do it. We have the maternity allowance of £2 being disregarded in Glasgow and just a short distance away, in Rutherglen, they take a reverse decision. Can anyone defend that? It cannot be justified that in certain cases the authorities are compelled to disregard these sums while in others it is left optional. It ought not to be left to the good nature or the bad nature of a local authority whether they shall penalise the man who has shown initiative and courage, but has been unsuccessful.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane) raised a point in regard to the blind persons. He is not a new Member, and, if I may say so with respect, he is not the least intelligent of Members. He knows Parliamentary procedure. We have opportunities now and again to do desirable things. We have an opportunity in respect of the blind. Goodness knows when we shall have an opportunity of reviewing the position again.
    Commander COCHRANE: I was not arguing with regard to Parliamentary convenience. My argument was addressed to the point that if you deal with this matter through the Poor Law then it will be said that the matter has been dealt with and there will be much less chance of dealing with it on a pension basis, as we should like to see.
    Mr. SKELTON: May I say, that so far as that matter is concerned it is already dealt with on a pension basis.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: That pension basis should be raised so as to save him being a charge on the Poor Law.
    Mr. SKELTON: In the great majority of cases the claims for the blind are so framed as to exclude them from going on the Poor Law.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: That is true in certain cases, but there is a residue of cases which are not covered. Why leave

    2107
    them out? We have now an opportunity of dealing with the blind and we think that the 10s. ought to be exempt. A blind person should be treated as if that 10s. was not there at all. All we are asking is that a blind person shall be 10s. better off than if he were not blind. That is not asking too much as some compensation for this terrible lack of every human joy. The only argument against our proposal is that local authorities are in the main doing these things and that it should be left to their discretion. No hon. Member has argued against the proposal, not even the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk, who has a capacity for meeting every argument. He does not say that we are asking too much. All he says is that any adjustment should be left to the local authority. There may have been some force in that argument in the old days when local authorities were much more separated than they are to-day. At the moment there is no difference between Glasgow and Lanarkshire, transport has made us practically the same community, the cheapness of travel has eliminated all the old small groups. Our experience leads us to ask for these concessions.
    It has been said that local authorities do not do these things. They do; that is our case. In some cases they went so far as to defy the law, and to the credit of the Under-Secretary he made them act up to the law. Our demand is that there shall be no difference between Dundee and Glasgow, or between Greenock and Edinburgh, or between a village in the north and a city in the south, but that all shall be treated alike in respect of three matters—namely, that the 40s. maternity benefit should be exempt, the blind person should be exempt, and workmen's compensation should be exempt. If it is impossible to exempt all workmen's compensation, then we suggest that it should be 50 per cent., as it is under the Unemployment Act. We ask that in these matters the whole of Scotland shall be treated alike, and that there shall be no difference in the treatment of able-bodied unemployed chargeable to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and able-bodied unemployed who, through no fault of their own, are chargeable to the Poor Law. There is no ground for any distinction, and we trust that the Secretary of State and the
    2108
    Under-Secretary of State, who have exercised common sense and tact, will accept in principle the three Amendments we have indicated.
    5.19 p.m.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I should like to say a word in support of the plea just entered by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), or at any rate with the greater part of it. I agree that one's view of these disregards must be largely determined by the view one takes of the provisions of the Unemployment Act. Some of us thought that there ought to be no distinction between different classes of the able-bodied unemployed, that the whole of the able-bodied unemployed should be brought under the same jurisdiction — namely, the Unemployment Assistance Board. That was not accepted. In his speech on the Second Reading Sir Henry Betterton did not endeavour to draw any moral distinction between one class of able-bodied unemployed and another, those who were within the Bill and those who were outside, he drew a line on grounds of administrative convenience. He used the word "frontier," and said that you must have a frontier somewhere, if you were going to have a Measure of the scope of the Unemployment Bill. The exclusion of a number of able-bodied unemployed from the scope of the Unemployment Act was simply due to reasons of administrative convenience. That being so, are there any grounds why there should not be the same disregards in each case, why the same disregards should not be inserted in this Bill as were inserted in the Unemployment Act?
    A rather extraordinary argument was advanced by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Reid), that we need not lay down these disregards because local authorities could be trusted to take special temporary needs into account and increase the determination accordingly. That argument could be used with equal validity against any disregards whatsoever, whether those in the Unemployment Act or the disregards in this Bill. The hon. Member could have used the same speech in regard to an Amendment on Clause 1.
    Mr. J. REID: Surely it depends on what has happened in the past? One knows that local authorities have taken different views about other disregards, but I am unaware that local authorities have

    2109
    had any substantial difference of opinion amongst themselves about this particular matter, and it is on that line that the Amendment seems to be rather unnecessary.
    Mr. FOOT: If local authorities can be trusted in one direction they can be trusted in another. The argument of the hon. Member was that local authorities had a discretion and could be trusted to exercise that discretion, as they have done in the case of maternity benefit, and that it would be the same in the case of disability pensions, or any of the other disregards under this Bill or the Unemployment Act. It is precisely because we believe there is a great disparity and that some local authorities are not to be trusted in these matters that we have had to insert the disregards in this Bill and in the Unemployment Act. It was for this reason also that there had to be rushed through the House an emergency Measure in order to impose certain disregards on local authorities, because of the indignation which was aroused in all parts of the country owing to the operation of the means test.
    Mr. SKELTON: What compulsory disregards were imposed on local authorities then? I am not sure to what the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. FOOT: I think the Title of the Bill was Transitional Payments (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
    Mr. SKELTON: All the provisions of that Measure in regard to local authorities are optional only.
    Mr. FOOT: I know that we imposed a disregard with regard to transitional payments. We found that it was impossible to trust local authorities because they were too harsh, and a Bill had to be rushed through the House. In connection with the transitional class and the means test applied to them we found that it was necessary to give directions to local authorities, and there is no reason why we should not give directions in this case; there is no reason why we should not give the same directions for the Poor Law as we have thought fit to give in the Unemployment Act. The hon. Member for Stirling, referring to workmen's compensation, said that there would be few cases of people coming under the Poor Law, he was doubtful whether there would be any, who would be drawing
    2110
    workmen's compensation. I do not entirely agree with him. I agree that there will not be many cases of people drawing workmen's compensation because they will be persons in insurable employment, but one of the conditions which has to be satisfied before a man comes under Part II of the Unemployment Act is that he is capable of and available for work. If the disability in respect of which he is receiving workmen's compensation is substantial, surely it will be rather difficult for him to get within that last condition and come within Part II of the Unemployment Act. There may not be many cases, but I suggest that there will be a certain number of people drawing Poor Law relief who will be in receipt of workmen's compensation. I do not think there is any justification for giving more under the Poor Law then under Part II of the Unemployment Act, and I ask the Minister, in view of the fact that only a few persons are likely to be affected, whether it is not possible to give a concession to these few people and disregard half the workmen's compensation, as is done under Part II of the Unemployment Act.
    5.29 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: The Committee will agree that we have had an interesting Debate. I am glad that the Bill has been re-committed because it has enabled me to make a concession with regard to the trade unions, and it also enables me to be able to reconsider the question with regard to the blind without having to ride off on a technical objection, which is the last thing I desire to do. A great deal has been said on all these points. I do not think that any of the arguments put forward in support of these alterations have not been in the minds of the Government during our reconsideration of the matter. Let me deal first with the general proposition underlying the arguments of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The hon. Member for Gorbals says that these three proposals should be accepted, because otherwise, with the Unemployment Bill recently passed, the treatment for one set of able-bodied persons would be different from that for another set. If that be so, it is a result of the Bill which the House has already approved. It would be hopeless to try in particular instances to counteract a decision that

    2111
    the House has come to in the matter, namely, that the great bulk of able-bodied should be under the Unemployment Assistance Board. Even if we tried to equalise the position of the two categories, with regard to what should be disregarded, we could never overcome the fact that public assistance will be given in accordance with the view of the local authorities in the different areas, whereas in the other case it will be given under the Unemployment Assistance Board.
    But, generally, I could not accept the proposition that we are to make this Bill an opportunity of running counter to the principles which have been adopted in another Bill. I say that, not to ride off from or to avert discussion of the merits of the proposal. I do not think my hon. Friend helped his case very much by referring to the 7s. 6d. That was a case in which the disregard was actually in a Statute. Despite the statutory provision my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself found ourselves faced with the fact that there were cases in Scotland in which what was written clearly in the Statute was not regarded. Let me come to the third proposition, with which I cannot agree. I am glad that certain hon. Members have been kind enough to refer to the fact that the Government, through myself, have made certain concessions and showed a certain amount of tact, because here is a case in which we cannot give a concession. I hope that those who are interested will feel that, although I am refusing this concession, I have tried to apply as impartial a judgment to the matter as I did in the case where I gave concessions.
    First of all with regard to blind persons. The Committee perhaps has not kept fully in view the law with regard to blind persons. There has been in operation since 1920 the Blind Persons Act, which gives a pension of 10s. at the age of 50 to persons who are certified to be blind for the purposes of the Act. But that is not the whole of the Act. Another provision is that local authorities have the duty of framing schemes for the welfare of the blind. That is the part of the Act that is important in our discussions to-day. Under that provision every local authority in Scotland has to frame a scheme. When the Local Government Act of 1929 came into operation there was a provision
    2112
    whereby such schemes and such assistance would be taken out of the Poor Law and put into other categories of assistance. All local authorities in Scotland, with the exception of two, have now taken the scheme for the welfare of the blind out of the Poor Law altogether. If I were a blind person and needed public assistance, whether I was under or over 50, I could go, not to the public assistance committee, but to the Blind Persons Act scheme, and there I would get assistance. I would find that one of the provisions of the scheme was that the amount of the assistance that I would get would be more than the public assistance. In most cases the figure exceeds amounts of public assistance by 5s. a week. Therefore, in the case of every authority except two provision has been made whereby assistance to destitute blind people is not given by way of the public assistance committee but is given under the Blind Persons Act, so carrying out a principle which was in the mind of the House when it passed the Local Government Act, 1929.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: Is that payment disregarded by the public assistance committee?
    Mr. SKELTON: It is a greater payment than a person would get who went to the public assistance committee.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Take the case of a father of a family who has become qualified under the Blind Persons Act. He will get a blind person's pension only if he is wholly incapable of work. That is the decision of the Department. But suppose he has a son who is idle and is no longer entitled to standard benefit, but is an applicant for transitional payment. Will not the pension payable to the father be taken into account by the local authority in assessing the amount of the payment to the father?
    Mr. SKELTON: What I am talking of is the method of giving assistance to persons who are blind within the meaning of the Blind Persons Act. It is a very complicated topic and I cannot deal with it unless I am free from interruption. In the case of every local authority in Scotland there is a scheme under that Act which provides for assistance to be given to blind persons who are destitute. That is quite apart from their coming to the pensionable age. It is a method by which the welfare of the blind is carried out.

    2113
    In every one of these schemes, except two, the assistance given to destitute blind persons is not given as what is called public assistance. The blind persons do not go on the poor roll at all. Assistance is given to them under a special scheme framed by the local authority and approved by the Scottish Office. The advantage there is that they are not put on the Poor Vote and are not among the paupers. The Poor Law to that extent has been broken up. But these schemes do not say that the assistance under the blind persons scheme should be the same as the blind persons would get from the public assistance Committee. The average excess which they get is 5s. a week. So that under the present law the advantage is that assistance to blind people is not under the Poor Law at all.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Do these schemes cover all the blind? We know from experience that a large number of blind are chargeable to the Poor Law.
    Mr. SKELTON: I am dealing with the third Amendment, which seeks to insert the words, "Any pension under the Blind Persons Act, 1920," and it asks that it be disregarded. There are, of course, people whose eyes are affected, but—
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I must put my experience against that of the Under-Secretary. My experience is that in Glasgow a fair number of people who are definitely blind are chargeable to the Poor Law.
    Mr. SKELTON: To get the advantages of the Blind Persons Act, which is referred to in the Amendment, the persons with affected eyes have to pass a test. They have to be certified as blind for the purposes of the Act. I am referring only to people under that Act. My hon. Friend states a fact of which I am well aware, that it does seem to some of us that the test applied for defective eyesight to bring a person within the compass of the Blind Persons Act is a very strict one. I am constantly questioned as to whether a particular person ought not to be under the Blind Persons Act although the oculist states that he is not blind enough. The main people that the Amendment can affect are the people under the Blind Persons Act, and it is about them that I am speaking.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The Amendment is not confined to persons under the Blind
    2114
    Persons Act. It refers also to those who have an income, "from any charity for the blind."
    Mr. SKELTON: For the present I am dealing with the first part of the Amendment, which relates to the Blind Persons Act. That is the main thing. In the great majority of cases these persons are not under the Poor Law at all.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: We agree with everything the Under-Secretary says, that the blind person gets 5s. a week more, and it is that 5s. that we want to safeguard. It is when that 5s. comes into the home that it comes under the means test, and we want that 5s. to be disregarded for the purposes of the means test.
    Mr. SKELTON: That is the point with which I am trying to deal, if my hon. Friends would only have a little patience with me and if they would not think that I am trying to get round the problem. I have said three times already that wherever there is a scheme such as I have described, the destitute blind person does not come before the public assistance authority at all.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: But his income does and that is what we are concerned with.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The blind person who is receiving a pension may not be the person who is receiving relief, but he may be a member of the family and his pension or the amount which he is receiving from some charity in respect of his blindness, would be taken into account by the public assistance authority in assessing the income of the head of the family who was under public assistance.
    Mr. SKELTON: I have tried to deal with that point, but, not unnaturally I suppose, there has been a certain amount of intervention on the part of hon. Members opposite and my progress along the path of explaining this very complicated matter has been necessarily disturbed.
    Mr. MILNE: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point—
    Mr. SKELTON: I have hardly reached it yet.
    Mr. MILNE: I merely wished to ask what is the position with regard to the excepted districts of which he spoke.
    Mr. SKELTON: May I deal with one thing at a time? Will those who are interested in this matter please keep in mind that the law has already decided to keep blind persons who come within the meaning of the Act outside the ambit of the public assistance committee, and the way in which that has been done is to say to the blind person, "We will give you not through the public assistance committee but by other machinery, not merely the amount which you would have got if we allowed you to remain under public assistance, but an extra sum." In the majority of cases that extra sum is 5s.
    Mr. MACLEAN: But not in all.
    Mr. SKELTON: Where these schemes are in operation, the blind person never goes under the Poor Law.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: But his income in the home does.
    Mr. SKELTON: I am dealing first with the blind person himself. Now let me take his family. Take the case of the blind man with a dependent family, still recalling the fact that where the family is dependent they do not themselves apply for relief. They apply through the father or the head of the house. When he proceeds to apply for relief, he is told "You do not come under poor relief; we have a scheme for blind persons." That is equally true, whether the man is applying on his own behalf or on behalf of dependants. What happens under these schemes is that if in addition to the blind man himself, there are dependant children—
    Mr. McGOVERN: The person who applies on behalf of dependent children is the father, whether he is blind or not. The application can only be from him.
    Mr. SKELTON: But that is exactly what I have said. I do not know why hon. Members appear to be so suspicious of what I say.
    Mr. McGOVERN: No, I am not suspicious.
    Mr. SKELTON: I am trying to explain how this man comes into a different region of assistance, and it is a point which has never been, so far as I know, put fully in the House of Commons since the passing of the 1929 Act. I am asking hon. Members to consider the case of the
    2116
    blind father with dependent children, holding in mind firmly all the time that where there is a scheme such as I have described, the man, whether he is applying for himself or for his dependent children, does not go to the Poor Law but to the scheme. The dependent children are not separate entities for the purposes of relief. They are represented by him and in every area where there is a scheme such as I have described, and that is in every area except two, the relief given to the destitute blind father and the dependent children would not be the amount that they would get if they were under poor relief, but 5s. more. That applies equally, whether it is relief only for the blind man himself or whether it is for the blind man with dependent children. The dependent children are, so to speak, part of the man himself for the purposes of relief, and the blind man is relieved, not by the Poor Law authority but by the machinery of these schemes under the Blind Persons Act. That deals with the main question, namely, the question of the persons who come under that Act, and it would be a retrograde step so far as that Act is concerned to accept the Amendment. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne) asked me about the two areas which are still technically under the Poor Law.
    Mr. MILNE: The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that in two districts no schemes were in force.
    Mr. SKELTON: I think I have stated the hon. Member's question correctly. There is no reason why these districts should not be named, but I would prefer not to name them at present. The fact is that there are two counties in Scotland under whose schemes, blind persons although given certain additional benefits, have not been separated from the Poor Law. I propose to take the matter up with these two authorities. It is only a technical matter and I propose to ask them to come into line with the rest of Scotland and to make their schemes separate from the Poor Law. The point as to any other income I think I have dealt with by implication in what I have said already, and there is also the point as to income from any charity for the blind. I do not want to lay down by statute that any amount of income given to a needy blind person by a charity is to be excepted. I do not think that

    2117
    would be sound, and I do not think that there would be any failure to disregard a certain proportion of that amount. In fact the Amendment in that respect would be of very small avail. The number of persons who are so blind as to be in receipt of charity and yet not blind enough to come within the provisions of the Blind Persons Act is very small, and I do not propose to legislate specially about them.
    Then, in regard to the question of the disregard of workmen's compensation payments, I must recall to the Committee that the law in Scotland at present is, that it is optional on local authorities to disregard a part of workmen's compensation payments. This point has been touched upon by more than one hon. Member and most forcibly of all by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who said that we must not leave these things to the option of the local authorities. I cannot accept that view. The ultimate deduction from the arguments put forward by hon. Members is that in these modern days, with improved facilities for transport and so forth, there is no need to have separate authorities for Poor Law purposes at all, and that the tendencies of modern life will lead us some day to have the Poor Law managed not by localities but by the nation.
    Mr. McGOVERN: The corporate State.
    Mr. SKELTON: That may be the case, but that day has not yet arrived, and I am not going to legislate on the assumption that it has arrived. This Bill does not suggest taking the administration out of the hands of the local authorities. When the Poor Law is being administered by the local authorities, then unless there are very strong grounds to the contrary—such as we see in the case of the first pound of disability pension—then, in our view, those disregards should be left optional. I ask the Committee to mark the disregards which exist. First there is the 7s. 6d., which was an old standing disregard, and which hon. Members opposite suggest has been itself disregarded. We have put that into the Poor Law in order that one avenue of excuse might be closed. Next there is the 5s. of friendly society benefit, a disregard which the poor in England already enjoyed. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) seemed to be very anxious in case I should
    2118
    be failing Scotland, in comparison with England, but I do not think he can object to bringing up the standard of these disregards in Scotland to what is has been for a long time in England. The other exception to the general rule that where you have local control, there should be local power to decide these matters is the question of the first pound of war pension. We have discussed that question in Committee, and I think very good reasons were given for accepting it.
    Therefore with regard to the proposal that we should make it compulsory on local authorities to disregard workmen's compensation, I say that that would cut into the principle which I have just enunciated and I could not accept it. I would ask the Committee to allow the law to remain as it is at present, giving the local authorities power, if they so desire, to disregard part of the workmen's compensation payments. There remains the question of maternity benefit as to which certain different considerations arise. The Committee will observe that it has not been categorically stated by any hon. Member that any local authority fails to disregard maternity benefit, and my information and my experience go to show that we have not had a single case of appeal against inadequate relief on the ground of maternity benefit having been taken into consideration.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Because there is no use in it.
    Mr. SKELTON: I think the hon. Member speaks too soon. What is the duty of the local authority? It is to assess need and, clearly, the days or weeks immediately surrounding the period of childbirth have a special need of their own.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: But the hon. Gentleman said that there had been no appeals and I want to show that that is not a correct argument. People do not know that they are getting the 40s. until they actually get it from the approved society. That sum is paid when the child is born. If there is an appeal and the appeal is successful no back money is paid. The fact is, that under the law as it stands and under this Bill, there will be no use in appeal because you cannot enforce the payment of back money. There have been many cases in Glasgow where 30s. or £1 have been taken, and there is no

    2119
    use appealing, because there is no power to compel the payment of back money.
    Mr. SKELTON: My further information is that, so far as we know, maternity benefit is generally disregarded, and I have no hesitation in saying from this place that it ought to be disregarded, because it meets a need. We think that it meets a need and that, therefore, the ordinary provision of the Scottish Poor Law, namely, that it is the job of the local authorities to assess need, covers the case of maternity benefit. I am satisfied that that is a sound view.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I could not give a case offhand with details, but I had one case where a woman actually died, and on analysing the case it was found that 40s. maternity grant had been received from one of the Lanarkshire authorities, and a portion of it had been taken into consideration. The woman engaged an incompetent midwife in place of a medical man, because she had not the money to pay the medical man, and she died in consequence, and I say that that is a point that could be enlarged upon.
    Mr. SKELTON: I think the Committee will realise that on this matter of maternity benefit our view is that it is the duty of the local authority, when faced with an application for public assistance, to assess the need, and nobody has ever maintained that the maternity benefit is greater than the need. We believe that it is the ordinary duty of the local authority to assess the need properly, and I do not propose, therefore, to put in a special provision with regard to this. I know that in saying that I may disappoint many of my hon. Friends, but in regard to these three Amendments I hope the Committee will realise that we have considered them very carefully, and throughout this Bill we have done our best to meet all reasonable suggestions.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: This is reasonable.
    Mr. SKELTON: As responsible for the Government, we must be the final judges as to what we accept or reject. I would ask hon. Members to take my statement in that spirit and not to suppose that, if we have shown some reason before, we have suddenly been deprived of that reason in considering these three Amendments.
    6.4 p.m.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: I am sorry the Under-Secretary of State has taken the attitude that he has with regard to these three Amendments of ours. It is no good congratulating him on the reasonableness of his attitude in the Standing Committee, because we have passed that stage now.
    Mr. SKELTON: I have shown it to-day already, because I have accepted an Amendment.
    Mr. GRAHAM: And a very important Amendment, but I think there is some misunderstanding of our point of view. It may be that the hon. Gentleman is correct in many of his arguments, but I suggest that from our experience we believe that we are correct in the statements which we have made, and we cannot understand why the first 5s. of sick pay from a friendly society, and the first 7s. 6d. of National Health Insurance money, and the first £1 of disability payment should be disregarded, and then when we come along with the question of maternity benefit, with which everyone who has spoken has expressed considerable sympathy, our arguments should not be accepted. Sympathy does not help a woman who is bearing children, who may find herself faced with the possibility of £2, due to be paid to her under the National Health Insurance Act, being looked upon by the local authority as being the income for that particular week. Sympathy is all right, expressed in words, but it is of very little value to a woman in such a case, and unfortunately there are many thousands of women in that position.
    I know that the Under-Secretary was not expressing just his own point of view, but that he was putting to us the view of the Government, in refusing to accept these Amendments. I am sorry that that should be so, because I think that if we had had the opportunity of discussing with him our reasons for putting forward these Amendments before the present stage, it might have been possible for him to have induced the Government to give him power to accept them. The question of compensation has been very eloquently dealt with by my hon. Friends the Members for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and Govan (Mr. Maclean). They have dealt with it completely, and I do not

    2121
    want to occupy very much time so far as these three Amendments are concerned. I want merely to take the opportunity of expressing my dissatisfaction with the unfavourable answer given by the Government to what I believe to be our perfectly reasonable and moderate Amendments. My hon. Friend has pointed out that he would be willing to accept a compromise. So would we. We are not the kind of people who refuse to accept half a loaf if we cannot get a whole loaf. We want the whole loaf if we can get it, but in the meantime we will take a half loaf or even a bit of one.
    There are thousands of men suffering from miners' nystagmus who are no longer able to find employment in their own occupation. They are comparatively young men, many of them married and with families. These men are not totally blind, but so blind that they are unable to follow their usual employment, but their employment is taken into consideration by the Poor Law authorities when assessing the amount of need. There are thousands of these people in Scotland alone, and I would suggest to my hon. Friend the wisdom, now that he has decided that he will not accept these Amendments, of paying some regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane)—a very good point, although it may not come in at this particular stage. The time has come when the point that he raised should be dealt with, if necessary, by an Act of Parliament, so as to put these blind people in a position in which they would be able to be preserved from any fear of their income being taken into consideration for Poor Law purposes. I think it was a reasonable suggestion, though I quite appreciate the reply given that it could not be taken into consideration here.
    6.11 p.m.
    Mr. JOHN WALLACE: I have listened carefully to the speeches from all sides, and while the Under-Secretary of State was convincing in certain of his arguments against the adoption of these Amendments, I regret that, so far as the maternity Amendment is concerned, he entirely failed to convince me or the Committee that his attitude is either reasonable or convincing. If the cases about which we have heard in this House
    2122
    to-day are well established, it seems to me that the reason for giving statutory authority for disregarding maternity benefit is overwhelming. The hon. Gentleman has told us that we must trust the local authorities to do the right thing on the basis of need, but surely the basis of need applies equally in all these Amendments, and if you can trust the local authority in one case, you can in all the others.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: Is there not a difference between disablement pension and the sum that comes in each week and this capital sum of 40s.? I am not taking one side or the other, but is there not a difference?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: That confirms the hon. Member's argument.
    Mr. WALLACE: I am obliged for the interruption, but I think the hon. Lady was confirming my point of view. The Under-Secretary based his whole case upon the ability of the local authority to assess need, and it seems to me, if that be the case, that it is difficult to account for the extraordinary examples given today where the 40s. maternity benefit has not been disregarded. If it be the case that statutory authority is essential in some cases, in spite of what my hon. Friend has just said, I really think that the Under-Secretary will be carrying out the prevailing sentiment of this Committee if he insists upon statutory authority being applied to disregard the 40s. so far as maternity benefit is concerned.
    6.13 p.m.
    Mr. MILNE: I had intended to support the Amendment in regard to blind persons and to vote against the Government, but after the lucid statement of the Under-Secretary of State, it has become manifest that there is no occasion for doing so.
    6.14 p.m.
    Sir ROBERT HORNE: I have listened with great interest and with a vast amount of elucidation to the discussion which has gone on with regard to these three Amendments, and the answer of the Under-Secretary of State upon two of the questions, namely, with regard to the matter of the blind and the matter of workmen's compensation, was, I think, convincing, and so far as those are concerned I should not feel at all inclined

    2123
    to differ from the attitude of the Government, but I confess that I hold an entirely different opinion with regard to the question of maternity benefit. Every person who has spoken, including the Under-Secretary himself, has given utterance to the view that maternity benefit ought to be disregarded. If that is the universal opinion of the Committee, I think that maternity benefit should be mentioned with the other things which at present stand in the Bill as things to be disregarded. I think all the more so because of the opinion to which the junior, but not inferior, Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) has just given voice, namely, that this is a lump sum paid as distinct from a regular payment. It is much easier to disregard a lump sum payment which has been given in particular circumstances than the other payments which recur week by week. I rather gather, in listening to the arguments, that there was some difficulty in arriving at a proper form of phraseology. So far as I understand it, that arises from this consideration, that, since you give to the local authority the duty of assessing need, then, if you enjoin them to disregard something which is to be given for maternity benefit, you may still leave them in the position of having to assess the need which still exists and give this amount twice over. I am not much afraid of any such interpretation being given to the form of Amendment that has been proposed. I think that I would trust the local authorities sufficiently not to give twice over for maternity needs. From that point of view I think the Committee might very readily take the risk. If there is no opportunity for a review of the form of words now, there might be an opportunity in another place, but if there is any such risk—and I do not think there is much—I should be prepared to disregard it for the moment. At any rate, I would like to urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to meet the wishes of the Committee in this matter, and, indeed, to give expression to what is, I gather, the view of the Government themselves.
    6.18 p.m.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: When I interrupted the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace), it might have been
    2124
    thought that I was not in agreement with treating cases of maternity differently. I pointed out that it was a different thing entirely from an income which is drawn each week. The duty of the public assistance committee is to assess the need. The need in an ordinary case would not include the first 7s. 6d. of health insurance benefit and the other things, because they are an ordinary part of the income, and a definite statement ought to be put in the Bill that they are not to be included when assessing the need. As I pointed out when I interrupted, surely the case of maternity benefit is different. It is not a definite income. It is a capital sum given because of a particular thing that has happened to the family. It is not part of the means. I entirely agree with the other things coming in, because they ought to be included when assessing need, but I cannot think that the maternity benefit should be included in an ordinary scheme of assessing need. It is a definite sum given for a particular object, and because it is definite, I hope my hon. Friend will consider agreeing to the Amendment or to words which have the same effect, and provide that materity benefit is not included in the ordinary case when need is to be assessed, because it is a definite capital sum that should be disregarded.
    6.19 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: We have had a very interesting Debate on this point. The situation is not to be taken, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), that there is some difference between my personal views and the views of the other Members of the Government. That is not the case, and I would not be standing at this Box if it were. I feel a real difficulty about this Amendment, and I do not think I can have stated it with great clearness to the Committee. In the general structure of the Poor Law of Scotland it is essentially the duty of the assessing authority not to take into account a sum which has no relation to the ordinary history of the family but is to be attributed to special circumstances and a special need, keeping in view all the time that the duty of the local authority is to assess the need and to give relief according to the need. If this 40s. represents a new special need, as indeed it does, it seems that the ordinary structure of the Poor Law of

    2125
    Scotland automatically deals with this amount. It represents only a temporary need. Besides that, there is the point that it is not income at all, but a special grant. If that is the situation and it meets a special need, why should we not say so in the Bill? The reason is that the duty of the local authority to meet the needs of the applicant is the fundamental principle of the Poor Law, and I am loath to put into this Bill a statement in a particular case of what they ought to do as a fundamental principle of their operations.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: They are compelled to do it with regard to the 5s. and the 7s. 6d.
    Mr. SKELTON: That is not so. Nobody can say that the first 7s. 6d. of National Health benefit exactly represents any special need. I think it can be said with greater truth that it is income, but the maternity benefit represents a special need.
    Mr. GRAHAM: I can agree with the hon. Member on his statement of the case, but our experience is that it is necessary to put into the Bill the intention of the Government. It is in order to avoid a repetition of what has happened in other cases that we are asking for maternity benefit to be put in.
    Mr. SKELTON: My feeling on this proposal remains the same as it has been for some time. It may well be that very special care has to be taken if I am right in thinking that a special need arises from the birth of a child. If I am right in that, on general principles of the Poor Law the local authority ought to disregard the 40s., and if, on top of that, we put in a special provision telling them to do so, does that not perhaps involve their giving an extra 40s.? If you are going to wipe out all the income—[Interruption.] I must really ask my hon. Friend to allow me to address the Committee. If we say that this 40s. is to be disregarded, what follows? A very difficult question arises, but I said at the outset that I am not a stickler for consistency, nor for my own views, and the Committee can take it from me that I will give this master further consideration. I should prefer to deal with this in another place. The more one considers it the more new difficulties arise, I will give the Committee the assurance
    2126
    that I will consider this very fully and pay particular attention to the weighty pleas that have been put forward from all parts of the Committee. I do not think I shall be doing right, if certain questions which I still feel give rise to difficulties remain unsolved, to give way at this stage. I will, however, fully consider it before the Debate in another place.
    6.27 p.m.
    Sir R. HORNE: I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just stated, and I do not want to press him further, because I accept with the greatest confidence the assurance that the whole matter will be reconsidered before the review of this Bill in another place. I see the difficulties that might arise, to their possible embarrassment, from local authorities thinking they were entitled to assess this need twice. I accept the assurance that my hon. Friend will deal with this matter, and if he is satisfied that a form of words can be-found to get rid of the difficulty, I hope he will agree with the rest of the Committee and put it in the Bill.
    6.29 p.m.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Those who are associated in supporting these Amendments are rather disappointed with the Minister, although we ought to have expected that he would not have been able to accept any Amendments. His assurance that he is prepared to consider the matter and see what can be done in another place with regard to maternity benefit is not so satisfactory as it seems to be to some hon. Members. The Under-Secretary has been very definite in the attitude that he has adopted with regard to these three categories of beneficiaries. He has pointed out the position which the Government take up with regard to them, and in consequence of impressive and persuasive influence from his own side he has agreed in regard to maternity benefit to reconsider the matter, and, if he comes to a decision to make a concession, to have an Amendment moved in another place. We are now discussing a recommitted Bill and are in Committee, and as the Report stage is to follow, surely the hon. Gentleman can deal with it then, in this House. It is not as though we were now on the Report stage.
    Mr. SKELTON: I did consider that point, but the Report stage is to follow

    2127
    immediately on these proceedings, and it would be difficult for my right hon. Friend and I to take the matter into consideration before that stage. We want to have more time to consider it.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I accept the explanation given as to the almost insurmountable difficulties standing in the way of the Government dealing with the matter on the Report stage to-night; but there is this other matter. The Under-Secretary made the remarkable statement that if the 30s. of the maternity benefit were disregarded, the local authority when assessing the need could assess the additional need of the family at 30s., and in that case twice 30s. would be received by that family. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he will not get any public assistance committee in Scotland or in England to make such an assessment—not even in Aberdeen, generous as the Aberdonians are credited with being? Having first disregarded the amount that came in for maternity benefit, a public assistance committee would never dream of saying that an additional need had arisen, because they would have placed that particular special need without the bounds of the family. Consequently the hon. Gentleman's argument is rather illogical, in the sense that the special need which he thinks the public assistance committee would have to consider would already have been dealt with by the amount granted for maternity benefit, and there would be no occasion for the committee to consider any question of special need.
    However, I want to point out to the hon. Member that we are not satisfied with his proposals. The persistence with which he has opposed each of these three Amendments does not, in spite of the pressure which has been put upon him from Members on his own side, make us as optimistic as to what we are likely to get in the way of a concession in another place as probably he expected us to be. We wanted some concession and we hoped to have it, but we have not got it. He has given a concession to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) which, I may point Out, is not a concession at all. He may have considered it to be a concession.
    Mr. SKELTON: It was a very large concession. I did not discuss the matter
    2128
    fully, but a grant of sick pay not given by a friendly society but by a trade union would be excluded.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I think if the hon. Member cares to re-read—
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it in order to discuss whether a previous Amendment was a concession or not?
    The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): The Committee, which is now engaged upon a somewhat intricate discussion of an offer made by the Government, which it would be a mistake to interrupt and moreover we cannot go back to discuss an Amendment which has been accepted by the Government and passed.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am not going back to discuss it, but surely we are in order in referring to things which have happened in the Committee?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not discuss over again an Amendment which has already been dealt with.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am sorry if I gave the impression that I wanted to discuss it again. I was not intending to discuss it. I was merely referring to something that had been granted as a concession, and suggesting that it was not a concession but merely a correction of something which the draftsman of the Bill had omitted. There was no concession, and I must say quite frankly that we must divide on the three Amendments which we have put down, on the ground that, in view of the past attitude of the Government to this question of maternity benefit, we cannot have any hope that the Secretary of State will be brought round to our point of view, even with the time for reflection which he will have between now and the appearance of the Bill in another place.
    6.37 p.m.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: It is with some reluctance that I intervene, and I do so not to discuss the merits of this proposal, which has been so fully discussed, but to make an appeal to the Under-Secretary of State, who showed such a remarkable spirit of conciliation in Committee upstairs, and has shown that he has broad sympathies during the Debate this afternoon. I ask him if he will not go one stage further. In the two speeches he made this afternoon he said one or two things which made me prickle a little.

    2129
    He said the ultimate responsibility for this Bill rested with the Government. That is a proposition which I absolutely deny. The ultimate responsibility rests with the House of Commons.
    Mr. SKELTON: The ultimate responsibility for the proposals which are put before the House rests with the Government.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. Gentleman went very much further. He said that we ought not to interfere too much with the Government and their responsibilities. He said that the hon. Member who is at present leading the Opposition had proposed an Amendment which it was proper to discuss, but that the ultimate responsibility of deciding whether it was to be accepted rested with the Government. That is the proposition which I deny, because it rests with this Committee in the first place, and ultimately with the House of Commons. Nor is it right that the decision on this Amendment, which has aroused such great interest in every part of the House, and has been received with sympathy by hon. Members of all parties, should be left to another place. Therefore, I ask the Under-Secretary whether he cannot adopt the course of allowing this Amendment to be passed now. It is true that the Report stage will come on soon afterwards, but if the wording is not quite right it can be adjusted in another place. If the other place makes an Amendment to the Clause as amended, in accordance with the hon. Member's Amendment, we can discuss the Amendment made by the other place. My point is that the principle should be embodied in the Bill by the House of Commons. I urge the Under-Secretary to give us this one further concession.
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: I think I have already said that I am not anxious to be too insistent upon consistency, and I hope that my Parliamentary career will show that I am not afraid of taking a risk. I have honestly told the Committee that I do not think we can accept this Amendment at this stage without taking a risk, and, indeed, I am not sure that any form of words can be found which will not involve a legal risk, but I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and we have been immensely impressed by the way—if I may say so without disrespect—in which
    2130
    the Committee has functioned on this matter. Authoritative representatives of every body of opinion in the Committee have urged us to take this step, and in view of what we have been asked to do I am going to accept this Amendment, but with the clear understanding that the words, which have only recently been framed, must be looked at very carefully in another place. Without committing myself to the precise form of words, the principle of the thing will be that the maternity benefit will not be taken into account by the local authority when assessing the relief to be given to the applicant. With the insertion of the form of words which I suggest at the moment, the Clause would read:
    "A local authority in affording outdoor relief to or in respect of any woman shall disregard the whole of any maternity benefit, exclusive of any increase of such benefit by way of additional benefit, or of any second maternity benefit to which she may be entitled under the last-mentioned Act, and the corresponding need shall also be so disregarded in the assessment of need."
    By those words we take out the special grant which has been made and assume that the thing for which it is given has not happened. If the Committee will accept that suggestion, I will take the risk of those words, and hope that we may not have to alter them in another place, but we may have to do so.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is some slight difficulty in dealing with the proposal of the hon. Member. If there were some slight pause in the proceedings we might be able to arrange what is to be done. I would remind the Committee that only one Clause is re-committed, and that only in respect of certain Amendments, and therefore we cannot now put in another Clause an entirely new Amendment. We can only amend an Amendment which is on the Order Paper.
    Mr. SKELTON: I have been led along this thorny path of risk. I am going another step. On the clear understanding that there is something to be added to the words of the Amendment in order that it might be safe—but it must be done in another place—I am going to accept the hon. Member's Amendment. He knows, and the Committee know, that when the Bill goes to another place the principle of the Amendment will be saved, although the words may be changed.
    6.46 p.m.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I understand that the Amendment which is on the Paper in my name in regard to maternity benefit is accepted by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, on the understanding that when the Bill goes to another place words will be put in carrying the meaning which the Under-Secretary wished to convey in the Amendment which he read out. I am certain that my colleagues here and in all parts of the Committee will be appreciative of the manner in which the Under-Secretary has trod along that thorny path of compromise, and has overcome all the difficulties. I trust that the words will be such as to convey to the poor women all that we hope to convey.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I should like to express my appreciation of the complete way in which the Under-Secretary has met the suggestion which we have made and the demand which has come from the whole Committee that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) should be inserted.
    6.47 p.m.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and supported by other hon. Members. I am not concerned whether the Amendment is moved by a Member of the Labour, Liberal or
    Conservative parties, or of the Independent Labour party. I am not going to get to the stage of saying "You gave him something and did not give me anything." and I am sorry that that tone has been raised. I am always delighted when the hon. Gentleman gives us any concession, and I am prepared to make known on any platform in the country any concessions that are granted by the Government of the day, and to condemn the Government when I think they are doing the wrong thing. I interrupted the hon. Gentleman in connection with a statement which he made that blind persons had to go to a local committee apart from the public assistance authority. I took him up wrongly, and when I said that he was wrong it was myself who was wrong in not taking the statement in a proper manner. I apologise for that error.
    Amendment agreed to.
    6.49 p.m.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, at the end, to insert:
    "and
    (d) any weekly payment by way of compensation under the enactments relating to workmen's compensation."
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 183.

    Division No. 319.]

    AYES.

    [6.49 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Banfield, John William

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Maxton, James

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

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Buchanan, George

    Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Holdsworth, Herbert

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

    Cove, William G.

    Janner, Barnett

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Thorne, William James

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Kirkwood, David

    West, F. R.

    Dobbie, William

    Lawson, John James

    White, Henry Graham

    Edwards, Charles

    Leonard, William

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    McGovern, John

    Greenwood, Ht. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bernays, Robert

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Albery, Irving James

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E W.

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

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

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

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Christie, James Archibald

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

    Clarke, Frank

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Buchan, John

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Burnett, John George

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Remer, John R.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Cranborne, Viscount

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

    Robinson, John Roland

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Cross, R. H.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Salmon, Sir Isldore

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Dickie, John P.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

    Mabane, William

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Dugvale, Captain Thomas Lionel

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Duggan, Hubert John

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

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

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Elmley, Viscount

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

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

    Milne, Charles

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Granville, Edgar

    Munro, Patrick

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Train, John

    Grimston, R. V.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Tree, Ronald

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Nunn, William

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.

    Hartland, George A.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Pearson, William G.

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Peat, Charles U.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Penny, Sir George

    Withers, Sir John James

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Petherick, M.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Hornby, Frank

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

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Potter, John

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Sir Frederick Thomson and

    Captain Austin Hudson.

    6.57 p.m.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, at the end, to insert:
    "and
    (d) any pension under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and any other income
    by virtue of the provisions of that Act, or from any charity for the blind."
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 190.

    Division No. 320.]

    AYES.

    [6.58 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    McGovern, John

    Banfield, John William

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Buchanan, George

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Maxton, James

    Cape, Thomas

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cove, William G.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Thorne, William James

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    West, F. R.

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Dobbie, William

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McEntee, Valentine L,

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Albery, Irving James

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Bernays, Robert

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

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

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Pearson, William G.

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

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hales, Harold K.

    Penny, Sir George

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd)

    Petherick, M.

    Buchan, John

    Hartland, George A.

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

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Potter, John

    Burnett, John George

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Cautley, Sir Henry s.

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

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

    Hornby, Frank

    Remer, John R.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Christie, James Archibald

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Robinson, John Roland

    Clarke, Frank

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

    Salmon, Sir Isldore

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Conant, R. J. E.

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

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Cross, R. H.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Mabane, William

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Dickie, John P.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

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

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Dunglass, Lord

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R,

    Train, John

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Tree, Ronald

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Milne, Charles

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    White, Henry Graham

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

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

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Munro, Patrick

    Withers, Sir John James

    Goff, Sir Park

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Granville, Edgar

    Nunn, William

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    and Sir Walter Womersley.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal) considered.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Certain temporary enactments anent poor relief made permanent.)
    Amendment made: In page 1, line 12, leave out from "1925," to "and," in line 13.—[Sir G. Collins.]

    CLAUSE 2.—(Amendments of 11 and 12 Geo. 5 c. 64 and 17 Geo. 5 c. 3.)
    7.7 p.m.
    Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave
    2136
    out from "employment," to the end of the Subsection.
    This is an Amendment to strike out of the Clause two and a-half lines which were inserted during the passage of the Bill through Committee. At the present time the cost of relief to able-bodied men is borne by the authority which pays out their relief. The Amendment which was put in on the Committee stage would allow the particular authority which pays the relief to recover the money paid from the place of settlement of the persons who received the relief. I have no objection to the principle of that Amendment; that is to say, as long as you have

    2137
    a law of settlement in being. It raises, however, the whole question of whether a law of settlement is a proper thing or not. I should have thought that at the present stage practically everyone was agreed in thinking that the law of settlement is a mediaeval institution. I said on the Committee stage, and I repeat now, that it dates from the time when a parish or something of that kind was an economic unit. We are long past that. Neither the parish nor the county is the economic unit of to-day; the economic unit of to-day is undoubtedly the whole country. That principle, indeed, has been recognised by the Unemployment Act which has just been passed. The burden of relieving the unemployed was made there a national charge, and a national charge only. The hon. Gentleman a few months ago said that the Government could not be expected to embody different principles in two Measures which they were passing at about the same time. That is, however, exactly what he is doing. He is applying the law of settlement in the one case, throwing upon the small localities in country districts the duty of providing for their unemployed, whereas in the Unemployment Act that principle is definitely thrown over.
    Indeed, there is another Act of Parliament in which that principle is ignored. I pointed out to the Under-Secretary in the Committee stage—but he did not deign to take notice of it—that last year Parliament passed a Children and Young Persons Act. There was an opportunity, if we were to stick to the law of settlement, of applying it. But the law of settlement was never mentioned in that Act, and I pointed out that under that Act it is possible, for instance, for a sheriff to order a family to be taken away from their parents and handed over to the education authority of the district in which the children and the parents lived at the time. There is nothing about being able to recover from the place of settlement to which these children or their parents belong. If this principle is a right one, why was it ignored in the Act which was passed as recently as last year by the present Government?
    The last time we were discussing this question, we were unable to get a discussion on it in isolation, because by accident this Amendment was passed without a Division, and when later we came to
    2138
    discuss it, it was mixed up with the question of relief to the sick poor. My hon. Friend in the Labour party made a great deal, and rightly so, about the differences in the amount of relief which was given in certain cases to sick poor in the same locality. Not for a moment would I defend that, and I am as anxious as they are that it should be stopped. But that has nothing to do with the particular question which I am raising by this Amendment, which deals entirely and solely with relief to able-bodied men.
    I have pointed out that the Unemployment Act did not deal with the matter in this way, but in dealing with the question of unemployment and its relief there had to be a re-adjustment of the burdens under that Act. We can all remember that prolonged conferences took place between the municipal authorities and the Government as to the incidence of the cost of relief. They came to a decision and an agreement in apportioning the burdens. That adjustment was made on the basis of the cities, and others, too, bearing the burdens as they are doing at the present day. If you change that as you are changing it in this Bill, then you ought to re-open the whole question of the adjustment which was made under that Bill and have a new adjustment. Otherwise you will give the cities twice over the benefit of this relief that you propose to give them by the Amendment which was introduced in the Committee stage.
    When the Amendment was first proposed by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy), the Government opposed it, and only afterwards did they turn round and give way. My point is that you must either apply the law of settlement rigidly and all round or you must get rid of it entirely. I said before that everyone was agreed nowadays against the continuance of the law of settlement. We have been promised, I understand, an inquiry into the whole question. If that is the case, why should we, while we are thinking of and preparing an inquiry, start legislating upon the very subject about which we are going to inquire? As I have previously pointed out, the hon. Gentleman has set up, quite recently, a Committee to inquire into the vagrancy question, which enters into the question of relieving the able-bodied poor. Why should he, while he is asking people to inquire into a subject, start

    2139
    at that very moment to legislate upon it without waiting for the report of the inquiry? To say the least of it, it is not a great compliment to the people whom he has invited to spend their time inquiring into the question.
    If the law of settlement is to be applied, it must be applied all round; you cannot tinker with one little point which happens to be the place where the larger towns think the shoe pinches. The sparsely populated counties, just as much as the cities, have to give relief to able-bodied persons, but, if this provision is passed as the Government wish to pass it, the result will be that, although the law is nominally the same as regards both types of districts, it will in point of fact only be effective in the case of the cities, and not in the case of the counties. If a person who lives in, say, Glasgow, comes and asks for relief, his place of residence, his antecedents, and everything about him can quite readily and easily be investigated, and everything he says can be verified if it is capable of verification. Moreover, it is very easy to reclaim anything that is paid in respect of that person, because you know exactly where he has come from and all about him, and you write to the county, if it be a county, and inform them about him and get your money back. But the unemployed who are relieved by the counties, and particularly the northern counties, are of a different type, as I tried to explain before to the hon. Gentleman, but without success, I am afraid. They are largely of a new type altogether, a type of tramp, who is, however, not the same sort of tramp that we have been accustomed to in the old days.
    Anyone who goes motoring in the rural districts of our country can see that you have on the roads to-day persons of a different type from that of the old days. In the summer, particularly, one sees numbers of unemployed who have become sick of waiting to try and get jobs in the cities, and have gone tramping through the country, and through the Highlands in particular; and, whenever the weather is bad, they come in and get relief. It is only in small sums, but these northern counties are now to be told to investigate the case of each man who goes in in that way, just as, say, Glasgow could and would investigate the position of a family living in a street
    2140
    well known in Glasgow. If these counties are to be expected, in respect of a small sum of that kind, to undertake the same work as is done in Glasgow, it will put upon them an enormously increased burden for very little reason. It might be worth while to go in for all this correspondence and so on if it were a case of recovering £5, but, if the amount be only 5s., it is surely most unreasonable to expect these counties to engage in all the necessary work and correspondence in order to try to recover such a small sum. There are other aspects of the law of settlement, and, if it is not possible to give relief in every particular, it seems to me that it ought to be left alone until it is possible to deal with the matter comprehensively. On a previous occasion I raised the question of boarded-out children, and so did one of my hon. Friends. The Under-Secretary has since written to me and tried to draw a deduction from the facts of my own county, suggesting that, as regards these boarded-out children, instead of our performing a service to others we are getting something for it. I am quite unable to check the figures that he has given to me—
    Mr. SKELTON: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I shall have difficulty in answering those observations of his, because they have nothing to do with the Amendment.
    Sir M. WOOD: I did not realise that I was getting beyond the Rules of Order. I do not want to go into that matter at all, but, as I referred to it before, I thought that, if I did not refer to it again, it might be assumed that I thought that the point was a bad one. I do not think it is a bad one, and I should have been prepared to argue it if it were permissible to do so. However, I will leave it. My point, shortly, is that, if these words which were put in in the Committee stage are allowed to stand, they will enable the bigger towns to recover in certain respects with regard to these able-bodied poor. If recourse is made possible in respect of able-bodied poor in this way, it will enable the large towns to recover from the counties, but the counties perform many services in respect of which they ought equally to be able to recover, but in respect of which they will not be able to recover if these words are allowed to stand. The law of settlement ought either to be applied rigidly or abolished.

    2141
    If it is not possible to abolish it now, at least it ought not to be further entrenched when there is a possibility, and, indeed, a probability, that in the near future it may be swept away altogether. As I said before, it is a mediaeval idea. All modern thought is against it, and I should have thought that neither this Government nor any other would wish to do anything to make it more difficult to sweep it away in the near future. The insertion of these words is in the interests of the cities, and I quite agree that they have the votes to carry it through if they wish to do so, but I feel that at least we are entitled to utter, and ought to utter, a protest against what is being proposed.
    7.23 p.m.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do not propose to go over the ground which has been covered by my hon. Friend, who has set forth very fully the various arguments on which his Amendment should be supported, but I should like to take the opportunity of reinforcing what he said with regard to the general principle of embodying in this Bill the old idea of the law of settlement. I have never yet quite understood why the Government changed their mind and allowed the Bill to be altered from the shape in which it was first brought in by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy). Apparently their first thoughts were not, from their point of view, as good as their second, but from our point of view we regret that they did not abide by their first thoughts.
    It seems rather peculiar that, at the moment when the whole question of the law of settlement is coming under review, when there is going to be an inquiry into this ancient method of dealing with our poor people, this old principle should be embodied in a Measure which represents the first attempt to codify, so to speak, the Poor Law of Scotland. I think it is a pity that the Government should have gone out of their way to embody that principle, which many of us hope to see swept away as being entirely unsuited to our modern methods of life and our modern means of locomotion—a principle which dates from a time when small areas like parishes were the units, and when there was great difficulty in getting about from one part of the
    2142
    country to another. Conditions are now entirely different, and the care and support of the able-bodied poor is no longer looked upon as the immediate duty of the locality from which they come, but as a national obligation. In the old days, when an able-bodied man was poor and out of work, he was looked upon as having done something wrong, for which he ought to be more or less punished. One is thankful to think that that way of looking at things has entirely disappeared, and those who look forward to seeing the modern methods of dealing with this problem still further amplified, and to the introduction into them of still more humanity, regret that the occasion of this Bill should have been taken to reestablish the old law of settlement.
    7.28 p.m.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I should like to reinforce the appeal which has been made by my two hon. Friends who have so closely attended the sittings of the Committee on this Measure, and have obtained such a complete mastery of it. The question which they have raised in this Amendment is one of very great importance, not only for the Highland counties, but for a number of other mainly rural, counties in Scotland. I, too, regret that the Government should, in this instance above all others, have revived the old and obsolete principle upon which the law of settlement is based, and should have departed from those new principles which are to be found in modern legislation such as the Unemployment Bill, on which the House spent so many months of time, and which tend to regard the accidents of poverty and unemployment as national rather than purely parochial responsibilities. It is particularly unfortunate that it should have been done in this instance, because, broadly speaking, the authorities on whom the burden will fall under the proposals now in the Bill are the poorest authorities in Scotland, while those who will benefit most, and who pressed hardest for the inclusion of this provision, are the wealthiest authorities in Scotland.
    It seems to me unfair that this additional burden should be placed upon the counties, which are suffering now as, I think it is no exaggeration to say, they have never suffered in endeavouring to maintain their public services. The

    2143
    sources from which the rates are drawn in these country districts are being depleted by the immense difficulties of agriculture and by the almost complete collapse of the herring fishing industry. It is upon these struggling counties, with all kinds of burdens being piled upon them for new roads, housing, and so forth, that the weight of providing for the payments under this Clause will fall. I know there is a specious plea advanced by the Government that, balancing the payment that the counties will have to make to the City, there will be other payments which the counties will be entitled to obtain from the Cities in respect of men who come from the Cities travelling through the Highlands. I call that a specious plea, because these are men who come through for a night or two nights. There are a great many of them, and it means an immense amount of costly investigation into a large number of individual cases each of which is very small, but which in the aggregate add a certain amount to the burdens of the country. I would beg the Government even now to take the view that this law of settlement is out of date, that the efforts to revive it in this case should be abandoned, and that the Amendment should be accepted.
    7.33 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: Those of us who were in the Committee appreciate the great importance that hon. Members attach to the Amendment. We had a very full discussion, and I do not think they will think me disrespectful if I do not cover the whole ground again, but there are certain main points with which I must deal. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir E. Hamilton) asked a very pertinent question: Why have recourse in the ease of the able-bodied poor? Recollect what the proposal is. Under the law of Scotland in the case of all those who were permanent recipients of poor relief, namely, the ordinary poor, the law of settlement and recourse applied, and, the able-bodied poor only being the recipients of poor relief at all through a series of temporary Acts, we had to consider whether there was any reason, if we were going to deal with the question of settlement at all why and if the law of relief was going to be extended to the able-bodied poor, the law of settle-
    2144
    ment should not also be extended. Otherwise, you would have had the extreme anomaly of settlement and recourse in the case of the ordinary poor, and no settlement and no recourse in the case of the able-bodied. When I spoke on the Second Reading I was of the opinion that we might have left the question of settlement altogether for the committee proposed to be set up, but there was a serious anomaly which was pressed upon me with regard to the ordinary poor that, where you have settlement and recourse, there was the difficulty of the person whose residence was not in the area of relief getting very much smaller relief than an equivalent case living next door, and there was also the question whether it was possible to make permanent the law with regard to the relief of the able-bodied poor and yet leave out of that law the provision with regard to settlement which was put in when they were first included in the Poor Law for reasons which have ceased to exist.
    We came to the conclusion that it was not possible to leave the whole future of the law of settlement for discussion by the committee that we proposed to set up, and, therefore, we had to deal with all the anomalies. The first anomaly was no law of settlement with regard to the able-bodied poor. What possible justification in principle was there for that? It was only a matter of accident that the able-bodied poor were brought into the Poor Law. If you dealt with it at all, you had to get rid of all the anomalies, the first of which was that it did not apply to the able-bodied poor. Secondly, the law of settlement, where it did apply, was such as to cause the most inequitable results in individual cases. It seemed to us that we could not deal with one anomally without dealing with the other, and we preferred to deal with the thing then and leave it open for the committee to deal with the question that hon. Members have raised: Why not let the law of settlement die? The law of settlement is part of the Poor Law of Scotland. It is a matter which very largely concerns local authorities whether it is going to live or to die. We much prefer that the final discussion on whether the law of settlement is to continue as part of the law of Scotland or not should be undertaken by a committee on which local authorities would be largely represented. If the committee

    2145
    were going to discuss the law of settlement in a proper way and under proper conditions, there was in our judgment a great deal to be said for letting them discuss the law of settlement as it stands when you have got rid of all the various anomalies.
    It may be an arguable question whether you have got rid of all the anomalies or not. In my judgment you have. You have got rid of the fundamental anomaly that the law of settlement did not apply to the able-bodied at all while it did apply to the ordinary poor. Secondly, we have got rid of the anomaly that it was so operated in the past that, if I a native of Caithness were getting poor relief in Glasgow and the scale of relif was smaller in Caithness than in Glasgow, there was the risk that, although my need was exactly the same, I should not get the same relief as another man whose area of settlement was different. I know there may be different views taken about it, but my object, if I dealt with it at all, was to deal with it so as to get rid of the anomalies. When the Committee is appointed, the main function of which will be to assist us in the codification of the Poor Law, they will be entrusted, as part of the subject, with the consideration of the future of the law of settlement. On that Committee there will be representatives of the cities, the counties and the burghs. Let them thrash out the question whether the law of Scotland is to survive or not. If it is to survive, let it be of universal application, and not containing all sorts of anomalies. If it is not to survive, let us have the authentic voice of the local authorities in their decision on the matter.

    Division No. 321.]

    AYES.

    [7.44 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Burnett, John George

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

    Calne, G. R. Hall.

    Dickle, John P.

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

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

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

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Edwards, Charles

    Banfield, John William

    Christle, James Archibald

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Clarke, Frank

    Elmley, Viscount

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Batey, Joseph

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Borodale, Viscount

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

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

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Glossop, C. W. H

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

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Cross, R. H.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Sir A. SINCLAIR: When will the Committee be appointed?
    Mr. SKELTON: I hope very shortly after the Bill becomes law. I am not in any circumstances going to change the Bill as it stands. I gave no undertaking to give further consideration to the matter. It has been fully discussed, and I appeal to hon. Members to let us get on with the Bill. The House appreciates, and Scotland appreciates, the emphasis that hon. Members have put on this question, but I beg them not to continue the Debate any further.
    Sir M. WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government find it necessary to make able-bodied relief a national charge under the Unemployment Act but a local charge under this Bill?
    Mr. SKELTON: That is a question that has been asked again and again, but it has nothing to do with the Poor Law. That is the result of another piece of legislation. I have to deal with the Poor Law as I find it.
    Mr. MAXTON: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the particular points that we are dealing with link up with the question of higher payments as between city and county?
    Mr. SKELTON: The Amendment refers only to the Statutes which deal with the able-bodied poor and would exclude our new provision with regard to settlement and able-bodied relief. Standing as it is now, my new Clause with regard to recourse refers both to the able-bodied and to the ordinary poor.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 15S; Noes, 22.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Hacking. Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Hales, Harold K.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Milne, Charles

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Hornby, Frank

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Nunn, William

    Spens, William Patrick

    John, William

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

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

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

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Lawson, John James

    Pearson, William G.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Penny, Sir George

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

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

    Leonard, William

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Petherick, M.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Remer, John R.

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Mabane, William

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

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

    Rickards, George William

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut.-

    Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Thorne, William James

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lunn, William

    White, Henry Graham

    Daggar, George

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Milner, Major James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Sir Murdoch McKenzie Wood and

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Sir Robert Hamilton.

    Janner, Barnett

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

    7.53 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) Section three of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1927 (which relates to the giving of relief on loan), shall cease to have effect."
    The Amendment is really consequential upon the decision in Committee not to make the provision in the temporary laws permanent. After the 31st December of this year, when the temporary laws come to an end and the able-bodied are relieved in accordance with the permanent provisions, relief by loan will no longer be possible. There is no use in keeping on relief by loan, and the Amendment has been put down in order to stop it from the time that the Bill becomes law.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Statement of grounds of refusal of relief, etc., to be furnished on application.)
    7.54 p.m.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, to insert:
    2148
    "(2) Any decision refusing relief as aforesaid shall be accompanied by a statement informing the applicant of the provisions of this section and of his right to, and the manner in which he may, appeal against such decision."
    I understand that the Amendment is to be accepted.
    Mr. SKELTON: I propose to accept the Amendment. It makes still more complete the provisions as to the rights of applicants who have been refused relief and I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having moved it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Interim relief directed by sheriff to be out-door relief.)
    7.53 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out the words,
    "any other enactment," and to insert:
    "section fifty-three of and Part II of the Eighth Schedule to the Unemployment Act, 1934."
    The Amendment is one which I promised to move when the Bill was in Committee. When the Bill was upstairs

    2149
    the Unemployment Act had not passed into law. In a matter in which the appointed day is the crucial date in this Bill and in the Act referred to, I had to say that the thing could not be done without the Secretary of State ordered it. I can now make the position more accurate by putting in these words.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Training of and performance of work by poor persons.)
    7.56 p.m.
    Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    The Amendment is not a minor one, but one which joins issue with the general intentions and purposes of the Government in the introduction of the Measure. I do not want to repeat here what took place on the Debate which was carried through on an extended scale in Committee, but we who sit here do not wish the Measure to pass without registering our opposition to the proposals in this Clause. They are proposals for the setting up of training centres for persons who are the recipients of Poor Law relief, the establishment of work centres, and the application of test work for those who go before the public authority for assistance of one kind and another. We think that the whole attitude is completely wrong. It arises out of what is to a large extent a fad of the moment and a complete misconception of the people who are to be affected by the Measure when it becomes law. The assumption is that you are to deal with a collection of down-and-outers, and that in addition to relieving their necessities you have a responsibility for what has been called—it is a most objectionable word but it has been used very frequently—reconditioning. The right hon. Lady who was Minister of Labour in the late Labour Administration was perhaps the first to use the phrase in a debate in this House—the reconditioning of human beings. There is something wrong about the phrase. It is taken from shipbuilding phraseology. It has something to do with a ship, and we are applying it to human beings.
    You will not be dealing with down-and-outers under this Measure in the ordinary sense of the word, persons who have fallen below moral par as it exists in the community as a whole. You are not going to deal primarily with persons who belong
    2150
    to the manual working-class, if I understand the future course of events in this country. Part II of the Insurance Act is to cover the major portion of manual workers who fall upon evil days if it operates as it is understood and expected to do. The majority of the persons who fall on evil days are to be met not by the Poor Law but by Part II of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is not proposed to apply tests to those who come under the ordinary Poor Law, the sick poor and the aged poor. It is not proposed to send them to training centres to be taught domestic economy, which is so dear to the heart of the junior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh). She is not going to suggest that old grandmothers of over 70 years who have to end their days under the Poor Law should be taught cookery by some junior girl coming out of a domestic training centre.
    Obviously, we are not thinking of training either the sick poor or the aged poor. We are thinking, in so far as we apply these provisions, of that section of the community who are not sick or aged. We are thinking of those who have been something other than members of the manual working classes, but who have fallen on evil days. We have them in my own community, in my own constituency, men in the fifties or sixties who have occupied superior positions, managerial positions, perhaps professional positions, or who have struggled on with small businesses. They get to that state of life where they are just beyond the point of setting out bodly on a new career. Indeed, they are not wanted in any new career. Their business, their ordinary economic and social developments are brought to ruin, they have no resources, because a large proportion of that type, particularly the small business man type, hang on while their resources diminish and disappear. Such a man sees his resources diminishing, but he is always hoping that things will take a turn for the better. Finally, he finds himself in desperate straits and goes to the Poor Law.
    This Government, who know of this very widespread social phenomenon which is crushing the small man out of existence, come forward and say to that man of 50, 55, 60 or 65 years of age, who has spent a perfectly decent upright life, who has struggled hard to maintain himself in per-

    2151
    forming useful functions and has fallen on evil days, through no fault of his own: "Before we can give you anything you must agree to go to a training centre." I do not forget the Amendment which is proposed to be inserted, which will not make it compulsory to go into a training centre. Under that Amendment you would not compel a man and his wife to go to a training centre before you give them relief, but you would still give the tremendous power of moral pressure on that man by the local authority. Although it is not absolutely compulsory, they could still say: "We have a fine institution up the road where we are carrying on a number of training classes. You have been an engineer, or you have been running a grocery business, and we have some nice classes to teach you the elements of cabinet making, or hair dressing, and we think you ought to go there, and take up your time usefully."
    Take up his time usefully in putting permanent waves into hair or in mending broken chairs. That is the conception, the whole idea of training, to turn a good engineer into a bad cabinet maker, or to turn a first-class shopkeeper into a bad barber. In regard to the ordinary man of whom we are thinking, a manual worker, a business man, or a professional man who has fallen on evil days, we hold the view very strongly that you should give him a reasonable income out of public resources and that he is quite capable of occupying his leisure time intelligently, usefully, sensibly and happily without even the Under-Secretary or myself telling him that he needs some more classes before he can become an intelligent citizen. He does not need classes; he needs an income, and it is our duty to see that he gets that income, with as few conditions attached to it as we can reasonably attach.
    When the Amendment that will come subsequently is accepted, a training course will not be a condition of the receipt of benefit, but test work can be quite easily, under this Clause, made a condition of the receipt of benefit. I can think of a man and his wife who have had a good social standing in the community, who are absolutely up against it and have no resources but the Poor Law. It is impossible for the man to get a footing in any remunerative employment.
    2152
    He is as intelligent a man as I am, and I consider that that is a reasonable testimonial. Indeed, he is a better citizen than I am. He has no idea of overturning the social economy as it exists to-day. He is just a decent law-abiding citizen, a good father, a good husband and a good neighbour, a good housekeeper and an eminently respectable man, with intelligent hobbies, and this Clause that is proposed to be inserted in the Bill, says that there is nothing better to offer the man than the job of breaking up sticks. Is not that a shocking suggestion. We are not talking about imbeciles or moral degenerates. We are not talking about poor unfortunate members of the down-trodden submerged tenth, but respectable citizens who have fallen on evil days, and to-day the National Government say that breaking sticks or breaking stones is a suitable job for them. There are any number of people who are ready to break stones and chop firewood as an ordinary bit of labour, but they cannot get a job, although they are physically fit men. They are ready to break stones or chop firewood as a commercial proposition, but they cannot get employment, and yet it is suggested that before the old people to whom I have referred can get benefit, such test work should be applied.
    Mr. SKELTON: Where does the hon. Member get the phrase "test work"? It was clearly stated by me in the Committee that the various provisions have been most carefully considered and the hon. Member must know that, first of all, the work is to be done under regulations which have to be laid upon the Table of this House. I should have thought that the hon. Member could find interesting observations to make on this Clause without describing it as test work.
    Mr. MAXTON: Let me read a quotation from the Clause:
    "Subject to any regulations which may be made by the Department."
    I admit that, but I want the Under-Secretary to recognise that regulations made by a Department in England or a Ministry in England, permit stone breaking and wood chopping, and the argument of the Under-Secretary earlier to-day has been that we must bring our Scottish legislation into as close harmony with English legislation as possible.
    Mr. SKELTON: This matter was very fully discussed in Committee, but the hon. Member was not present.
    Mr. MAXTON: The Under-Secretary knows that my failure to attend the Committee was not due to neglect of my Parliamentary duties, but to the fact that I was very heavily engaged in another Committee upstairs. I was, however, adequately represented in the Scottish Standing Committee, and I think I can speak with the complete support of my colleagues who were there. The Under-Secretary is "touchy" about the use of the words "test work." It is not the word that I am up against but it is the fact. The Clause says:
    "Subject to any regulations which may he made by the Department, any able-bodied person applying for or in receipt of outdoor relief may, as a condition of receiving or continuing to receive such relief, be required by the local authority to perform work at a work centre."
    Mr. SKELTON: Read on. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but a very important provision has been omitted in his reading, namely, the words:
    … if the authority consider it expedient so to require in the particular case."
    Mr. MAXTON: That is not the point. That is removing responsibility from our shoulders on to the shoulders of the local authority. We are here as a Parliament expressing our view that a well-disposed right-minded local authority will make such arrangements in particular cases. We assume that it will not be an isolated individual but that there will be considerable numbers involved in this matter. The Clause provides for extensive expenditure in various directions. It is the old treadmill mind. We are to let people understand that they are getting something that they ought to feel glad to get, that they ought to be very lucky to be allowed to live at all, and that they should regard the thing in a proper spirit and perform the most un-genial and silly tasks that it is in the capacity of persons placed in authority over them to discover. It is most diabolical. I have sat in a cell making up old door mats hour after hour, and every 24 hours the warder walks in to weigh up and to make sure that you have done the proper minimum job. It is preposterous to do things which can be done by machinery in a tenth of the time, but
    2154
    because they are dull, irksome, uninteresting and futile, they make the stronger appeal to those with the type of mind who want to make their fellow human beings feel the humiliation of the situation. It is all wrong. The type of person of whom I am thinking, give him a reasonable income, let him work a little patch of garden, do odd jobs about the house, look after his grandchildren, if he is lucky let him play a game of golf on the local golf course or a game of bowls on the bowling green, far more intelligent things than chopping firewood or breaking stones, far nearer, if I may use the term without being misunderstood, to the eternal verities, far nearer to the truest humanities, than the sort of rubbish which is proposed here.
    On the Second Reading of the Bill I described this sort of thing as Bumbledom. I said that many of us believed that Dickens and Charles Kingsley had killed this sort of thing for ever, but the mind is here yet to do the same kind of thing. It is all wrong, it is last century, pre-Victorian in relation to modern culture and ideas of progress, and while we admit that in many respects the Clause has been modified since the Bill received a Second Reading, and is to be further modified, we think the House will be doing the true, the courageous and the humane thing, if it does not give to local authorities direction and guidance along these lines. Let us cut them out altogether and tell local authorities that their job is not to start as educational experts, we have an educational service to do that, that we do not want special education for the very poor, we have a complete educational service for them if they want it; that if they want education and music let them go to a musical college, if they want education in literature let them go to a university, but do not start to develop a very cheap, nasty brand of so-called education and training for the very poor people.
    Let us also tell them, when they are thinking in terms of finding work, to remember that this nation has tried, using the best brains it can command, for 12 years to find work for 2,000,000 people and has steadily and regularly failed, and that it is no use trying inside an institution to do a thing which cannot be done generally for the nation outside, because you will not find intelligent jobs

    2155
    inside an institution any more than you will find intelligent jobs outside. I should tell local authorities to put that sort of thing aside; that their job is to deal with the poor people in their community in the most generous way their resources will permit, and then trust the people, having got an income from public sources, to lead intelligent, decent lives, just as we expect to lead intelligent and decent lives when we have our income. Most of us do it. We try to live intelligently, humanely, happily and socially, and we are not essentially different from the people within the scope of this Measure. I ask the House to reject the Clause altogether as adding nothing to the general social structure but imposing on a large proportion of deserving individuals an irksome and disagreeable humiliation which nobody has any right to impose on their fellows.
    8.21 p.m.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I beg to second the Amendment. I have no special complaint against the Under-Secretary of State who is presenting a Measure which we have to take as the Government's policy. It has been said that we are trying to bring it into harmony with the provisions of the Unemployment Act as applied to other sections of the able-bodied poor. I was rather at a loss to understand the objection of the Under-Secretary to the word "test," because it has always been applied to this work by Conservatives when it was allowed by a Labour Government and by a Labour Minister of Health. If it is test work under a Labour Government then it is test work under a National Government. A change of government does not affect in the slightest degree the tasks which are allotted to these people. I have tried to find out what is in the mind of the Under-Secretary when he talks about training and tasks which are to be allotted to people under this Clause. I think the Government have been very loose in their management of this Bill in not being able to give either the Committee or the House a definition of what is meant by the type of work which local authorities will have the power to impose.
    The Under-Secretary at one stage said that they may be put to farm work. Will any hon. Member tell me that if local
    2156
    authorities buy land and put men to plough and sow and reap, and give them in return for that labour a certain amount of money in relief, it is not test work? I say that it is test work of a hard labour nature, similar to that which prisoners in Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow have to perform. It is just as much hard labour as that given to the ordinary prisoner who has to go out into the fields, there to be placed under overseers, with a driving force, with, if you like, guards inside or outside the institution. It is similar to the work given to prisoners who have committed some great criminal act. I cannot differentiate at all. I could understand the proposal if it was intended to give local authorities power to demand a certain amount of labour in return for the relief of certain types of individuals whom the authorities might designate as the criminal section of society, or the type of individuals who draw relief, walk away with it, and neglect their wives and families. I could understand that. But the local authorities have power to deal with such types already. They can send them to the local workhouse, as they do, and can there compel them to chop wood, to work in the fields in and around the grounds, and in a limited sense compel them to plough the fields in return for maintenance inside the institution. But we may take it that here the Government are not seeking for power to deal with the criminal type, or with the bad father who spends his relief on himself when it should go to his wife and family.
    This proposal is not to apply only to a few; power is to be given to the local authorities to apply the system to every individual. The Under-Secretary said that there are certain safeguards. Yes there is a safeguard which places on the local authority the responsibility of being satisfied, upon medical evidence, that an individual who is allotted a task is physically fit to carry out the task. The Under-Secretary, when the Bill was before the Standing Committee, seemed to be at a complete dead-end. He has capacity and ability to present a case for training when he has such a case to present. Even if he has such a case tonight, he had not got it when the Bill was in Committee. Ministers are often satisfied to have in this House overwhelming support that will enable them to

    2157
    drive through a Measure, but even a limited opposition has the right to ask on this occasion what is meant by these training schemes. I know the type of mind to be found on the local authorities. You can hear the remark, "Look at them, unemployed men and women, going to the pictures in the afternoons, having 2d. or 3d. worth of films." They think it is outrageous that men and women should spend their time in that way or that the young men should be playing at football.
    In public life women are worse than men when they get power. They come along and say, "If this is allowed to extend, drawing money without giving something in return, after a time they will think they have as good a right as we have to live the lives of gentlemen and ladies of leisure, and they will want a greater income to cater for their needs. There is no saying what will happen. We must drive them back to the old idea that before they can draw a single penny of benefit they must render some service." We are all in favour of rendering service, but the duty of the Government is to provide reasonable employment at trade union rates of wages for every individual in the country, and, failing that, to make provision whereby family life can be maintained. Many a man who to-day is in a fine position is there only because of the failure of other human beings, and many a man who is brilliant is down in the gutter, while a third is thanking God for his ability when it has been the inability and failings of his neighbour to which he owes his position.
    The Government should give us a clear definition of what they intend in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) talked about the treadmill. If it is not the treadmill, what is it? Whatever we say it is, we are told it is not that. But what is it? Is it proposed to build ships? What are the Government going to do? The Under-Secretary mentioned farming. Let him tell us whether or not he means farming. Is the idea to send people into the workhouse? In Glasgow we had men who were denied relief and were sent into the workhouse. There they chopped wood. In some cases they actually went out on lorries wearing their moleskins and workhouse shirts and jackets, so that everyone knew them. They went down
    2158
    as far as Helensburgh competing with ordinary commercial firms in the sale of firewood. There were men who went into the back courts calling up to the windows trying to sell their firewood. Is that the kind of degrading job that the Government will tell the local authorities to give to poor persons?
    In this Clause the Government have started with the wrong attitude of mind. I remember a Member of this House saying once during the War, "It is far better having the working classes watching Charlie Chaplin at the pictures than listening to anti-War speeches at the street corner." The Government now think it is a bad thing to have men going to the pictures or the bowling green or the golf course. I see some of these men going around their allotments watching the development of their plants and vegetables, cutting the grass or trimming the hedges of their gardens. Apparently we expect these men, instead of attending to their personal wants, and the necessities of their families and the brightening of their homes, to engage in some form of hard labour either in the fields or in the institutions under this Clause.
    The Under-Secretary has met us in a fairly reasonable way on this Bill, but there are still objectionable features in it, and the proposal about test work is about the most objectionable. The Government have been prepared to grant concessions on many points, and, while they have given certain modifications and safeguards in connection with test work, the power will still be in the hands of local authorities to apply that system to the poor. There are authorities who will not take advantage of it but there are others of the anti-progressive type who will deem it their duty to extract the last ounce of energy from the poor people who come before them in return for very meagre sums of money. Those authorities will have this power, and they will exercise it to the full. In areas like Glasgow where the force of public opinion is strong and where we are likely to get a more progressive type of local government, the driving force of the united working-class movement will prevent any undue licence being exercised under this Clause. But in other areas and especially in the north there are local authorities with minds which properly belong to the Dark Ages, and for whom, even the powers contained in this Clause, will not

    2159
    be extreme enough. Those are the authorities to whom I am afraid of entrusting this power and that is why I support the proposal that this Clause should be cut out of the Bill because its provisions would put back the working class of this country for a generation.
    8.37 p.m.
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: I suppose there are members of public bodies of the reactionary type mentioned by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) who would look upon all poor people as having themselves to blame for their condition and who would insist upon exercising the most severe control over them. But I submit that it is unfair for hon. Members opposite to take that kind of person as typical or to take the old Scottish couple mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) as being typical of the sort of person who is going to be the subject of these proposals. The hon. Member went back to the time of Dickens. He ought to have gone back to Lewis Caroll for he has given us a version not of "Alice in Wonderland," but of "Maxton in Wonderland." He was building up a case which experience shows to be unreal. He takes one side of the picture, one aspect of the conditions, builds up a case upon that and claims that it is a typical case. He spoke of an admirable Scottish couple. But in his anxiety for those people the hon. Member has been forestalled by those who have drafted this Measure because it expressly provides that people like them will not be asked to do this kind of work. The Clause says:
    "Provided that such work shall be suited to the person's age, sex, strength and aptitude."
    Unless we are to assume that the local authorities are collections of nincompoops, I cannot imagine any local authority asking such a couple as the hon. Member has described to do this kind of work.
    Mr. MAXTON: I was talking about the things that they are doing now.
    Mr. STEWART: But the hon. Member must talk about the things that they will have to do under this Bill. That is what we are discussing.
    Mr. MAXTON: But this Bill is extending to the able-bodied poor the treatment
    2160
    that is presently handed out in the poor-houses of Scotland to the other poor. It is not imaginary. It is there.
    Mr. STEWART: I am not saying that the hon. Member has been imagining it, but I ask him to look at what is in the Bill. When these tasks, if you like to call them so, are extended it is provided that they are not to be extended to those persons who are too old or too weak or who have not the aptitude for them—precisely the sort of people mentioned by him. I hope I can understand the meaning of a Clause as well as my hon. Friends and that is my reading of it. There may be another reading, and the hon. Member is entitled to read what he likes into it, but he is not entitled to assume that everybody takes the same view as he does. The hon. Member for Shettleston made some remarks about agricultural work, and I think he suggested that these poor people were to be compelled to plough and harrow and reap. He surely does not suggest that the Minister said so.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Yes, in Committee he said it.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Work on farms was mentioned.
    Mr. STEWART: With great deference, I do not think the hon. Gentleman mentioned either ploughing or harrowing or reaping. Hon. Members speak as though anybody could be turned into an agricultural worker at short notice. I would point out that this is highly skilled work, and I cannot imagine that it has ever been suggested by the Government that specialised work of that kind should be done by these people. That is another example of the manner in which hon. Members opposite construct a case on conditions which do not exist. The hon. Member also spoke about work centres surrounded by guards. I almost expected him to add rifles and guns. I do not know whether he has been reading the accounts in the popular Press of what has been happening in Germany but I suggest that his picture is a fantastic one. I beg of hon. Members opposite to realise that there is another side to the picture. There are, unfortunately, a few people in all classes of society who may be described as "scallywags." This Bill is intended to deal with that kind of person and I submit that that kind of

    2161
    person must be treated differently from the admirable people described by the hon. Member for Bridgeton. To say either that such persons do not exist or that, if they do exist, you must treat them in the same way as other people, is to talk nonsense. Therefore, while looking at the Amendment with as much sympathy as my hon. Friend and with as much desire to do what is just, I contend that this Clause is needed and desirable and indeed may well be beneficent for these very poor people.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. LEONARD: I wish to associate myself with the effort that is now being made to delete this Clause, and I find myself in a quandary at the attitude adopted by the Government in their declared desire to see a duplication of training machinery. I have paid some attention to speeches from the Government and other benches as to the desire to plan out the national economy, and I think they should endeavour to make their machinery to meet the needs of industry national in its character, but I understand that it will give the right to local authorities to indulge in expenditure in the erection of machinery or institutions to direct training to those who come in contact with the Poor Law organisation. I suggest that these institutions will not be competent authorities to give guidance as to what type of training should be given. I was hopeful that the pressure as to some satisfaction with regard to the type of training to be given would have come out in Committee, but I am not very hopeful now, because I remember pressure being put upon the Minister of Labour in association with the Bill that he was piloting through this House to deal with the same point, and notwithstanding all the machinery at his disposal and the intimacy of all the managers of exchanges throughout the length and breadth of the country, the only specific thing that he could mention as displaying an opening for newly trained men was the erection of neon signs. I do not know what will take place after the country is covered with these neon signs advertising goods that, apparently, nobody could buy.
    With regard to the training that will be applied in those institutions, might I very sincerely say, with the knowledge of men who have had to receive training in organisations similar, I suppose, to
    2162
    what is visualised here, that when those people go into the workshops they are entirely at a loss to understand workshop technique. As a matter of fact, they are at a loss because the kind of training they have received has not been such as to fit them for the conditions of their work. Reference has been made to the possibility of pressure being brought to bear There may be means of pressure that might be exerted not very consciously upon applicants to go to these training centres. Once you create an institution, you create a vested interest that will keep going as long as it can, and I can see the possibility of that feature displaying itself in this organisation that is visualised here. As I said in Committee upstairs, I have never expressed myself as against the opportunity for training being given to young people, but not only is this giving persons an opportunity to receive training to fit them for their employment, but it is also giving an opportunity to make them able to return to employment, and, as I said upstairs, that widens out the age field. Therefore, I think we are entitled to ask that this Clause, in so far as they are concerned, should be departed from.
    I very much regret the attitude of compulsion that has been displayed in some of the speeches that I have heard, not in this House perhaps, but elsewhere. I admit that the attitude of compulsion might have been understandable when the field of employment was an open field within which persons desirous of earning a living could have a reasonable chance of securing employment, but the position is entirely changed, as that field is practically closed to thousands upon thousands of men in this country, and the compulsory side of this question gives it an entirely different aspect and makes it much more important, because of the restriction that would ultimately bear upon many decent men of the type that will come in contact with the Poor Law authorities. I have had experiences in Glasgow of men who have occupied positions deemed to be a little above that of the ordinary individual working at manual labour, who have come to me from time to time, as a representative on the City Council, asking for help. Many of them may in the future be subject to pressure to display their bona fides as men desirous of working for their

    2163
    livelihood. It might be said, and I would not deny it, that among the officials who will determine those cases there may be a great number willing to take the most lenient and humane view, but mistakes will be made, and for all that will be saved I think we had better not run the risk of having mistakes at all.
    If you are going to do a thing like this and you desire to be fair, you have got to have machinery adequate for what you think the problem will be. I do not think the problem is a great one. I am not prepared to think that there are many malingerers among that section of the community that will ultimately appeal to the Poor Law authorities, but I remember that the Under-Secretary talked about local authorities possibly requiring a third string to their bow. I do not think any further strings need be added to the Scottish Poor Law authorities' bow, but your machinery must be adequate to deal with the persons who come forward, and if, as the Under-Secretary fears, there is a considerable number of local authorities needing a third string to their bow, you will be creating a machine which, once created, will require men to be sent there in order to prove their willingness to work. The officials who are working that machine will continue to make demands upon the Poor Law authorities to send them raw material that will keep them functioning. I look upon that as a very important point. There is no doubt that, humanity and all such things apart, once you have created a machine for the purpose of imposing a task, that becomes an integral part of the Poor Law machine of that locality. The authorities will move heaven and earth to keep it going. There will be a tendency to have at least another look round to see if there is somebody they can send into the machine so that it will work to capacity.
    I regret, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) did, that I had to attend another Committee when this Bill was being considered, and I note that there has been an Amendment laying it down that the task which these men will be expected to perform will be
    "in connection with any institution carried on by the local authority, provided that such work shall be suited to the person's"
    capacity, and so on. I agree that makes the provision a little better, but I would
    2164
    prefer to have any work necessary to meet the requirements of an institution done in the normal way through the ordinary avenues of labour. There is no difficulty in getting the ordinary institutional requirements attended to without compulsion. Most of the people who go into the institution want something to do, and they ought to be able to do the little tasks that are necessary. That is all that should be expected. There has been some doubt as to the type of task or work that may be given.
    The Under-Secretary made reference in Committee to the re-conditioning of land as perhaps one of the activities that might provide opportunities to give men work. I want to ask him if he considers that work associated with the re-conditioning of land will be work suitable for the type of man who will be left to the Poor Law authorities to deal with. Men who have occupied the high positions in industry and commerce have come to me and other members of the Glasgow Corporation for help. They have been left high and dry and are more pitiable even than the ordinary worker who depends on his hands. I cannot see that that type of man will be suitable to go on any work associated with the reconditioning of land. The type we have to deal with, now that the other big machine on the unemployment side has taken so many of the ordinary workers, will not be so adaptable as those who were previously associated with relief work. I would like to have some guidance from the Minister as to how he will deal with this class of men if he thinks they are of a malingering type.
    I am pleased the hon. Gentleman got angry at the introduction of the word "task." It is a good thing that we should be angry at things like that. The hon. Gentleman must remember that, notwithstanding all his impressions in the matter, these things have to be administered, and it is in the administration that all the change takes place. No matter how humane you may make it in this Bill, once the administrators have to get the thing running it will be just as much a "task" to them as if any other word were associated with it. Therefore, I suggest that the conditions of the task and the type of man are important points about which the hon. Gentleman should give us some satisfac-

    2165
    tion. He has promised that the regulations will, be submitted to the Scottish Members. That is asking us to wait too long. The time allotted to the consideration of these things is not always adequate, and I hope that before disposing of this Clause we shall receive one or two points of guidance from the hon. Gentlemen
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hope the Under-Secretary will accept the Amendment. We discussed this Clause at some length in Committee, and I will dwell now not so much on the old men and women, as on the young men, because this Bill affects them, and it was because of them that it was introduced. A new situation arose, as a result of which the Bill was brought in, and this Clause is at the very heart of it. It is where two phases of thought in this House conflict—the Socialist thought and the Government thought. It is where the Socialist comes out and where the non-Socialist is discovered, no matter on what side of the House he sits. The Clause states that persons are to be trained
    "with a view to rendering them fit for entry into or return to regular employment."
    I remember when that principle was instituted in this House, and my whole being at that time revolted against it, because I had had practical experience of men being out of employment, not for months but for years, and who were quite capable of returning to work without any of this reconditioning. The individuals who invented that idea did not imagine that they themselves required to be reconditioned. It is always the poor worker who requires to be reconditioned and reformed and regenerated. All these "re's" apply to the poor worker.
    The men who worked on the Cunard liner were off work for two-and-a-half years. They are back at work now, many of them not having done any work in the meantime. They have been back only a few months, and the Cunarder is already a week ahead of time. There has been no difficulty in their returning to work and giving a good account of themselves. That is what the workers can do. They do not want this reconditioning. I have had actual experience with reference to the elderly workers. There were some big works where I worked for years which are
    2166
    now derelict. Thousands of men who are now my age, over 60 years, have been turned adrift. There is no pension for them, and that is the kind of man to whom this Clause applies. There are other men retired from the Post Office, police and school teachers, who are having pensions, and they are not a whit better than the ordinary workers. All those civil servants and others who will get pensions are being carried on the backs of the worker. He is the individual who has made it possible for all the civil servants to get pensions, or to get any pay at all. And this is the way we are going to treat him.
    The workers are to have tests. I am astonished that the Under-Secretary was so touchy—he really was touchy—but I excuse him, because he had a difficult task; but he was a wee bit touchy. Call it by any other name—"a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"—but it is test work. If they do not do it they will be "up against it." The hon. Gentleman told us in Committee that these men would not be required to do this work in order to get relief, but they do not know all that, they do not know that there will be a way of getting round it. They would resent having to chop wood and do innumerable other humiliating jobs. Up to the present none of the jobs these people have been called upon to do have been of an elevating character. No man will be as proud of his job as if he could say, "I am working on the Cunarder," or "I am building such-and-such a house," or "I am working for such-and-such a fellow." No, those men will be ashamed to say they are working in such places. It will be a disgrace, and their families will share it. There was a time when the people of my race regarded it as a disgrace that any member of the family should have to apply to the Poor Law. Here we are humbling the Scottish race in no uncertain fashion, reducing them to the lowest of the low.
    When Beardmore's closed down at Parkhead the men refused to go to the Employment Exchange—men of the type I am speaking of who will be affected by this law. They thought it was a disgrace. But they were left idle for years, and at last they were glad to go to the Employment Exchange. And they are as good men as the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Under-Secretary, In the end

    2167
    those men were forced to go to the Poor Law; and some of them have had to go to the poor-house. They are derelict. We are dealing here with derelict men, derelict through no fault of their own. We have no right to let the Government "get away with this business." The Government say they are not responsible for the unemployment, that unemployment was worse when the Labour Government were in office, but the fact remains that they are the Government, and they are responsible for the condition of the country while they are the Government. They have been long enough in power to make an impression on things, and we ought to have something different from this Bill. When the Poor Law was set up in Scotland in 1845 it was a new thing there. Before that time it was the Church which systematically dispensed charity. There was a poor box outside the church door. In Nether Bow churchyard, in the High Street of Edinburgh, there is one of the last remaining poor boxes. In 1845, however, it was decided that the time had arrived to deal with the poor of Scotland. The poor in those days were very different from the poor who will come under this Bill. The Poor Law of 1845 was to deal with:
    "Yonder poor o'er labour'd wight,
    So abject, mean and vile,
    Who begs a brother of the earth,
    To give him leave to toil."
    That was the type dealt with then—those who were old, who were broken. But this Bill deals with the able-bodied. They are poor and they are unemployed through no fault of their own. Every Government has been faced with the problem of how to deal with this body of unemployed. The returns given out by the Scottish Office show that thousands find each year that there is no work for them. What kind of work are the Government going to give to these able-bodied men for whom employers can find no work? If employers could find work for them they would be only too happy to engage them, because employers, who are human beings, do not employ them because they like them but because they can make a profit out of them. Unless they can make a profit out of them they will not employ them. Those who have the power and the honour of employing the workpeople of Scotland have no work for the workpeople to do.
    2168
    Our plea to the Government is not to allow the unemployed to go down, not to treat them as if they were criminals, as this Bill will do. The unemployed are unemployed through no fault of their own, and it is the duty of the Government to treat them, with justice and respect. Only last week I ask the Lord President of the Council what work the Economic Advisory Council had produced to assist with the problem of the unemployed. He evaded the question. He said they had put forward many suggestions. It also came out that this body, which it is true was appointed by the Labour Government, had cost £5,000. The individuals with whom we are dealing in this Bill are victims of the system, and they ought not to be treated in this fashion. I put it to the Government upstairs in Committee that here is an opportunity for the Scottish Office to do something; if they do not do it, it will be done by some future Government. In putting these individuals to work at the training centres, what are the Government going to train them to do? They will be handy men, spurned in the workshop, because foremen and workmen will not have anything to do with them. Some individual who has power forces them into the shipyards against those who are actually responsible for production in the workshops. They are being put in there with a view of introducing cheap labour. Anyone can deny it until he is black in the face, but that is what they are being put in for. Instead of putting men into that humiliating position, why should not the Secretary of State for Scotland give the world a lead? Let Scotland give the world a lead, as it has done in many things before, instead of putting those men in work centres and having them thrown on the street in any case, with nothing definite to do.
    "Satan finds some mischief still
    For idle hands to do."
    These men are idle through no fault of their own. The Scottish Office could step in now, and every man who was willing and capable of taking the higher form of education could be given the opportunity. We are rich enough, and we could well afford to give all the young men in our country a higher form of education. Until now, a university education has not been possible for such men in our country, generally speaking, although

    2169
    here and there a son of poor parents has been educated entirely out of his class, but invariably he forgets the class from which he has sprung. That need not be so now. An opportunity presents itself to the Scottish Office to give all the youth of Scotland a chance of going through our universities. Let the Scottish Office give them the higher education which so far has been the preserve of the rich. Owing to the economic conditions, and to man's ingenuity having tapped the sources of nature and made nature do man's work, we are the heirs of all the ages, in this machine age which enables our country to give our unemployed a better education than anyone in the working class has ever had before.
    Along those lines I am satisfied that, instead of leaving our youth to walk the streets with no object in life because there is no room for them, you would rear a race the like of which we have never yet produced. We have no idea of the heights to which the youth of Scotland might attain, and the possibility of realising that attainment is in the hands of the Scottish Office if they accept the suggestion that Clause 7 be deleted, and that what we are suggesting is put in its place.
    9.20 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: We have had a very interesting Debate on this Clause, and I have no complaint to make at all against the emphasis with which the deletion has been pressed. Far from being touchy on the subject, I have listened with great interest to all the speeches, with the exception of one very short speech, and I fully appreciate the observation of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) that this is a point in the Bill upon which there is a cleavage of opinion. If I may say so without any attempt at patronage, the opinion of the other side has been most clearly put this afternoon.
    I am not going to say very much about the first provision with regard to training, because it is admitted that that is a condition of relief that is voluntary. We are putting in a provision which refers to people over 18 years of age. The emphasis is not upon training, but upon the other class of work where it is thought expedient. I quite appreciate the point of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) that provision should be made for their training. I hold no brief for the word "conditioning" or
    2170
    "reconditioning." Like a great deal of our technical and semi-technical language it is a shorthand phrase. What is meant is something more important than the language. It means that men who are out of employment should have an opportunity, if they desire it, of organised training, not of a highly technical or scientific sort, because that is more a matter for the Ministry of Labour, but that some effort should be made to keep them going and give them something that will take them out of the rut of unemployment with which we are all so familiar. I do not think that if the provision in this Clause referred only to voluntary training the emphasis which has been directed against it would be so pronounced.
    Let me come to the sub-section relating to the provision of work and that work should be a condition of relief in cases where the local authority regard it as expedient. I have no complaint to make from a debating point of view of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) who, with his usual Parliamentary skill, exploited the full possibilities of that phraseology. It was only when I thought that he was rather misrepresenting the point of view I had tried to put at an earlier stage, that I intervened. I had appreciated long before he sat down that we should hear some phrase such as "Bumble." The opportunity of making use of such language in dealing with a Clause of this sort is irresistible, but it has very little relevance to the provisions of the Clause or the thoughts that were in our minds in drafting them. I will take this opportunity of saying that there are few characters with whom I feel less closely associated than Bumble. I never have felt very Bumble-ish, and I do not think that I would put into a Bill for which I have any responsibility a Clause which seems to represent that psychology. I beg my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton to believe that we had other ideas in our heads than ideas of the great Bumble when we put this Clause into the Bill.
    First of all, under this Clause—here I do not expect agreement, but I wish to make the statement—as in every other Clause of the Bill, we have rightly or wrongly kept primarly before our eyes the interests of the man who is receiving poor relief. I believe, and we believe, that there are cases where it is to the

    2171
    benefit of the able-bodied man himself that in return for relief he should do a job of work. Under the Scottish Poor Law as it stands without this Clause, you can give a man indoor relief if you think that he is not a suitable person to whom to give unconditional outdoor relief. There is, however, a large gap between unconditional outdoor relief and the sending of an able-bodied man to a poor-house. My object and the object of the Government in including this Clause is to fill the gap in every case between unconditional outdoor relief and the poor-house.
    I agree that when you put into the law a new provision such as this, its full scope, usefulness and value can to some extent only be learnt by putting it into operation. This Clause is therefore drawn in broad terms. The House will not, however, forget that this work will be done under regulations laid down by the Department, a task which this House would not wish to undertake. I believe that we can so frame these regulations that it will be clear that the cases in which the provision is to be applied are all cases in which it is in the interests of the man himself. The work to be done is useful—not the breaking of stones and' the cutting of wood which might exist under the Bumble motif which my hon. Friend has so ably expounded. The hon. Member for St. Rollox may well ask me to be more explicit on the subject. I do not think it is easy at the present stage to be explicit, but by the time we come to make regulations it will be much easier.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Why?
    Mr. SKELTON: Because then the draft Regulations will be thrashed out with the local authorities and with Members of Parliament, and after the Bill is passed we shall be in a position to explore the whole subject with the authorities concerned. The House and my hon. Friends must acknowledge that the underlying motive of this provision is the interest of the people themselves, and that regulations are perfectly capable of being framed so as to exclude the element of Bumbledom, dislike of which my hon. Friend shares with me.
    Mr. LOGAN: If the Under-Secretary would not mind my intervening, I am
    2172
    somewhat interested in regard to the English Poor Law—
    Mr. MACLEAN: We are discussing the Scottish Poor Law.
    Mr. LOGAN: That is true, but I want to see whether Scotland is getting preferential treatment. I understand that what is now being done in Scotland is applicable also to England; am I to understand that, if a man refuses the test work, he can still go to gaol just as he can under the English law?
    Mr. SKELTON: Far be it from me to deprecate the intervention of the hon. Gentleman in the Debate. I am delighted that he should take part. Nevertheless, I must point out to him that the general structure of the two Poor Laws are quite different. In particular, the reference to going to gaol which he made has no statutory foundation at all in Scotland. I look to some of his hon. Friends who are better instructed in the matter to give him a terse lecture on the difference between the Scottish and the English Poor Laws. On the whole, I submit to the House that there is a gap to be filled, and that we must be careful that we do not rope in numbers of people unnecessarily under this provision.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is it not possible and likely that once the institution or work centre has been created to cope with 50 people and there are only 25 in it, there will be a tendency on the part of the local authority to look for 25 more to go in?
    Mr. SKELTON: I do not think there will be such a tendency, for this reason. They have to assure themselves in each particular case that it is expedient that this provision should be put into operation. I do not think that there will be this immediate outcrop of work centres. I expect rather that proper provision will be made for suitable work to be done, and that is a matter for regulation by the central authority. I do not feel that the provision has made a very great difference. This power is regulated by the words in the Bill and will be regulated by the regulations themselves. I appreciate the objections that have been made to it, and I agree that its success will depend on its administration, but I think that it conforms to the tone of Parliament on the subject of Poor Law and to

    2173
    the modern point of view that exists so widely alike locally, in Parliament, and politically. I am certain that this is a safe power to put into our Bill and that there are cases in which it is in the interest of the individual that it should be put in.
    9.33 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member who spoke last made a new and valuable point. In reply to the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) let us examine what the position will be. I am not going to debate the Bill, nor do I agree with the remarks made on all sides. The real kernel of this Bill is in this Clause and the use we are going to make of it. We are going to deal under it with 10 per cent. of the unemployed of Scotland. The provision is confined to the able-bodied, and therefore 10 per cent. of the total unemployed will be covered by it. It is as well to restate that this section of the unemployed are those who are not covered by insurance. The Unemployment Insurance Act lays down that a young person who may never have worked is none the less covered; he only needs to belong to that grade which is likely to have worked at insurable employment. That Act covers even those who have been eight, nine, and 10 years out of employment, so that you are left with a residue of two or three categories. There are the professional classes, who, as the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) rightly says, deserve more pity than almost any other section when they become down and out. Then there are the small shopkeepers, and, to a certain extent, there is the hawker class. Those are all that you have left.
    What is the defence for this Clause? The hon. Member for East Fife says that they are undesirable people, but let us bear in mind that the Scottish Poor Law has carried on for all these years with at least 10 times the number of unemployed, and, therefore, 10 times the number of undesirables, without this power, and no difficulty has been found in dealing with that condition of affairs. The section involved here are practically speaking all middle-aged and elderly people. Every one of them has been through long years of some form of business. I am told by people who know that one-third of the people affected by this Bill will come from the City of Glasgow. Who are
    2174
    they? If I go down, as one is entitled to do, either to the Exchange or to the Poor Law office, I find that those who are refused as not coming within the category of insured workers are all people of middle age.
    The hon. Member for St. Rollox made a point which I think is important. When you have created a machine for this purpose, the person who runs the machine has a vested interest in seeing that human material is supplied for it. To that point there is no answer. Once the machine is created, its appetite has to be supplied. The hon. Member for East Fife suggests one centre for the bad people. He is a man of capacity; let me put this point to him. He is going to congregate all the bad people together; that is the scheme; he is going to have them in buildings, planned. But what would happen in practice if all the so-called bad people of Glasgow were gathered together? There, in a communal centre, you would have gathered together the bad for them to become worse, because they would pool their badness and learn it better when they were together. As a matter of fact, from the social point of view, it is 50 times better not to gather them together in these centres at all, but to keep them as they are now. What is proposed here? To acquire buildings, to acquire land, to acquire an institution, so that the bad people, who are now isolated, shall be gathered together under one roof, where their badness is pooled. The hon. Member says "No," but let him read the Clause. It says:
    "A local authority shall have power to provide and maintain work centres … including power to acquire land, to construct buildings, to provide and maintain plant and equipment …."
    Mr. H. STEWART: The hon. Member does not give me the credit of distinguishing between training centres and the arrangement by which local authorities are to require work to be done in return for payments. I was referring to the latter.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not dealing with the work centres. The hon. Member says that you cannot group them together, but you cannot call it a centre unless there is a group there. The thing is that they are brought there. The hon. Member says, give the local authorities credit that they will not do wrong. I do not

    2175
    know where he gets his experience from, but my experience seems to run counter to that suggestion. What about all the correspondence that the hon. Gentleman and I had, and all the discussions and deputations? Test work is illegal now in Scotland. Many authorities applied it, until the Under-Secretary intervened in the most frigid fashion and stopped them. He cannot deny that.
    Mr. SKELTON: A perfectly illegal act was being done, as my hon. Friend knows.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Such an illegal act was done by Montrose in compelling men to do test work. Now they have the power of this Clause—to do what? To establish work centres for any persons whom they think undesirable. To my mind, everybody to-day who does not work for his money is undesirable. The Under-Secretary, in reply to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan), who was nearer the truth than the hon. Gentleman gave him credit for, said that there is no gaol. Is he so sure about that? Let us reason out what happens. A man is sent to a centre. He says: "I am not going; I refuse." What does that act mean? That deliberate act of his means depriving his wife and family of the necessities of life, and it could be construed to mean that he is causing distress to those dependent upon him. That is the point, and it is not so easily dismissed as the hon. Gentleman set out to dismiss it.
    He says that he cannot tell us now what will happen, that he will tell us afterwards, but I would like to ask him, what is the kind of job that is to be given to those men? We are told that it is not to reap, it is not to plough, it is not to carry on such occupations as that. I accept that. It is not to be engineering. That is highly skilled. It is not to be cabinet making. That is highly skilled. What is it to be? An hon. Member says there are plenty of jobs in the pits, but we cannot bring the pits up and put them on the land. I am afraid it is not going to be the mines. What kind of training are they to get? I know of nothing. There used to be a market not so many years ago for training footballers, who made considerable money out of the English. That avenue is largely closed. For one thing the English have learned how to spend their money. There is no
    2176
    training left and the Under-Secretary knows it.
    The Glasgow Corporation have tried training, and Montrose tried it, and it broke down. They would give a man £10 and send him out selling silk stockings and shoes at the doors of houses. But while they were putting that man off the Poor Law they were putting on to the Poor Law the man who was earning his living legitimately in that way. Glasgow tried the training of girls and men, and they found there was only one market, and that was a limited one. They sent them out to work on farms. But even there it is only the very young who can go. You cannot send a man with a wife and children to work on a farm. I wish I could get hon. Members opposite to grasp the problem, because I am sure they do not. There may have been some need for this years ago when the Poor Law authorities dealt with the whole of unemployment, but to-day they are left with only the small residue of it belonging in the main to the middle aged and the old aged.
    The dangers of this Clause are immense. The Under-Secretary has given way on a great many things, but on this Clause he has been immovable. I feel that behind it there is a sinister purpose. There is a power given to men which in my view is too great to allow to any group. I trust that the House will reject the Clause in its entirety. We have to have regard to the point of view not only of the unemployed man but of the employed man as well. If you send any one of these men to work at any job, he immediately becomes a menace in some way to those who are at work.
    There seems to he a common impression that farming is understaffed and can do with a lot more labourers, but I do not see the slightest evidence of it. Neither do I see a terrible shortage in domestic service. Let the normal channels of domestic service give the normal woman who wants work decent conditions and there will be no shortage. There is one reason for the shortage of domestic servants. No attraction is offered nor are decent conditions offered. A man who is considered a bad man in a small district is not regarded as a bad man in Glasgow. In the little towns in Fife or Forfar a fellow is bad because he has winked at a girl two or three times. The

    2177
    badness there is not the City badness. In my division there is no one bad, because everyone is really bad. Everyone in my district, including myself, has a Jot more faults and failings than good points. In the country and in small towns there is talk and scandal, and life is different from what it is in the cities. The fellow in the small town who says, "I do not believe in your particular view of political economy, or this or that," is in a different position entirely from those in the big towns.
    The handing over of these powers is too great a risk. If Parliament has made up its mind to embark upon this matter, let Parliament do it. Do not hand over these powers to groups of people because, however well intentioned they may be, they are far too great even for them to possess. If the House of Commons wants
    Parliament to take over those responsibilities, let the Government think out the next steps. I have lived all my life with the people who are supposed to be bad. I have met and mixed with them. They are of my stock, and none of them are half as bad as they are constantly said to be. If given decent conditions, decent homes and an opportunity of earning their livelihood there is not one of them who could not rise to the same decent level as the rest of us. I trust that the House will reject the Clause, the provisions of which are being imposed upon the poorest section of the population
    Question put, "That the words to 'with' in lines 36, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 34.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

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

    White, Henry Graham

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Major George Davies.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    McEntee, valentine L.

    Banfield, John William

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Batey, Joseph

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

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

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Maxton, James

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    John, William

    Thorne, William James

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Dobbie, William

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Dr. John H, (Llanelly)

    Edwards, Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Wilmot, John

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Lunn, William

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. McGovern and Mr. Buchanan.

    10.5 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 36, after "afforded" to insert:
    "and who are of the age of eighteen years or upwards."
    This Amendment is to provide that the training in Sub-section (1) shall only be given to those over 18 years of age. The question was raised in Committee and it was felt that it would be for the Unemployment Board to deal with the juniors under 18, and that it would make the point plainer if these words were put into the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: in page 4, line 37, leave out "them," and insert "such persons."—[Mr. Skelton.]
    Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, at the end, to insert:
    "but it shall not be lawful for a local authority to make attendance at any such centre a condition of the receipt of relief."
    This Amendment is to make good a pledge which I gave in Committee that if there was any way in which it could be made more clear that the training was voluntary and not a condition of relief, I would put in words.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Division No. 323.]

    AYES.

    [10.10 p.m

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

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

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

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks, Aylesbury)

    Buchan, John

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

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

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Bossom, A. C.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

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

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Burnett, John George

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Caine, G. R. Hall.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Bracken, Brendan

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Christie, James Archibald

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    10.8 p.m.
    Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move in page 5, line 3, to leave out from "may," to the first "work," in line 5, and to insert, "be offered by the local authority."
    The object of this Amendment is to provide that the performance of work at a centre shall not be a condition of receiving or continuing to receive relief. The point has been dealt with in debate, and I will not enlarge upon it.
    Mr. McENTEE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    10.9 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: I appreciate the brevity with which my hon. Friend moved the Amendment. He is right in saying that the substance of the matter has been dealt with in a very full debate on the question that the Clause be omitted. I realise that in moving the Amendment my hon. Friend feels that the House has decided the main question and that we might well curtail debate, seeing that the full Debate will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT and that a Division can be taken to emphasise their view.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 32.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Remer, John R.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Rickards, George William

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vera

    Robinson, John Roland

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Ross, Ronald D.

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

    Mabane, William

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Cross, R. H.

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

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

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Salmon, Sir Isldore

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Milne, Charles

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

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

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Goff, Sir Park

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J

    Grimston, R. V.

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Munro, Patrick

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Nail, Sir Joseph

    Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

    Hales, Harold K.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Storey, Samuel

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    North, Edward T.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Nunn, William

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Pearson, William G.

    White, Henry Graham

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

    Peat, Charles U.

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Penny, Sir George

    Wise, Alfred R.

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Petherick, M

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

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

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.

    and Major George Davies.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McGovern, John

    Banfield, John William

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Batey, Joseph

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

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

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Maxton, James

    Buchanan, George

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cape, Thomas

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Wilmot, John

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Leonard, William

    Dobbie, William

    Logan, David Gilbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Edwards, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 5, to leave out from the first "work" to "suited," in line 8.
    This, the first of a group of Amendments, four in number, are consequential and drafting, and are moved for the purpose of putting in better form the concession which I gave the Committee, that the work should be at a centre or institution maintained by the authority; an institution of the authority in its Poor Law capacity and not any of the various institutions which a local authority may have.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 10, leave out "so however," and insert "Provided."
    In line 12, leave out "except," and insert:
    "otherwise than at a work centre provided under this section or at or in connection with any institution maintained by the authority for the purposes of the principal Act and."—[Mr. Skelton.]
    10.19 p.m.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, after "by," to insert:
    "the medical adviser of the applicant or, failing that, by."

    2183
    The purpose of the Amendment is that if a man is seen by the medical officer of an authority he shall have the option of having his own medical adviser so that if any difference arises as to whether he is fit, or if there are any other questions which it is necessary should be decided by a medical authority, the applicant for relief would not be merely under the direction of, or the treatment of, or the decision of the medical officer of the local authority, but would have the opinion of his own medical adviser also.
    10.20 p.m.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept the Amendment. It is not in any sense intended to weaken or destroy the Bill. It is merely intended that when the medical officer of the local authority is called upon to give an opinion as to the fitness or otherwise for work of an applicant, the responsibility should not rest entirely upon him. We would be quite prepared to consider the responsibility being shared by the panel doctor, who could be called in to discuss the matter with the medical officer of the local authority before any decision is given. The panel doctor will know a great deal more about a man's capacity than the medical officer of the local authority.
    10.21 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: I have already said that in our view a principle of the Bill must be that the interests of the man shall be a first consideration. When I considered this Amendment it seemed that there was something of that principle in it. The actual language of the Amendment has difficulties. I am, however, prepared in another place to put in an Amendment to provide that the medical officer of the authority shall consult with the medical attendant of the man, if the man so requests, keeping in view the fact that in our opinion there will not be many cases in which this Subsection will be put into operation. It is desirable, however, that no mistake should be made in the operation of the Sub-section. The doctor who has had long experience of an unfit patient knows his medical history far more than any stranger. Therefore, there is a strong case for consultation with an applicant's doctor. I shall try, in another place, to put in words to meet that point. But let
    2184
    it be understood that the final responsibility will rest with the medical officer of the local authority.
    Mr. MACLEAN: In view of that very favourable statement I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 5, line 13, leave out "it," and insert "the work."—[Mr. Skelton.]

    CLAUSE 8.—(Classification of indoor poor.)
    10.25 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 34, after "provide" to insert:
    "or make arrangements for the provision of."
    The Clause as it stands deals with the provision by local authorities of special accommodation in institutions for various categories of inmates. It has been pointed out that there might be classes or categories of poor persons of whom a particular authority would have very few but for whom special treatment was desirable, and that it would be a convenience if a local authority in that case instead of starting an institution for that special category, could make provision in the existing institution of another local authority.
    10.26 p.m.
    Mr. LEONARD: We put down an Amendment in Committee on this point and, having looked up the speeches of the Under-Secretary, I gather that the classes referred to are aged people as against young people, and males as against females. I take it that that is what is intended—that there should be separate accommodation for each or any of those classes—and that he does not propose to segregate these people into various classes and types.
    10.27 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: No, certainly not. But it was pointed out that there might be, for instance in the area of a country local authority, one or two cases of epilepsy and that special treatment for epileptics might not be practicable inside the area of that local authority; whereas some urban authority or some large neighbouring authority, might have a very good home for epileptics to which it would be desirable to send those persons.
    10.28 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: We had to make a great fight in Scotland against old couples being separated when they went to the poorhouse after having lived happily together for many years even though in the poorest circumstances. I have known cases of people who had lived for 50 years in the one house and who when they were taken to the poorhouse were separated and never saw each other again. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that no local authority will be able to read into this Clause that they have power to order the separation of old people in those circumstances?
    Mr. SKELTON: I can answer the hon. Member's question definitely in the affirmative.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I take it that the regulations to be issued in this case will go through the forms proposed in regard to the other regulations?
    Mr. SKELTON: That is so.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Outdoor relief to members of friendly societies, etc.)
    10.29 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 30 to 33, and to insert:
    "(2) Where a person to whom a local authority have afforded out-door relief shows to the satisfaction of the Department that the authority, in affording such relief, have failed in any respect to comply with the provisions of the foregoing Sub-section then, notwithstanding anything in Section seventy-five of the principal Act, he shall be entitled to recover from the authority such sum as the Department may certify to be the difference in amount between the relief afforded to him and the relief which he would have received had the authority duly complied with the provisions of the said Sub-section."
    This Amendment is to secure that where a local authority has not paid attention to the provisions which affect disregards in granting relief, if the Department is satisfied, back payments can be recovered by ordinary process of law. That explains why we have to amend a Section in the original Act of 1845.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I take it that this is a proposal, in the event of an individual whose case has been held back and who, therefore, has not received the relief to
    2186
    which he considers himself entitled for, say, a week or a fortnight, that, when it is discovered that he has been receiving inadequate relief, he can get it right back from the date when he made his original claim.
    Mr. SKELTON: The actual Amendment was accepted in Committee, but it was necessary to alter the language of that Amendment. This is the altered language.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion (made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    10.31 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: It has been in recent years a growing practice for the Third Reading of a Bill to be moved without a winding-up speech. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has undertaken to reply to any observations that may be made, and I will adopt that practice with regard to this Bill, saying only this, that the House will recollect that, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, I hinted that on a great many of the detailed provisions of the Bill we would be very glad to hear the views of the Committee. After the exhaustive and interesting discussions which we have had, although it cannot be said that there are not points of difference in the Bill, this can be said of the Bill in its present form, that it does represent to a very large extent a general fusion of the current views of Scottish Members of the kind of shape that the Scottish Poor Law should take. I do not include in that the more controversial sections that have been dealt with, but the net effect of the Committee has been that there has been, for the first time for 80 years, a very full discussion of the general lines upon which the Scottish Poor Law should proceed, and I think myself that a very interesting result has been obtained. I should not rise on this occasion without saying, as one who has been largely responsible for the conduct of the Bill, that I want to give my thanks to Members on all sides of the House for the suggestions which they have made in Committee. I think there is no side whose views are not introduced in the Bill as it stands, and I want to thank them all. If there are one or two who, in the course of the rough and tumble of the Committee, feel

    2187
    that I gave them rather short shrift, they have my apologies, and I hope they will believe that any shortness on my part was purely unintentional.
    10.34 p.m.
    Mr. MACLEAN: The Bill has had rather a long Committee stage, almost without precedent in the Scottish Standing Committee, for several years at any rate. Quite a number of very interesting statements have been made, and I am certain that some of the Members, if not all of us, have received some extensions to our previous knowledge of what were the circumstances and conditions of Scottish Poor Law and its administration. Before coming to the controversial parts of the Bill I want to express on behalf of my colleagues—and I am certain that every Member of the Scottish Standing Committee will associate himself with me—our appreciation of the manner in which the Members of the Government representing the Scottish Office, namely, the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General, showed toleration of our points of view and took infinite pains to explain to us certain sections of the Bill and the reasons why they could not accept many of the Amendments proposed by us.
    When the Bill originally came before the House of Commons it contained matters that were vehemently protested against and violently opposed in various districts in Scotland. The Bill was fought through 15 days in Committee, and Members of the Committee, with the exception of only one day, were always able to meet and conduct their business. That was different from other Committees, which seemed to have cultivated a very bad habit of having to adjourn because of the absence of a quorum. On the Scottish Standing Committee, not merely the Members of the Government, but the ordinary Members of the Committee, kept up a very high standard of attendance as though, while there was difference of opinion on separate representation for Scotland in a separate Parliament, they were determined to show that in Westminster the Scottish Standing Committee could keep up a full complement of attendance.
    The Bill has been amended considerably, and for the concessions which have been given to different sections in the
    2188
    House we can express our thanks to the Under-Secretary and to the Secretary of State. Probably they could not have given more than they have given, but nevertheless we feel that we ought to have received more than has been given to us. Certain matters have yet to be given consideration with a view to insertion of Amendments in another place, and we shall see when they are put in the Bill how they will affect its administration. With regard to the regulations that have to be issued, a Bill of this nature is largely administered by the manner in which it is interpreted by the Secretary of State and the local authorities. I think, therefore, that the precedent which was suggested by the Under-Secretary during one of the Debates is a good one, and I hope it will last for some time after the Bill becomes an Act so that we can see exactly how it is likely to operate when it comes to be administered by the local authorities.
    Finally, I would say that we are not satisfied with the Bill, in spite of the concessions which have been made. Three Clauses to which strong objection was taken have been wiped out in the main, but we feel the Bill could be made a Very much better Measure. The Secretary of State for Scotland has promised to bring forward, a Bill, which has long been looked forward to, for the purpose of consolidating all the Poor Law Measures for Scotland passed in previous years, so that people will know just exactly under which Act of Parliament the Poor Law is administered. We hope that before that consolidating Measure is introduced so much experience will have been gained through the administration of this Bill that the Secretary of State will at last realise that it will be necessary to accept the ideas which were put before him during the Committee stage for the greater humanising of the Poor Law of Scotland. I trust that he will not delay the introduction of the new consolidating Measure in the new Session of Parliament, so that this present Bill, which is merely of a temporary character, although it is supposed to make permanent certain previous temporary Measures, will in itself be only a temporary Measure. In my last words I have to say that although, as a result of the concessions, the Bill now shows an improvement on the Measure as it was when

    2189
    first brought before the House, the improvement is not sufficiently great to make it acceptable, and we shall have to divide against the Third Reading.
    10.44 p.m.
    Mr. MILNE: When this Bill was originally presented to Parliament some of us on this side of the House who are supporters of the Government were critical of certain of its proposals, but now that it has emerged from Committee purged and purified I feel that it deserves the hearty support of all sections of the House. The Under-Secretary has explained that the Measure was absolutely necessary in order that Scotland should find a place within the scheme of the Unemployment Act. I think that one of the chief merits of the Bill in the shape in which we now see it is that it does nothing more than is necessary to achieve that end. Most of the Clauses around which controversy centred, the disciplinary proposals, have been dropped. There was a proposal to empower the local authority to detain the inmates of poor houses. A governor was to have power to sentence a man to solitary confinement. There was also the right of search. All those proposals have gone, and I hope they have gone for good; at any rate, they have been placed in cold storage to await the report and recommendations of the Departmental Committee.
    One Clause of the Bill has survived, an orphan of the storm. It has not received the attention that it deserves, but we are all glad that it has survived, because it has great possibilities for good. I refer to Clause 8, which empowers the Department to provide separate accommodation for different classes of inmates. I am not sure that I am right in saying that all sections of the House are glad. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and to that of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and I formed the impression that they are not whole-hearted supporters of the Bill. They did not appear to receive it with boisterous cordiality. What can one expect? This morning in Committee Boom 14 I listened almost continuously from eleven o'clock until a quarter to two to the hon. Member for Bridgeton, and he made it very plain that in his judgment this is the worst Government of modern times.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: You do not deny that?
    Mr. MILNE: I think that is a somewhat jaundiced view. The hon. Member for Bridgeton, the leader of the best Opposition of modern times, launched an impassioned denunciation of what he called "Bumbledom" and what he sometimes terms "institutionalism." He wants to abolish the poorhouse. Surely that is the view of all of us, and, unless I am greatly mistaken, that is the view of the Government. They want to be rid of the poorhouse and of the need for the poorhouse. It has been the laudable practice of the Scottish local authorities, whenever possible, to afford assistance by offering outdoor relief rather than to require the applicant to enter the poorhouse. The time is not yet for the abolition of the poorhouse because there are still problems to be solved. There is the problem of the casual poor and the tramp; some accommodation must be found for them. It will be the task of the Departmental Committee to decide how, when and where they are to be provided for. Then there is the case of the aged and infirm. On the Second Beading the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson) told us in an arresting passage how in his part of the country the old folk have no dread of the poorhouse. They regard is as a "very kindly" home. Clause 8 will go some way to help us to attain that ideal, and in future, by whatever name we call it, the refuge we provide for those old people will become a "very kindly" home. On behalf of the critics—I mean the more discriminating section of the Government's supporters—I thank the Government for having introduced this most necessary Measure and for having appointed the Departmental Committee; not least, I thank them for the very sympathetic and accommodating response they have given to our criticisms.
    10.50 p.m.
    Mrs. SHAW: After 15 days of somewhat stormy passage in Committee this Bill has emerged a better, less harsh and more humane Bill than when it was first presented to us. I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary on his careful and judicious handling in Committee of its very difficult problems, and to thank him for the concessions which he has made which have transformed the

    2191
    Bill. The Bill has been necessary to bring Scottish Poor Law into uniformity and to fit it in with the schemes for helping the unemployed, and to that end it authorises various courses for training and instruction. Were it not for the safeguard of the physical fitness of the applicant to perform that work, I should not have supported this provision, but on account of that safeguard I think it is a just and proper one. In this connection, however, I feel I must express here, as I did in Committee, my fears lest the powers conferred upon local authorities to provide and maintain work centres may lead to extravagance. I appreciate that this is neither the time nor the place to elaborate that point, and I shall content myself with expressing the hope that local authorities in the exercise of these powers will first have regard to existing accommodation within their area before embarking on elaborate schemes.
    It is a matter for some satisfaction that we have now a decision in the long-vexed question of the law of settlement. The discussion that raged in the Committee stage and on the Report stage to-day in this connection was largely a matter of difference between the local authorities. If that difference should assume the proportions of a dispute, they will have resort to the Department. The main feature which still exists, however, is that the poor shall not suffer. I hope and believe that some of them may even be better off. They will at any rate have equality of treatment in their area of settlement for the time being, whether that settlement be one of residence or of birth. That is a particularly good point in this Bill. I also welcome the Clause which gives authority to disregard the first £1 of ex-service men's pensions. That again makes for uniformity, and this I am sure will be recognised by all ex-service men. All the provisions of the Bill seem to me to mark a distinct improvement in Poor Law reform.
    In his admirably lucid and explanatory speech on the Second Reading, the Under-Secretary said that no less than 89 years have elapsed since Parliament passed a general Act. If we go farther back in the history of Scottish Poor Law, we find that in the year 1424 the able-bodied who did not work were punished by branding on the cheek and banishment from the
    2192
    country. We have travelled a long way since those good old days. I take this Bill as proving the truth of the saying that virtue is the mean between two extremes. On the one hand, we had the harsh extreme of the punishment of the poor or the leaving of them severely alone; on the other, we have the unwise and indiscriminate distribution of money which, instead of remedying the condition which it is meant to remedy, worsens it. I shall support the Third Reading because I believe that this Scottish Poor Law Bill strikes the golden mean between those two extremes.
    10.55 p.m.
    Sir M. WOOD: I should like to say one last word on behalf of myself and my friends before the Bill leaves this House. Although it is true that there is one considerable blot upon it from my point of view, I think, like many others, that it is a much better Bill than it was when it was first introduced, and that everyone will desire to congratulate the Under-Secretary, who has borne the brunt of the work, and will hope that he will live to see the fruits of the great labour that he has put in in connection with it. I feel certain that most people will agree that the Scottish Poor Law will be very much better if this Bill becomes an Act, and I can only join with others who have already expressed the hope that the codification of the law which I understand is promised will not be long delayed, that an inquiry into the law of settlement will be undertaken as soon as possible, and that in the not distant future we may be able to get rid of that mediaeval survival which, I think, everyone agrees ought not to lumber our Statute Book in the 20th century.
    10.57 p.m.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I do not want to delay the House, because I realise that this Measure has arrived at a stage when controversy is out of the question. The House decided on the principle of the Bill, it has given by a majority vote, after prolonged discussions in Committee, its assent to the Measure as it now stands, and, therefore, while those who wish it well give it their blessing, we will give it a last parting kick by dividing in the Lobby against it. I do not pretend that the Bill is all that we would desire, nor do I claim that it is as harsh a Measure as it was when it first

    2193
    saw the light of day in the Committee upstairs. To my mind the proceedings in Committee and in the House to-day open up what might be a very useful procedure. If the same spirit of sweet reasonableness were apparent on the Government benches in every Committee and on every Bill, so that, while dividing on principle, we might seek to take off the harsh points from Bills, to me at any rate Parliamentary life would be more worth while.
    I want to add my word of courteous congratulation to those who have piloted the Bill. The Under-Secretary has said that sometimes he may have been harsh, but I think that in many ways that term might be applied to some of us who have taken part in the discussions. From time to time we may have been crude, and to a certain extent obnoxious, in our language denunciatory of the Bill, but we were seeking to improve the well-being of the common people and to give them every opportunity, in their distressing and depressed circumstances, of receiving a fresh ray of sunshine into their lives. I think that the courteous conduct of the Bill deserves congratulations from all quarters of the House. The Under-Secretary has had a difficult job. He had his Government to defend, and he had his own point of view in piloting the Bill through the House. Some of the Clauses of the Bill with which we were not satisfied have been modified by the Under-Secretary, the Lord Advocate, and the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are not as bad, but there are still one or two points that are obnoxious to us. The hon. Gentleman certainly has eliminated certain powers. We can only hope that public opinion will be the guardian of any great powers that are given and the custodian of the rights of people to see that those powers are not used wrongly. Whilst we condemn the Bill, we want to add our congratulations to those who have piloted it for the courtesy, the consideration, and the spirit of compromise that they have shown.
    11.1 p.m.
    Sir PATRICK FORD: I shall certainly support the Third Beading. I agree that it is a better Bill than when it came to Committee, and we are very largely indebted for that to the courteous consideration and absence of any party
    2194
    feeling displayed by the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary. I wish that in regard to the need test something had been done for the reservist. There was a slight misunderstanding between me and some of the gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. I understood that on the re-committal of the Bill they were going to put down an Amendment dealing with the point. I was very disappointed that I was not able to be in the House last night, and I found that had not been done. However, I hope that may be put right by subsequent legislation. It is an important point. The people who risk their lives for us as reservists ought to be considered as much as people under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and so on. I was partly responsible for it by not being more urgent in seeing to the thing being put in. There was no trickery about it. It was an unfortunate misunderstanding. I want to make that protest against a minor omission from the Bill. I was very much struck with the unanimity and the friendly feeling between all sections of Scottish Members in getting the Bill through Committee.
    11.3 p.m.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: One thing that we are all agreed upon is that this is a bad Bill.
    Sir P. FORD: No.
    Mr. GRAHAM: All who have spoken on the Third Reading have given expression to the view that on its introduction it was a bad Bill though they admit that it is a bit better now. We do not think it is good enough yet. We are, however, all agreed as to the courteous manner in which the official representatives of the Government have met the views of the Opposition. There have been a number of modifications made which will be to the advantage of the Bill. I do not know what the views of the public will be a year hence, but the vast majority of the people who were to be affected by it looked upon it as a bad one. It will all depend on what the regulations contain and how they are interpreted whether it will be as good as some of our friends imagine it to be.
    With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford), I do not know anything about the question of the reservists. We put

    2195
    down certain Amendments dealing with disregards. We tried to get the 'Government to agree with us on the question of compensation in respect of men who were subject to accidents in the course of their employment. The man who is injured in the production of work is as important as the reservist, although I do not want to say anything disagreeable regarding that particular person. We did not get very much satisfaction from the Government. As long as these exceptions are still in the Bill we cannot look upon it as one which would entitle us to give it our support, and, consequently, as far as hon. Members on this side of the House are concerned, we propose to go into the Division Lobby against the Third Reading. We are safeguarding ourselves against the time when we hope to have an opportunity of introducing into this House a better Bill, and one which will have some regard to the well-being of the people affected by it.
    I do not think that any of us know anything at all of what poorhouse life really is. I read somewhere recently an opinion expressed by one who had had some experience of the prisons of this country, and who said that certain judges ought to be in prison themselves. I hold the view that it would be an advantage and a very good thing if those who are called upon to legislate along these lines had some experience of what poverty really means, what it means to be an inmate of the poorhouse, and what treatment is given to those who are unfortunately compelled to depend upon the charity meted out to them by officials of local authorities in the different parts of the country. I am not satisfied with the Bill. I do not look upon it as satisfactory at all, and I do not think that it will prove to be such an advantage as some of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House expect. Time alone will tell. I shall be very pleased if it should happen that I am not a very accurate prophet in regard to the matter. The Under-Secretary will not only deserve all the credit which has been given to him for his work during the passage of the Bill, but considerable credit will reflect upon him if it works out as he anticipates. If this should be the case nobody will be more pleased than I shall be. I hope that I shall be a bad prophet, and if I am, it will be to the advantage of the people who will be affected by the Bill.
    11.8 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Normand): When this Bill was before the House on Second Reading I said two things. One was that the Government were anxious and willing to co-operate with every section of opinion in the Scottish Standing Committee, and the other was that with such co-operation I was certain that the Poor Law of Scotland would be both humane and efficient. The speeches which have been made on the Third Reading of the Bill show that the co-operation which was offered by the Government at that early stage was given in full measure by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at every stage of the Committee proceedings. A number of changes were introduced into the Bill, a number of concessions were made by the Government and a number of Amendments were accepted, and I think that it is true to say that there was a strong body of opinion represented on all sides of the House in favour of every change that was made. I am aware that there was one change, namely, that, made in the law of settlement affecting the able-bodied poor, which met with a certain amount of opposition. With that single exception every change was made with the almost unanimous approval of the Committee. I think that is a great tribute to the co-operation of the Committee in the difficult task of dealing with the somewhat antiquated Poor Law of Scotland. Great alterations have been made and all have been made for the purpose of furthering the interests of poor people, not for the benefit of those who administer the Poor Law nor for the benefit of the Department which stands at the centre of the Poor Law administration of Scotland.
    Let me remind the House what those improvements arc. Further provision has been made for the relief of the able-bodied poor. The alteration in the law of settlement, although it may be deplored by one or two hon. Members who have a geographical difficulty in regard to that particular question, has secured this result, that it will no longer be possible for two people in exactly the same condition or circumstances in every respect, living next door to one another, and whose only difference is that one comes perhaps from some distant rural parish while the other was born in the street in which

    2197
    both are living, to receive completely different sums in relief of an equal need. I think that is a great improvement in our law. We have begun in this Bill the process of humanising our poor house. One hon. Member asked whether we were in any way endangering the great step forward that was made some years ago, when it was arranged that a poor husband and a poor wife should no longer be separated but be able to live out their joint lives together. So far from that being interfered with, the provision we have made is in anticipation of the kind of change which we all hope, under the regulations made by virtue of this Bill, to introduce into our poor houses. It is to make the poor house less inhuman, more humane and more satisfactory from the point of view of those who are unfortunately reduced to ending their lives in the poor house, than it is at present.
    Another great improvement from the point of view of the poor is that we have now given statutory effect to what we have called in this Debate the "disregards" which in future a local authority will have to observe in assessing needs and fixing the amount of relief to be given. The hon. Baronet the Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) raised the question of reservists. I can assure him that that question has received careful consideration from the Government, and although my hon. Friend was unable to make the concession which the hon. Baronet desired, yet the arguments which he submitted to the Committee have been most carefully gone over, and it is with great regret that we had to refuse to make that particular concession. In almost every other respect we have been able to meet the desires of Scottish Members, and even where we have been compelled to refuse to make concessions which were asked of us, we have given fair and impartial consideration to each request that was made.
    Above all, I should like to emphasise the improvements we have made in affording poor people who have had their claims refused a right of appeal. Under the old law there was a right of appeal but it was in some respects imperfect, and one imperfection was that a man who had been refused relief or had been given inadequate relief had no redress for any
    2198
    disadvantage he might have suffered in the interval between the time when his case was disposed of by the local authority and when it was disposed of by the court of appeal. That defect has been remedied, and provision has also been made for bringing to the notice of the applicant at the time of refusal a knowledge that he has a right of appeal and also of obtaining from the local authority a statement of the grounds upon which the relief was refused. He is now in a better position than ever he was of exercising his right of appeal. That is a great step forward and a great improvement upon the previous law. I think that the Bill as it stands deserves the approval of Parliament. It has been said that when it was introduced it was a bad Bill. I do not agree with that statement; and I think that hon. Members who considered that it was a bad Bill will agree that potentially it was a very good Bill, and that it has now become a very good Bill.
    11.17 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) that it is not a good Bill, although we feel a sense of gratitude to the Government for the concessions they have made. As it was introduced it was, to some of us, the most repugnant Bill ever introduced, hut it has been improved beyond all recognition. Our sense of gratitude arises, not because it is now a good Bill, but because the Opposition, though small, has been able to show how the Bill could be improved—a Bill to which we were so bitterly hostile in the early stages. I wish most Bills could go before Committee. If you make good speeches in Committee you can convince your opponents; the question is often decided on its merits; but, good or bad as your speech may be in the House, Members just flock in and are told how to vote. In Committee it is worth while getting to know something about your case, because you can convince other hon. Members of its justice. We have made improvements to the Bill. We have abolished relief on loan, taken away the right of the local authority to take old people away from their homes and put them into institutions, given them a legal right to sums which they were entitled, and exempted ex-Service pensions and maternity benefit.

    2199
    These are considerable improvements. The main blot on the Bill is the Clause dealing with task work. It is a great danger to the population of Scotland; it is a power that can be used very oppressively. I am not at all concerned with my past speeches or my future speeches, but I am concerned with the common good of the poorest section of the community. If the hon. Member for Hamilton and myself have been wrong and this Bill proves to be a good Bill no one will be better pleased than ourselves

    Division No. 324.]

    AYES.

    [11.22 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Hales, Harold K.

    Petherick, M.

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Hanley, Dennis A.

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

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Rickards, George William

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Robinson, John Roland

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Ropner, Colonel L.

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

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

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Bernays, Robert

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Ayliner

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

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

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Janner, Barnett

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Salmon, Sir Isldore

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

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

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Buchan, John

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Burnett, John George

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

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

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Christie, James Archibald

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Mac Andrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Cooke, Douglas

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cross, R. H.

    Milne, Charles

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

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

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

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

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

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

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Tree, Ronald

    Dunglass, Lord

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Munro, Patrick

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

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Nunn, William

    White, Henry Graham

    Foot, Dinole (Dundee)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Pearson, William G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grimston, R. V.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Sir Frederick Thomson and

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Penny, Sir George

    Commander Southby.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McGovern, John

    Banfield, John William

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Batey, Joseph

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Mainwaring, William Henry

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

    John, William

    Maxton, James

    Buchanan, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lawson, John James

    Wilmot, John

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Leonard, William

    Daggar, George

    Logan, David Gilbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Dobbie, William

    Lunn, William

    Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.

    Edwards, Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Bill read the Third time, and passed.
    that our prophecies have been wrong. But I view that one Clause of the Bill with great apprehension and I shall vote against the Third Reading mainly on that ground. I trust, however, that our work on the Bill has done something to make the lives of the very poor, who are as honourable as ourselves, more tolerable than they have been in the past.
    Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 29.

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACTS, 1931 AND 1933.
  11.29 p.m.
  Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move,
  "That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 and 1933, for the regulation of the marketing of milk in the North of Scotland, a draft of which was presented to this House on the seventeenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved."
  This Scheme deals with the Northern area being applicable to the counties of Inverness, Nairn, Ross and Cromarty and Caithness. In general structure, it is on the same model as the Aberdeen milk scheme to which the House gave approval a few months ago. In this Scheme, as in the Aberdeen scheme, but unlike the schemes in the South of Scotland and in England, the ordinary milk supply, what is called the basic supply, is dealt with separately from the surplus supply. It is easy to do that both in Aberdeen and in the area of this scheme, not for any of the reasons which I am sure the hon. Members opposite have in mind, but because this area, like the Aberdeen area, is not mainly a dairying country, and therefore there are none of the risks of great flushes and floods of milk such as you get sometimes in the South-West of Scotland and in the West of England.
  We deal separately with the ordinary, normal basic supply of milk and fix the standard price for that, and deal separately with the surplus, so that there is no indication that the surplus will ever be of such a size as to be a serious menace to the finances and economy of the industry, whereas hon. Members in all parts of the House know that the great problem before the main Milk Board for the South of Scotland and the Milk Board for England is the fact that you have this large surplus, which is at present only used for manufacturing. The larger the surplus, which can only attract a very small price, the greater the danger of the price of liquid milk rising and having to rise. That danger does not exist here, and I would like to add that, by keeping in separate accounts the basic supply, which is for liquid consumption, and the surplus supply, you reduce any risk that there might be of an increased production, because there is no such
  2202
  surplus production just now as would bring menace and danger to the ordinary basic amount, and by keeping these categories of milk separate, you reduce the risk of an increased production. I think that follows inevitably from the separation of the basic supply from the surplus. That is the only point of substance in the scheme, which has already been before the House, in effect, in the Aberdeen scheme.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 and 1933, for the regulation of the marketing of milk in the North of Scotland, a draft of which was presented to this House on the seventeenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved."

  LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  11.34 p.m.
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move,
  "That, in pursuance of the Parliament Act, 1911, this House directs that the provisions of Section one, sub-section (1), of that Act shall not apply to the Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill."
  Not more than a word will be necessary on this Motion, which was put down in order to regularise the position in regard to the Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill. This Bill was sent to the House of Lords on the 30th May, endorsed by a certificate from Mr. Speaker as a Money Bill under the Parliament Act. It has now been passed by the House of Lords, and is ready for the Royal Assent. By an error more than a month from the date when the Bill was sent up was allowed to elapse before the Second and Third Readings were taken. It was an oversight, and I beg the House to pass this Motion so as to condone a technical offence. We think on consideration, and I think the House will agree, that this Section of the Parliament Act should not apply in this case. The Bill will become law the next time there is a Royal Assent. This is merely a technical breach of the Parliament Act.
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: It seems to us that this is purely a technical breach and that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted the right method in remedying it. We only hope that the other place will be more careful in future as regards their procedure.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That, in pursuance of the Parliament Act, 1911, this House directs that the provisions of Section one, sub-section (1), of
  2204
  that Act shall not apply to the Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill."
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the. House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes before Twelve o'clock.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  HOUSING (IMPROVEMENT AREAS).
  HOUSING (IMPROVEMENT AREAS).
  STATE MEDICAL SERVICE.
  STATE MEDICAL SERVICE.
  WOMEN WAGE-EARNERS.
  WOMEN WAGE-EARNERS.
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (ST. JOHN AMBULANCE BRIGADE).
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (ST. JOHN AMBULANCE BRIGADE).
  TRAFFIC LANES.
  TRAFFIC LANES.
  TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
  TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
  UNIGAR CLOTHING FACTORY, EDMONTON.
  UNIGAR CLOTHING FACTORY, EDMONTON.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  EGYPT (CAPITULATIONS).
  EGYPT (CAPITULATIONS).
  UNIVERSAL FURNITURE PRODUCTS' FACTORY, WEMBLEY.
  UNIVERSAL FURNITURE PRODUCTS' FACTORY, WEMBLEY.
  MANCHURIA (MR. LENOX SIMPSON'S CLAIM).
  MANCHURIA (MR. LENOX SIMPSON'S CLAIM).
  TITHE RENTCHARGE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  TITHE RENTCHARGE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

AMENDMENT TO THE HOPS MARKETING SCHEME, 1932.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I beg to move, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 19th of June last, be approved. This debate is really a very important one not merely because this Order will be of great assistance to a small but nevertheless very old and vital section of the agricultural industry, but because it is the first time that certain principles are to be applied to the marketing of agricultural produce. It is perfectly true that your Lordships—indeed, Parliament in general—have already given definite approval to these principles, but as your Lordships know there is a very big difference between the enunciation of a general principle and the application of that same principle. We deal to-day with the application of the principle which your Lordships discussed when passing the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933. Really we should be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for putting down his Motion—not that I hope he is going to carry it, but because it would be most regrettable if an Order of this importance were to go through your Lordships' House without the very fullest discussion.
I only regret that the noble Viscount should apparently, judging from a letter that he has in the Press this morning, be under the misconception that the Government have not been entirely straightforward in their treatment of your Lordships' House on this subject. He tells us that we have created an inaccurate impression about an alleged unanimity among the members of the Committee set up to consider this Scheme. There never was a Committee set up to consider the principles of this Scheme. The Committee was set up in order to consider the basis on which the Scheme should be operated, and on that point
352
they achieved complete unanimity. It is quite true that the Brewers' Society have made it clear that they do not wish to be committed to complete approval of the principles of the Scheme, but we have received since Tuesday, when I read to your Lordships certain communications both from the Brewers' Society and the Hops Marketing Board, a further letter from the Brewers' Society on this point, ending as follows:
"I wish to assure you that the Hops Committee of the Society will do everything in their power to see that every brewer will do his part in carrying out the Agreement and so conduce to the smooth working of the new arrangement."
I think your Lordships will be very glad to hear that this Scheme is to be operated with the full co-operation of both parties—the Hops Marketing Board and the Brewers' Society. I brought this question up not merely on its merits, but because the noble Viscount had accused the Government of bad faith on this point. He suggests further on in his letter that we might have informed your Lordships at an earlier stage of the letter of the brewers. We informed your Lordships of that letter at the very earliest stage possible. The only reason the noble Viscount was in a position at least to imply to your Lordships that this letter was in existence, while I at this box was denying its existence, was that he had had the good fortune to see the correspondence between the Government and the Committee, or to be aware before the Ministry of Agriculture itself was aware of the existence of this letter. I make no complaint. I think we all must be delighted when old enemies make friends, and to see the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, working in such close and happy co-operation with the Brewers' Society must indeed be a pleasure to all true Christian gentlemen.
I mentioned the fact that we had already approved the general principles of this Scheme. We have to discuss today the particular application of those principles to the marketing of hops. There are certain special features attaching to the situation with regard to hops. The noble Viscount will, with a certain amount of justification, warn your Lordships that in giving approval to this Scheme you are making a precedent that may take us very far. That is a possibility, but the day that you approved the

353
general principle and laid down the general precedent was the day on which your Lordships, passed the Marketing Act of 1933. I think the Government have shown quite clearly, in putting their policy before the country, that they are determined to treat each agricultural commodity upon its merits. Each separate scheme that has been brought before you has been on very different lines, for the simple reason that we do not intend that the manner in which we deal with one commodity should necessarily lay down the principle or the manner in which we shall deal with another. We recognise that each commodity has its separate problem.
With regard to hops, I say that there are very special features. To begin with the consumption of hops has decreased steadily, but very greatly, over the last thirty years. In 1900 there were, approximately, 50,000 acres of hops being grown in this country; to-day the figure is, approximately, 17,000 acres. That is a very peculiar position for any industry to find itself in. The most disturbing factor in the situation is that that is not due to any sudden decrease as between one year and another because of some particular happening, but is a steady decrease going on year by year and still continuing. When there is a surplus of hops there is no use to which that surplus can be put other than the brewing of beer. With milk, if you have a surplus in the liquid milk market it can be made into cheese or butter or tinned milk. Admittedly the market is not so profitable, but still milk can be diverted. Hops cannot be diverted. Nor is it found—and for a very good reason—that the presence of a. surplus with the consequent fall in the price of hops leads to their increased consumption. The ratio that the cost of hops bears to the general cost of the finished commodity, beer, is so small that it cannot have the slightest effect. It is something like half a crown on a barrel of thirty-six gallons, worth a matter of £6 or £7 in sale value. Therefore, a fall in price can make no contribution to the increase of consumption.
Thus the hop industry is in the position of being the one section of agriculture which, before the passage of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, did make a real effort to organise itself on voluntary
354
lines—with what effects your Lordships are fully aware. I think the position is clear, but perhaps I might help to make it clearer if I give your Lordships an example. Let us assume that there are four growers of hops A, B, C and D. The market can absorb, we will say, thirty pockets of hops and the capacity of production of the four growers is ten pockets each. It is obvious that if all these four men grow hops to their full capacity only three-fourths of the production can be sold. Suppose these four men get together and agree to limit production. Three of them reduce their production from ten to eight but the fourth man, call him D, sees an opportunity of doing well and, instead of reducing, increases his production. Therefore we have A, B, and C producing eight pockets each and D producing, say, sixteen. They are still paid out at the rate of three-quarters. That means that A, B, and C, who adhered to the agreement, are paid on the basis of six while D is paid on the basis of twelve. What is the inevitable result? It simply comes to this: next time A, B, and C, seeing that agreements are not going to be kept, grow sixteen so that you have sixty or seventy pockets being grown and the market smashed.
That is the situation. I would be the very first to admit that some of the criticisms that I know the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is going to make are very strong criticisms. They relate to matters on which we certainly would have been very greatly to blame if we had not considered most deeply before allowing this Scheme to go forward. I think your Lordships would like to know, and are justified in asking, what is, the alternative. It is perfectly easy to criticise any scheme that is put forward, but His Majesty's Government have not been able to see, and I am inclined to doubt whether the noble Viscount or the brewers can see, in what manner any alternative scheme is to be introduced that will meet the situation. If there is no other use for hops, if increased consumption when there is a surplus is not to be brought about by a decrease in price, what is to be done? Of course, the usual argument against the restriction of production is that what the Government ought to aim at is increased consumption—a very fair point. The Government are at the present moment preparing to spend a

355
very large sum of money on publicity for increased milk consumption, but I do not know how many of your Lordships will be prepared to advocate the spending of a similar sum of money on publicity directed towards increased consumption of beer—certainly not the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, I am quite sure.
I think another point is bound to be put. For the last two years the situation has been perfectly satisfactory. A marketing scheme has been in operation without the particular powers which are outlined in this Order and prices have been very good. It may be asked then: Why not leave well alone? It is true that there has not been in operation in the last two years any quota imposed by Government or any quota imposed by a Marketing Board; but there has been a quota in operation, the quota of the weather, and it is in consequence of that that there has been a very short crop of exceptionally good quality. Nature has put us in the position of being able to do without this power to impose a quota. But there is no reason to suppose that these conditions are going to continue, while there is every reason to believe that increased planting is taking place, and is going to take place in the future unless some steps are taken. What exactly is this quota that we are discussing? The principle is that there is to be a basic acreage quota based on the last five years—1928 to 1932. There is also to be an annual quota based on the actual demand. The way which these two quotas will operate in relation to each other is that the basic quota will really give the proportion on which the annual quota, which equals the demand, will be split up among the growers.
Proceeding from that basis two accounts will be sent to each grower, we will call them "A" and "B" accounts. The "A" account will represent the payment received for quota hops. The "B" account will represent payment for hops sold in excess of the quota. Let me be quite clear on this point. The Board have to accept all the hops and the only question which arises here is as to which shall be sold at the full market price first. When all the "A" hops—quota hops—have been disposed of, then the surplus hops can come on to the market. If the estimates of demand which are made are falsified and
356
the demand proves to have been underestimated, then it may well be that there is at least some place on the market for the non-quota hops. It is said that that is conferring a monopoly on the existing growers, and that if your Lordships confer a monopoly, you will want to know what form of protection is being given as regards other sections of the trade and as regards the public generally. The protection in the Scheme and in the Act is, first, that if the annual quotas—that is, your Lordships will remember, the demand for hops—exceed 110 per cent, of the basic quota, then a new basic quota must be allotted. The first 10 per cent, increase will be left to be absorbed by the existing growers. The existing growers have had a number of very bad years, and I think your Lordships will agree that it is only fair that the first 10 per cent, should go to them. But if the demand increases—and after all the only reason for this Scheme at all is that the demand is not there—then a new basic quota must be allotted. There is the further point that brewers are left at perfect liberty to plant themselves.
As to the question of quality, there is to be payment very strictly by grade, and the graders will be appointed on the recommendation of a joint body to which I will refer later, which is to be set up under an Agreement between the Hops Marketing Board and the Brewers' Society. Furthermore, where any producer produces in excess of his quota and consequently some of his hops are to be non-quota hops, then for the purpose of fulfilling the quota his best hops will be chosen.
Your Lordships will notice in the Scheme that it is to operate only for five years. A good deal is said on the subject of creating a monopoly in the land. Surely your Lordships will realise that a right given only for five years is not a very serious item in future land values. A man who buys land on the basis of this so-called monopoly right conferred upon the land is, in my view, a very foolish man. Moreover, the Hops Marketing Board have agreed to the proposal of the Government that during those five years a Reorganisation Commission shall be set up in order to consider the whole of the working of the Scheme, with particular reference to the amendments which we are discussing to-day, in order

357
to see how they are really working out. I think your Lordships will agree that there is tremendous public protection, and tremendous protection against this fear to which the noble Viscount gives expression in his Amendment on the subject of land monopoly. Finally, of course, there is the machinery of the Act, under which, if the Hops Marketing Board uses its powers in such a manner as to be against the public interest, the Government have the right after investigation to revoke the Scheme, have the right to let in further imports, and also have the right, if the brewers break out of their Agreement, to keep imports out. That really means that right through the working of the Scheme the Government do maintain a hold en all the key positions. But those last sanctions are very final sanctions, and I should like to make it clear that the Government are not thinking in those terms at all.
We have throughout the preparation of this Scheme made it clear that we consider that these powers must be used and this Scheme should and must be operated with the agreement of all the various bodies within the industry. Accordingly it was arranged that the Hops Marketing Board should meet the Brewers' Society with certain disinterested members, on a Committee for the discussion of the basis of an Agreement by which this Scheme could be operated between them. This is the Agreement about which there has already been some discussion between the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and myself. It was decided to set up a Permanent Joint Committee of four representatives nominated by the Brewers' Society, four by the Hops Marketing Board and three by the Minister of Agriculture. It was agreed that the brewers should do what- they could to give certainty of market to the Hops Marketing Board by agreeing to purchase forward 66⅔ per cent, of the total annual requirement of English hops, and that provision should be made for a levy to deal with the unsold quota hops. It was agreed that the Permanent Joint Committee should be responsible for estimating the total market demand upon which the annual quota would be based. It was further agreed that they should take responsibility for the joint recommendation for appointment of graders; and, furthermore, a price was agreed
358
upon for the next five years of £9 per cwt.
Now I want to return for a moment to a point which I have already mentioned, as to whether it is considered that this Amendment is really necessary. Not only is it necessary in the opinion of His Majesty's Government but it is necessary in the opinion of the Hops Marketing Board, to the extent that, having received £15 per cwt. for their hops last year, they are prepared to enter into an agreement to-day to sell their hops for the next five years for £9 per cwt. I think we shall all agree that they have shown very great wisdom and statesmanship in taking this course, and certainly we must equally agree that it does not look as though the Hops Marketing Board are out to exploit against the community those monopoly powers which are being given them. They have shown that what they value is what the Government value and what the brewers value—namely, increased stability of the market. Increased stability of supplies, increased stability of prices, increased guarantee of quality—surely it was in order to obtain these ends that your Lordships passed the Agricultural Marketing Acts of 1931 and 1933, and personally I am inclined to agree with a letter that the National Farmers' Union have put out to-day. A Committee is considering these Amendments and the Committee felt that Lord Astor would have been in a very much stronger position to criticise had the industry under existing conditions neglected to utilise the powers already conferred on them by these Acts.
In the past the farmers have been repeatedly criticised and have been told by Parliament after Parliament and Government after Government that no Government could help them unless they helped themselves. Here is a Scheme put up to your Lordships by an almost unanimous industry, an industry composed of 1,100 men, with only 14 of that whole industry voting against the Scheme, asking your Lordships for leave to bring order and efficiency into their industry. His Majesty's Government have examined this Scheme most carefully. There has been public inquiry, there has been discussion by this Joint Provisional Committee and there has been our own Departmental examination. We are satisfied that the Scheme is necessary. We are satisfied

359
that it is conceived on right lines. Further, we are satisfied, from the terms of the Agreement with the Brewers' Society particularly, that the Scheme is going to be operated in a manner which will be to the advantage, not only of the industry, but of the public as a whole. My Lords, we are very fortunate in making this experiment. We are dealing with a comparatively small market. We have got, I think, a particularly far-seeing Board. We have got a processing industry which the letter from the Brewers' Society read to your Lordships to-day shows clearly is willing to cooperate, and I suggest to your Lordships that this is an attempt, the most complete attempt, which has yet been made really to take control and to plan a market. The Hops Marketing Board are taking a very bold step in thus making themselves pioneers of a great experiment and, speaking on behalf of the Government, I should like to say that we hope your Lordships will give them not only your support, but every encouragement you can, in carrying through this great task. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 19th of June last, be approved.—(Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR had given Notice that, on the Motion for the affirmative Resolution, he would move, That this House declines to approve a Scheme which for five years would establish a monopoly; would deprive many of their property without compensation; and would create a precedent leading to stagnation in agriculture. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion down on the Order Paper in my name. I understand that next week we are going to have before us two schemes dealing with other commodities—namely, milk and sugar. If we were discussing milk I might be considered to be interested as a producer. If we were discussing sugar, I might be considered to be prejudiced as a great consumer of sweet things. We are, however, now concerned with hops, and I need not remind your Lordships that I have no interest either as a producer or as a consumer. A few years ago I knew very little about hops. I was first induced to take an interest in hops by one of the most successful hop-growers, the
360
late Sir Walter Berry. It was he who asked me to take an interest in the hop industry in this House, and since then I have been very largely guided and influenced, and if I might say so coached, by dispossessed members of the hop industry.
I am very glad that the noble Earl welcomes discussion here, to-day, because I have noticed that the Government, when they have put down this question for discussion in another place, have invariably put it down for discussion after 11 p.m., when there is not usually-time for a full and complete discussion. To-day we shall be discussing, I hope your Lordships will bear in mind, two distinct points, one the Scheme and the other the White Paper. The Scheme is an Amendment of the original Hops Marketing Scheme which was passed in 1932. My Amendment deals in fact only with the Amending Scheme, which was introduced as far back as December, 1933. Then, in addition to that, there is what is called the White Paper. It deals with an entirely subsidiary matter; what I might call the trade bargain between the producers and the processors, the brewers, dealing with hops. Although we are aware of the existence of the White Paper it is not actually before us this afternoon. I try to make that clear, because the public are apt to confuse the White Paper proposals with the Amending Scheme.
By the Scheme which we passed in 1932 we established monopoly control over the sale of hops. The noble Lords on the Labour Benches are in favour of control, and I would point out that whether or not this Amending Scheme is adopted we have established monopoly control over the sale of hops, and that holds good even if the Amending Scheme is withdrawn. The Hops Board in 1932 disposed of hops at the price, I think, of £8 5s., which was generally accepted by hop growers, and newspapers in the hop-growing districts, as being remunerative and profitable for hop growers. I understand that during the period of hop control £7 16s. was the average price and that that was considered profitable at that time. Then, in 1933, the price of hops was raised from £8 5s. to £15, owing to world shortage and increased demand from America. The noble Earl said that he favoured schemes of control because, he said,

361
it gave increased stability of price, but I suggest that a jump from £8 5s. to £15 is not stability of price, and if you are going to be guided by world prices you do not require monopoly control over sales. I fully realise there was very great temptation to the Hops Marketing Board to profit by soaring world prices, but it is inconsistent with the avowed policy of the Board, which is to have stability of price. I understand the Hops Marketing Board claim merit for not having charged the brewers £20, and if they had done so the brewers would have had to pay it, but if you take 100 per cent, there is not much merit in not asking for 200 per cent.
So much for the past. We now have before us this Amending Scheme. The Amending Scheme is intended to give to existing hop growers a complete and absolute monopoly of the market, plus an increase of 10 per cent. It is to prevent new people coming into the hop industry as hop growers, and—and it is very largely on behalf of these men that I speak—it is intended to prevent the return to the hop-growing industry of any hop growers who, in response to the appeal made to them by their leaders and by the Hop Controller, reduced their acreage or went out of the industry. At the present moment they find themselves completely frozen out. But prosperity has returned to the industry, and now the object of this Amending Scheme is to prevent those people, who carried out the instructions and demands of their leaders, from getting any share in the return of prosperity. If the Hops Board had announced at the end of last season that they would go back to a price of £8 5s., which had been satisfactory in 1932—if they had even announced that their price was going to be somewhere round about £9 or under—I do not believe there would have been any fear of a rush of new entrants into the industry. It was only a suspicion among the hop growers that the Hops Board meant to charge the growers more than £9—£10, £ll, perhaps even £15 again—that made the existing hop growers fear, not unnaturally, that other hop growers would want to come in and join in the boom. If there had not been that prospect of high prices I do not believe that this Amending Scheme would have been necessary.
May I very briefly put before your Lordships the chief objections to the Amending Scheme? The first objection is, us I indicated just now, that there are some hop growers who, in response to the appeal of their leaders and of the Hop Controller, very largely reduced their hop acreage, or even temporarily went out of the business, and now they cannot come back. I have quoted publicly, and I will quote again, the figures showing the loss involved in actual property in a case which has been brought to my notice. A hop grower whom I know bought a farm for over £7,000. He grubbed up his hops. His farm now is valued at £4,000, and he cannot come back into the hop industry if this Amending Scheme goes through. That is to say, the effect of this Scheme would be to deprive him of £3,000 in capital value. I suggest that that is not fair. He gets no compensation. There is another man who reduced his acreage. He has now got an uneconomic unit, an uneconomic hop garden. He is not allowed, if this Scheme goes through, to increase his acreage so as to make it an economic unit. He has no redress, and he gets no compensation. I suggest that the cases of those two types of hop growers are deserving of better treatment than they would get under this Scheme if it goes through. I have received a considerable number of letters from hop merchants. I will merely read a brief extract from one which is typical:
"If the Scheme passes it will mean ruination for hundreds of men employed by the hop merchants."
They evidently feel it very strongly. That is merely typical of many letters which I have received.
There is another point. I have dealt with the grievances of the hop growers who are to be deprived of their rights and of their property. The present hop growers are to be guaranteed by this Scheme their output during the datum period of 1928 to 1932. That is an entirely arbitrary figure. If a different datum period had been adopted the existing hop growers would have different quotas. Any hop grower who increased his acreage in 1931 has a bigger quota than he would have had if the datum period had been 1928 to 1930. The dispossessed hop growers feel very strongly that it is unfair that hop growers who did not make an adequate reduction in the size of their hop gardens, when they were asked to

363
do so by their leaders, should have this unfair advantage, as they consider it, no doubt for the next five years, with the quotas with which mere luck has presented them. Assuming that the farm to which I referred just now, worth £7,000, had not been grubbed up, and that it had continued under hops: if this Scheme goes through, that farm would have been worth anything over £10,000. That is to say, we should be presenting that fortunate man with an increment of several thousands of pounds, while at the same time depriving other hop growers in the neighbourhood of similar large amounts. I suggest that that is creating an actual injustice, and I know that it rankles very seriously among hop growers.
Then there is the obvious point referred to by the noble Earl of the risk of having a monopoly. He says there is a monopoly for only five years. But if you guarantee the output of individuals for five years it is going to be very difficult to change their quotas at the end of five years. If I had a big quota now, and during the next five years I put up new buildings, it is going to be very difficult to reduce my quota, at the end of five years. And, if anybody decides that my quota is to be reduced, who is to-decide how much is to be taken from me and to whom it is to be given? Is it to be given to Mr. A, Mr. B, or Mr. C? Who is going to have that invidious task? You may call it only five years; in fact I think you are creating something much nearer a permanent endowment.
Further, there is the other point which I have put down in my Amendment—namely, the creation of stagnation in industry. You are going to stop internal competition as between grower and grower. The man with a big quota is to be guaranteed his quota during the next five years, the man with a small quota is to be restricted to the small quota. The one man cannot increase his quota, the other man need fear no competition. I have used words which are not my own, which were put forward in a letter to The Times by a very distinguished agriculturist, Dr. Orwin, head of the Agricultural Economics Research Institute at Oxford. It is all very well to say that you are going to have progress. If you prevent new men and new methods and new land being employed
364
you may indeed be preventing progress. Nobody knows when progress will come to agriculture or to any other industry. We have recently seen a complete revolution in milk production. There is no reason why you should not have an equally drastic revolution and improvement in hop growing. This Scheme prevents progress, and I suggest that when the nation is trying to help agriculture it should do nothing to stereotype a great industry like that. Then there is the other point—namely, the danger of creating a precedent. You may say it does not matter what you do with hops, but it may be very dangerous if the same powers are going to be used later on for milk, bacon, or what I may call the necessaries or essentials of life.
These are the main criticisms which are directed against the Amending Scheme. Let me return to the White Paper, the Report of the Provisional Committee, composed of brewers, hop growers and independents. When I first saw that that Committee had been set up, I assumed—and many others did too—that because of the criticism directed against the Amending Scheme the Government had decided to set up an impartial Committee to see whether it was possible to devise a better scheme. It was only careful study of the terms of reference that made one realise that that Provisional Committee was specifically precluded from discussing the merits or demerits of the Amending Scheme, that its terms of reference limited it to discussing supplementary points—for example, the price agreements which have been indicated. I am going to mention only three points in this White Paper. One is that in future the basis which is to be followed by the Hops Board is cost of production plus fair profit. That is to say, it rules out soaring prices like £15 or that sort of thing, fixed on world prices. The next point is that the maximum average price is to be £9; and the third point—a point which I commend to noble Lords on the Labour Benches—is that the net profits to hop growers are to be 20 per cent.
That is very interesting—the net profits are to be 20 per cent. Cost of production is to include interest on capital employed and remuneration to the producer as manager of the concern, and profit is only to be calculated after those two items have been taken as costs of produc-

365
tion. And the White Paper recommends that the figure of 20 per cent, be adhered to in the future. If any noble Lord is going to speak from the Labour Benches in support of that, I invite him to come down to Plymouth during the next Election. If the Labour policy is going to be, when they fix prices, to guarantee to the producers a minimum net profit of 20 per cent—if they do that in the case of hops, why not also in the case of milk products and other things?—I can only say that any Labour member who conies down to Plymouth during the next Election will be a tremendous help to us if he will visit my wife's constituency. After all this question of prices is really in a. way a domestic one as between the brewers and the processors.
What is the position and what are we to do? Very likely we may hear to-day appeals from noble Lord? from Kent telling us of the plight of the hop industry. The hop industry had a bad time in the past. So had the cotton industry and the coal mining industry. I grant that absolutely. But the hop industry has not done badly recently. It had a good profit in 1932, it had what I may call a stupendous profit in 1933, and it is going to have a net 20 per cent, profit for each of the next five years. But I do not want to discuss that. What I do suggest is that the hop growers ought not to take up a dog-in-the-manger attitude. They ought to consider the hop growers who reduced their acreage, and they ought somehow or other to allow these dispossessed hop growers to share the period of prosperity. I admit that the hop industry has had a bad time, but when prosperity comes I suggest that the men who through sheer luck are now saddled with small quotas ought not to be kept out. I suggest that they ought to be allowed to share in the better times.
The noble Earl made a great deal of the Agreement arrived at between the brewers and the growers. Of course the ring of hop growers like it. They are going to be given a monopoly for live years. Of course the men with big quotas like this Agreement. The other party to the Agreement—the brewers, the processors—are satisfied also; they are now inside the ring. Recently the noble Earl read out the letter which had been sent
366
by the acting Chairman of the Hops Board. There was one sentence in that letter that took my fancy. It said that the brewers in Kent would work the new arrangement to the mutual advantage of all parties concerned. The brewers realise they are now inside the ring with the hop growers. I have spent a great deal of time in my public life trying to improve the quality of milk. There are many of your Lordships who have been keener on trying to improve the quality of the product of hops.
This White Paper is a very interesting document. The brewers have agreed to buy two-thirds of the hops grown, regardless of quality, and to pay an average of £9 for them, and to take over the other one-third roughly at a valuation; and the imports of hops are to be restricted to 15 per cent., and no more, of the brewers' requirements—that is to say, if the hops are bad in any year there will be no better hops to be provided from overseas. It is the consumer who is going to suffer. Of course the brewers are satisfied. The person who has the right to be dissatisfied is the person who has to drink the beer made with hops produced in a year when the quality is less good than it usually is. So when we hear about this Agreement let us realise that it is what I call, for short, the ring—the growers and the brewers, now inside— who are satisfied because all of them have a good profit. The hop growers are going to have a minimum profit of 20 per cent.; I do not know what the brewers are going to make, but anyway it will be satisfactory to them. I suggest this point to your Lordships. Next I appeal particularly to the noble Lords on my left. I have heard many speeches here telling us of the terrible things that will happen when Sir Stafford Cripps and his friends come in and what they will do in the way of taking property away without compensation. Sir Stafford Cripps cannot do anything worse than is being proposed in this Scheme whereby these unfortunate hop growers who reduced their acreage in response to their leaders are now to be left out in the cold without compensation.
Now I have finished. Let me just repeat, there are two documents. There is the White Paper, which is a price agreement, and on that I suggest that the mere fact that two parties, producers and processors, have; come to an agreement which gives them a lucrative monopoly is

367
no reason why we should feel committed to implementing their bargain. As to the Scheme the fundamental objection still stands. Reference has been made to the attitude of the Provisional Committee. The Provisional Committee, the noble Earl admitted, were not asked to report on the merits or demerits of this Scheme, but although they were not asked to do that a minority of them, four of them, have already indicated their dissent. I have studied this White Paper very carefully, and I cannot find anything in it that indicates that the independent members of the Provisional Committee have expressed any approval of the main Scheme. It is conceivable that if they had been asked to express their judgment on the Scheme now before your Lordships the dissenting minority might not have been four, it might have been a dissenting majority; but there is nothing in this document that indicates that the minority is restricted to four.
I never like to criticise without suggesting an alternative. The noble Earl suggested that I ought, if I criticised the Scheme, to offer an alternative. Dr. Orwin has written a letter to The Times, and has suggested two alternatives, one based on the analogy of the wheat quota and the other based on the analogy of the Potato Scheme. I am not going to go into these in detail now, but there you have a recognised agricultural authority, an economist, who thinks he sees two alternatives which in his opinion would be better for the industry. I agree with him that either of them would be fairer to the men in the industry. If you were to adopt either of these alternatives you would give to the existing men in the hop industry a preference but not a monopoly, and I suggest that that would be better. You would have competition and initiative instead of stereotyped stagnation in the industry, and you would not be depriving any one of the value of his property as is now being done.
There is another suggestion I want to put which has not been made publicly before but which I place seriously before the noble Earl. It was suggested to me by one of those hop growers with whom I have been in contact and who feel aggrieved. He suggests that those hop growers who are going to benefit by this Scheme should pay something into a compensation pool and that out of that pool compensation should be paid to those
368
men who have gone out of business, or who have made very big reductions in their hop acreages in response to the appeals of the leaders of the hop industry and the Hop Controller. It does seem to me that that would be a perfectly reasonable and fair proposal. Here you are going to give vast profits to hop growers inside the ring. Why should they not be asked to pay a levy into a compensation pool and the money so raised be used for compensating those who are less fortunately situated through no fault of their own?
Owing to our procedure I have had to put down a Motion for the rejection of the Amending Scheme. I would much rather have been able to put before your Lordships a Motion for the Amendment of it. What I do suggest, if there is anything in the arguments and the criticism I venture to make, is that the present Agreement should be limited, not to five years but to one year, that the Government should set up a Committee to see if there is anything in the two alternatives which have been put before the country and your Lordships' House by Professor Orwin. If they will not agree to that, I suggest that the Government ought to consider the question of a compensation pool which I have suggested and which, I believe, would very largely remove the grievance of those hop growers on whose behalf I have been speaking to-day. I apologise to your Lordships for having taken up so much time in discussing this question. It is a relatively unimportant crop that we are dealing with, but I venture to suggest that there are big-principles involved, and that if this Scheme does go through in its present form a real injustice will have been done to deserving people.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("That") and insert ("this House declines to approve a scheme which for five years would establish a monopoly; would deprive many of their property without compensation; and would create a precedent leading to stagnation in agriculture").—(Viscount Astor.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships I do so by courtesy of the noble Lord on the Labour Benches, as unfortunately I have to leave this House before very long. I am afraid I cannot claim anything like the expert knowledge

369
on the subject of hops possessed by the noble Viscount who has just sat down, but I think I can venture to tell your Lordships that there is evidence of very considerable disquiet about the merits of this particular Scheme. I am not going to argue on the general merits or demerits of the marketing proposals of the Government as a whole. I wish to confine my remarks solely to the details of this particular Scheme. I was under the impression that when the earlier objections to the Scheme were, put forward and a Committee of Inquiry was set up to investigate it, that Committee was going to examine the real merits of the Scheme. So far as I can make out from reading their Report, all that the members of the Committee did, in fact, was simply to try and bring about an Agreement between two sets of monopolists, the brewers on the one hand, who are in fact sole buyers of hops, and the Hops Marketing Board, on the other hand, which is simply the representative of the registered producers of hops. The Committee were solely concerned with trying to bring about an Agreement between those two sets of monopolists.
The question I wish to submit to your Lordships to-night is, whether the State is entitled first of all to create this extraordinary monopoly, and then to give it such very exceptional privileges, especially when I suggest, as the noble Viscount who has just sat down has done, that in that process they are going to inflict very grave injustice on quite a large number of individuals. It has been tradition in this country that State-created monopolies are always dangerous. It has been the experience that where you create monopolies you are driven inevitably to make those monopolies Government monopolies. I think this Scheme, in the first place, is going to lend itself to very damaging criticism, and lead to very strong arguments against the kind of policy to which I strongly object, and which some noble Lords who sit on my immediate left are endeavouring to induce this country to adopt. But as to this monopoly, I think a certain amount of misunderstanding is created by the constant use of the words Hops Marketing Board. To the ordinary man's mind they seem to imply that this is a Government body—a body in which the Government have some direct
370
interest. It is nothing of the kind. It is purely a board of directors—that is what it is in fact—for those who are growing hops. It is a body that allots basic quotas on certain lines laid down in the Scheme, regulates seasonal quotas and adjusts the price. There is a clause in the Scheme under which in those respects, in the event of a dispute between individual producers and the Board, an arbitrator may be appointed to settle the question. That is the remedy as between the registered producers.
Now the members of the Board have two further functions. They have to decide in the first place who is a producer in respect of the years 1928–1932, and what the value of his production in those years was, in order that they may allot to him a basic quota. That is a very grave power. It is precisely the power to which attention was called by the noble Viscount who has just sat down. It puts at a disadvantage those growers who, in response to appeals, or for other reasons, reduced their production. Then look at the further power. I particularly ask the attention of noble Lords and members of the Government to this point. What happens when the demand rises above 10 per cent., and when it is the business of the Hops Marketing Board to allot additional quotas? They are then told that they must publish a notice, in such manner as they think best—this is the monopoly board—adapted to bring it to the notice of persons concerned. Applications are then receivable, and, in selecting which application shall be acceded to and to what extent, the Board shall give preference so far as it is practicable to those who undertake to make the highest payments.
That is a principle, it seems to me, which has never been adopted in this country before. I can understand an open auction at which the thing sold goes to the highest bidder, but to allow producers, apparently in secret, to receive applications for what is admittedly an extremely profitable monopoly, and then to allot as they think best, seems to me a proceeding which lends itself to every kind of abuse, and to introduce into this Scheme the possibility of charges of corruption and charges of favouritism which, even if they are not wholly justified, will cause very great disquiet in the country and very grave resentment among hop growers. It seems to me that

371
the case for consideration and re-consideration of the Scheme is made out. On its fundamental merits it has not been considered at an impartial inquiry. The so-called impartial inquiry was concerned with negotiating an Agreement between two sets of monopolists. It is the other side of the Scheme to which I think attention ought to be directed. Therefore I invite your Lordships to support the general thesis put forward by the noble Viscount who has just spoken.
He made various suggestions. He said there were alternative schemes. I am not sufficiently an expert to say whether alternative schemes are possible or not, but Professor Orwin is certainly a great authority, and the Wheat Scheme and the Potato Scheme have not this particular demerit of creating a sole monopoly board possessed of these very formidable powers. The Potato Scheme attempts to regulate production by imposing a fine of £5 per acre on new-producers. I venture to think that if this Scheme were examined you would find if you tried to apply the Potato Scheme to hops that a fine, not of £5, but of £50 or £100 would be needed to prevent new producers coming into the field, which is an indication of the immense privileges which are being given to a very small body of producers by this Scheme. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to support the criticisms that have been made and invite the Government seriously to reconsider the Scheme.
LORD MAULEY: My Lords, we do not want to intervene in the disagreement between the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the Government on a question of hops. We only want to examine the merits of the Scheme put forward by the Government. I do not speak as a producer of hops and my consumption of hops represents, I understand, rather less than one-tenth of a penny per glass of beer which I drink, which does not amount to a very large sum in the course of the year. Therefore I hope I can examine the matter from a purely impartial point of view and see to what extent the Scheme falls in with the general policy of the Party I represent. I think that there may be details in the Scheme which may cause injustice to certain producers, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who was supported by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, has
372
pointed out, and I think there are details which are not altogether desirable; but in broad principle I believe that the Scheme is one which is well worth the support of your Lordships' House and, broadly speaking, is well worth the support of the Party I represent.
It will be remembered that it is just two years since a debate took place here on the original Marketing Scheme. That Marketing Scheme, which was debated on July 6, 1032, was admitted by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, to have been produced in a great hurry. It originally contained a quota scheme of the type which is included in the present Amending Scheme. That was only dropped because of certain disagreements and it was dropped, I think I am right in saying, unwillingly by the Government, because they were pretty certain that the Scheme would not work perfectly without some form of quota restriction. When I spoke on that occasion I said that some form of control of imports would be needed to make the Scheme work and I remember how annoyed by that suggestion was the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I have refreshed my memory as to the remarks I made on that occasion. I suggested that the Scheme would not work without some form of control of imports being applied. The present amending measure is in our idea exactly the right way to deal with schemes of this experimental type. A Scheme is started; you try it out, and just in so far as it is found a year or two later not to be a complete success you amend it by plans based on the experience of those two years. That seems to me an admirable way of dealing with this sort of experimental legislation.
I support the Amending Scheme on behalf of the Party for which I speak only in so far as it is in agreement with the agricultural policy of that Party. In our agricultural policy we say with regard to fruit and vegetables:
"Wherever mutual organisations of producers can deal with their requirements and those of consumers in practical and effective ways, the Labour movement will seek to use the powers of the State to assist and support them."
We believe that that is what this Scheme is doing. I know there are dangers and I am quite aware that some members of my Party do not believe that this represents an application of that principle. I

373
have even heard it described as a measure of Fascism which the Government are being asked by a scheming Minister of Agriculture to support without knowing what they are doing. I confess I do not see it in that light. I may be wrong. The noble Earl may wear a black shirt like the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who we were told a short time ago wore a black shirt under his waistcoat. But I do not see this measure in that light, and I only want to consider the measure as I see it and support it along those lines.
We believe that it is a definite improvement of the existing Scheme and I want to discuss for two or three minutes the reasons why we believe it is an improvement. First of all, I believe very strongly in the control of imports in connection with this Marketing Scheme. Here again let me quote the policy of the Labour Party. We say:
"Co-operation among British farmers can only achieve partial results in oases …. where the market is dominated by imported supplies. It is necessary in order to achieve a steady price that the import of such commodities should be carefully controlled. Hence the proposal of import boards."
This Scheme, according to paragraph 18 of the Report, proposes to use the control of imports for the purpose in the first place of compensating for any short yield in hop production in the country. Secondly, it proposes to use the variation in imports to prevent deterioration of quality. That is clearly laid down in both the Report and the Scheme. Thirdly, it proposes to use the variation in imports—the opening or closing of the sluice gate of imports—for the purpose of forcing off the market bad quality hops or hops of an undesirable quality produced in this country. The proposal definitely allows elasticity and variation in the import of hops.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggested that there was a definite limit of 15 per cent., but I venture to think that if he read the proposals more carefully he would see that there is wide power of variation in that 15 per cent. Regulation of production by quotas is not, of course, a perfect method, but it does apply what we like to call a five-year-plan to hops. That naturally secures our general support, because we believe that all production has to be planned if it is to be successful and adequate. I do not
374
think that the price is so unfair as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggests.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Profit, I said, not price.
LORD MARLEY: Yes, but it is based on 20 per cent, profit. I am rather inclined to accept his invitation to come down to Plymouth and give my reasons for my support of this. The reasons are very clearly given in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. I do not think it is so unfair. In any case it can very easily be modified in the future by a Government of a different complexion, and I think it presents no insuperable difficulty. But what is of more importance is the question of stability of price. We know that the question of price is only a quarrel between Lord Astor's friends the brewers on the one hand and the producers on the other. This question of profit is what affects the price. The noble Viscount says that profit does not affect the price. That is a suggestion which is new to me. I wish I were in large-scale production, and could hold that desirable economic belief. I think it does affect it and I think the advantage of the modifications of the Scheme is that by the use of quotas and import boards we are going to have stability of prices. We have not had that in the past.
I happen to have here particulars of the variations in the price of home-produced hops in the last few years. During the last five years the price has varied from £3 15s. per cwt. up to £15 1s. 8d. per cwt., simply because the Scheme did not contain a provision for fixing a reasonable price. It gives of course a price much less than the £15 1s. 8d. of last year, but it does give a certain income to the growers which on an average may be 20 per cent, of profit, but may be more or less than that according to the yield and value of their crop. It is also used so that the best and most suitable crops will be encouraged. It is only an average price, and you may very well get a very much better price—and indeed the Board lay down that they will definitely do this— for hops that are desired, which are suitable and of better quality.
In that connection the Report, on page 9, says this:
"In general it is desirable that the price scale should be so arranged as to encourage

375
the production of those varieties and grades of hops which are most in demand."
Certain noble Lords have suggested that there is not correspondence between the Report and the actual Scheme; but the actual Scheme says the same thing:
"… in selecting the hops which are to be treated as quota hops, the hops haying the greatest value shall he selected, irrespective of where they were produced."
That means that this variation in the average price can be used to secure the production of the best quality hops and not those of poor quality. Quality is safeguarded because you are going to have the producers competing amongst themselves for the higher prices of hops. Aided by the use of the variation in imports, you are going to have quality secured by the fact that the brewers need take only two-thirds of their estimated requirements, and you are going to have a provision for arbitration in case of bad quality. I think that the fears of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, are really fears which do not interest our Party very much because they are quarrels between one set of landlords and another set of landlords, and I do not think that we worry much about how they work it out themselves. At the same time I think his idea of a compensation pool might get rid of some of the injustices which undoubtedly exist, and I hope very much that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, will induce the Government to consider that suggestion.
There is only one further point that I want to make. The noble Viscount quoted from a letter in The Times from Dr. Orwin. That letter was written before the publication of this Scheme, and I believe that Dr. Orwin was really under two misapprehensions when he wrote that letter. I read it very carefully. He first of all claimed that competition was going to be eliminated. Now that is really not the case as I see it. or I certainly would not be supporting this Scheme. Competition is going to continue for the reasons which I have given. I may be wrong, but that is as I see it. Secondly, he said that it was going to secure a profit to the inefficient producer. That again, I think, is not the fact, because the inefficient producer, as will be seen when one reads the Scheme, will get a much lower price and will therefore be induced to become more efficient both in the yield per acre and
376
in the quality of the hops which he grows—the quality required for the consumers. We would not give any support to this Scheme if it were applied to other crops, because we feel that in all these control boards the consumers must be fully and adequately represented. In this case the consumers are the brewers and no one else, and the brewers are fully represented. Therefore we think that as far as hops are concerned—
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but the brewers are processors. They are not given representation on the Consumers' Council which is set up under the Marketing Act.
LOKD MARLEY: No, but they are given representation by this Scheme as the sole purchasers of the hop crop. No one buys hops except the brewers. It is a matter of opinion, but if I am wrong in this then certainly when it comes to the consideration of Boards for meat or milk or other products I would not accept this Scheme, because in those cases the consumers are all the people like ourselves, and they have got to be adequately represented. In this particular Scheme applying to a peculiar crop, hops, I believe it to be reasonably suitable. Without, then, committing ourselves to support of every detail of the Scheme, and committing my Party only to support the Scheme in so far as it agrees with the agricultural policy which has been adopted by the Party, I give general support to the proposal of the noble Earl and the Government, and I hope very much that it will go through this House.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down I have never grown a hop, and like him I am considerably interested in beer, and not only financially but also because (again like him, I gather) I believe beer to be the best beverage that the human intellect has yet evolved. I venture to think that if this Amendment were passed and this Scheme were lost it would be little less than a disaster not only to the hop growers but to agricultural interests generally. I do not agree with everything in this Scheme but, as noble Lords know, we cannot amend it. It suffers from the disability which practically all these Schemes seem to me to have: it is operated by a Board which is of such size as to be too unwieldy for quick and satisfactory working. But I venture to

377
say that the Hops Scheme has up to now already been more successful than any other Scheme which has been put into operation, and this Amended Scheme is likely to go on being as successful. Not only has it had a far greater percentage of support from its own members, but it has been supported by the whole of the agricultural industry, and furthermore it has effected what I assume to be the purpose or all Schemes, which is to render the growing of an agricultural commodity reasonably profitable without unduly putting up the price to the consumer. It has done that, and the Amended Scheme is calculated to do it.
I listened with very great care to the speech of the noble Viscount in moving his Amendment. I have also read with great care his various articles, and letters, in sundry periodicals. I have done so because I have always been an admirer of the sincerity and capability of the noble Viscount, and I have tried to put into my own mind what exactly are the points he has against this Scheme as it is being amended. I think the first is general and the ethers are particular. I think his general objection is that he dislikes all forms of control; and anything in the nature of a quota is something in the nature of a red rag to a bull to him. He believes that British agriculture can be restored to reasonable prosperity by means of duties, and that behind a wall of duties it can be restored to its old-time prosperity.
Like some of the noble Lords opposite I was born of truly respectable Liberal stock, and I was brought up to believe that the two major achievements of the devil were the tenets of the High Church and the principles of Protection. With regard to the first I keep an open mind, but with regard to the second I am entirely convinced that Protection has come to stay, and that therefore whatever form of Government comes in, even a Liberal Government, these duties will still remain, for the reason that I believe they are the only method we have at present of keeping up the standard of living, which we all desire to see done. But duties alone are not always sufficient. They can be overcome by bounties and currency manipulation. I will give you two instances. One is the case of Ireland, where 40 per cent, duties proved entirely ineffective to reduce, or keep at the same level imports of beef, and the
378
other is in the very industry which we are now discussing, where English hop growers, although protected by a duty, were, without a quota, forced to go into voluntary liquidation because they could not make both ends meet.
Now I come to special objections put before us here. The first is that the Board exploited the consumer by charging £15 per cwt. for hops. It is admitted by the noble Viscount that they might have charged £20, but he does not think that that is sufficient excuse. For myself, I am astonished at their moderation, because I think if you take the whole of four years, three years previously and including the year when they got £15, there was no profit either way for any one in the industry all that time. The noble Viscount thinks differently to me and may be right, but we have another and impartial body who went into the question. There was a Statutory Committee about which we have not heard much to-day. Mr. Edward Shortt, K.C., was the Chairman, and the members were Sir Percy Greenaway, Mr. Palmour, chartered accountant, Sir A. Pugh, General Secretary to the Iron and Steel Trades Federation, and Mr. W. E. Scott, Professor of Political Economy. I venture to suggest that they were an impartial and complete Committee. They went into the question of the £15, and they decided against the noble Viscount. They said the Board was entirely right in the charge it made, and in the action it had taken.
The second objection is that a monopoly has been formed. We all know that "monopoly" is as sinister a word as "Mesopotamia" is blessed. I would ask noble Lords to remember this. Some considerable time ago we sent a deputation to Ottawa, at a time when Lord Lothian was a member of the Government. They went with a slogan accepted by the British Government, and that was that the British market should be first of all for the British producer, secondly for the Empire producer, and thirdly for the foreigner. That is to say, if the British producer could produce 100 per cent, of what the public wanted he was to have the whole monopoly of the market. Do we stick to that or do we not? I venture to hope, for I have seen no sign of the Government weakening, that that is still the policy to which the Gov-

379
ernment hold. The third criticism that I have noticed is that inefficient methods will be stabilised, and that there will be no incentive to improvement. I cannot see that. It is the quantity and not the quality of hops that is going to be subject to quota. There is every incentive to improve the quality and produce at less cost by improved methods of cultivation, and I suggest that we are more likely to get improved methods in an industry which is stabilised than in one which is threatened with bankruptcy every year.
The fourth criticism is that there is hardship to some of those who cut down their production when others did not. I know that some of your Lordships will have felt specially grieved at the plight of these people, and I am sure you will be happy to know that at the maximum there cannot have been more than fourteen, because only fourteen voted against this Amended Scheme. I suggest to your Lordships that, if human nature does not vary very much, at least some of these fourteen men cut down their acreage, not because they were told to by the Board, but because they thought they were going to lose money on a bigger acreage. Further, although there must be some cases of hardship there is a method by which the hardship can be relieved, and that is by an increase in the consumption of beer, because when that has gone up 10 per cent, there will be a further opening to bring them back, and I hope your Lordships, including the noble Viscount, will assist in this aim. I really suggest to your Lordships that this Amended Scheme will give reasonable prosperity during the space of the next five years to everybody employed in this industry, and that really those who vote against it—and I sincerely hope that nobody will—can only do so if they can say to themselves: "I know some better method than this of giving that prosperity to the industry." Otherwise I feel that we have no alternative but to, support this Amended Scheme.
LORD CORNWALLIS: My Lords, I do not think that any noble Lord who has spoken recently has been connected with the hop growing counties, except the noble Earl who moved this Motion, but as one who comes from a hop growing county I am sure that your Lordships' House will agree that this industry of
380
hop growing is worth preserving, and is worth some special efforts towards that end. An agricultural operation that requires an annual expenditure of £80 to £100 per acre, at a conservative estimate, is certainly of some importance, especially when that expenditure is largely upon wages and labour costs, and I say that unless steps are taken to stabilise the industry it cannot prosper in open competition. That is shown by the great reduction of acreage that has taken place during recent years. Whereas in 1880 there were 70,000 acres of hops grown in this country, to-day that figure is reduced to 17,000 only.
This Motion comes before the House after a year when profits have been high.—I may say, very high—but that is entirely owing to exceptional circumstances, and those profits have in no way made up for the heavy losses of the three previous years. A friend of mine, for whose accuracy I can vouch, has told me that on his two hop farms he had a very handsome profit last year of £2,900, but inasmuch as over several years previously he had lost £13,000 he is not throwing his hat up very high at the result of hop growing over a period. And of course we must remember that hop growers' losses are always very much obscured by the fact that the official figures of hop prices are drawn from those hops which are sold, and take no account of the hops that are unsold. Therefore in a lean year like 1931 the hops unsold through the ordinary channels, and therefore not counted in reckoning the official figures, are ultimately sold for as many shillings as the official figures give pounds as the price of hops for that year, and that loss has to fall upon somebody.
It must be an advantage to all concerned that production should be limited to within reasonable distance of consumption expectations. This method of doing so which is now before the House has secured the approval of the representatives of all concerned, and I know of no other method that commands their support. A moderate price of £8 5s. has been fixed to the grower, which is the price which commends itself to the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment, because two levies of ten shillings and five shillings have to come off and therefore the price to the grower is £8 5s. for two-thirds of the brewers' requirements. That price represents a

381
crap of something like an average of 15 cwts. to the acre over a period of five years, and I do not see that it is likely that any very excessive profit will accrue to the growers during that period. Nor is it correct to say that the inefficient and the efficient grower are on level terms. As the House knows, the quotas are not based on acreage but on hop values, and if a grower is so efficient that he can produce his quota on a reduced acreage he does so to his advantage. In any event everybody's growth is valued by competent people according to its quality, and priced accordingly within limits.
There is one factor that I hope may prove gradually and increasingly to be beneficial to the English grower. After many years of research a hop, or rather hops—for I believe that there are at least two new varieties of hop setts now available—have been produced which will bear hops comparable in quality to those of the foreign hops that brewers have always said they must use partly in their beer. That being so, I think we may look forward at no distant future to the time when brewers will be able to use an increasing proportion of English hops in the manufacture of their beer. That is to some extent, perhaps a small extent only, a relief to the feelings of those who fear that some monopoly is being created under this Scheme. It is difficult, I think, to see how under a scheme for restriction of output there can fail to be some preference for existing growers. In an industry where special buildings have to be built, where expensive wire work has to be erected, and so forth, and even then no crop is forthcoming for three years; in an industry where losses have been large in recent years, where a voluntary reduction of acreage has widely taken place and where the sale or the products is so strictly limited, there seems to be an overwhelming case for preference to existing growers. I need not say that I am not one myself.
Much hop land, too, is now planted with permanent fruit, and therefore can never revert to hops. The grievance, if there be one, is certainly not sufficiently serious to warrant the rejection of a Scheme approved in the first instance by 98 per cent. of those interested in the industry and subsequently, as amended, agreed to by representatives of both
382
growers and brewers. It was, moreover, afterwards confirmed by general meetings of both bodies, and it comes up for review in five years. If the Scheme works well it should stabilise the industry, and it should eventually lead to a greater consumption of English hops, and consequently to increased employment of labour both in the country and in London. There is, as many of your Lordships must know, a large exodus of people from London who pick the crop and get a few weeks country air, a holiday for them, and are able to scrape together a few pounds for boots and shoes. They are by no means a negligible consideration in this matter. I know the importance my county attaches to the passing of this scheme, and I hope your Lordships' House will give it at any rate a five years trial.
LORD RHAYADER: My Lords, I will not go over the ground which has been already covered, but this Scheme is so abhorrent, to the Free Trade principles in which I was brought up, and which I still hold, that I cannot allow it to go through without uttering a word. I find myself in a paradoxical position. I have spent much of my life in combating the efforts of brewers to increase the sale of beer. To-day I am a brewers' advocate. I might not find myself in that position if I thought that this Scheme would be the only one of its kind. I might have been content to let the, brewers be sacrificed, so far as they will be sacrificed, to the growers of hops. But the importance of this Scheme is far more in the fact that it is the first complete working out of the Agricultural Marketing Act of last year, and it shows us whither the country is going in regard to the control of agricultural operations.
In this particular case what is the justification put forward by the noble Earl who introduced the Scheme to-day? Practically only the fact that, whereas in 1900, I think he said, there were 50,000 acres under hops, last year there were only 17,000. Well, that is a very serious reduction, a very difficult position in which landowners and farmers who were growing hops were placed. But it came gradually, and the situation was met as it arose; and it arose from causes which are perfectly familiar to every member of your Lordships' House. It arose from

383
the fact of a steadily diminishing demand for beer. I have not the same regard for beer as a drink as the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, has. I do not regard it as the best drink that anybody can have, and therefore I view the decline in the consumption of beer with pleasure rather than with pain. But in any case the remedy for it is not to grant a monopoly to the people who are growing hops which are necessary for the beer, but to increase, if they can, the consumption of beer. If the demand for the hops is there they would in due course be grown.
I can see no justification for this Scheme. The only justification that seems to me logical would be that the brewers, who are the only consumers of hops, had complained that under the old system they could not get the hops they wanted, or that the hops grown were of inferior quality, and that something must be done if they were to supply the public demand for beer. That would be a logical case for interference in regard to the growing of hops. But this is not a brewers' scheme. You would have had no Hop Scheme from the brewers. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who is greatly interested in this thing, suggests two alternative remedies. I must be allowed to suggest a third alternative to those put forward by the noble Viscount. I suggest we should return to the old system. That would be the perfect cure. Under the old system, under which incidentally, I am told, beer was better than it is to-day, you had no complaints from the brewers that they could not get their hops. They got them where they chose. If the British hops were not good they bought foreign hops, and the English beer was admired by the noble Lord (Lord Cranworth) and those who drank it. It was a satisfactory system, and there were no complaints from the brewers. The only justification for the Scheme would have been complaints that the brewers could not get the right hops for the purpose for which hops are used. Therefore I say the proper remedy is to go back to the old system. Let anyone grow hops who chooses to grow hops. Let brewers not make bargains with the hop growers but buy in the cheapest market and so achieve the purpose of the noble Lord, and then you will have no complaints from the brewers. Beer will be better,
384
and the only people who may have any difficulty at all will be those farmers who have committed themselves to growing more hops than the brewers are willing to buy.
The hop growers did try their voluntary scheme, and it broke down for reasons which are familiar to us all. Because the voluntary scheme broke down compulsion is now brought in and this Scheme is put forward. It gives a monopoly for five years, and practically in perpetuity. I wonder if any of your Lordships could stand up with a grave face and tell me that after five years of protection of this kind the industry concerned can go back to the old position. We have only to look at the sugar beet subsidy to see that this is impossible. These monopolies strengthen and cast their roots deep into the earth, and they cannot be got rid of in that easy way at the end of the period. The only way to get rid of them is not to begin them at all. The case for this Scheme is the flimsiest case ever put forward for protection. It is for a small section of the community who were not incapable of meeting their own difficulties, and incidentally when they were trying to work the voluntary scheme the more right-minded among them reduced their production and they are to be sacrificed. I know they are not many, but it seems to me a most ungrateful action on the part of those interesting themselves in the growing of hops that they should turn on the very people who tried to work the voluntary scheme and give a monopoly to those who made no reduction at all. I say that never has a Scheme been put forward with less justification for setting up a monopoly, and for that reason I must offer it my most complete and sincere opposition.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the arguments which have been adduced in opposition to the Scheme seem to me to have been dealt with so completely and so convincingly, especially by the speeches of my noble friends Lord Cornwallis and Lord Cranworth, that it is only, because I might be suspected of lack of courtesy to my noble friend Lord Astor and other noble Lords who have spoken that I feel induced to say anything at all. I only propose to add a very few words to the discussion to which your Lordships have listened, and I would

385
like first of all, if I may, to formulate what I think is tie problem. It is quite true, as Lord Rhayader has said, that we could if we choose go back to the old system under which everybody grew as much as he liked and the brewers took as little as they chose, bought foreign hops instead of English hops, and brewed the best or the worst beer which suited their pockets, and ultimately the hop growers who had been so foolish as to grow hops at an unremunerative price went into the Bankruptcy Court.
That is the good old traditional Free Trade law of unrestricted supply and demand. You got everybody plunging into a trade which looked profitable. You got a glut of production; you got, not a proportionate reduction of price, but a wholly disproportionate reduction of price, because everyone who had something to sell was pressing it on a market which was not able to take it all, and everyone was determined that he should not be left with his particular packet of goods. The result was that the producer was forced to sell at any price, at a price which did not even begin to bring in the cost of production either to the man who, as Lord Rhayader said, unwisely went into she trade or to the man who was in the trade all along and who found himself ruined by the reduction in price owing to outsiders coming in. In course of time, no doubt, it is true that when you have driven down prices to impossible levels which do not begin to meet the cost of production, the weaker producers all go bankrupt and are driven out of business. Then there is a scarcity and those fortunate few who have survived reap a rich harvest at the expense of the consumer until once again high prices attract fresh adventurers into the field, and once again the same familiar cycle is gone through of reduction in price, bankruptcy, and once again a soaring price for the survivors.
LORD RHAYADER: My point was that the consumers in this case, the brewers, never complained.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The consumers who are the brewers are willing to accept and work this Scheme. The trouble with my noble friend Lord Rhayader, if he will forgive my saying so, is, as he himself stated, that he believes that the only possible justification for ever interfering
386
with anything is that the consumer complains. He always ignores the other side of the equation. He does not recognise the existence of the producer except as a mere milch cow to be milked as best the consumer may. He said quite frankly that the only possible justification for interfering in any way would be that the consumers made a complaint.
LORD RHAYADER: In this case.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: In this case. And I have never heard another in which the noble Lord took a different view. He has been eminently consistent; always advocating with great sincerity and force but, as I think, with complete misconception, the point of view of the old-fashioned laissez-faire Radical who thought that the play of supply and demand was a law of God with which it was almost profanity to interfere. That is not the view of this country, and it is not the view of this Government. We think that the producer has a right to reasonable protection at the hands of the community. We think the producer deserves at least as much consideration at the hands of the Government and of the people of this country as the consumer. We think that the right thing is to try and hold an even balance between the two. That being the ordinary problem, in the case of hops the cycle was even worse than in ordinary cases, for the reason that you cannot increase or reduce the production of hops in a hurry. Hops are a crop which, I think, takes three years to come into bearing. I am speaking of something of which the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, could speak with more authority than I can, but I am instructed that it takes three years for hops to come into full bearing, and that they then go on in full bearing for ten or twelve years.
Therefore when you plant hops you are giving hostages to fortune for some twelve or thirteen years ahead, and the result is that an overproduction, a glut, produces a much greater evil because it is much more difficult to check. You have to look forward more in estimating what the requirements are likely to be than in the cafe of any product which more quickly comes to maturity, and, since there is only one possible outlet for hops which human ingenuity has discovered, and that is the most excellent one of making beer, the

387
result is you cannot find an alternative use for your crops if, unhappily, there should be no sufficient consumption in its ordinary market. So it is that hops present the problem in a more acute form than perhaps any other agricultural commodity.
That being the problem, what is the solution? The solution which the Government have tried to attain is, by organised marketing, to ensure that there shall be no undue competition between the several hopgrowers, and now, under this Amendment, to secure that there shall be such a relation, such a co-ordination of the annual supply with the annual demand as to ensure relatively favourable prices, and to avoid those extreme fluctuations up and down which are ruinous to the producer and which are no real advantage in the long run to the consumer. It is not true to say that there is a monopoly created in the strict sense of the word. In the first place, the brewers can grow as many hops as they like for themselves. If the brewers prefer not to buy hops, there is nothing to prevent them growing them. Secondly, it is a fact that any one can grow hops who pleases after this Scheme comes into operation. All that this Scheme provides—and no doubt it is a very necessary and stringent provision—is that in the selling of hops, the so-called quota hops, the hops which are grown under the quota arrangements of the Scheme, shall have the first sale in the market.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, complains that there are people who are injured because they would like to come into this industry; that they have left it in the past or they are tempted by its prospects in the future, and that they have no compensation for the fact that they have not got as good a quota as other people. If you are going to regulate supply to match demand it necessarily follows that you must fix some kind of quota. It has been said that Professor Orwin, who wrote a letter to The Times, had put forward an alternative. If any of your Lordships were interested in following the controversy in the Press you will have seen that his letter was followed very shortly afterwards by an equally convincing letter by Lord Wolmer, in which he completely exposed the fallacy of the learned Professor's theory. To take one example only. The learned Professor, I think,
388
suggested we should follow the analogy of the Wheat Scheme—everybody to produce as much as he liked, have a levy on the quantity that went into consumption, and thereupon fix an average price which would be shared between the producers. There is no analogy between wheat and hops, as Lord Wolmer pointed out, because in the case of wheat there are alternative channels into which you can divert the wheat, whereas in the case of hops, unless you can sell them for beer, you cannot sell them at all, and there were millions of pounds worth of hops that had to be thrown away and used as manure because they could not be marketed during years of excessive supplies.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggests that we should make it a one year experiment. But what would be the sense—if he will forgive my using that perhaps discourteous expression, but I do not mean it in that way—of having an experiment for one year for a crop which takes three years before it reaches bearing? You must have a reasonable period in which to try your experiment. We have adopted five years. It is not an unreasonable time. Then my noble friend suggests an inquiry. We are going to have an inquiry. We are setting up a Committee which is to examine into the working of the Scheme. If, at the end of the five years, there are weaknesses in the Scheme—and he would be a rash man who would suggest that this Scheme has reached perfection—and if it should turn out that there are improvements which can be effected, that Committee will be charged with the duty of pointing out the defects and also pointing out the proper remedies. My noble friend suggested that there was no incentive to growing good hops under the Schema. Your Lordships heard what my noble friend Lord Cranworth said, and he so completely dealt with that argument I do not think I need take up time in dealing with it further.
We have here a Scheme which has this rare and unique credit, that it has been accepted almost universally by the industry with which it is concerned. There was actually a vote of over 98 per cent, in favour of this Scheme in the industry and that, when one remembers that the industry is an agricultural one, is indeed, I think, a very remarkable achievement. In addition to that the

389
National Farmers' Union, who are not all hop growers, have pronounced themselves in favour of it. The Central Landowners' Association, I understand, cordially approve of it. The brewers and the growers alike accepted it as a basis for reaching the Agreement which is set out in the White Paper. It is suggested that in some way this is preventing the use of foreign hops or the manufacture of good beer. I would remind your Lordships that there is nothing in the Scheme which regulates the importation of foreign hops. No doubt there are powers existing, and powers will be used, to regulate the importation of foreign hops, but where those hops are required in order to produce special kinds of beer, or where they are required because there is, unhappily, a failure of the home supply, there is nothing whatever to prevent the importation regulations being relaxed accordingly. Your Lord ships will realise that the Board of Trade is in no way bound by the provisions of the White Paper Agreement, which is, as my noble friend suggested, an agreement between the hop growers and the brewers. We have here, therefore, a Scheme which has met with almost universal approval. It has been criticised from the orthodox Free Trade stand point, which, incidentally, seems mainly to commend itself to-day to those who disbelieve in the use of alcohol, but, apart from that very small section of the community—
LORD RHAYADER: Clear heads.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: We might say weak heads. But I will not embark on that discussion this evening. At any rate here is a Scheme that is carefully thought out, which has this to recommend it, that it is an Amendment of a Scheme which has had two years trial and has worked very successfully. It is a Scheme which has borne very careful examination not only by the Ministry of Agriculture but also by the Commission set up to examine as to the best way to make it work, and I cordially invite your Lordships to say that it is a Scheme which deserves a fair chance, and to send it from this House with our cordial approval and our hope for its complete success.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I think it would be discourteous not to make one or two brief observations in reply to this
390
debate. I am not convinced by the arguments used in opposition to the case which I tried to put forward, but looking round the House and counting those who are seated on one side and those who have been good enough to express support of my case I am wise enough to realise that there is no particular object in going to a Division. Just for the sake of accuracy I would venture to suggest that one of the figures stated by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, was not strictly in keeping with the correct interpretation of the Agreement. I have ventured to confirm my interpretation with the noble Earl. The noble Lord said the grower would get only £8 5s. As I understand the Agreement, the brewers agree to pay an average of £9 for two-thirds of the crop, regardless of quality, and they will pay an additional levy of ten shillings which goes into the pool so that the growers are going to get £9 for two-thirds of the crop, and £9 for the other third if of good quality, or the market value of it is of inferior quality. That is to say the brewers pay not £9 but £9 10s. I think I am right in that.
LORD CORNWALLIS: I am sorry if I was inaccurate. I thought there was a levy of ten shillings and a second levy of five shillings.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I speak as a Conservative, rather a progressive one as compared with some others, and I must confess that one thing that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, amazed me. He seemed not to mind an injustice that applied only to a few.
LORD CRANWORTH: I must protest. I never said that. I said that the noble Viscount would be just as pleased as I to know that these unfortunate men did not exceed fourteen in number, because only fourteen voted against the Scheme. That is a very different thing.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The noble Lord recognises there is an injustice.
LORD CRANWORTH: I said so. I said I recognised there was injustice.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am sorry I misunderstood the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, indicated that in his opinion also there were some cases where injustice would be done. I venture to suggest that in addition to the two alternatives suggested by Professor Orwin

391
there is another, that of a compensation scheme. I venture to hope that the Government will look into that and see whether growers who are going to have a period of prosperity could not be asked to contribute a levy which would go into a pool so that their less fortunate brethren might be compensated for having small quotas. The noble Viscount who leads the House, Lord Hailsham, rather challenged my statement that there was a monopoly. It is quite true that anybody can grow hops, but it is no use growing hops unless you can sell them. As I understand it existing growers have a complete monopoly of the market until present demand increases by 10 per cent.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think that is quite right, although I do not want to bandy words. It is true they have a preference on what is called the estimated market demand before the other hops come in, but if it should turn out that in any year the market demand was greater than the estimate extra hops would have their fair chance of being sold.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Yes, if there is a ten per cent, increase, but if there is no increase in demand then the existing growers with their quota have a monopoly. I think that is right. With regard to the two schemes of Professor Orwin, the noble Viscount referred to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Wolmer. But he only replied to the one based on the analogy of wheat. No reply was made to the other proposal of Professor Orwin that there should be a levy based on the analogy of the Potato Scheme. I venture to hope that that may receive consideration. I do not want to bother your Lordships with a Division, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NORTH OF SCOTLAND MILK MARKETING SCHEME, 1934.
EART, DE LA WARR: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, who is unavoidably detained elsewhere on official business, I beg to move that your Lordships approve of the North of Scotland Milk Marketing Scheme, 1934. This Scheme embraces the Counties of Inverness, Nairn, Ross
392
and Cromarty, Sutherland and Caithness and the burghs therein. No public inquiry was required. Only one set of substantial objections was lodged and these were withdrawn on agreed adjustments and modifications being made in the Scheme. The Scheme is modelled on the Aberdeen Milk Marketing Scheme which your Lordships have already approved. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government the Scheme is soundly conceived and will conduce to the more efficient production and marketing of milk within the area. We recommend that the approval of Parliament be expressed so that the Scheme may be submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Act to a poll of registered producers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 19th instant, be approved.—(End De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RENFREWSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (EASTWOOD AND MEARNS) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
FINANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BUSINESS: NOTICES FOR "NO DAY NAMED".
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before we adjourn may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether he would be good enough to tell us what is the business for next week, and at the same time may I ask

393
him a question of which I have given him private notice? That question is whether he will consider the setting up of a small Select Committee to consider the question of fixing a time limit after the expiration of which Notices standing on the Paper for "No day named" shall be automatically removed from the Notices and Orders of the Day. May I be allowed to say just one or two words as to my reasons for putting this question? As your Lordships know, Notices of Motion are circulated daily after our debates. The cost of a page of printing amounts approximately to £1. It may be useful for a noble Lord to keep his Motion on the Paper for a few weeks while seeking for another date, but I find after consultation with others that it is generally considered undesirable that those Motions should remain on the Order Paper indefinitely. It is specially undesirable that our Order Paper should be used for publicity purposes, I therefore hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House may see his way to accept my suggestion.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, in answer to the first question which the noble Lord put to me, there is very little to say beyond what appears in the printed Order Paper. There is the Second Reading of the Road Traffic Bill to be taken on Tuesday next and there are two Motions for that day, one in the name of my noble friend Lord Kilmaine and the other in the name of my noble friend Lord Danesfort. I am not quite sure whether Lord Kilmaine's Motion is effective, because it may be that he will be willing to postpone it owing to the fact that my noble friend Lord Londonderry, who wishes to answer it, cannot very well be here on Tuesday next. On Wednesday there will be Lord Temple-town's Motion and Lord Sanderson's Motion. On Thursday the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill and the Milk Bill are both down for Second Reading, and I understand that my noble friend Lord Cecil wishes to move a Motion about an embargo on arms the exact details of which I have not yet seen. I understand that it has either been just handed in, or is shortly to be handed in, at the Table.
Then I come to the other question of which the noble Lord was good enough to give me previous notice—namely, the question about dealing with Notices which continue indefinitely upon your Lordships'
394
Order Paper. I had myself noticed that a series of Notices continued on the Paper for many months past, which have cost, I think, something like £100 up to the present date, and which might very well have disappeared into oblivion a very long time ago. But I am a little doubtful as to what is the best way of dealing with this particular question. I think it obviously cannot be debated in the first instance on the floor of the House. It has occurred to mo that probably the best plan would be to appoint a small Committee which would not merely consider that one point but would consider the Standing Orders with a view to proposing any amendment or revision which may result in a saving of expense, having particular reference to the daily reprinting and re-circulating with the Minutes of Notices or Motions which are left for considerable periods on the Order Paper.
If we are going to set up a Committee, in these days when unnecessary expense is in the opinion of all of us, I hope, undesirable and mischievous, I think it might be well to see whether there are any other directions in which saving might be made without loss of efficiency. I think it would probably be convenient that the Committee should be quite a-small one. Probably one representative of the Liberal Party, one of the noble Lord's Party, and one of our own Party, with perhaps the Lord Chairman of Committees, would be sufficient. If that meets with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—and I understand it meets with the approval of my noble friends on the Liberal Benches—I would propose to put down a Motion to that effect and would meanwhile consult with my noble friends of both Parties opposite as to the exact representative each of them would respectively choose.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for meeting me on this question. His suggestion, I think, is the best way of dealing with it.

  LONDON TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.
  LONDON TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.
  SALMON FISHING IN SCOTLAND.
  SALMON FISHING IN SCOTLAND.
NEWPORT CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (INTERIM FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment.
WESTON-SUPER-MARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

PENERITH ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Penrith in the County of Cumberland:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SWANAGE AMD DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Swanage and part of the rural district of Wareham and Purbeck in the County of Dorset:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
MEXROROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
ST. HELEN'S CORPORATION (TROLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment.