Sitting of 9 May 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Darlington Corporation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CLYDEBANK AND DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Clydebank and District Water," presented by Sir Godfrey Collins; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act of 1899) to be considered To-morrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    ARMANENTS (EXPORT).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the States in respect of which the Foreign Office advised the Board of Trade not to grant export licences for arms in seven cases in the last four years as being contrary to the public interest?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The consignees in the seven cases referred to were Government authorities in China (three cases) and in Brazil (two cases), a private individual in Austria, and a firm in Belgium. Various Departments are consulted before the issue of licences, and the decision to refuse a particular licence may be taken on the advice of any of these Departments.
    Mr. MANDER: Can my right hon. Friend say whether licences are also not
    1066
    given for export to Japan, in view of the fact that China was one of the countries mentioned?
    Sir J. SIMON: I understood that the hon. Gentleman was referring to a specific statement made, I think, in the House a few days ago as to certain cases in which the Foreign Office advised the Board of Trade. I have given an answer in respect of those cases.

    JAPANESE COMPETITION (COLONIES).
    Captain FULLERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that further discharges of employés in the cotton industry in Manchester are still taking place owing to the continuing loss of markets in our West African Colonies into which Japanese goods are being imported at prices which are only possible because of currency depreciation and subsidies; and what steps he proposes to take to restore fair conditions of trade in these Colonies?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made on Monday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Major PROCTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the total textile exports to the Colonial Empire from Japan are taken by East Africa; whether the proposed quotas will apply to East Africa; and, if not, what alternative measures will be taken to secure for Lancashire the textile trade of this market?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Imports into East Africa of cotton piece goods from Japan during 1932 represented roughly 30 per cent. of such imports into the Colonial Empire, excluding Hong Kong and Aden. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As regards the third part, the position is complicated, as the House is aware, by the Congo Basin Treaties, and I can only say at present that the matter is still being examined.
    Major PROCTER: Are we to understand, then, that for some time in the future Japan will still be permitted to have one-third of the total textile trade in the Colonial Empire?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not quite sure what conclusion my hon. Friend draws. It is a fact, of which we all must take notice, that a whole series of treaties precludes any action being taken at the present time in that area, and that is a fact by which we are bound.
    Major PROCTER: May I ask whether some action will be taken in regard to those treaties which are crippling the Lancashire trade?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already said that that is being most carefully considered. So far as East Africa is concerned, the attitude that the Governments there have always taken is that if it is considered by those most competent to advise that it would be in the interest of this country and if it is possible internationally to determine those treaties they would readily accept that.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether British trade gains great advantage from those treaties?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That, of course, is one of the considerations which have to be weighed by those who are engaged in deciding what is in the best interests of the British export trade, with which we are concerned here.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not also influenced by the interests of the Crown Colonies?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. I speak, I know, fully on behalf of East Africa when I say that as East Africa enjoys the preferences granted by this country it would readily accord preferences to this country, if it is possible to do so.
    Mr. BAILEY: When the right hon. Gentleman says that this matter is being considered, can he give the House any indication as to whether he will be able to make a comprehensive statement in the near future?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; I cannot say when that will be possible. My hon. Friend will realise that it is hardly for me to decide, in my particular sphere, what is best in the interests of the British export trade.

    RUBBER INDUSTRY (REGULATION SCHEME).
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what will be the numbers and com position of the advisory panel to be set up under the rubber restriction scheme; how many will be re presentative of British consuming in terests; and what provisions will be made to secure that the advice of the panel will be put into effect to a reasonable extent?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The panel will consist of three members selected by the bodies considered by the International Rubber Regulation Committee to be most representative of rubber manufacturers, and His Majesty's Government have always assumed that one of those bodies will be representative of British interests. As regards the last part of the question, the unique arrangement for an advisory panel representative of consuming interests was made for the express purpose of ensuring that the committee should have the fullest information regarding the views of consumers, and should give them due weight in framing its decisions.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any conference has been held in connection with the proposed rubber regulation scheme in order to arrive at the steps which it will be necessary to take in order to prevent the smuggling that will be encouraged if the price of rubber is raised and the quantity to be exported subjected to limitation; and whether it will be necessary to obtain assistance from any of the defence services for this purpose?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the comprehensive character of the scheme, including as it does all the producing countries in the East, is the most effective insurance against possible smuggling.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether legislation by Parliament will be necessary to make the proposed scheme for rubber regulation effective; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government propose to give the House an opportunity of considering the matter in the interests of British manufacturers

    1069
    and others concerned before any action is taken on the recommendation of the committee?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. As I have already stated, legislation will not be required in this country. The hon. Member will appreciate that it would be quite impracticable for all decisions of the International Committee operating the scheme to be submitted for approval to the Legislatures of the various metropolitan Governments concerned.

    SHIPPING SUBSIDIES, UNITED STATES.
    Mr. TEMPLE MORRISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information showing the extent to which the United States of America subsidises steamship services to New Zealand?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): From such information as is available, it would appear that apart from assistance in the form of loans at low rates of interest for shipbuilding, the Matson Navigation Company is in receipt of subsidies from the United States Government for the services to Australia and New Zealand amounting to about 1,250,000 dollars a year, some part of which represents services rendered in the carriage of mails.

  GERMANY (AEROPLANES).
  Mrs. COPELANDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any further information with regard to the order for 2,500 aeroplanes recently placed with the United States by Germany?
  Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. I have no information to confirm the statement contained in my hon. Friend's question.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    SAAR PLEBISCITE.
    Sir C. CAYZERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to publish as a White Paper the report of the committee of three appointed by the League of Nations to inquire into measures for the regulation of the Saar plebiscite next year, and when this report will be published?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have not yet received the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I would remind him, moreover, that the report is addressed to the Council of the League, and that it is with that body, and not with His Majesty's Government that any decision as regards its publication lies.
    Sir C. CAYZER: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the report which was made to the Council of the League by Mr. Knox, and can he say whether, in view of the serious nature of that report, the whole question of the Saar plebiscite will be considered in detail at the forthcoming meeting of the council?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have seen in the Press a statement that Mr. Knox has made such a report, and I believe—indeed I have no doubt—that one of the questions coming before the meeting of the Council in a few days' time will be the question of the arrangements to be suggested by this committee in reference to the Saar plebiscite.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to whether the plebiscite will be held without interference?
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the plebiscite is to be taken later on, and a committee has been appointed by the Council of the League which has been considering what should be the conditions and the other arrangements made for the purpose which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

    JAPAN AND CHINA.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that, as a result of recent diplomatic exchanges with Japan, no objection will be raised by that country to the continuance of the work being carried out in China by the League of Nations; and whether he has now received information from the League of Nations with regard to the communication made by Mr. Yokoyama, Japanese Consul-General in Geneva, to M. Avenol, Secretary-General of the League?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have no official information regarding the Japanese attitude as regards League work in China : the subject has not been mentioned in

    1071
    recent communications from the Japanese Government. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. MANDER: In view of the very definite statements which have appeared in the Press that an official statement was made on behalf of Japan to the Secretary of the League, M. Avenol, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether those statements are true, as it is a very serious matter?
    Sir J. SIMON: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is referring to what he has read and I have read in the Press. If he is referring to the statements that I have seen, they included a statement that M. Avenol had contradicted some of the suggestions made as to what the Japanese representatives had said.
    Mr. MANDER: I gathered that there was a statement officially made to M. Avenol?
    Sir J. SIMON: I did not say so. I said that I had seen a statement in the Press to the effect that M. Avenol had issued a contradiction of some of the subject matter of the communication.
    Mr. MANDER: When the right hon. Gentleman visits the council next week, is this matter not of sufficient importance for him to make inquiries?

  ABYSSINIA (GAMBEILA LEASE).
  Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the principal terms of the lease from the Abyssinian Government of the Gambeila enclave to the Sudan Government; what annual rental is paid; how many years of the lease remain unexpired; and whether the lease gives the Sudan Government any option of renewal?
  Sir J. SIMON: The Gambeila lease is governed by the Anglo-Ethiopian Treaty of 28th October, 1902. Article IV of this Treaty provided that His Majesty's Government and the Sudan Government might select a site for a commercial station in the neighbourhood of Itang on the Baro River, having a river frontage of not more than 2,000 metres and an area not exceeding 400 hectares. The
  1072
  site was not to be used for military or political purposes. Itang was subsequently found to be unsuitable and Gambeila was, by agreement, substituted for it. The lease lasts as long as the Sudan remains under an Anglo-Egyptian condominium. To the best of my belief no rental is paid by the Sudan Government, but I have sought confirmation on this point and, should it prove that a rental is paid, I will inform my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Was this lease laid before Parliament before it was decided?
  Sir J. SIMON: I shall have to have notice of that question.

  KENYA AND TANGANYIKA (FAMINE RELIEF).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information as to the failure of crops in Kenya and Tanganyika and the famine conditions arising therefrom; and what steps are being taken to meet the situation?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As regards Kenya, a severe drought prevailed during the early part of this year, but the latest reports which I have received show that the drought has now generally broken. The Government have provided £6,500 since January for famine relief measures in the Coast Province and in Turkana, but this has in part been necessitated by locust depredations. The Tanganyika crop reports for March, 1934, show that, except in the Lake Province, the rainfall has been generally satisfactory. Owing, however, to the invasions of red locusts in the Central, Tanga and Eastern Provinces, it has been necessary to spend £5,000 this year on famine relief, in addition to £5,000 on anti-locust measures.

  PALESTINE (MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, JERUSALEM).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say yet who will be the two nominated members of the Jerusalem municipality; and can he assure the House that they will both be drawn from British subjects who are deprived of the franchise in Palestine?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The High Commissioner's powers in this matter are discretionary. If he should decide to nominate any members of the municipal council of Jerusalem, the selection will rest with him, and I should not think it proper to intervene.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to His Excellency the undesirability of appointing to either of these posts persons who are not British subjects?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think so. Everybody in this House knows that the High Commissioner for Palestine is better acquainted with local conditions and local needs than anyone in this country, and I should very much deprecate trying to influence him in taking a decision.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the feeling that exists in Palestine among the people who have no votes?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In making any nomination, the High Commissioner would have regard solely to the general interests of the people.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE DISPLAY.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if, in connection with this year's Royal Air Force display at Hendon, with a view to educating the civilian population in the realities of aerial warfare, he will arrange for the bombing of a specially-constructed building representing a densely populated area inhabited by dummy women and children?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. MANDER: Apart from the spectacular and dramatic side, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the general public ought to have some opportunity of seeing the horror and brutality of aerial warfare?
  Sir P. SASSOON: This is part of the training of the Royal Air Force. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to volunteer to carry out part of the duties.
  Mr. MANDER: Is it not the fact that part of the training of air forces all over the world is to carry out work of that kind?
  Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Were not protests made some time ago by peace-loving people when an imitation village was bombed at Hendon?

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. GUYasked the Minister of Transport the total number of inquiries he directed to be made into motor accidents under Section 23 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, during the year 1933; and how many of those inquiries were held in public?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Under Section 23 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, I directed special inquiries to be made into four road accidents during 1933. In one of these cases the inquiry was held in public. In addition, less formal investigations were made by my officers into a substantial number of accidents in which defects of vehicles or of the road were alleged.
    Mr. GUY: Does not the Minister agree that the holding of public inquiries into suitable motor accidents would serve a very useful purpose in focussing public attention on the causes of certain motor accidents?
    Mr. STANLEY: My hon. Friend will realise that a public inquiry is held by the coroner into every case of fatal accident.
    Lieut. Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: May I ask what is a suitable motor accident?
    Colonel GOODMAN (for Mrs. TATE)asked the Minister of Transport what evidence as to the causes of road accidents he obtained from insurance companies before introducing the present Road Traffic Bill?
    Mr. STANLEY: At a conference I held with representatives of the insurance companies I took the opportunity of inquiring whether they were in a position to furnish information as to the causes of road accidents, and was informed that their experience did not enable them to

    1075
    add anything to the information already contained in the Preliminary Report on Fatal Road Accidents which occurred during the six months ended 30th June, 1933.

    ALEXANDRA PALACE (MAIN ROAD).
    Mr. SUMMERSBYasked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider taking joint action with the local authorities to ensure, with assistance from the Road Fund, the construction or continuation of a main road passing the doors of the Alexandra Palace, to remedy its present inaccessibility?
    Mr. STANLEY: I will consider any scheme which may be submitted to me by the responsible highway authority, but in the meantime can give no indication of the prospect of a grant from the Road Fund.

    BRIDGES, STAFFORDSHIRE.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Transport whether, as a result of the conference of highway authorities and road users held in the North Staffordshire area, on 4th January, to consider Section 30 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, he has yet received any list from the Potteries district suggesting the order of priority of bridges which require strengthening or reconstruction for the maintenance of adequate communications by road?
    Mr. STANLEY: Two conferences were held in the north and south of Staffordshire, respectively, and reported to a general county conference on 26th January. From the report of the latter conference I understand that the county surveyor has been instructed, after consultation with the representatives of the urban authorities in the county, to draw up a priority list of weak bridges with suggestions as to alternative routes.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Am I to understand that since that date no priority list has been submitted to the Ministry of Transport?
    Mr. STANLEY: Yes, Sir.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Does my hon. Friend regard this matter as an urgent one, and, if so, is he taking any steps to expedite it?

    RIVER FORTH (FERRY SERVICE).
    Mr. GUYasked the Minister of Transport the number of occasions since the commencement of the new ferry system across the River Forth at Queens-ferry when the service of one or other of the ferry boats has been interrupted owing to tidal, weather, or pier difficulties?
    Mr. STANLEY: I am informed by the operators of the ferry that the full service was inaugurated on 21st March and provides for 64 crossings daily. The total number of crossings up to and including 6th May should have been 3,008. The actual number fell short of this by 93, owing chiefly to heavy gales on four consecutive days in April. At no time during any day was the service entirely suspended, and on no day was the number of sailings less than the number required by the ferry contract.
    Mr. GUY: However efficient this service may be, does not the Minister agree with his predecessor that the ideal solution of the transport problem across the river would be a road bridge?
    Mr. STANLEY: That hardly arises out of this question.

    ROADS (GRASS VERGES AND FOOTPATHS).
    Sir GIFFORD FOXasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the gradual curtailment of grass margins, mostly due to road widening, which has deprived pedestrians and horse users of safe accommodation on the highways; and what steps he has taken in all cases to ensure that when roads are widened the interests of the two classes of the community are looked after?
    Mr. STANLEY: I warned all local authorities in a circular issued on 6th February last, of which I am supplying my hon. Friend with a copy, that Road Fund grants would be withheld from operations of the kind he describes.
    Mr. JOELasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of his circular of February last notifying local authorities that unless adequate alternative provision is made for pedestrians in narrow country roads the Road Fund grants towards resurfacing the carriageways in question will be withheld, such grants have been withheld in any specific cases; and whether he will state which they are?
    Mr. STANLEY: Since the issue of the circular of 6th February, 1934, no case has been brought to my notice in which a highway authority, in resurfacing, has encroached upon the grass verge or footway, and no question of withholding of grant has, therefore, arisen, but the Ministry's divisional engineers have instructions to watch the matter closely.

    ROADS (CAMBER).
    Mr. JOELasked the Minister of Transport whether his Department possesses any information which shows the roads of the country on which it is necessary to eliminate excessive camber; and whether, if it possesses such information, it is the practice to call the attention of the local authority concerned to the need for action?
    Mr. STANLEY: My divisional road engineers are giving continual attention to this matter, and in necessary cases do not fail to call the attention of local authorities to the need of eliminating excessive camber where the roads in question are due for reconstruction.

    ROAD TRAFFIC (FANCY DRESS).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER GRAYasked the Minister of Transport whether the recent statutory regulation forbidding the wearing in the Metropolitan area of fancy dresses or other costumes for the purpose of advertisement is intended to apply to the wearing of political uniforms?
    Mr. STANLEY: Under the powers conferred by the London Traffic Act, 1924, and after consultation with the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, a regulation was made on 13th February, 1928, which has been incorporated in a consolidating regulation recently made. It provides that
    "no person shall in any scheduled street either wholly or mainly for the purpose of advertisement wear or cause to be worn any fancy dress or other costume."
    The object of the regulation was to relieve congestion and facilitate traffic. Its interpretation and enforcement are not matters for me.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: In view of the fact that black shirts are a form of fancy dress and that they are worn primarily for the purpose of advertisement, may I take it that the intention of these regulations is to include them?
    Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member must remember that a black shirt may be due not to a desire to advertise, but simply to neglect to change.

    DANGEROUS DRIVING.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of cases in England and Wales during the past year in which fines not exceeding ten guineas have been imposed upon persons convicted of dangerous driving, and the number of cases in which the fine exceeded that sum?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I regret that this information is not available, since the returns do not show the amount of individual fines, but only the number of cases in which conviction was followed by a fine, and the total amount of all the fines imposed for the particular class of offence.

  GAS AND ELECTRICITY.

    PUBLIC LIGHTING (SMALL TOWNS AND VILLAGES).
    Sir G. FOXasked the Minister of Transport if he has any statistics as to how many small towns and villages in the whole country still exist without either gas or electric lighting in the streets?
    Mr. STANLEY: So far as I am aware, no statistics of the nature asked for by my hon. Friend are available.

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (CONDITIONS).
    Mr. GEOFFREY PETOasked the Minister of Transport whether the conditions for the supply of electricity and any alterations thereto issued to consumers by electricity undertakers receive examination and sanction by the Electricity Commissioners or any other authority?
    Mr. STANLEY: Certain conditions of supply are laid down by the Acts or Orders of the undertakers and by the statutory regulations applicable to the undertaking, but there are necessarily a number of conditions made in the ordinary course of business by commercial undertakings such as electricity undertakings,

    1079
    which are not required to be submitted for approval before being made.
    Mr. PETO: As these are monopoly companies, surely some authority ought to exercise a check upon the conditions under which they supply the consumer?
    Mr. STANLEY: Parliament has laid down certain conditions under which this monopoly may operate, and no conditions which they attached that were contrary to the statutory conditions would be allowed to exist.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman got his Parliamentary powers extended in this matter, so that efficient and cheap electricity may be available in all parts of the country?
    Mr. CHORLTON: As between the various powers which the companies possess under their Acts, and the submissions which they have to make to the Electricity Commissioners, is there any table which shows what is included and what is left out?
    Mr. G. PETOasked the Minister of Transport whether the Electricity Com missioners or any other authority take steps to see that electricity undertakers observe the terms of their Act or Order and any subsequent regulations issued by the Commissioners?
    Mr. STANLEY: In common with other bodies exercising statutory powers, electricity undertakers are under statutory obligation to observe the terms of their Act or Order and appropriate regulations, which are public documents and accessible to any interested parties. If the attention of the Electricity Commissioners is drawn to any case of alleged non-compliance, they would, of course, investigate the matter.
    Mr. G. PETOasked the Minister of Transport what steps are taken to enable the consumer to know the conditions on which electricity undertakers have obtained their Act or Order and any subsequent regulations of the Electricity Commissioners?
    Mr. STANLEY: Where an application is made for statutory powers to supply electricity, a definite procedure has to
    1080
    be followed involving the giving of public notices : The Act or Order when granted, and any statutory regulations applicable to the undertaking, become public documents which are accessible to any interested parties. Undertakers are also required to keep copies of the regulations at their principal office within their area of supply, and to supply a copy thereof to any person demanding the same on payment of the price of the published regulations.
    Mr. PETO: Can the Minister tell us if any steps have been taken to inform consumers of their rights in this respect, and to draw their attention to the fact that they can see copies of the regulations?
    Mr. STANLEY: No doubt this question and answer will have done something to that effect.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Have there been any complaints from consumers?

    ELECTRICITY SCHEMES, RURAL AREAS.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Minister of Transport how many special electricity schemes for rural areas are in operation; and whether he proposes to have further schemes?
    Mr. STANLEY: A number of schemes for the provision of electricity supply in large tracts of rural territory have been submitted to and approved by the Electricity Commissioners during the last four or five years and have been or are being carried out. Two special schemes in the Bedford and Norwich areas respectively include proposals for comprehensive and accelerated development to be carried out within a limited period. I am not aware that there are at present any other similar cases in preparation. The Electricity Commissioners continue to watch over rural development, and schemes for extending rural supply as they come before them will receive their careful attention.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Is my hon. Friend aware that the progress of these electricity undertakings in rural areas is much impeded owing to the high cost of light and power, and, when considering other schemes in the future, will he consider the desirability of establishing the smaller power units using, say, oil engines, to enable the consumer to obtain light and power at a reasonable cost?
    Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question upon the Paper.

  VERMINOUS PREMISES, SHEFFIELD.
  Mr. HAMER RUSSELLasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Medical Officer of Health of the city of Sheffield, although possessing abundant evidence of bug-infested property, has no power to eradicate this nuisance, and that alternative accommodation cannot be sanctioned for the tenants concerned on the ground that the property is not slum property; and whether, in view of the danger to public health arising from the existence of bug-infested property, he will make investigations and, if advisable, issue compulsory orders?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Under Part IV of the Public Health Act, 1925, which is in force in the city of Sheffield, the corporation have power to secure the cleansing of verminous premises, and when this is done it is not necessary to provide alternative accommodation. My right hon. Friend will be glad to make inquiries about one case, which my hon. Friend has brought to his notice, in which it is suggested that cleansing is impossible owing to the nature of the premises infected. My right hon. Friend will communicate with him about this case, and send him a copy of a memorandum which has been issued to local authorities.
  Mr. PIKE: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the medical officer in Sheffield of the existence of the Act which he has quoted and the special Clause to which he has referred, and is he aware that the request is made in view of the fact that the medical officer himself has definitely written to state that he possesses no power whatever to proclaim bug-infested properties?

  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  Mr. D. GRAHAMasked the Minister of Health if he has had any applications for widows' pensions from widows of men who have paid employers' contributions to health insurance for such a
  1082
  number of years as would have entitled them to pension if their husbands had been employés instead of employers; is he aware that many men in this category, because of the long-continued depression, have been compelled to go out of business and have left their widows in poor circumstances; whether any action, by regulation or otherwise, has been taken by his Department to deal with such cases; and, if not, will he introduce legislation to remove what appears to be a just grievance in the minds of persons affected?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As regards the first and second parts of the question, it is believed that some applications from widows in the category referred to have been received. As regards the third part, action of the kind indicated is not possible within the existing scheme. As regards the last part, my right hon. Friend cannot undertake to introduce legislation on the lines suggested as there is no margin in the present contribution for employed persos available for the payment of pensions to persons other than the employés and their dependants.
  Mr. GRAHAM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that quite a number of applications have already been received, and does he not think the time has come to deal with the matter?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The insurance scheme is for employés, and not for employers.

  LAKE DISTRICT.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that three lakes in the Lake District, with the lands adjoining, are at present being offered for sale; and whether the Government propose to take any steps to assist in the preservation of these national beauty spots for the nation?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend understands that the position is to be discussed at a meeting of local authorities to be held for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, in the very near future.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Do the Government recognise that the preservation of these places of natural beauty has just as refining an influence on people as the possession by the British Museum of the Codex Sinaiticus?
  Mr. LEVY: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the safeguarding of the possibility of having a water supply in connection with these lakes?

  SCOTLAND.

    DISTRICT COUNCILLORS (EXPENSES).
    Mr. MILNEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that, as the result of a recent decision of the Court of Session which over-ruled a previous decision, payments to members of district councils in respect of travelling expenses, time necessarily lost from employment, and personal expenses, now appears to be illegal and must be discontinued; and, as the discontinuance of the payments will entail hardship on the members of the district councils in Fife and elsewhere and is contrary to the public interest, will he take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to make legal such payments?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, legislation would be necessary to authorise payment of the expenses referred to, and I cannot give any undertaking as to the introduction of legislation for that purpose.
    Mr. MILNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many persons otherwise suitable may be deterred from serving on these councils owing to lack of means?
    Sir G. COLLINS: That may be but, as the hon. Member knows, the present decision is only confirming an earlier decision which was given against making these payments.
    Mr. MILNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present decision overrules a recent decision which appeared to authorise the payments?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, but before the former decision there was an earlier decision the other way.
    Major COLFOX: Will the Government consider the early introduction of legislation making it illegal for any member of a local authority to be paid any emoluments at all, also any Members of this House.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. D. GRAHAMasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a young lad named Patrick Duddy, of 139, Quarry Street, Hamilton, was disallowed benefit at a recent sitting of the Hamilton Court of Referees on the ground that he had been dismissed for being late in turning up for work and was therefore guilty of misconduct, when the real facts were that he had been in the same employment for a period of three years at a wage never higher than 10 shillings a week, and that he was really dismissed for asking an increase in wages; is he aware that since his dismissal another lad has been employed by the same employer at the same job at a wage of nine shillings a week with the same prospect of dismissal if he seeks an increase of wages; and will he in these circumstances advise the case being referred back to the court of referees for reconsideration?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am having inquiries made, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    HOUSING, LANARKSHIRE.
    Mr. D. GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses built in the administrative county of Lanark since 1918; the numbers built in each of the burghs, separately, giving the numbers built for sale; and the numbers built for letting in each of the administrative areas?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): As the answer to the first two parts of the question involves a tabular statement, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the last part, I regret that information as to the numbers of houses built for sale and letting respectively is not available.
    Following is the table :

    1085

    STATEMENT showing number of houses built since 1918 in the administrative County of Lanark and the burghs in the county up to 31st March, 1934.

    Local Authority.

    Houses completed by—

    Local Authorities with State Assistance.

    Assisted Private Enterprise.

    Unassisted Private Enterprise.*

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    Lanark County

    …

    …

    …

    11,526

    3,273

    641

    Glasgow Burgh

    …

    …

    …

    33,970

    11,017

    5,857

    Motherwell

    …

    …

    …

    2,142

    373

    14

    Coatbridge

    …

    …

    …

    1,084

    12

    2

    Hamilton

    …

    …

    …

    1,564

    53

    37

    Airdrie

    …

    …

    …

    1,486

    28

    15

    Rutherglen

    …

    …

    …

    734

    219

    79

    Lanark

    …

    …

    …

    158

    5

    31

    Biggar

    …

    …

    …

    20

    —

    2

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    52,684

    14,980

    6,678

    * Information as to the number of houses built by unassisted private enterprise is available only for the period from and including 1925.

    LANDHOLDERS.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications have been made to the Scottish Land Court for the termination of landholders' rights during 1933 by the Department of Agriculture in Scotland and all the landowners in Scotland, respectively?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The number of applications for the removal of landholders received by the Scottish Land Court during 1933 was 22 by the Department of Agriculture and 13 by other landowners, respectively.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.
  Mr. T. MORRISasked the President of the Board of Trade the numbers of shipping companies which only employ British seamen?
  Dr. BURGIN: I regret that the information is not available.

  INDIA (SIND).
  Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the withdrawal of their money by Hindus of Sind from rural co-operative societies owing to the fear of repudiation of the
  1086
  debt by the Moslem majority in the event of the separation of Sind under the proposed constitutional changes; and whether he can make a statement to reassure public opinion?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have seen references to propaganda in Hindu circles for the withdrawal of deposits from cooperative banks in Sind, but I have no information as to the result of such propaganda or the reasons for it. I will ask the Government of India for a report.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that under the new Constitution there is to be a statutory Moslem majority in Sind?
  Sir S. HOARE: That obviously does not arise under this question.
  Sir A. KNOX: Is not this an example of the real terror of minorities all through India?
  Sir S. HOARE: I have no information. I am making inquiries.

  DRAINAGE, ISLE OF ELY.
  Mr. ROTHSCHILDasked the Minister of Agriculture how many objections he has received to the proposed alteration of the boundaries of the middle

  1087
  level drainage area in the Isle of Ely; and whether he proposes to hold an inquiry into the grounds of these objections?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The proposed alteration of boundaries of the middle level drainage area to which the hon. Member refers is contained in a scheme submitted to the Minister for confirmation under the Land Drainage Act, 1930. Fifteen objections to the scheme have been received. Of these, eight are from local authorities, one is from a drainage authority, and six are in the form of petitions signed by varying numbers of owners and occupiers within the proposed district. A public local inquiry into the objections has been arranged, and will be held to-morrow at March.

  COLLIERY EXPLOSION, LEIGH.
  Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines if he is now in a position to make a further statement on the explosion which took place at Bickershaw Collieries, Plank Lane, Leigh, on 30th April, causing the death of five persons; and if it is his intention to hold an inquiry in accordance with Clause 83 of the Mines Act, 1911?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have asked to be furnished with a full report of the proceedings at the inquest, which is to be resumed on 14th May; and as soon as I have that report I will consider carefully whether or not a further public inquiry should be held. In the meantime, I am not in a position to make any further statement.

  POLICE INTERVIEWS (FEE).
  Mr. LEONARDasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that applicants for interviews with constables concerned in police court cases are instructed to attend at the police office when the constable's ordinary duties require him to be there; and if he will reconsider the charge of 10s. made for such interviews which are in the public interest?
  Mr. HACKING: In the Metropolitan Police a charge is never made for an
  1088
  interview in connection with a police court case, but only where the interview is asked for to further the private purposes of an individual in connection with possible civil proceedings arising out of a road accident. So far as I am aware, the practice is similar in other forces in England and Wales. The reason for the charge is to cover the police time and trouble involved, and a time is fixed for the interview so as to minimise the interference with a constable's ordinary duties.
  Mr. LEONARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter in view of the practice, which. I am informed, holds sway throughout the country, that interviews take place when constables, on duty for other purposes, are at the police station, and the fact that 10s. is deemed to be an excessive charge, because other witnesses are expected, in order that justice may be done, to come forward without any charge at all?
  Mr. HACKING: As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend has control only over the Metropolitan Police Force. He believes that it is the practice followed in other districts in England and Wales, and if the hon. Member has any case to show that it is not the practice, I shall be glad if he will send particulars.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this charge is quite a recent charge, and was strongly protested against at the time, that it is the duty of every ordinary citizen to give an interview and give his evidence to a plaintiff without a charge, and that it is a monstrous thing that a public official, a policeman, paid by the taxpayers should make a charge.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    FOREIGN LOANS.
    Mr. POTTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will obtain copies of the report published last week by the council of foreign bondholders containing particulars of the defaults by foreign borrowers upon their pre-War and post-War loans issued in London; and will he circulate this report to the flotation houses in response to requests for the removal of the embargo upon the issue here of further foreign loans?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I feel confident that all those interested in the question of issuing foreign loans have already studied the report in question.

    OIL DUTY (REVENUE).
    Lord APSLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the revenue derived from the oil tax in 1933–34, showing separately the receipts under the different descriptions of oil?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with my Noble Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer :
    The approximate net revenue derived from the tax on oil during the year 1933–34 was as follows :

    Customs.

    £

    Light Oils—

    Petroleum Spirt—

    Motor Spirit

    36,910,000

    Other Spirit

    596,000

    Coal Tar Products—

    Benzol

    5,000

    Naphtha

    Negligible.

    Toluol

    Negligible.

    Other Sorts

    Negligible.

    Turpentine

    153,000

    Heavy oils for mixing with light oils

    Negligible.

    Other light hydrocarbon oils

    1,000

    Light oil in composite articles

    4,000

    Total

    £37,669,000

    Deduct estimated amount due to Isle of Man

    34,000

    Total Light

    £37,635,000

    Heavy Oils—

    £

    Lamp Oil

    674,000

    Lubricating Oil

    368,000

    Gas Oil

    297,000

    Fuel Oil

    844,000

    Other Heavy Oils

    18,000

    Heavy Oil in composite articles

    11,000

    Total Heavy

    £2,212,000

    Total Customs

    39,847,000

    Total Excise (Heavy)

    588,000

    It is not possible to allocate the Excise receipts to the various descriptions given above, as the form of return showing the stocks in hand on 25th April, 1933, required the total quantity only to be stated.
    NOTE.—The Customs figures given above are provisional and subject to correction.

    INCOME TAX (CO-OPEKATIVE SOCIETIES).
    Mr. CAPORNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the additional income derived from co-operative societies in respect of the last financial year by reason of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1933?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The special inquiry which was instituted in order to ascertain the increased liability to Income Tax resulting from last year's legislation regarding industrial and provident societies has now been completed, and shows that the additional Income Tax payable for the year 1933–34 amounted to £1,250,000 as against the Budget Estimate of £1,200,000.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I ask whether this special inquiry involved any additional expense to the Exchequer?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should not think so.

  ROYAL NAVY (OFFICERS LENT TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS).
  Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the conditions under which naval officers are lent to foreign Governments; if any officers have been so lent other than those whose names are shown in the current Navy List; whether these officers continue to draw pay from British Government funds; and what their position is in the event of the foreign Government to which they are lent becoming engaged in hostilities?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): Officers on the active list who may be lent for service with foreign Governments draw no pay from Naval Funds while so serving, but the foreign Government to which they are lent is granted an amount equal to the amount of the officers naval half-pay. Only two officers are so lent at present. Officers on the retired list are free to enter the service of foreign Governments, provided they first obtain the permission of the Admiralty. Eighteen officers are so lent at present. These officers continue to draw their retired pay. Under the regulations, the continuance of such consent is a condition of their holding the employment, and in the event of the country under which they are serving becoming engaged in hostilities, the

  1091
  Admiralty would naturally have to reconsider the permission given.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is intended to take any other business than the Report stage of the Unemployment Bill to-morrow?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I understand that at the present moment we are a little ahead of the Time Table, and there are two or three Orders that must be taken before the House adjourns for Whitsuntide. To-morrow, supposing the Report stage of the Unemployment Bill is finished at a reasonable time, say, 10 o'Clock, the Government would propose to utilise the time to clear off those Orders. The Orders are : the Additional Import Duties Orders Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and Substitution Order No. 1 The Additional Import Duties Order No. 11 relates to paper and board; Order No. 12 relates to zipp fasteners; Order No. 13 relates to typewriters; Order No. 14 relates to lead acetate; and Substitution Order No. 1 relates to eggs not in shell and peppercorns.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL,
"to amend the Local Government and Other Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922, and to make further provisions with reference to the superannuation of local government and other officers, and other matters in connection therewith," presented by Sir Henry Jackson; supported by Mr. Isaac Foot, Sir William Jenkins, Mr. Croom-Johnson, Sir Francis Acland, Mr. Holford Knight, Mr. Dingle Foot and Mr. Petherick; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  That they have come to the following Resolution : "That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
  [REPORT, 4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in Committee and on re-committal).

  UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 36.—(Unemployment Assistance Board and advisory committees.)
    Amendment proposed [8th May, 1934] : In page 31, line 35, to leave out "advisory," and to insert "administrative."—[Mr. C. Brown.]
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'advisory' stand part of the Bill."
    Question put.
    The House divided : Ayes, 236; Noes, 52.

    Division No. 251.]

    AYES.

    [3.29 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

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

    Eady, George H.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

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

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

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

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Apsley, Lord

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Mabane, William

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

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

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Blindell, James

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

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

    Boulton, W. W.

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

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

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Granville, Edgar

    Milne, Charles

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Graves, Marjorie

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

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

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Grimston, R. V.

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

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

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Guy. J. C. Morrison

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

    Burnett, John George

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    North, Edward T.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Nunn, William

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hartington, Marquess of

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

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

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

    Patrick, Colin M.

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

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Pearson, William G.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Heneage. Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Peat, Charles U.

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

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

    Penny, Sir George

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

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

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

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

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Hornby, Frank

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Christie, James Archibald

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Potter, John

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

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

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

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

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

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

    Rickards, George William

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Cook, Thomas A.

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

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Cooke, Douglas

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Copeland, Ida

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Russell, Harner Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

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

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Cross, R. H.

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

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

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

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

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Savery, Samuel Sorvington

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Scone, Lord

    Despencer-Robertson, Major. A. F.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Dickie, John P.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Levy, Thomas

    Shute, Colonel J. J.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lewis, Oswald

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Llddall, Walter S.

    Smiles, Lieut,-Col. Sir Walter D.

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

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Soper, Richard

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

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

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Thompson Sir Luke

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

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

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

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

    Tree, Ronald

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Stevenson, James

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Stones, James

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Womersley.

    NOES.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

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

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Batey, Joseph

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Maxton, James

    Bernays. Robert

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Nathan, Major H. L.

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

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Buchanan, Georgs

    John, William

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cape, Thomas

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rothschild, James A. dc

    Cove, William G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

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

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lawson, John James

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Dobbie, William

    Leonard, William

    Thorne, William James

    Edwards, Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    West, F. R.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    White, Henry Graham

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Tinker.

    CLAUSE 37.—(Application of Part 11 of Act.)
    Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment which I call is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey).
    3.36 p.m.
    Mr. BATEY: I beg to move, in page 33, line 9, to leave out "officers of."
    The duties which are to be performed by the officers are specified in Sub-section (1), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). This part of the Bill is to apply to any person in whose case certain qualifications are fulfilled :
    "(a) that he has attained the age of sixteen years and has not attained the age of sixty-five years."
    It ought not to be difficult to decide that point.
    "(b) that he is either—
    (i) a person whose normal occupation is employment in respect of which contributions are payable under the "Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1925 to 1932;"
    That cannot be a very difficult matter for the officer to decide, nor can the next condition set out in (b, ii), but when the officer has to decide :
    "(c) that he is capable of and available for work,"
    he has to decide a most important question—far too big a question for one man
    1100
    to decide. We do not think that an officer should be left to decide so important a matter. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary promised that he would consider this matter before the Report stage, and we expected that he would be prepared on Report to move an Amendment making it clear that the board would take the responsibility for the decision of the officer. We are disappointed that there is no Amendment on the Order Paper. As far as we can see, the matter is to be left where it is. If the Parliamentary Secretary has omitted to put down an Amendment in order to meet the promise that he made in Committee, I would ask him to consider the matter so that it may be put right in another place. The decision as to who comes under Part II is far too important a matter to leave to one man, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give the Amendment his serious consideration.
    Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I remember the discussion which took place on 19th February when the Parliamentary Secretary said :
    "We wish to make it quite clear that the board are responsible for the acts of those who make these decisions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19tlh February, 1934; col. 136, Vol. 286.]

    1101
    We expected to see an Amendment on the Paper dealing with this point, and if the hon. Member cannot accept our proposal, I hope that he will give us an assurance that the matter will be put right in another place.
    3.42 p.m.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As hon. Members have said, I did promise in the course of the discussions in Committee to go into this matter and make sure whether the words in the Bill carry out our intentions. We have gone carefully into the matter again, and the upshot of it is that we think the words in the Bill do carry out our intentions, and also the desires of hon. Members opposite. It is clear that the officers of the board will be civil servants, and, like all civil servants, they will be liable to summary dismissal if they do not carry out their duties properly. It will be part of their duty to make themselves acquainted with the regulations and the decisions of the board, and to see that their conduct reflects the intentions and decisions of the board. It is clearly not necessary to put in the Amendment. There is no doubt that they will carry out the decisions of the board, which will accept full responsibility.
    Amendment negatived.
    3.43 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 33, line 9, after "Board," to insert "on an application made in the prescribed manner."
    I am afraid that the intention of the Amendment is not clearly conveyed in the actual words. The responsibility of deciding whether a man comes under this part of the Bill rests entirely with the Unemployment Assistance Board, but there is no provision that a man shall apply to the board for his case to be considered, and it is possible that a man may neglect to make any application, or he may be too ignorant to know that he should make an application, with the result that he will remain a charge on the local authority. I want to be sure that the public assistance authority has the right to make an application to the Unemployment Assistance Board in a case of that sort, where a man fails to make an application himself. Under Clause 53
    1102
    certain regulations are to be made for carrying out the provisions in this Clause, and if these words are inserted we shall be sure that the public assistance authority has a right to make an application to the board in proper cases.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment.
    3.44 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: We propose to accept the Amendment, because we think it is reasonable and very desirable that the public assistance authority should have power to ask for a decision from the board in a particular case, although the man himself has not made an appeal. I should like to assure the hon. and gallant Member that we will take steps to see that the rules when made make it clear that the public assistance authority will have the right to obtain a decision, although no application has been made by the man himself.
    Mr. LAWSON: I take it that when a public assistance authority makes an application to the board in a particular case it will be considered on its merits, irrespective of the fact that the man himself has made no application. Then comes the question of the standard which the Unemployment Assistance Board will set up, as to how they will decide whether a man comes within the scope of this part of the Bill or not; or is it the case that, if a public assistance authority makes a request, automatically the Unemployment Assistance Board accepts the man?
    Mr. HUDSON: The position will be that if there is any doubt and the public assistance authority are of opinion that a particular man ought to be within the scope of the board, although the man himself may not agree, they will have the right to go to the appeal tribunal and get a decision from the tribunal which, of course, the board will accept.
    Amendment agreed to.
    3.46 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 33, line 33, after "determined," to insert :
    "subject to the right of the public assistance authority to make written or oral representations thereon."
    It is only right that a public assistance authority should have the right to make

    1103
    representations in a case. They may be gravely prejudiced by the finding if they are not allowed to make any representations, and there is no provision in the Bill to enable them to do so.
    Sir J. LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment.
    This is only a matter of precaution, to make sure that the public assistance authority shall have a right to be heard when there is a particular point they wish to put.
    Mr. HUDSON: The Amendment has been moved, I think, under a misapprehension. There is a subsequent Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to limit the rights of public assistance authorities to bring appeals. Certain rights' of appeal have slipped into the Bill by mistake—a mistake which we propose to put right in the official Amendment which I propose to move directly.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Why "mistake"?
    Mr. HUDSON: I will explain it when we come to the Amendment. The effect of the present proposal would be to increase still further the rights of public assistance authorities, which we propose to curtail by the Government Amendment. Therefore, I cannot accept it.
    Sir J. LAMB: Suppose the mistake is not rectified, what will be the position of public assistance authorities then? Cannot we safeguard ourselves now, irrespective of something else which may be done at a later stage?
    3.50 p.m.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: I am disturbed at a change of front on the part of the Minister which may have serious repercussions on the local authorities. I took part in discussions, before the Bill was formally introduced to Parliament, between the local authorities, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary was present on that occasion, but I have no doubt that there are other Members in the House who had the advantage of taking part in those discussions. They will remember that part of the bargain, as a result of which local authorities, generally, were
    1104
    persuaded to support the principle of the Bill, was an undertaking that financially they would be the losers.
    A great number of border-line cases will arise in which there will be a dispute as to whether or not they come within the definition of "able-bodied unemployed" as laid down in the Bill. There is danger of serious controversy between the public assistance committees and the new authority, which is to be set up under the Bill, as to these border-line cases. The authorities naturally are concerned, from the point of view of the rates, to get as many men and women as possible off the rates and to make them chargeable to the fund under the terms of the Bill. But it is not only that. It is a serious matter for the men themselves. When the Bill becomes an Act, the only way of giving relief to these persons will be to send them to institutions. It will be difficult, under the terms of the Bill for these men to get out-relief as at present. Therefore, it is an important matter of policy that the public assistance authority should have the right of appeal against the arbitrary decision of the new board. We do not know what the constitution of the new board is going to be, or who will be its members. They may be imbued with a desire to push as many people as possible on to the public assistance authorities and the local rates.
    I have no doubt that the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment have been inspired to submit it by the local authorities, and especially by the County Councils' Association. It represents a natural fear that the Government are seeking to get out of the contract made as between the local authorities, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour. Cases of dispute are inevitable, considering that we are to have these two parallel authorities giving what is, after all, out-door relief to many people. There will be cases of men who are nearly able-bodied but regarding whom technical questions will arise as to health insurance, old age pensions and so on, and there will be disputes as to whether they are properly chargeable to the fund or to the local rates. Particularly in the early stages of the administration it is more than likely that there will be disputes of that kind, and it is not right that these should be left to the arbitrary decision of the board

    1105
    or the board's officials. There should be a means of settling disputed cases by appeal to an independent tribunal. I am sorry that the Minister has not only given an unsympathetic reply to this proposal but has threatened a still further limitation on the rights of appeal of the local authorities concerned.
    3.55 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) appears to be confusing two parts of the Clause. There is no question here about an appeal from an arbitrary decision of the board or of the officers of the board. The decision in this class of case will be given, in the one instance by the Minister of Health with a reference to the High Court, and in the other instance by the court of referees with an appeal to the Umpire. The words of the Amendment do not refer to the first part of Sub-section (3) which deals with the case where the question of scope is a matter of dispute between the board and the applicant. It applies to the latter part of the Subsection which deals with the case where the sole question is whether the man is a person in respect of whom contributions are payable under the Contributory Pensions Acts or whether he has been involved in a trade dispute, and in neither of those cases will any matter arise for decision by the Unemployment Assistance Board.
    3.57 p.m
    Mr. LAWSON: I gather that what the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) desires is that the public assistance authority shall have the right to make written or oral representations on these cases. The words of the Sub-section at present are to the effect that the question shall be referred to the insurance officer and be determined by the same person and in the same manner as if it had arisen on a claim for benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. The hon. and gallant Member wishes to insert in that provision the words :
    "subject to the right of the public assistance authority to make written or oral rep resentations thereon."
    I understand that that is what the Parliamentary Secretary is refusing. But surely that is a right which ought to be given to
    1106
    the public assistance authorities. Surely, they ought to have a right to put their case.
    Mr. HUDSON: I think that the hon. Member is under the same misapprehension as the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). The decision in these two cases will not lie with an officer of the board. In the one ease it will be a decision by the Minister of Health, and in the other case a decision by the court of referees or the umpire. These two types of cases are taken out of the purview of the appeal tribunal and the Unemployment Assistance Board.
    Mr. LAWSON: In the ease of a decision by the court of referees would it not be possible for the public assistance authority to put their case, either in writing or orally? Surely the public assistance authority should have the right to put their case either to the Minister of Health or the court of referees. If that is not to be the case, then one of the chief parties to the decision is being left out of consideration, and given no voice in the matter. The applicant would have the right to put his case before the court of referees or the umpire, and the public assistance authority is just as much concerned as the man. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to get a balance in this matter, but I do not think he is meeting the case if he ignores the local authority in connection with decisions by the Minister, by the court of referees, or by the umpire.
    3.59 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I do not think that my Amendment and the Amendment in the name of the Minister which follows it on the Paper are, necessarily, contradictory. There seems to be no reason why both should not be adopted. All I am asking is that the local authority should be allowed to make "written or oral representations." The Minister's Amendment provides that an appeal shall not lie at the instance of a public assistance authority, but that would not prevent them from making representations. It is not a matter to which I attach very great importance though I should like these words to be put in and if I understand that the matter will be considered further and that the

    1107
    Minister will see if he cannot meet us in regard to it, I have no objection to withdrawing the Amendment.
    Mr. HUDSON indicated assent.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 33, line 35, at the end, to insert :
    "so, however, that an appeal from the decision of an insurance officer or a court of referees upon any such question shall not lie at the instance of a public assistance authority."
    As I explained briefly on the last Amendment, we never contemplated when we drafted the Bill that the public assistance authority would have any locus standi in the decision of these questions. The whole object of Sub-section (3, b), namely, that where the question is whether a person comes under the trade dispute disqualification, the matter shall be referred to the court of referees, was to provide that a man who was not insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts should have the same right of appeal in a trade dispute case as the man who was insured under that Act. A trade dispute, as the House knows, is one of the most difficult questions that arises in the administration of Unemployment Insurance. A considerable body of case law has now been built up. I do not say that it gives entire satisfaction everywhere, but on the whole it gives reasonable satisfaction, and we thought that, as this was satisfactory procedure for the 12,500,000 persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, the fairest way was to extend those rights to the 5,000,000 who are not insured but who come conditionally under Part II.
    Under Part I, affecting those who are insured, there is no question at all of the public assistance authority intervening in the case, which is decided on its merits. Obviously the local authority is not the body which has any knowledge, and there is no reason why it should interfere or be heard. If that is true in the case of the insured person it is true equally with regard to the non-insured person. That is the reason why we want to put right what was really a slip in the original drafting of the Bill, namely, this loophole for local public assistance authorities to intervene. The same thing, of
    1108
    course, is true to a different extent in the question of scope whether a man is or is not liable to pay for Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions.
    4.5 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: Would this Amendment apply in the case of a trainee, where a man had refused certain classes of work under the board? Certain classes of work may be offered to a man by authorities outside, such as the voluntary associations. Would such a man be involved in this particular Amendment?
    Mr. HUDSON: Quite definitely no. That would be a case where the question was whether the employment was suitable.
    4.6 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I think this is an excellent Amendment. It would be utterly wrong for a public assistance authority to have this right of appeal in these questions of trade disputes, for it is quite possible that they might be indirectly or directly connected with such disputes. I am very glad that the Minister is dealing with the point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    4.7 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 33, line 43, at the end, to insert :
    "Provided also that any question of law may be referred by the chairman of the appeal tribunal direct to the High Court and shall be dealt with in conformity with such rules of court as may be made for the purpose."
    This matter was raised during the discussion of the Bill in Committee. It explains on the face of it that any difficulty there may be in the matter of law shall be referred direct to the High Court. It is quite clear that the operation of the Bill, and particularly the operation of this part of it, may throw up cases that require to be dealt with, in spite of the fact that there are multitudes of particular cases to which one can refer and precedents which almost have the effect of law. There will undoubtedly be new phases appearing and questions arising that cannot be settled by the experience that we have already had. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. If adopted I do not think it would call for wide use.
    4.9 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): As was promised, I think by me, on the Committee stage, we have looked into this matter because we have every sympathy with the object behind this Amendment, which is to prevent, if possible, the multiplicity of proceedings or appeals. I have looked into the question very carefully with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and for the reasons I shall give we have come to the conclusion that so far from minimising proceedings the Amendment might tend, in so far as it is used, to increase them. Under the Bill as it stands if any question arises as to whether any employment is employment in respect of which contributions are payable under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, that question is referred to the Minister of Health. It is a matter with which the Minister is accustomed to deal. I am informed that out of some 3,000 cases which he has decided there have been only nine appeals and that only four of these have been successful. That machinery is obviously working to the general satisfaction of the people. Under the Bill if that sort of question arises the chairman of the appeal tribunal hands it over to the Minister.
    If the Amendment were accepted he would have to consider whether a question of law arose. He would not have anything like the specialist knowledge of the Ministry of Health, If a case is sent to the Ministry it may be quite obvious to them that there really is no question of law. They would give their decision and it would be accepted in 1,990 out of 2,000 cases. If this power is to be used at all, it might well result in the chairman stating a case—it would be necessary to state a case before any decision is come to—whereas if we leave the Bill as it is the case goes to the Ministry of Health, who will give a decision acceptable to everyone and there would be no need for the matter to go to the High Court at all. So costs and trouble would be avoided.
    I agree that the Amendment was intended to produce simplification, but it might end in the difficult position of having to go into a matter on which the Ministry is so well informed, and it might lead to the stating of a case when under
    1110
    the Bill the matter never has to go to the High Court. I think I suggested also in Committee that in the rare cases to which it is desirable to go to the High Court it is also desirable that the case should be stated by the Ministry of Health. Stating a case is a matter in which people can quite easily go wrong, and it is a great advantage to every one concerned that the Ministry, with its long experience in dealing with this matter and in stating cases in a uniform way, should state them. For these reasons I hope that the hon. Member will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
    4.13 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Although I have no doubt that this Amendment was moved with the idea of alleviating the position, when it is looked into carefully we see that in all probability it would complicate things and bring a large number of jobs for lawyers. I can see the extraordinary discretion in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), whose name is attached to this Amendment.
    Mr. COVE: Give it up.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I do think, when we are discussing Amendments on an important Bill of this sort, it is just as well that we should look into the whole thing. It is essential that we should make the proceedings under this Clause as simple as possible.
    4.14 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: The explanation of the learned Solicitor-General is on the whole satisfactory, but I think he will agree that when we discussed this matter in Committee he himself did not state exactly what was the best course to pursue. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) will perhaps learn in time that we on the Labour benches do our work thoroughly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 39.—(Persons to whom, and circumstances in which, allowances may be granted.)
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment I shall call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) to leave out the Clause.

    1111
    Hon. Members will observe that there is a long list of Amendments to this Clause, and every one of them is out of order except those in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)—in page 36, line 19, to leave out "investigating" and to insert "ascertaining," and in line 20, leave out from "may," to the end of the Clause, and to insert "require from an applicant a declaration of resources." On the Amendment of the hon. Member for West-houghton, hon. Members will be able to criticise the Clause or to refer to any points that arise in it. I hope, however, that they will not make use of that opportunity to make speeches practically moving their Amendments. They must criticise the Clause as a whole.
    Mr. LAWSON: On behalf of the Opposition, I thank you for your decision in this matter, and for giving us an opportunity of a general Debate. I assure you, that while we accept the suggestion to deal with certain points, there will be no attempt to go into any detail.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Will it not be competent for hon. Members in the course of the Debate to argue the means test in detail in respect to some of the points raised in the Amendment? We had no opportunity of doing this in the Committee stage; indeed, we have had no opportunity of discussing the means test either on the Financial Resolution or in the Committee stage.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Do I understand that among the Amendments you have ruled out of order are those in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Every Amendment except those two are out of order. In putting the Question, I shall save them.
    Sir JOHN HASLAM: May I call your attention to the Amendments in the name of the Minister in page 35, lines 29 and 31, after "of," to insert "any"? Are they ruled out?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I shall naturally save those Amendments in puting the question. In answer to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), I indicated that there will be an opportunity for a full discussion on this Clause. I only ask hon. Members not to make use of the discussion in order practically to move
    1112
    their Amendments, for that is what it will come to if they lay too much stress on any particular Amendment.
    4.19 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 34, line 39, to leave out the Clause.
    This is probably the most important Clause in the Bill. I do not think that there is any Clause in this important Measure that has caused more discussion, commotion, feeling and, indeed, on occasions, indignation than Clause 39. It makes permanent what is commonly called the means test as it is applied to a considerable section of the unemployed. It will be remembered that the Minister of Labour, when he introduced the Bill, made the statement that when it became an Act of Parliament the Measure would have to last for at least a decade as the means for dealing with the unemployed. In objecting to this Clause and the means test which it embodies, we have behind us a large volume of opinion throughout the country. I think I am right in stating that within this volume of opinion are included not only the unemployed, the workpeople of the country and the organised trade union and Labour movement, but tens of thousands of men and women of good will of all parties who object fundamentally to the means test being applied to any section of the genuine unemployed. Although our objections to the test are very strong, they may be stated in fairly simple terms. There is, first, the very natural reluctance on the part of the unemployed man to disclose the most personal things in the possession of his family. Indeed, the smaller the assets of the poor family, the more pride there often is in those simple assets.
    The means test is not, of course, new; it is as old as the administration of our Poor Law system. It has been part of our Poor Law system for several centuries in the history of our land. Then the National Government, for the first time in history, threw a section of the unemployed within the operation of what is called the Poor Law means test. We start, therefore, with the argument that this Government thrust a section of the unemployed down into the same category as the people who ordinarily came under the Poor Law system for centuries past.

    1113
    We start our objections to this Clause on that basis. Let me carry hon. Members a stage further. The means test, in our view, is only appropriate to a certain type of feeble person who has been dealt with for centuries by the Poor Law authorities. It was never intended to apply, and never ought to apply, to persons who are willing and able to work if they can get work. That, in fact, is the root of the objection we have to the means test. It is not necessary to be sentimental about the unemployed to object to this test being applied to any section of them.
    There is not only a strong natural human resentment against the test among those who are now undergoing it, but an apprehension among tens of thousands of workpeople in employment who think and feel that they also may be unemployed some day and may have to suffer the indignity of the test. Consequently, there is a very natural resentment to the test and to prying into family affairs for the purpose of administering these benefits. We object, of course, to the administration of the test and the payment of varying sums by different public assistance committees. Where one county authority like Lancashire pays less to the unemployed than Bolton, Wigan, Blackburn and elsewhere, that in itself is an anomaly. That arises, however, from the administration part of it, but it gives a picture to the Government of what certain sections of administrators think of the test. There are men in my division as good as those who live in Bolton, Blackburn or Wigan, yet they receive smaller sums of money from exactly the same source than the amounts received by people who live just across the road in the territory of another local authority. These are administrative points to which we object, but we object not only to the method of administering the test, but to the test itself.
    One of the obvious results of the test is that a family must exhaust practically all its savings before it can claim any support from public funds. I speak with personal knowledge when I say that there is nothing more heart-rending to a man who started work at 13 years of age and has worked constantly until he reaches 50 or 55, who has saved a little money, say £100, in the co-operative society,
    1114
    and owns the small house in which he lives, and is then thrown on to the scrap-heap, knowing full well that industry can never employ him again. Then, as a result of the means test, he is told that before he can get any public support he must exhaust the whole of his savings. There is, I say, nothing more heartrending in working-class homes than such a situation. It is one of the most difficult things in life for one man to imagine how he would feel if he were in another man's place. Even the workman who is constantly employed and has never suffered the indignity of the means test, although he is a member of the working class and lives in the same street as the other man, finds it almost impossible to understand the agony of the person who suffers under the means test.
    Taking this test from the standpoint of the State and the municipality, it is not, in my view, good business that the means test should be continued. There is ample proof that the test is cutting deep down into the most intimate relationships of family life. It is commonly known that every legitimate means is employed in order to escape the severity of the test, and in some cases there are first-class human tragedies recorded in the newspapers as the result of the operation of this test. May I add a word about a fallacious argument that is used in the House from time to time. We are asked why we object to a test when we are already suffering from a test under the Income Tax? It is a very plausible argument. It must not be forgotten, however, that the disclosures we have to make in order to pay Income Tax are necessary in order to find out if we are rich enough to pay something away to the State. The Income Tax return is made in order to find out, first of all, whether we have enough money to maintain ourselves before the State takes anything from us. The means test, on the other hand, is imposed so that the authorities may find out whether people are poor enough to receive something which in normal circumstances they would prefer to be without. I know of no man in this country who would prefer the receipt of public money to a decent weekly wage for work performed by himself. I think that can be said for all our people.
    Therefore, the comparison between the assessment for Income Tax purpose and

    1115
    this means test falls to the ground, in my view; they have not the slightest relation to each other. We are told, also, that there are tests in life for all manner of purposes, and that we should not therefore object to the means test. There are academical tests; (medical tests; tests of ability to perform certain duties; examination tests and driving tests—tests of all kind. Further, we are asked why we should object to a means test when the State has to foot the bill. The difference is obvious. In the case of all other tests there is no prying into the private and intimate personal affairs of the person in question, as is the case under the administration of the means test. Then, it is too often forgotten that the establishment of our several social services has contributed in a large measure to the rooted objection to the means test. Let me repeat that in another form. I do not know whether it has dawned on the Minister of Labour that the payment of money under this test is unique in the administration of public funds in this country. The creation of our other social services has brought into prominence the ugly features of the means test. I have lived long enough to remember the time when there was no workmen's compensation, no unemployment insurance, no health insurance, no widows' pensions, no contributory old age pensions, and no non-contributory old age pensions either. I have also lived long enough to see tens of thousands of workpeople being brought under superannuation and pension schemes of all kinds.
    The establishment of these social services, mainly without a test, has brought into relief the terrible consequences of a means test for the receipt of unemployment benefit. Let me press that statement a little further. It is argued that there is no means test where the workman contributes to the funds. I have heard hon. Members on all sides of the House say that there is something in the argument that if a man pays a weekly contribution to a fund he is entitled, under an actuarial scheme of insurance, to specific benefits without inquiry into his means at all. As if workpeople in this country did not sometimes receive money without paying contributions towards the funds. Let me be clear as
    1116
    to the argument put forward that the unemployed ought to have a means test applied to them because they pay no contributions towards the money they are receiving. I will take the case of workmen's compensation, though the payments there are very small, in all conscience. The workman in receipt of workmen's compensation does not pay a penny piece directly towards compensation funds from his own pocket, though he pays indirectly; therefore the argument I have alluded to does not hold good in that case. Then there is the widows' pension, again small enough in all conscience. If I may say so without conceit, I stood on a back bench on this side of the House in 1922 to move a Motion in favour of widows' pensions, and practically all the Members opposite voted against it; but I have lived long enough to see most widows enjoying, at any rate, a small pension. Let me relate the argument of the payment of contributions to the means test and the widows' pension. The widow herself does not pay for her pension. Contributions in respect of the widows' pension and the children's allowances are paid by the husband and the father, and consequently the argument about contributions to the fund will not apply in that case either.
    Let me take another case. The Government in this Clause destroy their own argument in relation to the means test. After pressure has been brought upon the Government from all quarters we find that the first 5s. of sick pay from a friendly society and the first 7s. 6d. of benefit under the National Health Insurance Act are not to be taken into account at all in connection with the means test. What is the difference between 7s. 6d. from health insurance and a similar sum from any other source? None at all. So the principle of the means test is already breaking down within the Clause itself. There are all manner of other reliefs granted under this Clause before the authorities are entitled to begin to assess the needs of the family. Sickness benefit is paid under the National Health Insurance scheme without any means test, and that benefit is paid in hundreds of thousands of eases even when the recipient gets his full week's wage during sickness. There is no means test

    1117
    there. Somebody will argue, possibly, that the workman pays contributions in respect of that benefit, but he does not pay it all, because the State pays a portion and the employer pays a portion too. I submit therefore that the point made that a man has no right to complain of a means test when he does not contribute towards the fund is not a good one.
    Let me put another case against the means test. The tragedy of the operation of this test is emphasised when we remember that in the very nature of the case the vast majority of those who come under the lash of the test are over 50 years of age. This means test does not, in the main, apply to youths, though it may apply to some of them. Who are the men who come to be dealt with by public assistance committees and the new board, and to whom will the means test apply? Take the case of a miner, or a textile operative, an engineer or a bricklayer 50 years of age and over. If there are a large number of miners unemployed, a man over 50 has not the remotest chance of returning to that industry, and what chance has he of employment in any other industry? I repeat that the means test is, in the main, applied to persons over 50 years of age or thereabouts. The tragedy in some cases is, indeed, a very terrible one, and if hon. Members take the trouble, as some of them probably do, to go into the homes of the people they represent and inquire how this means test has been applied, I feel sure it would affect their attitude in this matter. I repeat that it is bad business for the State to offend the conscience and human sentiments of a vast number of its people in this way.
    I have administered benefits of all kinds for more than a quarter of a century; I know a little about administering benefits to people in sickness and in disablement. The argument that is usually employed is that if a test of some kind is not applied there are some people who will take undue advantage of our generosity. I know a little about that kind of case, too. I think I am right in saying that not more than 2 per cent. of the working folk of this country would take advantage even of public funds, and even if the 2 per cent. are there—and that percentage applies to every section in the community—I deny the
    1118
    title of the State to penalise the 98 per cent. who are decent folk because of this 2 per cent. who will not play the game towards their fellows. The arguments I have already put against this Clause ought to appeal to hon. Members of all parties. Now I want to pass on to something else. The means test is a relic of by-gone days, it does not belong to the year 1934. It smells of feudalism and stinks of capitalism.
    Mr. PIKE: And of the Socialist administration of 1931.
    Mr. DAVIES: And some Members had better not be too glib, lest they themselves come under the lash of the same test in due course. Nobody in this House can feel that he will be absolutely immune throughout life from poverty, because poverty may come upon the best of us. The means test was established for a different purpose from that for which it is employed to-day. It was established centuries ago. During the last 80 years we have had free elementary education in this country, and most people can now read and write and understand what it is all about. I say, therefore, that the society in which we live revolts against a test which was established centuries ago for quite another purpose; it ought to be sent into the limbo of the past. Whether this Government does it or any other, I venture to predict, in all modesty, that a Government of some political colour will, within the next five or 10 years, have to face up to this problem of the administration of a test which is not only inhuman in its operation but which, as I have already indicated, does not belong to these modem days.
    4.44 p.m.
    Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I have one difference with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies), but, in the circumstances of this Debate, it is purely a formal one. I should not myself pronounce for the entire abolition of the means test, but my hostility to the means test as at present administered is so strong that I say without hesitation that I would much rather abolish the test altogether than have the present administration continued. I do not think anything could have been done with regard to this Bill which would have commended it so much to the nation, in making a fresh start in the treatment of the unemployed, as if the opportunity had been

    1119
    taken under this Clause to change, and change radically, the administration of the means test. Whatever other faults there might be in the Bill, a real advance in this particular department would have meant so much to so many that many other faults might have been overlooked. I thought I caught from an hon. Member opposite during the speech of the last speaker the remark that the present administration smelt—I do not know whether he said smelt or stank—of the situation of 1931. If I am misinterpreting him, I am sorry.
    Mr. PIKE: I heard the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) say that this administration stank in the nostrils of decent people, and I reminded him that the administration of (his party in 1931 stank for the same reasons.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: I misunderstood the hon. Member, but I would myself say that undoubtedly this administration does smell of the situation of 1931; that is to say, this administration of the means test was adopted at a time of great national stringency and emergency. The general lines of administration had then to be framed, and they were naturally framed upon somewhat harsh and stringent lines. Economy was in the air. Economy, I believe, was genuinely needed, and at that time, acting in a hurry, an administration was started which should never have been regarded as a permanent feature of the treatment of the unemployed. I think it was the duty of those who had charge of the administration of the means test—I do not mean merely the localities, because the final responsibility must rest with the Government of the day—to watch the experiment as it went on and, learning from their experience, to be prepared in their first big Measure to lay down lines in the light of what they had learned by their experience.
    I cannot see any trace in this Clause, the most important Clause probably of the whole Bill, of such learning by experience, except in one small particular. There is, of course, an advance that was made in the Committee stage with regard to the treatment of disability pensions, which we all welcomed, but that appears to be the only substantial step forward that has been made. That, of course, affects a comparatively small class
    1120
    and a class which will become increasingly less important as time goes on and as the War generation passes away. If we are indeed to be saddled with the present administration in perpetuity, then I think that will be a very bad result, not only for the unemployed, but for the kind of society that has attempted to sustain itself upon a test of that kind.
    The first and the most important matter, I think, in dealing with the means test is the matter of the family income. I am not going into details after your warning, Mr. Speaker, but what I think are making this administration more unpopular than anything else are the enormous hardships, the enormous inequities, that have arisen out of taking a whole family, a whole household, people of very different ages, and treating them all as if they were a single unit of income. Reference has been made to the Income Tax, but when we are making our returns for Income Tax purposes it is, I think I am right in saying, only the income of the husband and wife which is returned together; and if that model had been followed in the administration of the means test, there would have been very much less dissatisfaction than there is to-day.
    I think it is the taking of the income of the younger children into consideration, and doing it in such a way that they are left practically with no spending income of their own at all, that is responsible for a tremendous amount of the unpopularity of this administration. More than that it is responsible—and I do not think this can be denied by anybody who has examined the facts—for the breaking up of those units upon which the income at present rests. The family is being broken up in a great many cases in order to avoid the administration of this test. It seems to me a very harsh thing that this growing generation, just beginning to earn wages, should find that in point of fact their wages are not counted as theirs as independent earners, and that their chances to get their own recreation and to form their own small savings with a view to approaching marriage, it may be, are not open to them because of the misfortune that has overtaken the head and usual wage earner of their family.
    This, I think, is the first and foremost of the matters which the Government

    1121
    should, in the light of the experience gained, have resolutely taken in hand. In other matters also, less important than that, I cannot see that there is any scientific basis in the rules that we are asked to lay down under this Clause as to the reckoning of the value of investments. I am not denying that investments should be taken into account, but there is only one basis on which they can be taken into account, and that is to estimate the kind of income which they can be expected to yield, and I say that the treatment of investments as it is laid down in this Clause is imagining a perfectly impossible rate of interest, which nobody supposes that skilled students of the stock markets could obtain with any security, let alone the people to whom this administration is being applied. I say that if the test goes on being administered like that for very much longer, it will be no good talking about the principle of a means test at all, because the ideas connected with that word will have become so unpopular in the eyes of the nation that the nation as a whole will be far more ready to face the occasional extravagance that may result in having no means test at all than they will to continue with the inequities of the present system.
    Therefore, in the interests of economy also in the long run, I believe the Government should have taken this opportunity to provide a very different administration. What we are really doing here, when we leave this Clause, or perhaps when we part with this Bill, is to part practically with the control over the administration of this test over the lives of the people. Here in this Clause some guiding lines are laid down, and if they are the wrong lines, as I believe they are, then that will go on having a bad effect as long as this Measure continues, if it is passed, to be an Act of Parliament. Therefore, it was of infinite importance that this matter should have been put right, but apparently the opportunity is going to be lost. If that be so, then I can say that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be saddled with so much unpopularity that it, as a means of administering the fortunes of the unemployed, is itself doomed, because some Government, and very soon, will have to take it in hand and put it right, and when they do that, they may very well make much more sweeping changes than those which merely
    1122
    affect this Clause. I say that beyond this Measure the Government that continue to make themselves responsible for this administration will be incurring, particularly in the crowded industrial centres, an unpopularity which no virtues and no merits that they may succeed in gathering by successes in other fields will be able to outweigh—the black mark that will necessarily be against their names, put there by people who have felt the bad effects of this administration in the intimate details of their lives and their homes.
    4.56 p.m.
    Mr. PIKE: The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), who has just resumed his seat, has evidently forgotten that a short while ago he, together with his leader, was as strenuously as could be expected supporting the continuance of the means test from this side of the House, and it is quite within the memory of hon. Members present that during the last General Election not only did Members of his party and the Leader of his party and Members on this side of the House appeal to the country for power to administer the means test, but they also secured the support of the people of the country on the claims that were made for the absolute necessity of such a test.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: As the hon. Member has referred to something that I am supposed to have said, I have never supported anywhere the means test as it is administered now. I defy him to find any occasion when I have done so, and my speech to-day has been a criticism of the means test as it is at present administered.
    Mr. PIKE: The question of the means test as it is administered to-day and the question of the hon. Member's attitude towards its present administration do not in any circumstances destroy the fact that in its principle both he and his party, together with our party, voted for its application by Statute. I want to make it clear that, so far as the industrial areas, which are more hardly affected by adverse employment conditions, are concerned, the administration of the means test to-day is far more human as the result of the experiences of the past two years than ever it was since the party opposite made it a necessity by introducing

    1123
    the Anomalies Act. I have numerous cases brought to me with regard to the administration of the present test that call for very strict investigation, and I want to say, as I expect other hon. Members could say if they chose, that when a particular point of hardship is brought before the notice of those responsible for the administration of the test, no body of men in this country are more willing to rectify it in favour of the applicant than those who are administering it.
    If I might go a step further, I would say that when it came to a question of substituting commissioners for local authorities in one or two areas of this country, we heard terrible statements from the Opposition as to what would be the cruel effects of the wicked administration of those cold-blooded civil servants, but it is very significant that we never hear a word to-day of the wickedness of the administrators, commonly called commissioners, and we do not hear it because the wickedness does not exist. Really, this is an opportunity, this afternoon, for the Opposition to air a grievance in this House under the guise of national necessity which they air on the street corners every day as prudent to political necessity and political propaganda. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) knows very well that throughout the administration of the last Labour Government he supported his leaders in their attitude towards the application of a test. He knows very well that his own Leader, the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), firmly and definitely stated in this House that he would not be a party to giving away public money to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who applied for it without some form of test being applied to his case; and he knows very well too that the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) supported the means test and, in the Debates in this House on the 14th September, 1931, said :
    "I was prepared, and I am prepared, to agree to-day to a national scheme which involves the investigation of the question, but not under Poor Law auspices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th September, 1931; col. 534, Vol. 256.]
    It a test of people's means is a necessary part and parcel of the administration of public funds, it seems to me quite
    1124
    beside the point to say that we are in favour of it under paragraphs (a) and (b) but not under paragraph (c). It does not alter the principle under whatever division it may be administered. A means test is a means test "for a' that." I am convinced that the form of opposition that we have heard this afternoon to the existence of the test is nothing but sheer cant and hypocrisy on the part of Members opposite. They know that if they were in power at the moment, they would apply it with the same ferociousness—[An HON. MEMBER : "As you do!"]—as they are applying it, and have always applied it, in reference to their own affairs. Let me, for instance, call the attention of hon. Members opposite to the position which prevails in the city of Sheffield where for six years, with a break of nine months, there has been a Socialist administration. To their credit they have, with the assistance of this Government and past Governments, built numerous houses, working-class dwellings, essentially erected for workmen's dwellings, but before a working man can successfully apply for a corporation house he must go to the back door of the housing committee's office and whisper into somebody's ear that he can give a guarantee that he is earning more than 45s. a week, and that his employment will be permanent.
    If that is not a means test, when you cannot have a council house under a Socialist administration in Sheffield unless you can meet the conditions, a means test applied to all applicants for these houses, what is it? I say again, it is sheer hypocrisy for the Opposition to come forward and oppose the means test on the ground on which they are opposing it to-day. I will give the House another illustration, drawn from the trade union movement in this country. After the last general strike there were a large number of men in the division of the hon. Member for Westhoughten as well as in the great coalfields of Yorkshire who were denied readmission to the union because, during the strike, they committed the awful crime of feeding themselves by outcropping. But, after that strike, when the unions returned to activity, they found their membership had decreased by 74 per cent., and the first thing they did was to canvass some of these people, to whom they had refused immediate return, for the purpose of getting them back to

    1125
    the fold. They said : "If you will pay a, fine of 10s. you can come back with the least possible amount of display of moral intimidation from those who have stood by us all along."
    If that is not a means test of the vilest character, I do not know what it is, and I am going to suggest that there is nobody in this House or in this country, that there is no administrator on the transitional boards, who could possibly invent such a vile penalty to be imposed on any person, other than the Members opposite and those who are responsible for the unions, whose voice they utter every time they speak in this House.
    Let me deal with what the hon. Member said about the Income Tax. He said there was no association between the one and the other. I suggest that there is an association and also a big distinction. If it is right that the Income Tax payer should be submitted to a means test, I see no reason why a man who is in receipt of public money should not also be subject to it. After all, this means test is for the purpose of paying public money from the public purse to a private person; the Income Tax test, on the other hand, is for the purpose of extracting money from a private purse to pay into the public fund. I suggest that if some of the Inland Revenue Commissioners were as humane in their general consideration of some of the complaints of Income Tax payers as are the administrators of the means test to those who make application for a little more than they have been originally granted, there would not be such a nasty taste in the mouths of some Income Tax payers in this country to-day.
    As the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) said, one of the hardest hit sections of the community is not the section submitted to the means test but that of the black-coated workers with between £300 and £500 a year, who are subject to the ministrations of the Inland Revenue Department. Hon. Members cannot cheer that one night and ignore it another. If it was right and worthy of their cheers then, it is right that we should consider that matter fairly now. The hon. Member for Westhoughton pictured the widow in receipt of a widow's pension and said the widow does not pay for the pension, that it is not in virtue of her contributions that she gets it, but in
    1126
    virtue of the contributions of her deceased husband. Of course it is. It is not by virtue of the hon. Member opposite that the President of the Trades Union Congress gets a salary of about £1,800 a year, it is because everybody in the Union subscribes. But it must not be forgotten that the conditions in which the widow receives the pension are known to the husband before he becomes deceased, and he knows perfectly well when he is making his contribution that he is making it in order to provide for his wife in the event of death taking him.
    It is the same in respect of the cooperative stores dividend. Hon. Members know perfectly well that they do not actually, when subscribing to the cooperative stores by purchasing goods, purchase those goods for the great benefit they are going to do to mankind by giving everybody who purchases a nice general dividend. When they purchase, or their wives do so on their instructions, it is to get the dividend for themselves, and it is sheer nonsense to suggest otherwise. I want to bring the House back—[Interruption]. There is nothing the Opposition dislike more than taking a medicine of their own mixing. Hon. Members opposite have never known what it is in their own constituencies or elsewhere in this country to face any straightforward opposition. They are all there by feather-bed election processes, and the only place they ever receive opposition is when I rise, or a Member rises who knows a little more about them than they know themselves. Let me bring the House back to the question of the means test.
    In 1931 it was stated by the leader of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Socialist party, and indeed stated throughout the country, that as a result of the May Committee the Socialist Cabinet, prior to running away from its job, had actually accepted certain economies. I have gone to some pains to see what they suggested, what they were prepared to accept before running away, and I find they were prepared at least to save £3,000,000 in respect of the Anomalies Bill, and I also find that they were prepared to save a further £5,000,000 in respect of the means test.

    1127
    Then what are they screaming about to-day? If in 1931 Members opposite, when there were nearly 3,000,000 unemployed and when they had reduced those who were working to a level of starvation by their foolish economic doctrines, were prepared to take away from the working classes of this country, downtrodden as they said, robbed by the wicked grinding robbing capitalist, £8,000,000 of money through the administration of the means test and the Anomalies Bill, what honesty of purpose can possibly exist in their claim to-day when there are 750,000 more back at work, in addition to the fact that we are finding work for more juveniles as they become available for the labour market than was ever found by Members opposite, and there is a possibility, which did not exist in 1931, of the country being able to face up to its financial responsibilities. If it is for political propaganda, probably intended for Upton, where the candidate needs some help for he cannot speak for himself. I heard him the other night. I suggest to the House that it is nothing but the most blatant hypocrisy—I say it again, because it is the most effective word which covers the activities of hon. Members opposite—from a so-called responsible political party in this country.
    Quite effectively—possibly too effectively for Members opposite—the means test is being administered. And who is the man to-day who really gets the value of it? Not the bloated capitalist or the rich man, not even the small taxpayer. The man who really has appreciated the value in the last 18 months of the means test administration, is the man who has got back to work as a result of Government policy. I do not suggest that the 2,000,000 who are out of work are not triers, but do not let us misunderstand. There are people in this country, good, solid, Britishers, not brought up on lemonade and biscuits, as the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) would have them, but on good beef and beer, who know perfectly well that the means test, as it is administered to-day, is administered to their advantage. But they know men, as hon. Members opposite do—they may be a few, and perhaps the many are judged by the few—who, so long as they can get an equal amount of money from transitional payments
    1128
    as their abilities would earn in industry, would dodge the issue of work.
    The actual administration of the means test in industrial areas has guaranteed to the man who has got back to work that those who cannot look for work for themselves, or who refuse it when it comes, are not to have public funds administered to them, ad infinitum and irrespective of where the money comes from. The worker knows that from the bottom of wealth production, to its ultimate distribution and its ultimate consumption, he provides the greatest volume of that money which would otherwise be promiscuously distributed, were it not for the means test. I stand with the Leader of the Opposition and with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) not to distribute money promiscuously through the medium of transitional payment committees. That money should be distributed very carefully, and the more carefully it is distributed the more humane will be its utlimate distributive effect. I believe that the workers on the whole are satisfied that the highest measure of humanity is being brought to bear upon that administration, and I ask the Government, assuring them of my solid support, to resist this Amendment with all their power.
    5.17 p.m.
    Mr. MAINWARING: If the speech to which we have just listened is an expression of the highest type of humanity, God help us! The Clause which we are seeking to remove from this Bill is an indication of the small extent to which the real problem and difficulty of unemployment have entered into the consciousness of the Government. It illustrates the fact that, from their point of view, the evil in the country to-day is not unemployment but the unemployed man. If the Government could but regard unemployment as the evil and seek to solve that, something of a lasting character would be accomplished in the improvement of conditions, but when they confine their attention to the unemployed man and regard him as the evil, the means test and every other conceivable regulation must inevitably follow to hamper and harass that individual. Because the unemployed man is regarded as the evil, this Clause aims at nothing higher than to discover the

    1129
    cheapest possible means of dealing with the unemployed man as the evil. It asks "How can we reduce the cost of his maintenance?" If the Government could but bring in some scientific and humane manner of ridding the country of the unemployed, that would be the most laudable way of doing it, and the best for the unemployed themselves, instead of the unemployed seeking to perpetuate their existence in a half-starved way. If they were offered a peaceful way out of it——
    Mr. MAGNAY: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously say that he advocates a lethal chamber for the unemployed?
    Mr. MAINWARING: What I am saying is that it might be the most humane way of dealing with them, compared with your system to-day. If I were an unemployed man, I should infinitely prefer to have a decent, scientific and humane way of getting out of it than to perpetuate starvation for myself and family. That is exactly what this Clause aims to do. Why should the problem of needs arise at all, particularly at the stage when it does arise? Many years ago, the Government of the day led the country to believe that the time had arrived when a large mass of our working population lived so near the border-line of subsistence when at work that when any of them became unemployed he also became destitute. That was the reason for the introduction of unemployment insurance in the beginning. There was a recognition that the great mass of the working population could not expect to have any reserves behind them to assist them when unemployment overtook them, and therefore there had to be a nationally-organised scheme to assist them until they got a job again.
    This Clause does not deal with the man when he becomes unemployed, but six months afterwards. He is no longer at the beginning of his unemployment and he has exhausted his standard benefit and whatever resources he had. His family has been reduced to a very low level. The Clause presumes that the whole of the 2,000,000 people in receipt of transitional payments—and I can take a few thousand from the Rhondda Valley who have been unemployed for eight years——
    Mr. JOHN WALLACE: Are they all on transitional payments?
    Mr. MAINWARING: A million on transitional payments. Whatever the figure is it does not matter. They are a great mass of men. It is presumed that that great mass have had a long period of unemployment and that their condition is such that they require assistance. As they have been out of work for six months or six years, it is presumed that they require a means test. The whole thing is ridiculous, and is a condemnation of the point of view which determined the introduction of unemployment insurance in the beginning. The Unemployment Insurance Acts are themselves an admission that there is a consciousness of national responsibility for unemployment, but this Clause seeks a way out of that national responsibility. It seeks to discover who may carry the burden other than the Treasury. It asks, "On whom can we put this burden of the unemployed man? Has he a son, a daughter, a grandfather, a grandmother, an aunt, an uncle, a cousin or anybody else? Let us chuck him on to anybody, rather than on to a national body."
    This Clause very cunningly endeavours to ignore difficulties that might arise. It has been realised that a man may have had War service and may have been wounded in the defence of his country—or of somebody else's country—and may be in receipt of a pension. They dare not take all that from him. Oh, no; they will allow him some of it. In various other classes certain sums of money are to be disregarded, but it must not be assumed that those sums will apply to the individual claimant. A father who is unemployed may have a son or a daughter at home in receipt of any of those sums, and he may find his own income reduced because of that. A son or a daughter may be ill and receive friendly society benefit. Would anybody presume that the son or daughter does not require the benefit? The family as a whole may require it. This very circumstance is used to reduce the amount of benefit given to the father. In each of the cases it may be so applied, and nobody knows how it is going to be done. All that we know is that the income of the dependants will have to be carefully calculated and that the resources coming into the family will have to be carefully considered.
    There will be regulations. Where are those regulations, and how are they to be applied? What standard is to be used? Let us take an individual workman who has no income but his own. How are the regulations to be applied to that man? The presumption that the unemployed man somehow has resources that have to be closely investigated is the most astounding thing imaginable. There is also this point : During and since the War, organisations in this country have continued to arouse enthusiasm in order to inspire people to save. There has been the National Savings Society, and all the rest of it. During the War every patriotic working man who could do so was induced to save. What for? To save the country. To-day, if he becomes unemployed and he has £50 or £100 in savings certificates, what he may have done in that direction in order to save the country will now be used to save the country in another sense.
    The employing classes of this country have traditionally held up as the highest type of working man the thrifty, independent and God-fearing man, the one who was too God-fearing to get into anybody's debt and who could look everybody in the eye and say : "I can pay 20s. in the £ whenever I owe it." That is the type that has been held up as the ideal type of British citizen. [HON. MEMBERS : "Why not?"] In this Bill you are destroying just that type. That is the evil of it. During last week-end I was approached by four constituents who put just that problem to me. I would like the Treasury to say how this sort of thing can be defended on the grounds of justice : A man has a daughter at home who is a teacher, and who is compelled partially to maintain her parents, and at the same time she has to pay Income Tax upon her earnings. She is compelled to contribute to the Treasury as well as to maintain an unemployed man and herself. Hon. Members are compelling young girls in this country to keep one unemployed man each, if he happens to be their father, and the whole nation gets out of its responsibility on those lines.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: There is no Income Tax allowance.
    Mr. MAINWARING: There is no allowance at all for her. If the Govarnment
    1132
    would make a concession in that matter, we would gladly accept it.
    Mr. HUDSON: Does the hon. Member suggest that some one else's daughter should be asked to keep that man?
    Mr. MAINWARING: It is a recognition that unemployment is not an individual failing but is the fault of the State, which ought to provide employment and a livelihood for everybody. That is a principle that ought to be accepted, and which has, in point of fact, been accepted. Suppose that we broadened out in industry the principle which the Government apply in the public service, that when a man loses a job he is compensated. Why is that done? Why it is that when a man is absorbed from one public service into some other he is compensated for the job he lost? Because the community regards itself as responsible for providing him with a job. But there is no compensation for the average industrial worker; he has to bear the brunt of it all himself.
    You have been aiming for generations at building up that ideal type of thrifty working men and women, but to-day you are hurling it back in their teeth, and telling them in effect that they were the most foolish section of the community for doing it. It used to be said that the South Wales miners were the most independent type of workmen in Britain. I have known thousands of them who owned their own houses and had a little sum by them in savings. Indeed, some of them may have owned more than one house. But, when they come to be unemployed, what do they find? Naturally, they compare their position with that of neighbours, and some of them have said to me personally, "Of what use is it to me now that during my 20 or 30 years of regular employment I have saved something out of my wages, and my wife has assisted me in doing so? We have carefully nursed our resources and endeavoured to put something by to assist the children, only to find, when the day of need comes, that someone next door, who has no conscience at all, is treated better than we are." That is what the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) has to get down to. Let him go back to the working men and women and tell them face to face what he has attempted to say here. He would not do it.
    Mr. PIKE: I will take the hon. Member with me.
    Mr. MAINWARING: I will go with him. I have laid down the real problem that is before us, and the House has now its last opportunity of retrieving something of its reputation. It is not the absolute bottom dog who feels aggrieved, but the most solid and dependable section of those who are unemployed. An injury is being hurled at the best type of working men in the country, and it is causing them offence which they will never forget. I hope the British working man has reached a stage when he cannot be further trained to accept a lower level.
    In 1920, after the War, many men met in solemn conclave, some of them representing the Government of the day in this country, and the problem before them was how to take back the working class from the then high level of wages and the relatively high standard of life to what they considered to be a necessarily low level. It is no use jeering at that; it is a fact; there are published reports available for anyone to read. Those men met to consider ways and means, to devise plans how to take the working classes back from that high level of wages and standard of life to a lower one. They devised ways and means, and almost a miracle has been performed in the last 14 years. If anyone in 1920 had suggested that the British working classes would be seen in the present deplorably low conditions of 1934, he would have been deemed a madman, but it has been accomplished. But I solemnly say here to-day that I hope the British working man has reached the lowest of his possibilities in that direction, that this affront which is imposed upon him will be the last affront that he will take, and that he will arise now in reply and sweep out of existence the people who have imposed it upon him.
    6.36 p.m.
    Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: I deprecate more than anything that any bitterness should have entered into this Debate. The Opposition have been talking about this means test Debate, but I hope that by the time it is finished they will be sorry that they raised it. I want to say about two words, which I have not said before, on a slightly personal point.
    1134
    We have already had this week one unreal Debate, when a right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway tried to raise a discussion which he is not particularly fitted to initiate. I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). A Debate on the means test has now been initiated by Members of the Labour party. If the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) or the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) had started this Debate, we should know where we were. My only reason for rising is that I fought an election a few months ago on this matter and on nothing else, and I had to go into the very worst parts, as the hon. Member for Gorbals knows, of a certain constituency, and state what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). I will quote, not the words that he used at that time, which have already been quoted, but the words that he used before in a circular :
    "In assessing the amount of relief to be afforded, the general principle is that income and means from every source available to the household should be taken into account."
    That affected the aged, the sick and the widow under the Poor Law, and it was backed, as everyone knows, by the majority of the Members of the right hon. Gentleman's party. I know that there are individuals who dissociated themselves from it, but I say that it is absolutely dishonest to go about the country to-day raising this kind of debate. I have finished with it now. I do not want to talk about it; it is a purely personal question; but I want to speak for a minute or two about the principle. The principle of a means test has been accepted by the vast majority of people in this House at some time or other. The whole essence of the problem, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), I thought very truly and eloquently, is its administration, and I admit that the difference between the principle and its administration may be very big in some cases. Personally, I should like to see, and I believe the Minister would like to see, certain modifications effected. That is one of the reasons for the existence of Part II of this Bill. The hon. Member who opened the Debate spoke about

    1135
    differences between certain parts of Lancashire, not only in scale but in administration itself, which I think are quite unfair. I think it would be unfair, and I should resent it myself, if every kind of person in my family, taking it at its widest, had to be brought in in assessing the means test for myself; and, after all, that is the best way to apply it—to oneself.
    I do not agree with the hon. Member who opened the Debate that this is entirely a new idea. It has been adopted for years by local authorities in regard to maintenance allowances and scholar ships; it is a regular thing throughout the country to-day whenever an assessment is made for extra provision for a child who is staying on at school from 14 to 16, or from 14 to 18. I have had it applied to myself, and I have studied the different methods in almost every county in the country. There is nothing new in the principle; the only question is as to how we can get a completely sound administration. I think we have to be a good bit more scientific about the determination of a minimum standard. I do not want to quote many figures, but there are one or two that have come to my notice recently. One is in regard to rent. It is well known that, the lower you get in the scale of wages, the higher is the percentage of rent that is being paid. Although, in the figures that I have, the median figure for rent as a percentage of working-class wages may be something between 17 and 20 per cent., those who are receiving between 22s. 7d. and 32s. 6d. pay 32 per cent. in rent, and those whose income is between 32s. 6d. and 42s. 6d. pay nearly 24 per cent. in rent. Certain Members of the House, including myself, put down an Amendment trying to deal with this question of rent, and I think that rent ought to be assessed separately and dealt with differently. There will be extraordinary anomalies. The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) has already referred to certain matters in Leeds——
    Mr. A. BEVAN: On a point of Order. Two speeches have been made from the opposite side of the House which have wandered very far indeed from the contents of the Clause, into a discussion of co-operative societies and so on. Are we permitted, in our reply, to go into detail
    1136
    in answer to the points which have been made? I fear that, if that be done, we shall get very far away from the Clause.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): It is not always very easy for the Chair to anticipate the relevance of an argument which is put forward by hon. Members, but I understand that Mr. Speaker ruled, before I came in, that, although any hon. Member would be entitled to refer to an Amendment on the Paper, he must not use that opportunity to go into detail about an Amendment which is itself out of order. I hope that on the whole hon. Members will observe that Ruling.
    Mr. BEVAN: There is no Amendment on the Order Paper which refers to any of the matters discussed by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) and by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay). We are forbidden to argue the details of Amendments to the Clause, but hon. Members are permitted to argue on matters not relating either to the Clause or to the Amendments.
    Mr. LINDSAY: If the hon. Member will forgive me, there is an Amendment down which deals with rent, but I do not wish to make any further reference to it. Rent is one of many matters which come into the minimum standard with which I am dealing. I have attempted to arrive at some sort of scientific estimate of a minimum standard for a man and his wife, a man, his wife and one child, and a man, his wife and two children, and at the kind of standard which is being administered in different parts of the country to-day under the means test. I think that is the vital question, quite apart from this crisscross argument whether one party or another voted for or against the means test.
    I should like to quote this figure of minimum standards which is taken as to means after examining three or four different standards put by Dr. Bowley and the "Week-end Review." For a man and wife, 26s. 7d.—under the benefit as restored 26s. For a man, wife and three children the standard set up by the British Medical Association was 40s. 7d. Under the ordinary benefit that figure definitely falls below, unless you give extra shillings for the children. The benefit is not supposed to be a basic

    1137
    figure. That is understood. Under the means test there is no limit. That has already been made clear by the Minister and accepted by the House. Therefore, unless hon. Members opposite are going back on the principle which they themselves have accepted, they cannot fairly come to the House and go on spreading through the constituencies this new found enthusiasm for a principle which is written into Act after Act and Clause after Clause of Bills and Regulations for which their party has been responsible and, if you like, I was responsible as a Member of the party for several years before. If they want to change their minds, they can do so and let us know where we are, but it is a change. It has to be announced as a complete change of face.
    On the other hand, they, with me, and I believe with the Minister, might prefer to go into more detail into a scientific system to see that greater fairness is done—I am not sure whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) which deals with the direct relations of father and child is not getting a little nearer. But we have all tried to put down Amendments. There is a general feeling that we should like to see the means test fairly and equitably administered throughout the country, I do not think there is any difference. The difference will come in detail with most Members. I am not referring to hon. Members on the Liberal benches. They have long accepted the principle of the means test, and they accept it to-day, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) has made clear. What they object to is the point of administration. If we can separate those two things in this Debate, we shall arrive at a very much better conclusion at the end and we shall do away with this somewhat hypocritical attitude that is being taken up by certain hon. Members opposite.
    5.48 p.m.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: The hon. Member commenced his speech by saying that he thought we should be sorry before the end of the Debate. Nothing I have listened to up to now would make us sorry, but I am sincerely sorry that the hon. Member ever was a Member of the Socialist party. It has been said more than once to-day that there is a great deal to be said for the means test, and
    1138
    all the substantial criticisms are criticisms of administration. I am not going to approve of statements which have been made by one or two Members on this side of the House. I never have approved of them. I thought they were loose statements and I have always dissociated myself from them. But there is this to be said for the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and the Leader of the Opposition. They have always said—I do not make too much of the point—that, whilst a case might be made out in the abstract for the means test, no case at all can be made out for a Poor Law test. The essence of the Poor Law test is that the family is made the basis of the allowance, and the Poor Law administration is based entirely upon the principle of a deterrent, to make it as unpleasant as possible for a man to be idle. There has been no alteration in the law governing the Poor Law, because it was taken over from the old boards of guardians by the county councils and the boroughs. The law remains what it was.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: The law was consolidated into an Act passed in 1930.
    Mr. BEVAN: But there has been no change in the fundamental principles of the Poor Law. One argument advanced for the present Bill is that we are taking over large categories of persons who were formerly, properly, chargeable to the public assistance authorities, and, consequently, we must take over also the principle on which their needs are based. I make this challenge that, if you abolish the Poor Law principle involved in this Clause, the Clause will be of no value at all. In other words, if you accepted the principle that father, mother and children under 16 shall be the family for the purpose of this Clause, you would not save any money worth while.
    Mr. K. LINDSAY: There was no question of saving money under it.
    Mr. BEVAN: Hon. Members are protected from having to face up to this by the procedure of the House. We are prevented from forcing them to face up to the Amendments on the Order Paper. We have to discuss this in general terms, and they can ride off by making general speeches such as we have hard. If they had to discuss the Amendments on the

    1139
    Paper, they would find themselves having to face this : Are you in favour of separating the adult members of the family, or are you in favour of the family unit being father, mother and children of over 16? They would find themselves in a great difficulty on that issue. I find all over the country that the widest and deepest indignation is against the family test. The means test becomes absolutely objectionable, and for most people entirely unpalatable, because of that fact. If hon. Members had to face up to that, what line would they take?
    Mr. CROSSLEY: Would not the hon. Member express it rather in this way, that what is most objected to is the family test as at present administered? There is a difference.
    Mr. BEVAN: Hon. Members are able to protect themselves in discussing this by having all sorts of romantic ideas of what is to be done when the board is set up. I will make this prophecy, that when the board has got into operation you will be saving more money than you are saving now. In Glamorganshire, Monmouthshire and in many boroughs where there is Socialist administration the number of disallowances is so small that, when the board starts operating, it will be increased. If the family below 16 were made the basis, it would not save enough money to justify the setting up of the board at all. That is not administration. That is principle. You specifically refuse to define "family" in this Clause. All along the House has refused to define "family." The Parliamentary Secretary has been allowed to make all sorts of glib statements about keeping someone else's sister. The answer is that the workman when he is in work is keeping the hon. Member's sister and, when he is out of work, he has to keep his own as well. I want to advance a further point. In 1931 the means test was never argued in the House, because it was rushed through as part of the economy proposals. It was made by an Order-in-Council and the administration of the means test was deliberately made an extension of the Poor Law system. But we never argued it. Hon. Members have said that the election of 1931 was a confirmation by the country of the means test itself, but the means test was not in operation at the time of the election. It
    1140
    was annulled. The Government carried a piece of legislation for which there is no majority in the country.
    Mr. MACLAY: Repeatedly candidates were asked whether they were in favour of the means test and repeatedly they answered "Yes."
    Mr. BEVAN: The unemployed and the country generally had no experience of the means test and did not know what it involved. I have made the point that the backbone of the means test is a Poor Law test and, if the Poor Law principle in the means test is thrown overboard, nothing is left of it making it worth while operating. If there is one thing for which the Government have no mandate, it is to make this part of our permanent system. You imposed this in 1931 as part of the economy cuts and you are perpetuating it after you have restored the cuts and reduced the Income Tax. It is bunkum for hon. Members to say they have a mandate for this. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) has given the impression that he was returned to the House in order to support the means test. He was returned on a majority vote by Conservative supporters. His election was no justification. Hon. Members know that representatives of religious communities, leaders of public opinion of all kinds, and all sorts of people, no matter what their politics, have represented over and over again that the means test ought not to be carried out any further because of its serious effect on social life.
    Mr. MACLAY: In view of the representations from religious bodies and others on the administration of the means test continually cropping up in every constituency, and in order to be fair to hon. Members opposite in what we say in our constituencies, will the hon. Member make it clear that, as far as the Opposition is concerned, they will tolerate no means test of any kind whatever, so that we may know exactly where we stand?
    Mr. DICKIE: Apart altogether from the merits or demerits of the means test, surely, the hon. Member must be aware that the Prime Minister at Seaham definitely laid it down that the test which would be operative was the test laid down by the then Minister of Health, the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), in the circular which he issued.
    Mr. LAWSON: May I say definitely that the Prime Minister, in dealing with the ex-soldier, as to whether his pension would come into the calculation or not, explicitly said that he had telephoned to the Minister of Labour and had asked what their practice was in matters of this kind. The Minister of Health really had nothing to do with it; it was the Minister of Labour. He said that he had received a reply to the effect that disability pensions were not taken into consideration at all.
    Mr. BEVAN: I want to deal first of all, before coming to the principle of the means test, with what hon. Members say they take exception to, and that is the administration of the test. We have not heard from hon. Members opposite the nature of the administration to which they take exception and what alterations they wish to have made in the law. As a matter of fact, what hon. Members want to be able to say in their constituencies is, "We are in favour of a means test, but not the means test that you have to suffer under." So they want to have the best of both worlds. They want to say that this particular means test is a rotten one, but there ought to be the means test to which they agree. But what they will not do is to assist us in making the means test the sort of means test they say they want to make it. I would like hon. Members, if they are going to speak in the Debate, to be frank and tell us what modifications they wish to have made.
    The first question which I put to the Minister of Labour and to hon. Members who support the Government is, Do they consider that, when a person has reached the age of 16, he or she should be assessed upon his or her own resources, or that his or her resources ought not to be taken into account to keep the other members of the family? I will try to show why that is so very important. It is wrong to say that a man over 60 years of age ought, first of all, to look to his own family for support before he looks to the State. I hold that when a person has reached adult age he should be regarded as a citizen of the State and should not be merged in the family unit. The family unit is no longer a unit of modern society. [HON. MEMBERS : "Oh!"] I am speaking of the family
    1142
    unit above the age of 16 all the time. The father, mother, and the children under 16 years of age obviously are a unit of society, but children above 16 are not, because of the widespread dispersal of the industrial population and of the nature of modern industry. If I obtained employment in the South of England I should escape the obligation to support my brother and sister.
    Mr. HOWARD: So you will under this Bill.
    Mr. BEVAN: Really I do not wish to say anything unkind at all, but I wish hon. Members would speak about the things they know. If the hon. Member will read the Clause which we are discussing he will see that that is not so. The family is entirely undefined, and it may include anybody in the household.
    Mr. HOWARDLiving under one roof.
    Mr. BEVAN: Exactly.
    Mr. HOWARD: Then you would not be in the South of England.
    Mr. BEVAN: I may be living in the South of England and may be earning £5 a week, and my income cannot be charged for the maintenance of my family, but if I happened to be working in South Wales and living with my family and only earning £2 a week the whole of that sum could be taken into account. Is that just? That is how it operates. The dispersal of the industrial population makes it impossible to operate the family test without grave injustice. If I leave my home and escape my family responsibility, if I run away, I am all right, but if I happen to have a strong sense of family responsibility, or if by accident my employment is near my home, I may be taxed by the State. You might have a father, 65 or 70 years of age, at work, and a son, 40 or 50 years of age, out of employment. At the moment I can cite cases where such sons are refused any allowance on the ground that they must be supported by their fathers of 70. Do hon. Members support that position? It all arises inevitably out of this method of assumption.
    Take a sister in domestic service and a brother out of work? The brother is refused benefit on the ground that his sister in domestic service must subscribe

    1143
    towards his maintenance. Do hon. Members support that condition? Those are all inevitable by-products of the family test. Will hon. Members state in the course of the Debate whether they agree with that sort of thing? I handed the Minister of Labour a case from London—Acton—the other day where a father-in-law and mother-in-law were refused any help on the ground that their son-in-law was earning £3 12s. 8d. per week. Do hon. Members support that? I understand that relationships between father and son-in-law are not always very pleasant.
    Mr. HOWARD: They are living under one roof.
    Mr. BEVAN: That does not render things more pleasant.
    Mr. HOWARD: If they live under one roof they, cannot be living under very unpleasant terms.
    Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member's incompetence to discuss a matter of this description is clearly revealed by his last interruption, or he would know that among all families where there is bad feeling, the feeling is always worse when they live under one roof. I do not wish the good humour of the Debate to be lowered, but I do not want to assist in side-tracking the importance of the point of this discussion. At the moment, that is what is being done. We have the certainty that, under this Bill, that state of affairs will be perpetuated because it confirms the existing practice. Another point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Main-waring). A school teacher earning about £2 10s. a week, with a brother at home, has to pay Income Tax on that £2 10s. and also has to keep her brother. She first of all pays Income Tax, and out of what remains she keeps her brother, for he is not permitted under the Income Tax law to be treated as a dependant. We have tried for two years to get an Amendment of the Finance Bill to make any person regarded as a dependant under the Poor Law a dependant for allowance purposes under the Income Tax law, but have failed. That poor girl, although she cannot claim any rebate for her brother as a dependant, has her brother declared a dependant for this purpose. Is that fair?
    1144
    I have heard the argument advanced that the family test is a good thing because it cements the family and insists upon the inter-dependence of members of the family. I am not arguing, and never will argue, that a son ought to be entirely unresponsive to the claims of his parents, or that parents should be irresponsible for the condition of their children, but where the burden is voluntarily accepted it cements the family, and where it is imposed by the State it always dissolves the family. I submit that up to now no case has been made out for it, and the exchange of badinage across the Floor of the House of Commons does not solve the problem or answer the argument at all.
    The Prime Minister has made an announcement, and so has the Lord President, to the effect that the condition of the distressed areas is causing His Majesty's Government grave concern, and as a consequence they have sent out commissioners to investigate those districts. I do not like to accuse the Prime Minister of hypocrisy, but I really find it difficult to reconcile the Debate this evening with his concern for the distressed areas, because the bulk of the people affected by this Clause live in the distressed areas. They live in South Wales, Lancashire, on the South-East Coast, and in the industrial regions of Scotland. The areas where this money is to be saved are the distressed areas.
    If the Government really want to help the distressed areas they will abolish this Clause. It is in those areas that the larger proportion of the £16,000,000 or £17,000,000 a year is to be saved under this Clause. They are the areas where unemployment has been longest and most continuous, and where the people are on the means test. Since 1930–31 people on transitional payment have increased by 250,000. There were 850,000 in 1931. That increase has taken place almost entirely in those areas which are called distressed. Yet it is precisely in those areas that the means test operates most harshly. If hon. Members want to help the distressed areas they should leave the money there. I do not wish to add to that point; it has its own significance.
    The operation of the means test in some parts of Great Britain has caused more distress than any other piece of

    1145
    legislation I know, because it starts just when the unemployed man needs most help. We are discussing unemployment insurance, and hon. Members argue that the reason why a means test is necessary is that people have exhausted their benefit. That point has been answered on more than one occasion. If your insurance system does not cover all your unemployed, it is because of the inadequacy of your insurance system. You have miscalculated. If people are to be insured against unemployment and you have over one million who have exhausted their benefit, it is because of the inadequacy of your insurance scheme. You have not effectively insured the people. If you want to tackle the problem you must broaden the basis of your insurance scheme, increase your revenue by bringing more people into it, rather than segregating a special class for punitive treatment. It is when the unemployed man has been idle for 26 weeks, or it may be 32 weeks under this Bill, when all his resources have been used up, when he has nothing left, when the family clothing has to be replenished, it is at that point that you add to his difficulties by starting to punish him. If you had an equitable system of social insurance you would increase the benefit when the man is idle and in distress, and not give him less.
    Mr. K. LINDSAY: The point has been made clear several times that that is just the time when the man can get considerably more.
    Mr. BEVAN: I do not want to be impatient with the hon. Member, but the Chair has ruled out Amendments because they would increase the charge.
    Mr. LINDSAY: I mean more than the insurance benefit.
    Mr. BEVAN: That is untrue. I am ready to admit that there will be individual cases of special need which will arise and where more can be got than the standard rate of unemployment benefit. But that exists now. The public assistance committee can supplement the unemployment insurance benefit now. Therefore, there is no change in that respect.
    Mr. LINDSAY: Yes, there is.
    Miss RATHBONE: Is it not the case that when Part II comes into operation
    1146
    a person in receipt of assistance under Part II will no longer be able to go to the public assistance authority? Is not that the case? If so, is not the implication, as the Minister has stated, that the whole of what he needs under the means test will be given to him under the board?
    Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Lady has missed the point. It is because at the moment the public assistance authority can supplement the standard rate of benefit, that when all these people come under the board it is necessary to enable the board also to supplement the standard rate of benefit. I have admitted that. There are special cases where that will arise. If the Amendments that we have on the Order Paper would have the effect of increasing the charge, then obviously the purpose of not accepting those Amendments is to increase the burden upon, the unemployed man and to give less allowance. If it is a less allowance, hon. Members cannot argue that under the Unemployment Assistance Board a man will receive more money. All that will happen will be that exceptional cases will have more than the standard rate of benefit, but on the whole the general level of unemployment allowance will be lower. If hon. Members do not accept that, why have they not criticised the administration of the commissioners in Durham? If the State is going to be more generous in the assessment of allowances under the board than the public assistance committees, why is it that under the State in Durham the men are getting £300,000 a year less than they had under the local authority? It is intended under the Unemployment Assistance Board to lower the general level of unemployment allowances, and if men are to receive more under Part II, you destroy the effectiveness of the insurance system. Hon. Members want to have it both ways. They want to preserve the insurance principle and at the same time to say that men will have more under Part II than under Part I.
    This is the last occasion on which we shall have a chance of discussing this matter. It will pass into the hands of the Unemployment Assistance Board. I view the whole thing with the gravest possible alarm. Between 50 and 60 per cent. of my constituents will be put under the board. There are whole mining

    1147
    townships where from 80 to 90 per cent. of the population are unemployed and on transitional payment who will come under the board. If my fears are realised, this Bill will undermine the status of those people. They will not be able to appeal to the local councillors, or to me. All that I can hope to do at this stage is to impress upon the Minister that I believe it is the universal desire of Members of this House to see to it that the conditions of the people are not worsened, and that if the Unemployment Assistance Board does assess their requirements lower than they are assessed at the present time hon. Members will regard the Unemployment Assistance Board as having betrayed the intentions of this House.
    I was hoping that we should have an opportunity of imposing limitations upon the board, but we have not had a chance. I implore hon. Members when they speak to insist that the Minister shall interpret the Clause in the sense in which I have endeavoured to express it. These people are trapped. They cannot escape. There is no way out for them. There is no employment available for them there, and there is no employment available in any other part of the country. This House ought not to create an instrument that will torment them further. I beg hon. Members not to try to score party points, but to try to realise that they are dealing with the lives of men and women and that what the House decides to do to-day will determine the lives of these people in the immediate future. I have always been against the means test. It is a brutal and barbarous thing. It is inflicting punishment upon the weak and helpless members of the community. It has been imposed without the sanction of the nation and it is being perpetuated without the consent of the nation.
    I am satisfied that if there were a plebiscite of the people of this country they would declare against the means test to-morrow. It is unfair, unjust, inhuman that this House should calmly perpetrate such a monstrous injustice upon decent people. It is bad enough for them to be idle, to be helpless, and to feel that society has no part, function or place for them, but to add to their sufferings by niggardly prying into their private affairs is worse still. If a person is in work
    1148
    and he happens to have unemployed relatives he is denied the right of being able to build a home of his own. That is what the means test does. It says to a man who is working : "You cannot save. You must keep your brother, or your sister who are unemployed, indefinitely." On the other hand, if the man happens to have a brother and a sister who are working, he will be able to save a little and to make a home for himself. It is unjust. Hon. Members cannot defend it, and I ask them to give an instruction to the Minister that he should force the board to be decent to these people, otherwise the House will have to meet these people again in another place.
    6.26 p.m.
    Mr. MACMILLAN: I do not think that I have ever admired the Parliamentary gifts of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) as much as I have to-day. He has been subjected to a good deal of cross-examination, but he has met the questions and the interruptions with great good humour and with great ability. It is not very easy to get the better of the hon. Member because he is able to find a fresh answer to each question, even when those answers sometimes contradict each other. I prefer to deal with the first part of his peroration. He truly said that it was the general hope of the House that the regulations and the new procedure which we are now passing into law should not operate to the injury of the people who are drawing transitional payments. We are in somewhat of a difficulty because under Mr. Speaker's ruling practically all the Amendments on the Order Paper are out of order. Therefore, we have to discuss only the main principles of the means test, with such mention of the Amendments as is allowed.
    As to the general principles of the means test, I do not propose to add to the argument which has already proceeded, but I should say, and I think it is a fair summary of the situation, that the general opinion of the House, including occasionally the opinion of important members of the Opposition, and certainly the general opinion of the country, favours a means test. There is a general consensus of opinion that a means test of some kind is necessary in giving this relief as it is in giving other benefits, to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock

    1149
    (Mr. K. Lindsay) referred. The hon. Member who has just spoken confessed that the bitterness, if there was bitterness, in the attacks on the means test concentrated among the people themselves not so much against the principle of the means test as against its operation with regard to the family and the household.
    The House accepted the principle of the means test on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the practical question is, is it, as drawn in this Clause, drawn in the way that the majority of the Members of the House would like to see it? Are we satisfied that the administration will be the administration which we would like to see? Have we learned to the full the lessons of the past two years, or are the suggestions which the House can make suggestions which the Minister can take into account and which those responsible for framing the regulations may find of some use to them? I think there is a middle course between the two extremes which were put by the hon. Member. There is a middle course between the complete abolition of the Poor Law basis and the complete abolition of the means test. The object of the words—
    "due regard being had also to the personal requirements of those Members whose resources are taken into account"—
    is, I take it, to give guidance that the regulations which are to be made shall be based upon something other than a purely Poor Law basis. I would call the attention of hon. Members to the different phraseology. The word "requirements" is used, not the word "needs." I am not a lawyer, but I take it that the word "needs" as regards interpretation, indicates a Poor Law basis, but that the word "requirements" envisages a somewhat more generous and wider view of the proper amount to be disregarded of the income of other members of a household before an assessment is made. In fact, on the regulations made under this part of the Clause will depend whether the administration of the means test is acceptable or not to the great majority of the people of the country. I hope that the Minister will consider the very widely expressed opinion in the House on this matter. I should say that the normal opinion of the House and of the country lies somewhere
    1150
    between the two extremes which have been put forward.
    We should rate filial duty high, and parental duty high. It has always been a tradition amongst all clasess to rate very highly the duties of one member of the family towards another, whether filial or parental, but high as we rate them we do not rate them at 100 per cent. The boy or youth, or any other member of the family, is entitled to have more than merely his "needs." The word "requirements" is wider and would include what he needs for the amenities of life, the savings which he may effect in order to provide for his future, and some of the Amendments on the Order Paper have tried to fix the amount—in one case 20s. is suggested—which should be disregarded. I hope the Minister will bear in mind, when these regulations are framed, that there is a widespread view that the class of people who have fallen out of benefit, the able-bodied unemployed, available, ready and willing to work, who satisfy all these conditions, should be treated on something higher than a Poor Law basis, and that there is an expectation that the regulations will secure that a more reasonable and generous attitude is taken than might be taken if we were working on the narrow Poor Law basis which was first envisaged by the original Orders-in-Council.
    The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that if that was the view of hon. Members on this side of the House why have we not criticised the operations of the Durham Commissioners? My answer to that is that the Durham Commissioners were governed by Orders-in-Council and that they had no authority to give any relief under transitional payment higher than the scale. Of course, the public assistance committee had given relief in addition to what the Commissioners have given, but it would have been foolish to criticise the Commissioners for not giving what was illegal. Under the regulations which will be framed under this Clause we shall not be tied by the narrow terms of the original Orders-in-Council, which belong to a period of crisis. When the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale says that I find myself in the dilemma of more money being spent and less money being saved, I reply that this

    1151
    is not a Bill to effect economies, and that we have got away from the period of crisis.
    Mr. A. BEVAN: The hon. Member is misquoting me somewhat. If you give more under Part II it is not that you save money but that you destroy the attractiveness of the insurance principle in Part I.
    Mr. MACMILLAN: That was the hon. Member's second argument. His first argument was wrong. When he misses the bird with his first barrel he is quite ready to come in with his second. He used the argument several times before this lucky notion came into his head. His original point was that we should be in this dilemma, that if there was a more generous interpretation there would not be the economies which he suggested it was first intended to secure. This is not an economy Bill. There will probably be a very heavy increased charge on the revenue by reason of the activities of the board. This is so widely drawn that the activities of the board may involve the country in considerable expenditure, possibly an additional expenditure arising out of the fresh inquiries which the Government are now making in the distressed areas. There are all kinds of possibilities under that part of the Bill.
    I come back to what I think and believe to be the commonsense view of the House and the country. We have not to consider in this matter what Mr. A. or Mr. B. did or did not say; we have to come down to what ordinary men and women are saying, and it is my experience, and I think the experience of nearly every hon. Member, that they accept the means test as we do; they accept the view that if you draw public money to which you have not subscribed there must be some control, but they also feel that, operated as it has been under emergency Orders in Council, there have been some anomalies and some injustices. They resent them. Cases which have been put by myself show that it has operated in some instances to destroy rather than unite the family, and although they do not wish to get away from their obligations to the family they do not think it reasonable that these obligations should be rated too high. They think it is only fair that a reasonable proportion of the wages of a young man should he saved.
    1152
    I think that the whole question depends upon the regulations which are framed on the basis of the lines in the Bill which I have quoted, where the word "requirements" is specifically used rather than the word "needs," which I imagine indicates that it is the intention of the Government to frame regulations to meet the experience it has gained during the past two years. Unfortunately we are not able, and perhaps it would not be right to attempt, to frame an exact set of regulations. The Rules of Order have prevented us moving our Amendments, but I say that on the framing of these regulations, not upon whether they carry the assent of this House or are carried after a Debate, but upon whether they carry the assent of the people themselves, will depend their success and the success of this administration.
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Owing to the remarkable operations of the Guillotine this is the first time that we have had an opportunity of discussing the means test. In Commitee we were able to discuss one or two minor points, but the major issues, and particularly the issue of the family allowance—and I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) that this is the crux of the whole question—we have never had an opportunity of discussing since the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member for Stocckton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan) has drawn attention to the words which are the kernel of the Bill :
    "such Regulations shall in particular provide that the resources of an applicant taken into account shall include the resources of all members of the household of which he is himself a member (due regard being had also to the personal requirements of those members whose resources are taken into account)."
    The question in the minds of all hon. Members, and in the minds of all who are interested in this matter, is simply this : How much regard is going to be had to the requirements of those members of the household whose resources are to be taken into account by the board in the future? Some days ago a speech was made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. J. Reid), who said that it was impossible for anyone to tell whether the unemployed would be better or worse off under Part II of this Bill. That seemed

    1153
    to me to be a most extraordinary thing to be said by a supporter of the Bill. One of our main objections to the Bill is that we are not prepared to hand over thousands of our constituents to the jurisdiction of a board when we have no means of knowing whether their conditions would be better or worse, their standard of living higher or lower——
    Mr. JAMES REID: What I said was that it was impossible to tell what the precise terms would be until we saw the Regulations. The hon. Member has forgotten that we shall have an opportunity of debating them.
    Mr. FOOT: I do not know why it should be impossible. This has been the most burning political issue in many parts of the country for over two years past. Does the hon. Member think that an issue of such importance and gravity, which has aroused such criticism, is a matter which is suitably dealt with by Ministerial Regulations, which we can discuss but which we shall have no opportunity of amending? We do not think that a matter of so much moment should be dealt with in that rather off-hand way. I have listened to all these Debaes and to speeches from a number of Members in all parts of the House, and it is clear that there is no hon. Member, whatever party he may belong to, who will say that he is satisfied with the present administration of the means test. I have heard hon. Members attack with some justice the record of hon. Members above the Gangway. I have heard many criticisms and charges, but I have never heard an hon. Member of the Conservative party say that he is satisfied with the administration of the means test in his own constituency, and in this Debate there has not been a single speaker, not even the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike), who has been able to make that statement.
    There is no hon. Member who is able to tell at the moment whether the administration of the means test in his constituency is going to be improved. That, in itself, is to us a sufficient reason for refusing to sanction this Clause and for refusing to vote for the Bill as a whole. We all know, particularly in the matter of family allowances, that differences exist between one area and another.
    1154
    Although differences of practice in regard to savings and disability pensions and so on have to some extent been ironed out, even yet, in some districts, the amount which is ignored in the wages of the wage-earner is as high as 25s. while in other districts it is as low as 10s. or 11s. We do not know whether the board are going to level up or level down in that respect.
    It is remarkable how frequently in the discussions on this Bill we have come up against first-lass principles. This question seems to raise a principle of vital importance to all who believe in a system of private enterprise. The mainspring of private enterprise is differentiation of rewards. Under private enterprise we say to people "If you work harder, if you sell more or produce more, if you are more successful in your trade, profession or calling you shall receive more money." That is the principle on which the system depends but that principle is being destroyed in many cases by the operation of the means test. Take the hypothetical case of a wage-earner in a family the other members of which are unemployed. He earns 30s. a week and the public assistance committee says that 15s. of that amount is to go into the family pool and 15s. is to be ignored. In other words the wage-earner keeps the other 15s. as his personal allowance. Suppose that by taking thought, by working overtime or in some way he increases his wages to 40s. a week. The amount which he is allowed to keep as a personal allowance is not increased. The only difference is that 25s. goes into the family pool. The wage-earner still retains only 15s. In other words the amount which the family is receiving in transitional payment will probably be diminished by exactly the same amount as the increase of his earnings. By working overtime or being more successful in his job he is not earning more for himself but is merely earning more for the State. That seems a thoroughly vicious principle and one which cuts at the root of a system of private enterprise.
    The House will forgive me if on this occasion I repeat a suggestion which I have made previously. It is that you cannot remove the grievances which exist as to family contributions merely by having a flat rate and saying, "We shall ignore

    1155
    11s. or 15s. or 21s. in each case." If you want to have a system of family contributions and if it is to work equitably and justly you must have some sort of sliding scale so that, if the worker is able to increase his earnings, he will be able to put more into his own pockets and increase his personal allowance. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan) that it is the view of a great majority of the Members in this House—certainly it is the view of the party which sits on these benches and of the majority of people in the country to whatever party they belong—that the principle of the means test is perfectly sound. What we on these benches feel is that a sound principle has been brought into discredit by the harsh and unjust method of its application.
    6.50 p.m.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I agree with a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Dundeed (Mr. D. Foot) and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan). The crux of the question which we are discussing is indicated in that portion of Clause 39 which refers to the personal requirements of those members of the household Whose resources are taken into account. I had an Amendment on the Paper during the Committee stage to make that provision wider, but I am not allowed to discuss that question now. I would, however, remind my right hon. Friend the Minister who is, I know, very sympathetic on this matter, of what the Royal Commission said :
    "The practice of regarding almost the whole income of each member of the household as available equally for all the other members is not easily defensible and we think it necessary that under any system of discretionary assessment definite guidance should be given to the assessing bodies as to the treatment of different kinds of income.'
    Further on in the report the commission state :
    "The amount must depend upon the status of the applicant in relation to the household and we should expect the authority to allow a larger proportion to a single person living with his or her parents than to the head of a family. Such allowances … should be adjusted so as to leave a sufficient margin to preserve the inducement to work."
    I agree with the Royal Commission's view-on that matter and I agree with the hon.
    1156
    Member for Dundee that the principle should be kept that the more a man or woman is able to make, the more he or she should be allowed to retain out of those earnings. It seems all wrong that the younger earning members of a family should have to keep out of their earnings the older members of the family. In my constituency, unlike the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee, the amount which is allowed out of the earnings is only 6s. I do not go into the question in detail but that is a very small amount indeed. The Durham Commissioners in their report to the Minister of Labour state :
    "In the case of other earning members of the family such as wives, sons, and daughters, etc., we have allowed each wage-earner at least one-quarter of his wages for his own pocket, in addition to any reasonable sum expended by way of travelling expenses."
    It is different in my constituency. A quarter is not allowed there. Then the commissioners proceed—and this is an important point which I hope the Minister will bear in mind :
    "Where the earning member owing to the nature of his occupation has a special standard to keep up, such as school teacher, clerk, etc., it has been our practice to make a substantial additional allowance for this purpose on the facts of each case."
    I suggest that that sort of thing ought to be taken into consideration in making these regulations under Part II. It is very important that the people in the country should feel that they are having a square deal. At the present moment the administration of the means test is such that the people do not consider that they are having a square deal. As I say, I know that the Minister is sympathetic on this question. I appeal to him to tell the House that the interpretation which he is going to place, and which he hopes that the Unemployment Assistance Board is going to place on this provision of Clause 39—
    "due regard being had to the personal requirements of those members whose resources are taken into account"—
    will be on the generous side. This ought not to be a party matter at all. When the regulations come before the House, all Members, regardless of party, ought to feel that the board have taken into account all these considerations and have framed the regulations so that the earning members of the family—the younger

    1157
    members who as has been pointed out may be thinking of getting married—shall be allowed to retain "sufficient to keep them in normal comfort," as I put it in my Amendment during the Committee stage. If they could be allowed that, I think the House would agree with it and would be satisfied that the means test as administered under the Bill will be fair and proper. I appeal to the Minister to say that that is his opinion and I am sure that if we get that assurance it will have a great effect on the board when they come to deal with this matter.
    6.56 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Pike), who I am sorry is no longer in his place, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) accused us of being hypocritical in bringing forward the question of the means test. They said that we had been in favour of the means test and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock—I am sorry that he also is no longer in his place—quoted with great gusto from a speech by our leader the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) the statement that he would never be a party to men or women getting anything out of the State unless investigation had been made into their means. It may be true that those statements were made and I do not deny it, but there is nothing hypocritical about our attitude. On 15th November, 1932, I moved this Amendment on behalf of this Parliamentary Labour party :
    "That this House realising the widespread public resentment created by the injustices inherent in the present system of transitional payments cannot consent to the Second Reading of a Bill which fails to abolish the means test and does not remove the system from all association with the Poor Law."
    I finished my speech on that occasion with a statement which was cheered by my colleagues here, headed by our leader, who happens to be in hospital at the moment, though we hope that the day is not far distant when he will rattle this House again as he has rattled it many times before. I said at that time that it was quite in keeping with events, and that it took brave men to admit that they had made a mistake and to change their point of view. Our party are not the only men in this House who have
    1158
    changed their point of view. I pointed to the President of the Board of Trade, who is not only a great Free Trader himself but the son of a father who was a great Free Trader. He was born and bred a Free Trader, and is now part and parcel of the greatest Protectionist Government that this country has ever seen. The Secretary of State for Scotland was a Free Trader. So was the Minister of Mines; but there he sits on the Government Benches. There is no use in talking about change; change has nothing to do with it. I said :
    "I can assure the House that the Labour party—and I am speaking here on behalf of the Parliamentary Labour Party—say that there should be no means test and that as soon as we get the opportunity we shall take it right out of the Statute Book; we shall repeal the Act root and branch. The only means test that should be applied to a man or a woman when they go to the Employment Exchange is that they should be offered a job, and if there is no job for them then it is the duty of the community to maintain them and their dependents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1932; col. 964, Vol. 270.]
    That statement was made on behalf of the Parliamentary Labour party on 15th November, 1932, so that there is nothing hypocritical about our making those statements here to-day. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) may be forgiven because he knows no better; he was not then a Member, and we hope that from this day onward he will not use this weapon. He was evidently prepared to go out and declare that the Parliamentary Labour party was a hypocritical party. It is not being hypocritical to be honest enough to admit that you have made a mistake.
    I shall do all I possibly can to move the Minister of Labour. Everyone has paid tribute to the present Minister, but this is a question upon which he has been adamant. He will not move on this question of the means test. The Government evidently still have at the back of their minds the idea that they are dispensing justice when they apply the means test. Many of my colleagues were in favour of the means test, though I never was, and never could be. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) tells me "Not on these benches." No, hon. Members on these benches were not in favour of the Poor Law test, but they were in favour of a test. At the Labour party Conference I moved that there should be

    1159
    no test, but the Conference decided in favour of a test; there is no doubt about that. Nevertheless, we shall make no headway by hammering at that point. It is a fact, and facts must be accepted willy-nilly. The Labour party, however, was never in favour of the Poor Law test, as was distinctly stated by the speakers at the Conference.
    It is that Poor Law test in all its harshness which is being operated now. I will prove conclusively to the House, apart from any sentimental appeal, that it is being operated ruthlessly. Only a fortnight ago I won what I considered a great case before the Minister of Pensions. I Was delighted. I had been fighting with him for months. Every organisation that the applicant could tap outside the Labour movement he had tapped—the Church, the Ex-service Men's Association, the Young Men's Christian Association—every body but a Socialist association; they had all been in contact with the Minister of Pensions on behalf of this man. After he had done all that, as a last resource he appealed to me. I took up his case and won, and the Minister of Pensions gave him a pension of 5s. a week. Now I want the House to see how the means test operates. The first week after that man had received his pension he went to the public assistance committee, and what happened? That pension was deducted, along with his other wages. Surely that evidence will satisfy the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and the Minister of Labour concerning how brutal and how ruthless the means test is in operation. Even the Germans, even Hitler, could not do anything worse than that to the Jews. Nobody could do anything worse than that to an enemy, whatever the political or religious feeling by which he was actuated, let alone to an ex-service man.
    I could go on for a long time giving chapter and verse for what is going on up and down the country in the working of this means test, and how I have seen it operating in my own constituency. I am fortunate enough to have a constituency where work was fairly good up to two years ago; where men and women struggled and strove to make their children better than they were themselves and to educate them. They did not waste their substance; they were
    1160
    careful, frugal; they put into practice the characteristics that are supposed to belong particularly to my race. They were thrifty; they owned their own houses. Over a thousand men in Dumbarton alone owned their own houses, workers in steady employment in the shipyards. Nevertheless, the very fact that they were of that type was their misfortune. That is the type which the means test hits, and hits savagely.
    Surely the Minister of Labour—and hon. Members on all sides of this House have paid tribute to him—will not harden his heart, but will give us some little concession on behalf of the decent working folk whom we represent here. The outstanding example is the well-known one of the Cunarder. When work on the Cunarder was stopped, there were about 1,500 men on it who had never been idle. They had been fortunate enough to be in a yard that had always been well employed, and thank God that this is again true of that yard to-day. Those men, however, were thrown out. Ever since the inception of the Unemployment Insurance Fund they had paid their contributions religiously, but every man, as soon as his 24 weeks were up, was put on the means test just as though he had drawn benefit for eight years. Because he had been careful and had put his money into a co-operative society, or had educated his boy or girl to be a school teacher or—as I have seen in two instances—a doctor, he was cut off without any further consideration, and there was nothing for him.
    That is how the means test operates. It is a harsh and a cruel thing. It was instituted originally to catch individuals who had no right to benefit, but in catching the two or three persons of that kind in the whole of Great Britain—they are very few—the Government have penalised tens of thousands, broken up tens of thousands of homes, and driven young men to leave the parental roof-tree. The responsibility for all this hardship rests with the present Minister of Labour. Remember, Sir, that with the honour of your office goes the responsibility for what takes place in this country as a result of your administration. We on these benches are giving you an opportunity to retrieve this position.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better keep on addressing me.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: We have appealed here time and time again to the Minister of Labour on this question of the means test. We have now an opportunity again of putting our point of view before the House, and I want to assure the House that only those who have been through a working-class life or lived in the midst of it realise what a terrible affair this means test is. The Minister of Labour knows perfectly well that there is scarcely a town council in Scotland which has not appealed to him, irrespective of their political views. There are two distinct towns in my constituency and they are as far apart as it is possible for two towns to be—Dumbarton, which is hoary with age, and Clydebank, which is a modern town. I remember when there was no Clydebank. Two years ago the town council of Dumbarton, which at that time was practically Tory passed a unanimous resolution asking the Minister of Labour to do what he could to do away with the means test. The Clydebank Council did the same, but that is practically a Socialist council. At the same time, the means test was discussed in another very sedate assembly in Edinburgh, namely, the congregation of the Established Church of Scotland called the General Assembly. Every Christian organisation from one end of Britain to the other has protested in no uncertain fashion against the means test.
    That test makes thrift a crime. It penalises the best section of the working class. In my opinion as a Socialist it is all wrong to prepare for a rainy day. With the rich what is put by is frozen capital, but with the workers what they put by is something that they require in the future. They sacrifice things and do without them whereas they should have spent their money. They should spend it wisely, of course. I spend all I get wisely. They have always had it inculcated into them to be thrifty and careful, to lay by something for the day you never see; that has been dinned into the working classes, and because they have carried it out they are penalised. The individual who, as far as his means would allow, went in for drinking and riotous living, is not hit by the means test. He escapes like a fowl from the fowler's snare, but decent men and women are penalised by it. This has a far-reaching effect because the rising generation see what is happening under
    1162
    the means test. They see what is happening to the father and mother because they have been careful; they see that when something happens over which the father and mother have no control they are penalised.
    We live in tenements with sometimes as many as 180 souls in one tenement building, and 9, 10, 12, and 14 to two apartments. I have seen wonderful men and women coming from those conditions raised by parents who have sacrificed everything. Mothers have struggled and starved in order that their boys should be better men than their fathers. The labourer's wife had the high ideal that her boy would be a tradesman. The tradesman's wife had the ambition that her boy would belong to one of the professions. They have made every sacrifice, and from that source has sprung some of the finest men—some of them in this House, and not only on these benches—whose mothers kept lodgers in order that they might graduate in Glasgow University. That is the type which the Minister of Labour is hitting with this means test. It means so much to the working class; otherwise, I would not have risen to-day. The Minister of Labour has such power that he could modify this Clause in such a fashion that it would cheer not simply a few folk; the folk in Britain would lift up their heads just as my folk in Clydebank lifted up their heads when they knew the building of the Cunarder was to go on.
    I hope the Minister of Labour will consider this from our point of view and have regard to all the pleadings he has heard and the petitions which have been sent from every section of the community calling on him to do away with the means test. It is pressing down thousands of people—our own kith and kin. Think of the incident which I quoted, in which an ex-service man got 5s. a week pension. The first week he received it, 5s. was docked from him by the public assistance committee. That is evidence of the ruthless administration of the means test. I know that the Minister of Labour will say, as he has said many times, that it was never intended that the Act should operate like that. But that is our case against it. It has always been our case, and we who have always opposed the means test thought it was a mistake to place it on the Statute Book We were

    1163
    told it would be operated in a generous fashion. That was said about the not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause. The Minister of Labour, Mr. Tom Shaw, said then that it would be operated generously. He operated it for only three months, when the Tories came in, and they operated that Clause in such a harsh fashion that the whole country rose in revolt against it, and the Government had to change their position. I hope the Minister of Labour will give us this other little concession and give to that decent section of the working class some hope that their struggling and striving will not go for nothing, and that those who are looking after their interests in the House of Commons will stand by the decent working-folk in the country.
    7.30 p.m.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: I do not wish to repeat any of the arguments we have heard to-day, but I would like to say how well the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillam), in his admirable speech, voiced the opinion of the majority of Members when he pointed out that most people are desirous that the individual man or woman, boy or girl, should feel on starting work that it does make a difference what their earnings are, and that they ought to subscribe to some extent to the family income. There is one point I would like to mention, because I do not think it has been brought up in this Debate. The word "requirements" was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton. I would stress another word. The Bill says that the resources of an applicant to be taken into account shall
    "include the resources of all members of the household of which he himself is a member."
    In many of our industrial areas there is overcrowding, of which we are all ashamed, and on account of that overcrowding we find living in one house, sometimes in very few rooms, not what we ordinarily call one family but what I might almost call a tribe—brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law are all there together. They are different families, but they have to live together because of the housing conditions, though each family is waiting for an individual house. When assessing means we ought to take into account what is the normal household, the normal
    1164
    family. Often the unit taken as the household is so large that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction. That would have been avoided if the housing problem had not been so serious. Hon. Members have spoken of the filial duty of a son to give something to the support of his family and of parents to give something to the support of their children, but where there is not one family unit but a much larger unit in a home—because of our failure to provide fitting housing accommodation—it is not fair and it is not right that those people should have to suffer by being assessed to support those who would not normally be living in the house. I have brought this point to the notice of the Minister once or twice, because in our overcrowded districts it is one of the real difficulties accompanying the means test. It has caused a great deal of bitterness in the hearts of many people. In the overcrowded districts of Dundee families have had to live together in a very small house although wanting separate houses of their own, and because they have come together like that, one family having taken in the others, who were living under terrible conditions, they suffer by having their means assessed as one family.
    The question of the individual assessment has been raised this afternoon. Many of us would like to see £1 or some other sum put into the Bill as the amount to be taken into account in respect of the individual person, but if such a definite amount cannot be inserted in the Bill we want it to be made clear that the individual person should have a real assessment of his or her requirements. I should also like to stress the fact that not only should the individual person's requirements be taken into account but that account should be taken of what the individual family consists of. As soon as we get better houses, as soon as we are able to "decrowd" some of our big towns, there will be a greater chance for these people, because it does not seem fair that where there is no overcrowding the effect of the means test should not be felt in the same way.
    7.35 p.m.
    Mrs. RUNGE: While I am a wholehearted supporter of the means test, I think there are many injustices in its administration in the assessment of the

    1165
    resources of a family. A big slice of the income of those who form part of the household should be disregarded. The Bill says merely that due regard is to be had to the personal requirements of those members whose resources are taken into account. What does "due regard" mean? It seems to me that it does not mean anything in particular, because it can be made to carry any construction people like to put upon it. It reminds me of the word "reasonable" which has been criticised so much during the passage of this Bill. That also can be interpreted according to the wishes of the interpreter. Everyone is agreed that some sum should be disregarded, but we cannot agree on what the sum should be, and as a consequence there has been constant trouble all over the country on account of some local authorities having been more lenient than others. There will be exactly the same trouble when the Unemployment Assistance Board gets to work through its officials. To leave too much elasticity to local committees, advisory committees or the officials of the Unemployment Assistance Board will be a very great mistake. I have seen enough of elasticity and know what it means. It means, in practice, that some of the younger generation see practically the whole of their earnings taken into the family exchequer and themselves left with only a few shillings for their own needs.
    If there is not a fixed sum we shall soon find that the younger generation will not think it worth while to work at all. I appeal to the Minister to give the younger generation some incentive to work by leaving them with sufficient of their own earnings at least to clothe themselves according to the needs of their jobs and to get a little recreation and pleasure. The young people are quite all right; they are ready and willing to help their relatives so long as they are not forced to disgorge practically their last shilling. The present system is really demoralising, and I hope the Minister will bear in mind the recommendations of the Royal Commission on this point.
    7.38 p.m.
    Mr. T. SMITH: I wish to join in the protest against this Clause, and to ask the Minister to pay some attention to the appeals made to him from all quarters
    1166
    of the House. The hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) has said to-night that the means test has caused a great deal of bitterness. As one who for two years after the last election was very closely concerned with the people under the means test I go so far as to say that I know nothing which has caused more bitterness in industrial districts than the means test. It stabilises poverty. In the mining industry we have a kind of sliding scale of wages for young persons; each six months they get an increase of wages. When a lad gets to 17½ or 18 he gets the highest step up if he goes to the coal face. The very moment he gets that increase of wages he finds the allowance of his unemployed father cut down, because more money is coming into the house. That takes away from the lad any incentive he may have had to strive for a good wage. Take the case of a single person. To my mind it is absolutely wrong to reduce a single man's allowance from 15s. 3d. to 10s. because he happens to be lodging with somebody who is no relation at all but has an income of one kind or another. I mentioned in the House 12 months ago the case of a single man in my constituency. He was 53 years of age, and a thrifty type of man, who took a keen interest in friendly society work. He lodged with an old age pensioner, but because the old age pensioner had 10s. a week coming in the man's allowance was reduced from 15s. 3d. to 10s. Rather than live on part of the income of the old age pensioner the man committed suicide.
    Case after case could be quoted to show what is taking place. The Minister of Labour tries to justify this Clause by saying that it is expected to take away the worst features of the means test as at present administered. That will depend largely on how the regulations are framed. If we knew what the regulations were to be, and knew what amounts were going to be allowed to the other members of the household, we might be-able to modify our arguments against this. Clause. There are some hon. Members who say that at least £1 a week should be allowed to another member of the household out of his earnings. I listened a few weeks ago to a speech on the wireless by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in which he said that it was the opinion of the Liberal party that there ought to be a modification

    1167
    of the means test. May I say that £1 a week is not sufficient inside the household? If young men and young women of 18 to 25 who are bringing £2 or 50s. a week into the household are to be allowed only £1 a week to live on that is not sufficient. Anybody who has been unfortunate enough to have experience as a lodger will know that one cannot get decent "digs" for £1. I had 17 years as a lodger after my parents died, and I know that £1 a week is not sufficient. These young people need clothes and want recreation. Many of them want to get married. What prospect is there of their saving a few shillings with which to get a home together? There is an accumulation of evidence to show how hardly the means test is operating, and again I express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay some attention to this question.
    There is another phase of the matter. The means test compels people to do things which they otherwise would not do. Suppose a father is applying for assistance under Part II of the Bill and his application is turned down, or he is given very meagre relief because he has a son earning a decent wage. If that young man cares to go to lodge next door, or in the next street, with somebody who is not applying for assistance, the father may get the full allowance. I know a striking example in the case of a young man who is a very good footballer. He is a paid football player. As long as he was at home what he received every week as a footballer had to keep the entire family. No allowance was made to the father. Then that young man was transferred to the South of England, and the very moment he was transferred the father got the full allowance. That kind of thing is not good enough. Then take the case of a family where the parents are trying to give the daughter a chance. She is working, maybe, in an office in the City. If her father is unemployed and applies for assistance, there will be a lot of inquisitorial investigation, which will cause a good deal of uneasiness and a good deal of annoyance to that girl.
    Another phase of this question ought to be discussed. What crime have these people committed who will be relieved under Part II? Their only crime is that they have been out of work for longer
    1168
    than six months. To-day it is largely a matter of chance who gets work in some of the heavy industries. There are men whom industry does not want. They are out of work because nobody can employ them at a profit. If they could be employed at a profit, they would all be working to-morrow. These men are unwanted by industry, and we say, "Reorganise industry and absorb them, by all means, but the men for whom there is no work ought to have at least a decent standard of comfort." As far as I know, the only people drawing money from the State who have a means test applied to them are those who have been out of work longer than six months.
    There are other people drawing money from the State with no means test applied, and I will give some illustrations. This generous nation has paid a pension, since the days of Trafalgar, of £5,000 a year, without any means test. The agricultural industry for a number of years had half its rates paid by the State, without any means test, and now it gets the whole of its rate paid by the State, without any means test. I am not complaining about assistance being given to agriculture, but no hon. Member will stand up in this House and say that all farmers are doing badly, because they are not, and if hon. Members cared to look at the long list of wills that have been declared recently of people connected with the farming industry, they would know that some of them have been making money, but there is no means test applied.
    Take the mining industry. This nation paid nearly £30,000,000 in subsidies to the mining industry, without any means test, but at that time there were colliery owners whom I knew who admitted that they were making from 5s. to 6s. a ton, and if the right hon. Member for Darwen were here, he would agree with me when I say that some prominent coal-owners in this country were frank enough to admit that they did not want the subsidy, and that it was money for nothing; but there was no means test applied to the mining industry. Take sugar beet. Will anybody say that the sugar beet people are not making profits? But we are still giving a subsidy there, without any means test at all.
    Why should the only people who have a means test applied to them be those

    1169
    who are out of work? I cannot understand it, and, as I say, I know of nothing that has caused and is causing more bitterness than the way in which it is being operated. I represent a constituency now, and have for 12 months past, that has a long history of industrial trouble. The Featherstone district is well known. Those people have just passed another 26 weeks' stoppage, and there are thousands of them who have been dealt with under the means test, and I can tell the House that the poverty in that district and in other parts of my division almost makes one cry when one hears about it. The only crime, if it be a crime, that these people have committed is that they have been unfortunate enough to get out of work. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary. I know that he agrees with his right hon. Friend in thinking that these regulations are going to be more generous to people than they are at present, but I want him to take some notice of the appeals that have been made. I could understand the Government's point of view if they imposed a means test on the individual and not on the household, but the household means test is in some respects even worse than the old Poor Law system. In the old Poor Law days a brother was not liable to maintain his sister nor a sister her brother, but here, simply because people live under the same roof and come to a common table, all the income has to be taken into account.
    I am opposed to the means test, because I believe the unemployed have a right to a decent standard of life and because I know how it has operated from 1931 to date. The hon. Gentleman may say in reply that the electors of this country backed the means test in 1931, but the answer to that is that it was not operating then to the same extent that it is to-day, and the House must remember that the Government had to bring in Amendments in reference to ex-service pensions and workmen's compensation, and they did that because there was a public opinion outside that was clamouring for some redress. I think sufficient has been said to convince the Minister of Labour and his Parliamentary Secretary that this is not merely a political agitation from one political party, when Members supporting the Government,
    1170
    Members of the Liberal party, and Members on these benches unite in asking for this Clause to be withdrawn and for something better to be put in its place. I hope that, when we get a reply to-night, we shall not have the same stereotyped, automatic refusal that we have had on a good many of these Amendments, but that we shall get from the Government some promise of redress in this direction, which, I am sure, will be appreciated by those who have to come under Part II of the Bill.
    7.51 p.m.
    Mr. LOFTUS: I agree with the last speaker that the administration of this means test has caused bitterness, and I felt it at the by-election which I recently fought. I felt that there was a great deal in that administration which was faulty, but I do not wish to deal with the general aspect of the question. There is one particular point that I want to bring forward, on which I would like to ask for an assurance from the Minister, and it is this : We have in the north certain so-called devastated areas, places like Jarrow, Stockton and so on. About 18 months ago there were similar towns and districts in the United States of America, where men were living in a hopeless condition and where practically the whole population was out of work. In certain of those towns people got together, and the unemployed started making goods, first in quite a small way, then exchanging their goods and services, improvising their own technique of exchange, and some of those towns which had been in a state of absolute despair achieved not only some kind of moderate prosperity, but a return of hope. The people felt that they were helping themselves, that they were doing things; they were not sitting in idle despair, a prey to unemployment.
    I feel that if in such a town as Jarrow you could get all parties together and, instead of waiting in idleness, say, "Let us organise and see if these people can start exchanging goods and services," starting in a very small way, it would be a good thing. If they could get going, however, would it not be possible that the means test might operate in such a way as to prevent them continuing? If they started making good3 in quite a small way, earning money from their

    1171
    goods and services, and the means test operated unfortunately, it might check the movement, and if that could be avoided, such efforts as I have described might lift such towns from a state of despair.
    In the administration of this test it appears to me that we ought to consider certain general principles, and those principles I find in the lives and in the political speeches of former leaders of the party to which I have the honour to belong, the Tory party. The first principle is the safeguarding of the family. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said the family was no longer a social unit There is no doubt that all over the world forces are attacking the family and tending to disintegrate the family, and I feel that it should be the particular province of our party to preserve the family in the future and to safeguard it in every possible way. Therefore, I feel that the working of the means test should be such as not in any way to damage the family. I realise fully that it is right and proper that children should contribute to the support of their parents, but I think their contribution should be so fixed that those children not only shall have an inducement to earn more, but that they shall be encouraged to save money and to establish homes of their own.
    The second principle I find is the encouragement and defence of property and the increase of small property owners. Therefore, I welcome in this Bill the fact that the inroads on capital are extremely small, though I frankly say that I would have preferred that the capital should have been left intact and only the interest taken into account. The third and final principle for which our party stands is to maintain in every possible way the health of the people. We know that Tory Members of Parliament fought for and obtained the early Factory Acts, because they felt that the industrial system then at work was undermining the health of our people, and that on the health and physique of our people our national strength and greatness depended. I feel here again that we must so work our institutions, such as the means test, as not in any way to damage the national health, on which all depends, and which has
    1172
    already been so gravely impaired during the last hundred years.
    The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made a remark about the Unemployment Assistance Board lowering standards as compared with the public assistance committees, but I am quite sure from my reading of the Bill and from listening to the speeches on it that this new Bill will give generally a higher standard than that given by the public assistance committees. I feel that it can be used as an instrument to improve the health and condition of our people, and I am sure that it will be so used. The administration of the Bill will be more than a test for the National Government; it will be a test for the whole nation. I remember the words of that fine old Tory writer, Dr. Samuel Johnson, words which I thoroughly endorse, when he said :
    "The test of a civilisation is its treatment of the poor."
    7.58 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: I rise to support the rejection of the Clause, because I feel that the basis on which this test rests is one which will work considerable harm in many respects and will certainly be unwelcome in London, in the great industrial centres of this county, and will result in a tremendous amount of difficulty in many directions. We have recently passed in this House an Act which has removed the control over rents for houses of a certain class which had previously existed. I do not think one can overemphasise the importance of the hardships of those provisions, when one is examining a Clause of this kind, because that Act has meant that a large number of people are now unable to maintain the establishments that they had in the past, and have to depend to a considerable extent upon their own relatives, so that they may be able to keep a roof over their heads. Now, on the one hand, because houses are de-controlled, the householder has to rely upon his immediate family to remain with him, while, on the other hand, the family are not in a position to remain under the same roof in many cases because they feel that the working of a Clause of this description is bound to bring a considerable amount of difficulty and damage to them.
    If that happens and they examine the matter from the material point of view, the family has to make up its mind on

    1173
    the one hand whether it will remain in its house—because the provision of accommodation is not so plentiful that it can divide itself easier into two or three houses—it has to decide whether it will remain together and help to pay a rent which may be exorbitant, or whether, on the other hand, it is going to split up so that the individual members of the house hold may have the proper benefit of their respective earnings. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to take that into consideration. It is a tremendous consideration, I can assure him, from the point of view of a large section of the community who are suffering very heavily because of the provisions of the Act, and who to-day when they are discussing their future among themselves have to take into consideration the necessity of bringing as many of the members of a family under one roof as they possibly can so that the rent can be paid.
    I represent a constituency which has a large portion of its men working, or rather, who were at one time working, at the docks. Shipping, as we know, is not in such a state as to be able at this time to give employment to the vast majority of those whom it employed before, and many of these men who have built up homes are anxious to keep under their wing the families they have reared. They want to see that their children shall be kept under proper guidance. Some of these men and their wives who are anxious that the morale of the family should be maintained, have to decide between keeping their children in their homes, allowing them to go to work in the city or the West-End of London, or to allow them to take their places in shops and establishments some distance from their homes and live near their employment or in the places of their employent, so that they may not be put to the expense and the trouble which this Clause provides for those who live within the household itself. This is a very serious consideration, and I think at the present time, when the morale of the community is being so seriously affected by the tremendous amount of unemployment which exists, everything should be done to assist family life and those who are anxious that their children should have a proper guidance, so that the one
    1174
    member of the family who is earning will at least retain some scrap of morale in the household and give some happiness and comfort to those who are not earning.
    Is not the position this? We say, or we are attempting to" say, that a man who has been unemployed for more than six months is entitled by right, and not through any charity on our part, to be maintained in a respectable and decent manner, that he does not come and ask for charity. If we mean what we say, we must put it on, the footing that when a person applies for relief under this Bill, being in need of it he is entitled to receive it, and therefore when we are considering whether anyone else should contribute towards his relief or not it is not a question of the applicant being homeless or throwing himself on the mercy of charitable relief, but purely and simply a question whether the State is dealing properly with him, and with his child or another member of the household. All other things being out of the question, what is that child going to do? What is that member of the household going to do? Every member of the household who wants to carve out a future for himself or herself is not only going to leave the household through his or her own volition, but will probably be persuaded by the parents to do so. No individual can gauge to a nicety what are the requirements of, let us say, a young woman or a young man serving in a shop. No person can gauge to a nicety the cost to that person of keeping up appearances in the hope of receiving better employment at a later stage. No board and no body of assessors will be able to gauge within many pounds what the requirements are of these people who desire to provide for the day when they will become married, and so on.
    A hundred and one matters are best known to the individual himself, to his parents and the other members of the household, and they will not be in a position, and it is unreasonable to put them in a position, of having to come forward and ask to be assessed at a certain rate because of the conditions in their respective households. The anomalies that are bound to arise are such that they do not justify the retention of a Clause of this description in any circumstances. I would

    1175
    point out, too, what must be very well known to Members of the House, that in districts where unemployment is rife and where money is scarce even for those who are employed, mot only do the members of the household look after the needs of their immediate families, but if anything happens in a neighbour's house the neighbourly hand is extended in a manner which draws the admiration of everybody who knows of it, and which would undoubtedly meet with the approval of everybody who hears of it. Who is to gauge whether the members of the household are doing right by helping their neighbours? Is the State or is it not going to decide definitely that a person who is out of work must be given that which is due to him for his sustenance, or at least the sum we consider should be given to him for that purpose?
    Is it proper that distinctions should be drawn between one household and another simply because the individuals of the one family desire to live together and to retain the family tradition of maintaining one roof over their heads? Are they, merely because of that, to be compelled to do something which in other circumstances they would not be called upon to do, and which owing to the future for which they have to provide in many instances they ought not to be called upon to do? There can be no reasonable reply to the arguments which have been put forward in favour of the removal of this Clause, and I would like to support the contention adduced by my hon. Friend the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot). I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is going to answer the question that was so well put by him with regard to the men who really want to get on. How are you going to give a member of the household who really is struggling hard and wants to improve his position and get a higher salary, to put himself in a position of trust in the work he is performing the inducement to do so? How are you going to cope with the difficulty that that individual will encounter when he is considering, not whether it is worth while to help his parents—it is not a question of helping his parents because he will not give them any more assistance by working harder—and not whether he will help any other
    1176
    member of the household, because if he does work harder it will not bring a pennypiece more to those in his household, but whether he will merely be exerting his energies for the purpose of providing a relief to the State funds which ought properly to be utilised for the purpose of relieving those who are unemployed?
    I do not see any reply which can possibly be vouchsafed to that argument. In the long run, if the moral of the people and the advancement of those who are working to improve their lot, are to be considered, I do not see how a Clause of this description is going to promote the benefits which we would like to see accruing to these men who have that type of ambition, a justifiable and commendable ambition to get on. It may be said, of course, that the very fact that one gets on and feels one is in a more responsible position will in itself be an inducement, but how is that going to be the case when the person himself realises that the lot of those whom he wants to help will not be in the slightest way improved and his own position will not be improved either? In other words, he will merely be on the surface of things in a better position, but actually in precisely the same position that he was in before. For my part I hope this basis of using the household as a test will be discarded altogether, and that instead of pressing for the retention of this Clause we shall have an admission on the part of the Government that the arguments from all parts of the House are sufficiently strong to induce them to let the Clause go.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. BATEY: I am glad of the opportunity to oppose the means test again. We have had a bitter experience of the means test in the county of Durham. It has been operated there in all its ruthless-ness, and, after the long experience we have had, we are bound to say that it is the most diabolical machine ever invented to depress the working classes. We have seen not a few but whole communities in the county of Durham pushed further and further down into the gutter of poverty by the operation of this means test. It means far more to some of us from the depressed areas than to other Members of the House. In the middle of March, the week ended 19th March, we had in

    1177
    the county of Durham 29,385 in receipt of benefit, but we had no less than 94,274 drawing transitional payments. In the same week we had 15,505 unemployed men on poor relief. We have seen the means test used to impoverish our people, and that makes us glad when we get a chance to voice our objection to its continuance. This Clause provides new machinery for the operation of the means test, worse even than that which is in operation to-day, and we see no hope for our people. Under the new machinery, our folk will be crushed more quickly and deeper than at the present time.
    What happens to us in the north of England is to be applied to the working classes all over the country, and our sympathy goes out to those who will experience what we have experienced in Durham. Only Rotherham and Durham have had commissioners. In the rest of the country, the means test has been operated through public assistance committees, but if the whole country is now to come under commissioners, we say, "God help the working classes." Our people in the county of Durham who are under the means test come to the offices of the commissioners in fear and trembling. Men have said to me, "We are almost afraid, when we go into the offices to pass the means test or to receive benefit, that our benefit may be stopped or reduced." Fear has entered into the hearts of many thousands of those men and they are like sheep being led to the slaughter when they go into the means test offices.
    In the earlier part of the Debate hon. Members have been talking about 1931. The difference between to-day and 1931 is that the means test was then applied as an economy measure. When the means test was first installed, it was new, and working men scarcely realised, and no one in this House realised, what it would mean in operation. When the Government came to the conclusion, two or three weeks ago, that they would do something for the unemployed by restoring the cuts, they should have given first consideration to those who had been unemployed for more than 26 weeks and who came under the means test. Those people needed and deserved more consideration, and if they expected it, that was because such action would have been in keeping with the promises made by the
    1178
    Prime Minister. I shall refer to one or two statements made by the Prime Minister the last time he addressed his constituents in Seaham, not long ago. In regard to the restoration of the cuts he is reported to have said that the Government
    "were not going to favour one class of the community against another. It was to be an equitable distribution, and as they were partners in bearing, so they would be partners in sharing."
    I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, what is the share that has been restored to those who come under the means test? They are left without any consideration at all. They ought to have received first consideration. It could have been done, because the Prime Minister, in that same speech, referred to the fact that the Government were increasing the time for benefit on the Insurance Fund from 26 weeks to 52 weeks. I think he made a mistake in that statement, but it might be a printer's error. He said :
    "We have decided to double the period of insurance making it 52 weeks instead of 26, instead of halving it, as was wrongly stated here and in a Labour newspaper. Thus, we double the period when those who are unemployed keep within insurance, and are therefore independent of any outside authority. They are statutorily protected for an extra 26 weeks. Look at the most beneficial effect that is going to have in the application of the means test, which does not apply during those extra weeks. It is when you come out of insurance that the means test comes in, and if we could get that fund in a position which would keep you always in insurance you would not be required to abolish the means test at all, because there would be no conditions under which the means test would be applied."
    There is the line that the Government might be said to have taken, and one can scracely think that they were not aware of the statement so recently made by the Prime Minister that the ordinary working man was to have 52 weeks' instead of 26 weeks' insurance. The Government might have utilised that in order to extend the period of benefit on the fund, so that a great many men who are not on the means test, and who fall out of insurance after 26 weeks, could be kept within the fund. With the fund making such a large surplus, one of the best ways that the Ministry could utilise that surplus is not to push men on to the means test any more than could be avoided; if there is a surplus, keep them in insurance even more than 52 weeks. That would be a much better way than

    1179
    pushing them out of the fund and on to the means test.
    With the machinery that is being created, unemployed men under the means test will be in a worse position than they are to-day. The new machinery will be operated by one official who will have no knowledge of the people with whom he is dealing. A man may come from the South of England and be sent to the North of England to operate the means test, as the official under the Unemployment Assistance Board. He may have no knowledge whatever of the people with whom he is dealing, but when he is there, he is king, and the recipients are helpless. There will be no transitional payments then, and the recipient who comes for public relief will have to watch his steps. If he does not go into the office properly and salute in the proper manner, away will go his relief. When his relief is stopped, then there will be nothing but the workhouse for him and his wife and bairns.
    Therefore, while one cannot imagine that all officials would be foolish, one can see that, under some officials as we know them, recipients will have to be extremely careful. Moreover, under this new machinery the officials will not have the advantage that those who have been administering transitional benefit in the past have had. They have had transitional benefit as a standard to guide them in assessing needs, but under this new machinery transitional benefit will be abolished. It is all very well for the Government to say that, transitional benefit being abolished, the recipient can be paid more or he might be paid less than the transitional benefit. I would like to see the man that will be paid more. I cannot imagine any of the recipients of transitional benefit who have come under the means test receiving more than is received by the man who is on standard benefit under the fund.
    The recipient has to state to the official what are his needs. One has not time to stop, as there are so many Members who desire to speak, to examine the word "need" and the needs of the man who is applying under the means test, or of his family, because those needs vary, and they will be great. I have said that in my opinion the men who come under this new machinery will be worse off than they
    1180
    are now under the means test, and I consider that men who have been taken from Poor Law relief and put on to national relief will be worse off than they were under the Poor Law. Under the Poor Law they could appeal to the local elected members, from whom they could always be sure of receiving a little sympathy. Their cases were investigated by the relieving officer. Now the need of the family may be decided by a young civil servant with no experience. If I had to have my case settled as to the amount of relief that I should receive, I would prefer that it should be settled by a committee of a public assistance committee rather than by an official of the Civil Service. When the Prime Minister was making his last speech, he said that the able-bodied unemployed were now to be taken away from the Poor Law. He said :
    "Great numbers of people now left unregistered as unemployed and handed over to the Poor Law authorities are going to be taken in in bulk and added to the people who are being taken care of under the provisions of the Bill."
    If by taking care of the unemployed he means putting them on to this national relief committee, I would not like to describe it by that term. When this Bill comes into operation, the means test will be administered in accordance with regulations which are to be agreed to, but what those regulations will be we do not at the moment know. There are, however, two or three things which they will not touch. One of them is workmen's compensation. In the case of workmen's compensation, to the disgrace of the Government, only 50 per cent. is to be taken into consideration. While the Government could deal with disability pensions, they had no sympathy with workmen in receipt of workmen's compensation. Under the regulations they could deal with Service pensions, and I want to mention these because I put a question to the Minister of Labour one day last week about them, and got no satisfaction from him. One finds that under the Commissioners in Durham last December they issued on order to those who were in receipt of reserve pay, to this effect :
    "Reserve pay when reseived on the 1st January, 1934, will be treated for the purpose of determination of transitional payments as if it were wages for that week, and will be regarded as household income, whether received by the applicant or by a

    1181
    member of his household whose wages would ordinarily be treated as household income."
    Since I asked that question I have had another letter in which the writer says that his transitional benefit was not only stopped for one week, but for two weeks, because of his reserve pay. I consider that the Government ought to have taken some steps to deal with hard cases like those which come under the means test, and ought not to allow them to continue under the new Bill as they have in the past.
    The means test means that there will be a continuation of the most minute inquiry into all the resources of the household. We have had some experience of that. I have here one of the forms that a man under the means test in the county of Durham has to fill up. Some hon. Members complain about filling up Income Tax papers. They should have this paper to fill up, and then they would never complain again about filling up Income Tax papers. The man has to fill in his name and address, the names of all the family, the relationship, the age of each one, the occupation of each one, and, if working, to give the full name and address of the employer. Then the income of the family has to be stated. They have to put down the name, the relationship, the earnings, what is received from health benefit, widows' or orphans' pensions, old age pensions, workmen's compensation, service pension, disability pension, and income from other sources, and then they have to deal with the question of property or savings. Then there are spaces on the back of the form which have to be filled in whenever there is an alteration in income, and the space on the back of the form not only deals with income, but it says this :
    "I declare that the income and expenses of my household are the same as stated by me overleaf."
    Under the means test, therefore, the man has not only to state his income; he has to state again and again both his income and his expenses. I consider that to be a disgrace. I conclude with another quotation from the Prime Minister on the means test. He said this :
    "The means test must be specially considered. In principle it was absolutely just, and it was a matter in which the Labour party had concurred. But he thought the rules and regulations could be revised. Any means test which tended towards the
    1182
    disruption of family life was bad in its application."
    I want to re-read those last words for the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary. This is the Prime Minister's statement only recently :
    "Any means test which tended towards the disruption of family life was bad in its application."
    We could give case after case of sons who have been compelled to leave home because of the means test. It is destructive of the family, and we have a right to expect that the Government will carry out the promise of the Prime Minister and abolish it.
    8.35 p.m.
    Mr. MACLAY: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was indignant because some of us, he suggested, accused the Labour Party of hypocrisy. I think we do, because they continually go about the constituencies preaching that they would do away with every form of means test, and that we should have what has been described as indiscriminate largesse. [HON. MEMBERS : "Who said that?"] I say it would be indiscriminate largesse, and I cannot believe that the Labour party in power could ever bring themselves to carry out what they say they would do. The means test in some areas is obviously being worked well, and in others it is causing dissatisfaction. I am not quite clear whether under this Clause we have any guarantee that it will be possible to do away with the various differentiations, and I hope we shall hear something which will lead us to believe that the differentiations in the various districts will be tightened up, that one area will not have a harder time than another, and that a case such as the hon. Member for Dumbarton quoted will not be possible under the Bill.
    I should like to ask whether there is any general inquiry into the vexed question of the whole family income being taken into account. Can the Ministry say how much it would cost if the means test was applied to the individual only, because when one looks into the question it seems that the disadvantages of it may outweigh the advantages. We all agree that children should help their parents in distress, and vice versá, but has there been any full inquiry into

    1183
    the position as revealed to-day, to see whether the disadvantages of the system outweigh the advantages? Many parts of the means test were purposely brought in for the purposes of economy during the financial crisis. To-day the financial position is easier, and I think the feeling of the country is that there should be some relaxation in some of the harder parts of the means test. I should like to hear whether the Minister has inquired very fully into the question of the family income being left out. Subsection (2) says that the amount of any allowance granted to an applicant shall be determined by reference to his needs. It should be kept in mind that needs should include self-esteem, because so many persons who are being kept by their children have lost their self-esteem.
    Perhaps the Minister will make it clear that the regulations will at least imply that self-esteem should be kept in mind. The basis of the means test should not under Part II be Poor Law, because today so many persons are unable to find work though willing, and their treatment should be on a different basis from the old system. Finally, account should be taken of a man who is contributing to the family income, and if he obtains an increase in wages, some part of the increase should be disregarded; otherwise he is really working for the State instead of for himself. This point was fully brought out by the senior Member for Dundee, and I hope the Minister will consider this point.
    8.41 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: The Debate has been interesting if only because we have been able to get the opinions of members of the other parties. With the exception of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) no hon. Member opposite who has spoken has been wholeheartedly in favour of the means test. He himself stood by it in its present form. I would urge upon him not to be so much impressed by local affairs because there happens to be a Socialist majority in the part of the country that he represents. It seems to me that local colour is obsessing the hon. Member's mind. I wish he would take a broader-minded view and try to remove himself from certain petty things that may have
    1184
    happened when he went home to meet his people.
    The last speaker and others have shown that they are not wholly in favour of the means test as applied. One by one they point out where it should be relaxed. If the principle of the means test is going to be narrowed until it comes to a point where it is hardly worth while applying, why go to the expense of having a set of officials to examine into the means of everyone's household, which is causing unrest throughout the country and which, it must be evident to everyone, can only bring in very little to the State. I know now that hon. Members are getting more democratic in their outlook. I know one Member who believes in getting in touch with the people direct, and I believe other Members are doing that. When they meet their people, they meet with the same thing as we do. When the bare facts are put before them, they begin to realise that they are harsher than they intended to be, and they promise, when the matter comes up again, to see what can be done to relieve the hardship of a particular household, because it is unfair for every member of the household to be brought in and his means examined.
    From another part of the audience another case is put which is almost as hard as the previous one, and again sympathy overflows. To the notice of the hon. Member there is brought a point of view which he has never seen before, and he says, "I will deal with that." So we have here this afternoon hon. Members trying to square their consciences with what they have said to their constituents, and they will expect their constituents to read what they have said. They will say, "I tried to point out your hardships and suffering, I brought the matter to the notice of the House, and tried to get the Minister to see my point of view. You cannot blame me. I did all that I could." Hon. Members will try that argument when they go back to their constituencies. With so many hardships and causes of unrest in the country, surely we ought to have the courage to say, "What is the use of carrying on with this kind of thing any longer? The country has recovered somewhat from its difficulties; let us at least give back to the people something to which they are entitled."
    There are two main points which emerge from this Debate. They are

    1185
    characteristic of, and belong so essentially to, the English people. One is thrift, a characteristic which has stood out prominently in the English race for a long time. The argument has always been, "Do not squander your money, but try to save it for what might happen in regard to illness or misfortune." If we see a man showing signs of drink and his family is in want because of that fact we urge him to become a respectable citizen, to save his money, to look after his family, and to prepare for a rainy day. When people have shown themselves to be thrifty they have been respected and looked upon as the right type of citizens. Much of the greatness of this country has depended on that class of person.
    But what does this Bill do? It is in effect saying to those people who have been thrifty and have probably suffered privations in order to put a little by : "The man who has turned out to be a scoundrel and has not troubled at all to save has no means now, and he is to get the full benefit. You were thrifty and tried to save, but now we have altered our point of view, and because you did that, we of the great Tory party say that because the State is in danger you have to be penalised and give back some of your savings." The former says : "Did not you say that it was best to save? And you reply :" Yes, I believe I did, but things have changed since then. We cannot hand State money to people who have money." Such a man wonders whether he has been told the right kind of story, and he begins to think that if ever he gets a chance again it will not be worth while to be careful and thrifty.
    Mr. HOWARD: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, pursuing that line of thought, he would be prepared to abolish all Death Duties because a man has to give up something of what he has saved?
    Mr. TINKER: No, I would not. I would say that at death I believe in the State taking as much as it can. But that is an interesting point to be followed by other speakers. The second point I wish to emphasise is that of family life, which is a very strong characteristic of our people. I believe in the members of the family helping each other and doing all they can to stand together, but there are hundreds of instances where families
    1186
    are breaking up because of the present conditions. It may be called subterfuge when sons and daughters leave the family circle, but they are doing it. I would rather fight the question on principle and try to get the State to recognise that to which they are entitled, rather than that they should have to go from home. But there it is. This sort of thing is happening.
    If hon. Members like to ask their people they will be told by various members in the audience, "I left my home because I knew that if I got away my father or sister would get full relief." I hope that those who value the strength of the State, which has been built up on its citizenship, will realise what they are doing in this Bill. The means test which was introduced in 1931 by the National Government is to be made permanent under this Bill. It will kill thrift and family life. I stand clearly and emphatically against any kind of means test. I am prepared to go on any platform and debate with any Members of the other side and prove that I am more in the right than they. I wish that hon. Members on the other side who are putting forward all kinds of excuses would realise what it all means and say, "Let us clear away the means test and go on as before."
    9.52 p.m.
    Mr. MARTIN: I have always had a great respect for the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), but I am afraid that to-night his argument has somewhat weakened my respect for his intelligence. I do not understand how an intelligent man can possibly argue that this Bill is going to undermine the family because anyone who puts anything by for a rainy day is, when that rainy day comes, being done an injustice if he has to use what he has put by. The accusation which the hon. Member made against hon. Members on this side of the House could easily be used against himself. If he says that we are putting forward only those arguments which we think will please our constituents, surely we can say with equal justice that he is offering unlimited State money to people purely in order to get their support. If we can believe what has been said in this House by many hon. Members who were concerned with the action of his own party some time ago when this question was discussed, it is rather extraordinary

    1187
    that he, whom I have always considered a more moderate member of his party, should go so far as to denounce the means test root and branch, when his own leaders at a former date were by no means so hearty in denunciation of the means test.
    Mr. TINKER: I have never departed one iota from my attitude on the means test—on all occasions I have been straightforward—so far as it relates to the unemployed.
    Mr. MARTIN: The hon. Member has not been quite so extreme as he is tonight. Let us consider the problem from the point of view from which he put it before us. Let us consider whether hon. Members opposite are really considering exactly how it would work out if they had to administer it. If they gave unlimited State money to all sections of the population, whatever their means might be, have they considered exactly how it would apply to the Exchequer and work out in practice? Has the hon. Member considered what would be the attitude of those people who have put by something for a rainy day and have been the exemplary kind of family which he admires and which we all admire? What would their attitude be if there were no form of means test and anybody could come along and get money, whether they had been thrifty or not? I have found over and over again that it is exactly those people whom the hon. Member admires so much who say that it is a good thing that there is a means test, although they may object in occasional instances to the actual application of the test—it may be to a particular officer who comes round and causes unpleasantness in the home. Those are purely isolated cases; they are not general. Anyone who comes from a depressed area, where this subject is boomed so much on the Labour party platforms, will agree most heartily that it is the finer type of people throughout the industrial areas who believe in the soundness of some form of means test. I do not know about South Wales, but I believe that to be the case in the north country.
    Mr. BATEY: It is not so in Durham.
    Mr. MARTIN: It is true in my part of the world.
    Mr. BATEY: The county council elections did not show it.
    Mr. MARTIN: At the county council elections, unfortunately, there was exactly the sort of appeal that the hon. Member and his friends will make at the General Election, but I believe that by that time the answer will be very much to their disadvantage.
    Let me come to another consideration, which is an important one. One hon. Member said, with a great deal of truth, that those who had been unemployed for some time needed more assistance. There is a great deal to be said for the argument which the Minister of Labour, in his wisdom, has put forward with regard to the training centres and other forms of activity in which unemployed men sometimes indulge He has issued a circular which says that a person who works on an allotment may be allowed a certain income from that allotment without losing any of his unemployment money. I believe that to be perfectly sound, because it encourages a man to a form of activity which is healthy and helpful in his family life. I believe that the Minister of Labour could, with profit and with greater justice to those concerned, extend that principle to people who are coming under the aegis of those who are trying to create more employment on the land in industrial areas.
    There are a great many men in the industrial areas who are not far removed from the land. In the colliery villages there are many men whose fathers or grandfathers came from the land, and they have in their blood a feeling for the land. When they come from the pit they have the green fields round about, and they understand the countryside. Many of them, in the derelict areas particularly, in Middle and South-West Durham, will not get back into the pits and find work there, whatever happens to the coal industry and however prosperous it may become, owing very largely to the introduction of improved methods of working, and they would be only too willing to go back to the land, as their fathers or grandfathers did. The Minister of Labour would be wise if he could make provision which would assist such people to go back to the land. There are many schemes, private and local authority schemes, which help men in this way. By

    1189
    asking a question in the House the other day, I found that in the county of Durham there are many schemes of that sort, and that the Ministry were bearing a very large percentage of the loss on those schemes. I have come to the conclusion that it would be extraordinarily useful to the whole of that activity if the Minister could make some recognition of the fact that men cannot go back to the land from an industrial area without some help in the initial period. If he could give help for 12 months—in the case of trainees he has made the period six months—to those who are put back on the land under any of the schemes promoted by local authorities, the Society of Friends, or any similar schemes, or perhaps by the board itself, it would be very useful to the men in the derelict areas. It would help to take away the surplus population from such an industry as the coal industry, and would enable more jobs to be found for those who live in the industrial areas.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find some method either in this last stage of the Bill or through the Unemployment Assistance Board of granting to such men some proportion, if not the whole, of their unemployment assistance money if they come under an approved scheme and go back to the land in such a manner that they will be able to support themselves and their families. One of the important things about this proposal is, that the family is a unit. When the family goes back to the land they are far more capable of becoming self-supporting than when a young unmarried man or a married man himself goes to the land alone. It would be easy to find land immediately surrounding the industrial areas which would not be expensive, which would be suitable for some form of agriculture, and which would enable the man in the initial stages to live in his own colliery cottage and go to his own portion of the land and work it for the first 12 months in that way.
    This is a constructive suggestion, and I hope that hon. Members above the Gangway will support me. So often I hear purely destructive suggestions from them that I get a little tired and wonder whether they will ever support anything that is constructive. If they will join me in supporting such a proposal they will have the thanks of all the men who will go back to the land if they are given
    1190
    the opportunity, but who cannot do it if they are not given the assistance which, I trust, the Minister will give to them. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give serious consideration to the suggestion, if not at this stage, at some future stage in the carrying out of the Bill.
    9.3 p.m.
    Mr. E. J. YOUNG: It would be possible to build up a most formidable case against the Govenment from the speeches that have been made to-day. One has to admit, after listening to the discussion, that the Clause is vague. I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary is going to find it difficult to explain away some of the statements that have been made. There are some parts of the Clause which require explanation. I am at a loss to understand some of the terms. I should like to know exactly what the means of the applicant are and how they may be construed. Suppose at the end of the six months when a man has to go for assistance it happens that his clothing and his boots are worn out, and the clothing and boots of his family are also worn out. Would that be taken into consideration by the board in assessing the needs of the man and his family? We who have had experience of unemployed people know that it is very much more difficult to live at the end of six months than at the beginning. All these replacements have to be made, and I am wondering whether the board would be authorised to treat people in this condition as generously as many of us would like them to be treated.
    There is another point which arises in connection with disability pensions. Is it assumed that disability War pensions are given for services rendered rather than as a partial removal of a handicap when the man goes to work? I have been actively associated with the British Legion since its formation and I know that there are large numbers of disabled men who are not able to earn full rates of pay in the industry in which they were formerly employed. Is it assumed that the money is for services rendered during the War as a reward or to remove this partial handicap? When it was given it was intended by the Government of that day to enable them to supplement what they would be able to earn in the labour market. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head.

    1191
    Is it the case that these pensions are assessed on the services of the man according to the merit he showed during the War? It must be one or the other. Disability pensions were given either for services rendered during the War or to remove a handicap which rests upon a disabled man in the labour market. If it is not given for either of these purposes, for what is it given? If the wages such a man is able to earn and his disability-pension allowance only amount to what a workman is able to earn it is an injustice if only the first £1 is to be disregarded when he has to compete with other people who have not lost the use of a limb.
    Then in regard to the first 5s. of sick pay from a friendly society. Is it assumed that the 5s. given to the person who receives this benefit is by way of compensation, or part compensation, for inability to earn during that period, or is it given to provide extra nourishment during the period of convalescence? In either case it is grossly unfair that this charge should be laid upon a person who is afflicted or who is recovering from an illness. These points are not made clear in the Clause. There are many other points which could be raised. I wonder what will happen to a workman who is unemployed and receiving assistance from the board if he is legally separated from his wife and has been ordered to make a weekly separation allowance. Will that be taken into consideration by the board, and will the wife be in a position to sue him if he does not keep up his payments?
    The argument in relation to overcrowding in industrial areas is overwhelming. You are bringing whole families, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law and nephews, you are visiting the misfortunes of the parents on the children unto the third generation and placing a penalty upon them which need never have been imposed if the Government had been active in removing the housing shortage. While we do not agree altogether with the Labour party on the general question of the means test, we think it is grossly unfair that this burden should be put on other members of the household. I have tried to find a definition of "householder," but have not been able to do so in the same sense as the Government, because according to the Government's definition it means all those who are living in the house, all those who are in
    1192
    the family circle. That definition might easily include the lodger. A lodger, of course, always has the opportunity of moving away just as sons are moving away and going into lodgings to escape an imposition which they feel is being unjustly thrust upon them. We shall join with the Labour party in opposing this Clause. The Government with their vast legions behind them will no doubt pass it, but in the interests of common humanity they might do something to make the lot of these people easier than it will be if the Clause, as it is at present, becomes the law of the land.
    9.12 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: I agree with the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) that the lot of the unemployed under this new machinery will be worse than it is at the present time. It must be so, otherwise why have the Government gone in for these proposals? It is the policy of the Government, acting on the instructions of the Treasury, who in their turn act on the instructions of Mr. Montagu Norman—[Interruption]—that most certainly is the case—to screw down unfortunate men and women on transitional payment as hard as they can. Is it not the policy of the Government to-day to tell local committees who are acting too generously that they must not do so; but never on any single occasion to deal with committees who are acting too harshly and tell them that they should be more generous and reasonable? The "Manchester Guardian," a paper not without authority, said some time ago :
    "The Government is taking coercive measures against several local authorities for being too generous. One has not heard of measures in the counter direction, against local authorities who are acting too ruthlessly."
    That is the policy of the Government to-day. Have they suddenly changed their mind, their spirit? Have they said, "We are going to have a new policy, we are going to elect a new authority, under which men and women on transitional payment will be treated far more generously"? Under this new plan any generous treatment of the unemployed would fall on the Treasury; and it is the policy of the Treasury not to spend much money on these people. If it were true that the Bill will reverse the whole policy of the Government of the past, it seems to me that they would be guilty of an

    1193
    inconsistency which is almost inconceivable, even in the case of a National Government consisting of people like the Minister of Agriculture, the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for the Colonies. One thing which has struck me very forcibly during the Debate is the number of hon. Members who have suggested that the Labour party are not serious in opposing the means test. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) went further and accused the Labour party of something like hypocrisy in saying that they were not opposed to the means test. It only shows that when the hon. Member was a member of the Labour party he must have associated himself almost exclusively with such members as the Prime Minister, who even then was meditating a betrayal.
    The hon. Member went on to say that he thought this Debate very unreal. I think that the speeches which have been made since he sat down show the opposite. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have applied themselves to this question in a manner which shows that it is a matter of real concern to their constituents. There are Debates in this House which seem highly unreal but those are the Debates in which it is calmly assumed that there are no differences between parties, that there is no difference, for instance, between ourselves and the Government—not between ourselves and members of various parties in other parts of the House, but between ourselves on the one side and the Government and the forces which are behind the Government and the forces which dictate to the Government on the other. Those are the Debates which encourage the Prime Minister to talk nonsense about the abolition of the party system and to say, in effect, that principles do not matter and that expediency is everything. But this is not one of those Debates. This is one of the Debates which show the gulf between ourselves as Socialists and the capitalists represented on the Treasury Bench, though not entirely among their supporters. That gulf is deep and unbridgeable. It is a gulf which cannot be crossed by the misty verbiage of the Prime Minister. It is a gulf which cannot even be filled by the unsold returns of the "News Letter."
    1194
    There is a fundamental difference between us. We are opposed to the means test because we think it is a brutal and a bestial thing just as we are opposed to Part II of the Bill because we think it means the reintroduction of slavery into this country. The argument for the abolition of the means test was stated to this House by the Minister of Labour himself in his speech introducing the Bill, when he said that the men and women who were being dealt with under the. Bill were unemployed through causes outside their own control. He said that the great majority of these people were anxious to work. That is our position. Our position is that the men and women who are unemployed to-day, whatever may have been the case in the past, are unemployed through no fault of their own. They are not unemployed through some weakness of character, or because they are indolent or inefficient. They are unemployed for the sole reason that the social system has been unable to provide them with the employment which they desire. Therefore, it is only just and logical, as they are the helpless victims of the system, to say that the blame lies not upon them but upon the system. Surely then they have a right to demand from the system everything which they need to maintain themselves in health and efficiency, to maintain their self-respect without any humiliating investigations and means tests.
    What is happening at the present time? We know that under the present system the march of science is detrimental to a great many people—as it ought not to be under a decent system. We invent new machines and increase the productive capacity of the worker, and by inventing those machines and putting them into operation we actually throw people out of work. In other words, people are being thrown out of work as a result of the use of labour-saving machines. If men and women employed in a factory where there are machines suffer injury through an accident, if a worker loses an arm or a leg, compensation is given for the physical injury done by the machine without any inquiry into means. Surely, when they suffer a far greater injury than the loss of a limb in the loss of their employment, when they are prevented from using the powers given them by God and nature to work for themselves and those dependent upon them,

    1195
    they have a right to demand compensation from the owners of the machine.
    That point was put very forcibly by the writers of the Minority Report of the Royal Commission. I regret to say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour thought fit, standing at that Box, to say that the writers of that Minority Report were in favour of the means test, but he was subsequently hauled over the coals for that statement by Mrs. Rackham in the "Times." That, briefly, is our case—that these people are being granted no benefit, no dole, by way of compensation for being deprived of the greatest thing which human beings can have, namely, the right to use their own powers to make their own way in the world. Instead of taking up that attitude, which I feel certain individual members of the Government would take if they were not under control, the Government have thrown the burden of the failure of the system on to the workers themselves. Supposing there are four workers in a factory and two of them have been thrown out of work by the introduction of new machinery. The result is that the two who remain in employment have to share their wages with the two who are deprived of work. Go another step and introduce another machine by which a third worker is thrown out of employment. Only one of the group of four then remains in employment and the wages of that one have to be spread over the four.
    That is the system which is being introduced by the Government. That is the object of those who are backing up the Government. They want that kind of system to continue. It is almost a necessary object of those who are behind the Government to hand over the workers whom they cannot employ, bound and helpless, to the organisation which is being set up under this Bill and against which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), and others have pointed out, they have practically no appeal. It means handing over a great mass of people—bound to increase in numbers as labour-saving machinery develops—to a system of slavery, a slavery worse than, or anyhow as bad as, the slavery which existed in ancient Greece and Rome. We know that those civilisations were founded on a great mass of slaves who filled the place taken
    1196
    by machinery in modern days. To-day we have the machinery, but we intend to have the slaves as well.
    I warn the House against the consequences of that policy. There are many Members on all sides of the House who do not agree with that policy. They do not know the formidable forces which are behind this Government, the capitalist and financial forces of which the Government are the nominees, who created the crisis in order that they should be put in the position in which they are. Many hon. Members here came into politics without knowing these things; they came here determined as patriotic citizens to do their best for their country, and do not realise the economic forces which are behind the Government and which are the real rulers of England to-day. I warn the House that at present the workers submitting to these terrible conditions are quiet. They are quiet because they have the hope that, by the operation of political movements, by the fact that an election is coming and they have the power of the ballot, they will be able to put a Labour Government in power which will repeal this Bill at the first opportunity.
    Any Labour Government which did not repeal this Bill directly it came in would be thrown out at once by its own supporters. The workers have that hope, but if they are disappointed and feel that they are to be ground under this system for the rest of their natural lives, they may be forced in desperation to use other means. We may have in this country—which God forbid—the same sort of thing that has happened in Italy and Germany, a physical clash between Fascism and Socialism. I do not say that this will happen, but it may happen. I know perfectly well that the financial powers operating behind this Government are very formidable, but I believe that the forces of English manhood and English liberty are greater still.
    9.28 p.m.
    Mr. LYONS: My hon. Friend said, just before he resumed his seat, that the Debate was not unreal. I am afraid that, since he gave the House the benefit of his observations, that remark has no longer applied. A more unreal argument on this important matter I cannot conceive. We heard, by way of passing

    1197
    observations, that some mysterious force was behind the Government and created the crisis. I believe that there was behind the Government a Labour party, to the policy of which the hon. Gentleman subscribed. I should have thought that if there had been any mysterious finance behind the Government the Labour party then in power would have rid the country of that great danger. The hon. Member used the word "betrayed" in reference to a Member of the Government. It ill befits any Member of that Government which ran away from the position in 1931, and who then betrayed the very class whom they were elected to represent, to speak tonight, in discussion on this Bill, of betrayal. I wish to endorse what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) when he asked that this matter might be considered free from the aspect of single constituencies. He is quite right; hon. Members on this side are trying to deal with the matter now before the House in the broadest possible way. We realise that those hon. Gentlemen who come at various stages of this Bill to try to condemn what they know is absolutely necessary—some check or test on the distribution of public money—were the very same gentlemen who, at the Scarborough Conference in 1931, stood definitely by the means test. We realise also that the right hon. Gentleman who leads that party and who, I am glad to learn, is rapidly reaching convalescence, has said time and time again that he will not stand by the distribution of public money without knowing the neeeds of the parties to whom it is to go.
    I do not suppose that anybody likes, or would support, if circumstances did not necessitate it, the operation of any means test. Hon. Members know perfectly well, if they are honest and dealing with this matter in a broad attempt to help the unemployed of this country, that there are people on this side of the House and outside the House in the Conservative and other parties who are just as anxious to help the unemployed as hon. Members of the Socialist party. I myself will yield to no one in this claim. I resent very much indeed the attempt of any party trying to arrogate to itself the title of champions of the unemployed. The unemployed of this country are not to be regarded as a lot at an auction sale, to
    1198
    be sold to the highest bidder. This Bill will, therefore, be recognised by all thinking people as a great human endeavour to deal fairly with a great national problem. It is not an example of the three-card trick of party politics, to try to snatch votes by captious criticism when those who make that criticism know perfectly well that there is no truth behind it.
    It is clear that those who comprise the Labour party stand by some sort of means test. It is clear that, if there had been no means test in 1931, there would have been no transitional benefit. It is nothing short of dishonest electioneering to make capital out of the fact that this test has been introduced in a time of great crisis, when hon. Members know perfectly well that they would have had to employ some such test themselves. I am not sure what happened just before the crisis of 1931, but I believe that it was said by one of the right hon. Gentlemen who was then in the Cabinet, that this country was upon the edge of a dangerous precipice, and he has never attempted to deny it. I believe that because of that precipice which the right hon. Gentleman knew so well was present, the Socialist party—to their credit—brought into being certain economies by way both of cuts and of means test, and then ran away from the situation which they had created.
    This Bill contains many concessions which we welcome. We realise that in a matter of this nature the man that has means will not have the same benefit as the man without means. There can be no choice in this matter, because no man with self-respect—and most of our fellow-citizens, whether they are in work or not, have their self-respect—would want public money when he had some kind of resources of his own. He realises, as hon. Gentlemen opposite realise if they are honest, that there is no hidden fund to which the State can go, that money has to come to him from the taxpayer and from various sources upon which depend the social services of the country. There is no indefinite fund to which the Government can ruthlessly go. The solvency of the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the maintenance of the supply are essential to the maintenance of the welfare and social services of this country. One of the things that are greatly welcomed

    1199
    here is the disregard that is given to wounds and disability pensions. That is a concession which is appreciated throughout the country.
    Most people know that some kind of test is absolutely essential before public funds are distributed. There is no question about it. It is simply electioneering moonshine to have one policy when a party is in Opposition and another sham policy when it is in the Government and dare not apply the very things which it says, when in Opposition, the Government should apply. We had an example a little time ago of children's allowances, and a great cry was raised because this Government would not do more than the Labour Government did when they fixed 2s. That sham is exposed, and because the country has seen the exposure of that sham, the abolition of the means test is now brought in. It was said by an hon. Member opposite that if, when the Labour party came into power, they did not repeal this Bill, they would be sent out by their own supporters. The people of this country will never support any party which has two policies—one for captious criticism when in Opposition and another which is entirely different when it is in the seat of Government. Everybody realises that the application of the means test is a necessary evil, and nobody can say that any limitation of benefit is a welcome thing, but we know perfectly well that there is no hidden fund. There is a limitation of public supplies and this is an effort, similar to many other efforts of this Government, to make safe and to keep secure the social services of this country in order to help those of our fellows who are in need of some public relief.
    9.37 p.m.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: We have had many interesting speeches in this Debate, and there is one fundamental fact on which all Members are agreed, namely, that the unemployed man and woman have been rendered idle owing to causes over which they have no control. I do not think any hon. Member will deny that fact. If that fact cannot be denied, it must be recognised that it is not just to endeavour to place upon the shoulders of the unemployed person the burden of unemployment. We see many things at the back of this Bill besides the means test. We can see the difference
    1200
    of opinion that has obtained between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health for quite a long time. It is patent that the purpose of the means test is still further to degrade the unemployed of this country. That is obvious from the inquiries that have taken place in Glamorganshire, where the public assistance committee has been criticised for being too lenient with the unemployed. It is obvious from what happened in Durham, where Commissioners were instituted because the public assistance committee was too generous to persons in receipt of transitional payment. The Government depose democracy, and they depose the public assistance committees because they are too generous.
    From practice, therefore, one cannot hut deduce that the primary purpose of the means test is to degrade the unemployed and to keep transitional payments as low as possible. At the back of all this we see much that concerns industry. One knows that there is no desire in the present Government, as far as one can see, to advocate an increase of wages in industry, and it is pretty obvious that if provision were made to increase transitional payment or unemployment benefit, it would decrease that disparity, which is now not very much, between wages paid to those who are employed and the unemployment benefit or transitional payment to those who are idle. So we see that the purpose—I think it is the primary purpose—of the means test is to keep that which is given to the unemployed to the lowest possible amount. We see in it also evidence of a philosophy which is at the back of the Government and the Tory party; that is, that there is a class of people whose place it is to remain poor, and that a scheme must be devised to keep them in perpetual poverty.
    Mr. HOWARD: Nonsense!
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Let me put this to the hon. Member. There is attached to the mining industry and to a large number of other industries a piecework system that will enable persons by the application of an additional amount of energy to earn more than they would if they were on day wage payment. The extra that they would receive by the expenditufe of their energy on piecework can be saved. Ultimately, collieries go into liquidation, and 700 have closed since 1924. People on piecework may have accumulated a little

    1201
    reserve. The principle of the means test implies that those who have thus accumulated small reserves are expected to use it up even though their colliery went into liquidation through circumstances over which neither the individual nor the employer had any control. In any case, it is impossible in this age, when a workman has no control over his employment, for him to obtain security of employment. The fact that he is faced with perpetual insecurity implies of itself that if misfortune strikes him he must pay for the misfortune. That means that he cannot hope to lift himself above the poverty level. I can understand hon. Members saying in 1931 that in a State crisis everything must be done to get the State upon its feet, but I cannot understand hon. Members saying it to-day. After all, for two and a-half years we have had the application of the means test, and the Government have taken more than twice that which they expected.
    Let me give a few figures with regard to Glamorgan. Last year 98 per cent. of the persons in Glamorgan in receipt of transitional payments received the full determination, which clearly reveals that all their savings had been absorbed. Whatever savings they had at the end of 1931 the application of the means test in Glamorgan had used up those savings, and 98 per cent. of those people were on destitution lines. The Poor Law test applied to them, so they must be destitute. Why apply the means test from now on? Hon. Members opposite might have had a case two and a-half years ago—in accordance with their own philosophy—for saying that persons ought not to receive public money while they had some reserves at their disposal. Now their reserves are used up, but the means test is to be applied permanently to them. In 1931 the means test was regarded as a temporary affair. It is difficult for me to believe that there is an hon. Member who did not feel in 1931 that the means test was temporary. After all, it was made by special Order; we had no legislation, we did not debate the issue. It was adopted to help us to get over the crisis, like some other things—cuts and so forth. Now we are legislating to impose a piece of machinery that will keep the people of this country right on destitution lines.
    Mr. MAGNAY: Was not the Anomalies Act brought in and argued by a Labour Government?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I can discuss that at length with my hon. Friend. I was here and he was not. [An HON. MEMBER : "Did you vote for it?"] I did, but I have always opposed the means test. But I must not be drawn away on a point that is entirely irrelevant. Hon. Members opposite say that public money must not be advanced to these people, but do they apply the same principle to farmers, or to foreign capitalists who are in receipt of the beet subsidy? Did they apply that principle to the Austrian loan; did they apply that principle to Palestine? Is it only because people are poor that they object to advance money to them? If the people were their rich clients it would be all right; but because they are the poor who, when in employment, produce the riches of the land, they are to be discarded. Let us look at it from the capitalist point of view. Practically every intelligent capitalist makes provision for depreciation, for renewal of stocks. Every intelligent capitalist makes, provision capitalistically for the renewal of machinery that may be depreciated, but his human capital, which may be discarded by the introduction of a new technique in his business, can perish as far as the nation is concerned. I am not convinced by the arguments we have heard. In fact, we have not had one single argument favouring the present means test. Every spokesman so far has complained about it—except, of course, that we had that remark which I used to hear in South Wales 20 years ago from tub thumpers for brewers speaking from beer barrels. Practically every Member has complained about the administration except, I think, the last speaker, and everyone has endeavoured to suggest some means by which the hardships falling upon the people might be alleviated, but they have never squarely faced up to the means test. It is impossible to apply a means test without finding hardship falling upon innocent people.
    Mr. HOWARD: Why does every trade union apply it in the case of its own funds?
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
    Mr. HOWARD: That's it, run away!
    Mr. WILLIAMS: We have had hon. Members saying that the individual unemployed person should be treated as a unit instead of the family, but no hon. Member has faced up to the proposition which was advanced early in the Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). For some months I was on the Glamorgan County Council and it was my business to endeavour to administer the means test. Frankly, I endeavoured to evade it. I cannot think that any hon. Member would sit upon a public assistance committee endeavouring to administer the means test as such. If he found that the daughter of the house was a teacher and that her income was being taken into account to deprive her father of transitional payments, he would endeavour to "wangle out of the situation." He would see the injustice when he had to apply the means test to persons who had striven for years to educate their children. Another feature of the means test is this : There can be no doubt that it is designed to hit the most thrifty and the most frugal of the working population. I think that is ad mitted by all hon. Members. If a person is a spendthrift, obviously he has no means to assess. If a person has accumulated a little money and purchases a bit of property, then the rate of interest in the Clause itself is preposterous by comparison with what hon. Members may be receiving from any small investments they may have. It runs from 10 to 11 per cent., which is substantially more than hon. Members would consider to be just in relation to any other form of investment in which the Government may be interested.
    There is another small but important matter that I want to touch upon, and that is with regard to the blind persons of this country. Hon. Members may have observed that there was an Amendment on the Order Paper with regard to this matter, but Mr. Speaker decided not to accept it, and so I cannot deal with it in detail. But this is a class comprising about 70,000 people in the country who are seriously affected by the application of the means test. In places like Glamorgan, contributions from collieries to blind workshops and other institutes have fallen fairly substantially, with the result that we have not been able to engage the usual number of blind persons
    1204
    in those workshops. They have been rendered idle and obliged to seek transitional payment. Outside grants have been given to those people, and whatever grants may have come to them from outside sources, such as benevolent societies, street collections, and contributions, a portion of the amount which each person would receive has been taken into calculation in assessing the amount of transitional payment that that person should receive.
    A blind person is suffering from a physical defect in the same sense as a disabled ex-soldier, and he ought not to be placed in a different category from the ex-soldier. Whatever he receives from a local authority or some benevolent society ought to be disregarded in calculating what otherwise he would receive by way of transitional payment, and I am hoping that the Minister will face up to the justice of this case and see whether it is not possible, either here or in another place, to do something substantial to help the blind people of this country. I could talk at some length about this matter, because we are doing a remarkable work in Glamorganshire, through our schools for the blind and workshops of different kinds for adults, adolescents, and young children, and I trust that the Minister will appreciate the justice of our claim in this regard and do what he can by saying that a stipulated amount shall be disregarded, whether it be 15s. or £1. I should say that at least £1 ought to be disregarded in this matter. While we are entirely opposed to the means test, I am making this suggestion that, if it is to apply, a stipulated amount ought to be disregarded in so far as the blind are concerned. That applies equally to very many of the other cases that have been cited by hon. Members.
    In conclusion, we are opposed to the means test in every sense of the term. While you have a system that places the obligation to work when work is available upon people, and that may render them idle at any time when they happen to strike the misfortune of unemployment, the State ought to carry that burden upon its shoulders and not to thrust it upon these unfortunate people. It must in its application perpetuate poverty. It must hit hardest those who suffer most. They must be idle for six

    1205
    months before it commences to apply, and at the time when they should really obtain some additional assistance, they have this additional burden cast upon them. For these and many other reasons we are opposed to the means test, and we should like to have the support in the Division Lobby of all hon. Members who are opposed to it in some form or other.
    9.59 p.m.
    Miss WARD: I wish to elaborate a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) earlier in the Debate. He referred to a circular which was issued during the late Labour Administration, during the time when the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was Minister of Health. When the point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock in connection with the means test imposed under the present Unemployment Bill, hon. Members above the Gangway immediately retaliated by mentioning the Poor Law. To be strictly logical, if one is opposed to a means test of any kind, I think one ought fairly to be opposed to a means test for all classes of the community, and I am extraordinarily interested to find that hon. Members who apparently stand upon no distinction of any kind should on this occasion differentiate between those who draw Poor Law relief and those who come under ordinary unemployment insurance.
    I have no wish to do any injustice to the right hon. Member for Wakefield, but I have been at some pains to have all his speeches looked up. [Interruption.] Hon. Members above the Gangway jeer, but I prefer to speak from facts, and, as I say, I have been at some pains to have the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wakefield looked up, and I cannot find that when he introduced his Estimates as Minister of Health, or during the time that he was on the Front Bench as Minister of Health in the Labour Administration, he made one speech indicating that he was opposed to the means test as operated under the Poor Law principle. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) spoke about voting against the means test, but I think I am right in saying that when hon. Members presumably followed their Leader into the Lobby during the time that the right hon.
    1206
    Gentleman was Minister of Health, they were there and then confirming the means test at any rate in so far as the Poor Law system was concerned.
    There is a further point that I would like to make in this connection. We are taking, as I understand it, on a very rough calculation, between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 uninsured workers on to Part II of the Bill. Previously, before the introduction of the Bill, those people were obliged, if they were thrown out of employment, to go to the public_assistance committee for relief, and by supporting, under the Ministry of Health Regulations, a means test under the Poor Law, hon. Members who are talking about these people and supporting their claims in the House to-night were in fact, during their own Administration, placing them under the obligation of a means test when they went to draw relief from the public assistance committee. It is all very well coming to the House to-day for political reasons to oppose the real interests of the people, who are better served by the National Government, because we are catering for them under our new Bill, than they were ever served by the Labour party during their Administration.
    As I understand that during my absence from the House the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) made an interruption which was contradicted by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Law-son), in order that it may be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, perhaps I might just read the words that caused the interruption. They were :
    "In assessing the amount of relief to be afforded, the general principle is that incoming means of every sort available to the household must be taken into account, subject to the statutory exception contained in Section 76 of the Poor Law Act, 1927."
    I want to make that point particularly clear, because the 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 I have mentioned are concerned with this Circular, whatever our friends may want to say to-day. For the purposes of record the Circular is No. 1069. I want to join with all my hon. Friends from my own part of the House in the appeal to the Minister of the Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan), that in framing the Regulations he should take account of the proposals and suggestions from all parts of the House. I want to emphasise that there are some very sound recommendations

    1207
    on the question of pensions, household expenses, old age pensions, widows' pensions and so on, in the report of the Royal Commission, and I am extraordinarily hopeful that when the Regulations come to be framed by the new Unemployment Assistance Board it will have received from the Minister a full and concise account of the Debate to-day, and that consequently we may have Regulations which will wipe out the injustices and meet the criticisms which we as Members for the industrial areas have to make.
    10.7 p.m.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): If I may say so with respect, when I heard that you, Mr. Speaker, had selected this Amendment for discussion to-day I was very pleased. We had on this Clause a full day's Debate in Committee, during which many points of detail were discussed, but the sort of discussion we have had to-day could only have been possible in the Committee stage on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." But we did not have any Debate in the Committee stage on the means test in its broader aspects. It is, therefore, a matter of satisfaction to me, and I think to the whole House, that we have to-day for many hours discussed the means test quite broadly without reference to any particular individual point. It has been looked upon as a question of principle.
    I am not going to deal with what may for these purposes be regarded as purely debating points. I am not going to refer to extracts which I have before me from the report of the Annual Conference of the Labour party in Scarborough in 1931, nor to the OFFICIAL REPORT of speeches by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), or the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), whose absence from these Debates nobody regrets more than I do. And may I refer with regret, for the same sort of reason, to the absence of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who, if he had been here, would have enriched our Debates on many occasions. During these discussions to-day we have had, as a whole, a very fair and good Debate. I accept at once that hon. Gentlemen opposite as a party are now committed
    1208
    to the proposition that the means test as such should be abolished. I accept that. On the other hand, there are many Members of this House, and I am sure very many people in the country, who, for the reasons that I am about to give, are equally convinced that the means test, in some form or other, is not only fair to the taxpayer, but fair and inevitable to the unemployed themselves.
    What is the issue between us? It is this : Those who support this Amendment say that they and their party are opposed to the distribution of relief on the basis of the need of the applicant to receive it. That, put quite shortly, I think is a fair way of stating the attitude they desire to take. Let me examine in a sentence or two what that means, and let us realise where it takes us. In the first place, it means that all relief granted to applicants is indiscriminate. It is indiscriminate because as is evident, you are to make no inquiry as between one man and another and, therefore, you are to make no attempt whatever at real equality, because on this hypothesis and on this basis, you are adding equal relief to unequal resources. In other words, it means that the resources of the State, provided as they are to a considerable extent by persons who are very little better off than the recipients, are to be at the disposal of persons whether their needs justify it or not. Let us consider what that means. It may mean that if you have no inquiry into means or resources, you may have in the same street two families living side by side, the one paying taxation to the State to provide relief to the family next door who may be quite as well off as they are. I do not believe that hon. Members will support anything of the kind.
    I was sorry to miss the speech of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), but I have had the best account I could get. He will remember the Commissioners' Report. What did it disclose? I do not say these are all the cases. There are 40 or 50 cases referred to in the Report. There was one case of a household, consisting of six members, with four earning members bringing in £12 a week. The public assistance committee granted 15s. 3d. to the fifth member who was unemployed. Another

    1209
    case, the next on the list, is that of a household consisting of a father, two daughters, aged 16 and 18, and a son aged 12. The father owned 12 houses, bringing in a net income of £250 a year. He was granted 23s. 3d. a week by the public assistance committee. The next was a household consisting of man and wife. The man had £1,000 invested with a co-operative society. He was granted 18s. per week transitional payment by the public assistance committee.
    Mr. BATEY: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes any further, may I ask him to be quite fair and to tell us that that report deals with 74,000 determinations.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I must point out at once that it was never suggested that these were the only cases reported, but whether such cases be many or whether they be few, I believe that the spectacle of public money paid in relief to households such as those produces a result which is utterly repugnant to the great mass of the people of this country. There is another thing which I want to say on this question. It has always been recognised that when the State makes a demand upon the community, the payment demanded shall have direct relation to the capacity to pay. Taxation is so adjusted. The argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite comes to this : When the community is calling upon the individual for contributions, an inquiry into his means is justifiable and right, but the principle should be cast aside when the State is paying out money. That seems to be a proposition which cannot be defended in justice, logic or equity. In this matter of the means test we have, to be fair not only to the unemployed but to the taxpayer and the employed. We are always told, and it is true, that a great deal of the revenue of this country is produced from the pockets of very poor people. In considering whether we are doing right or wrong in this matter of the means test, we must have regard also to the employed.
    I do not want to take up very much of the time of the House because, judging from the number who rose, there are many other hon. Members who want to speak. But many things have been said in the course of this Debate to which I welcome the opportunity to reply. I
    1210
    took a very careful note of what was said by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan). Both he and another hon. Member made the point that the regulations—I am paraphrasing what they said—should take into account the realities of life. What are the realities of life? Surely it is a reality that when members of a family are living as one household, under one roof, they help each other and contribute to the common expenses of the household. The Bill recognises that fact. I think there is also another reality of life. It is that adult sons and daughters living at home, while prepared to give something regularly towards the common expenses of the household, feel that they are entitled to have something out of their earnings to enable them to live their own lives. It is because I felt that that was a reality of life that words were inserted to meet that case, and they were referred to by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees. Clause 39 contains these words, which have been referred to more than once :
    "Due regard being had also to the personal requirements of those members whose resources are taken into account."
    Those words were very deliberately inserted in the Bill at my request. They imply that those who contribute to the resources of the household are entitled to something more than their bare needs, which was the point to which my hon. Friend referred. I believe that on the strict Poor Law destitution test these things are not considered at all, and that nothing at all is left for the individual members of the household; but, whether that be the strict Poor Law or not—I am not quite sure—in practice I think it is true to say that the more enlightened public assistance committees allow at any rate something. That is what this Bill does, and that is where I think it is such an advance on any legislation that has been done before. The Bill gives a statutory sanction to this practice, which hitherto has never had any statutory sanction at all. But it does more than that; it makes the observance of this practice actually mandatory, and, therefore, it is mandatory upon the board to have due regard to the personal requirements of those members whose resources are taken into account.
    There is another matter to which I want to refer—it was referred to, I think, by

    1211
    my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee—namely, the question of relationship. It has been pointed out that there is a great deal of difference between the position of the family where you have a father and son, and the ease in which you may have, for example, a step-father and a step-son, or even a brother and a sister. The Bill is deliberately drafted in order to enable the board to recognise this question of relationship when they are making their regulations, and there is nothing at all which will prevent a reasonable treatment of the household according to the facts of the case and according to the degrees of relationship in each case.
    I entirely agree with the remark which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton when he said that the regulations when framed—I think I took it down correctly—must carry the moral support of the people themselves. I believe that to be profoundly true. Where you are dealing with, it may be, 1,000,000 persons, or at any rate with many hundreds of thousands, I do not think that regulations which do not carry the moral support of the great mass of the people themselves will be effective. It is because I think the board should be permitted complete flexibility in the matter of their regulations that the Bill has been drawn as it is.
    I think the last speaker said she hoped that a report of this Debate would be put before the board. I am certain that the experience of the last 2½ years will be very present to the mind of the board when they are framing their regulations. I gather that the attitude of the Liberal party is that they accept the principle of the means test but they do not like its administration. Nor do we. That is why we brought in the Bill. I think there has been inequality as between one district and another, and anomalies in the same county between a county borough and the county authority. I have never attempted to defend anomalies such as that. I believe they are indefensible. It is because we hope to do away with those inequalities and dispose of those anomalies that we have, adopted in the Bill a system which I believe will give uniformity of treatment, subject to what I have said about flexibility, over the whole country. That, therefore, I think should and will dispose of what I have always felt has been a very great weakness of
    1212
    the administration by various public assistance committees up and down the country.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Those are not our only objections by any means.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman will object to every test. He was a Member of the first National Government which first of all imposed the means test and, further, he was responsible with others for the Order-in-Council which said that the public assistance committees must assess transitional payment on the same footing as they assess Poor Law relief.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman said he understood that the objection of the Liberal party was that they accepted the principle of the means test but objected to its administration, and so did the Government, and that was why the Government introduced this Bill. My observation in regard to that is that the one particular anomaly to which he refers is not the only objection to the means test and, when the Government were introducing a Bill, they ought to have remedied the others as well.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am very sorry that, when the right hon. Gentleman was in a position of responsibility as a Member of the Government, he did not take more active steps.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I must strongly protest against that observation of the Minister. It is exceedingly irregular for one Member of the Cabinet to say what another Member of the Cabinet has done or has not done. Since the right hon. Gentleman has referred to an incident which happened when he and I were Members of the Government, may I remind him that I was m strong controversy with him on repeated occasions in respect to these matters?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am asking the House to consider, not the right hon. Gentleman's secret thoughts, but his public form. There is only one other question that I want to mention. That is the point raised by the last speaker but one, with regard to blind persons. There is no class of the community with which everyone has more complete and heartfelt sympathy than the blind. In so far as a blind person is put to special

    1213
    expense on account of his infliction it will be the duty of the board to have regard to such expense in assessing his means. In regard to that there is no doubt at all, and I am very glad to be able to give that assurance. I have given, and am giving, the most careful consideration to this matter. If you do anything—and obviously it cannot be done on Report—in the direction which the hon. Gentleman suggests with regard to the blind, you have to be very careful that you are not at the same time doing an injustice to other persons like old-age pensioners or people who may be wholly deaf or wholly paralysed. But if hon. Gentlemen will accept the assurance from me, I will do my best to secure that the needs and position of the blind are brought very fully before the board when they are considering the regulations. I do not feel justified in taking up more of the time of the House, but again I say, speaking for myself, I am extremely glad that we have had this Debate.
    10.32 p.m.
    Mr. LAWSON: I am rather disappointed with the reference of the right hon. Gentleman to the request made by my hon. friends concerning the blind. I really expected that he was going to be more explicit on that particular question than he has been. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has no doubt whatever that the Public Assistance Board will bear in mind the experience in reference to the administration of the means test during the last two and a-half years. During the whole of this Debate there is not a single Member of the Government—there was, I think, one possible exception—who has attempted to defend the operation of the means test during the last 2½ years. I remember that when the matter was introduced in 1931 and the regulations were put through, hon. Members in this House thought just as they think now concerning this new Clause. They thought that the matter would be so administered that there was scarcely any doubt that everything would work out all right. But to-day there is no doubt whatever as to the effect of the means test. Hon. Members dare not take up any other attitude in the light of experience. Hon. Members have given definite evidence of the effect of the means test upon the lives and homes of great masses of the people.
    1214
    Great perturbation has been caused in the minds of social thinkers far outside the ranks of the Labour party. There is not a person, irrespective of party, who seriously considers the physical and mental well-being of the people of this country but has expressed views showing much perturbation as a result of the operation of the means test during the post two and a-half years. The hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan) quickly accepted that proposition because he sits for a constituency which has certainly felt the effect of the means test, and in which social thinkers have observed" the dire effect of the means test upon the people in that area.
    The right hon. Gentleman says : "You cannot expect to have one working-class family, where there are no unemployed, with a certain amount of income going in, and another working-class family next door which has some members unemployed and perhaps more money going in than into the house next door, the members of which have to pay contributions towards unemployment benefit." He knows that that is nothing like a parallel case. The means test was devised to stop certain people who had an extra amount of money from getting more money, but who will say that its effect has been to take off a little surplus in families of that class? It has not merely taken from those who had a surplus, but it has taken millions from those who had hardly anything. It has taken £21,000,000 a year from the poorest people in the land.
    Hon. Members have been sitting on the benches opposite and on the benches below the Gangway on this side who were present when the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered his Budget speech and announced that he was taking 6d. off the Income Tax, at a cost of £20,000,000—the £20,000,000 that had been taken from the unemployed through the means test. There was cheering then. To-day, there has been free admission that the means test has acted so unjustly as to take money from great masses of people from whom it was never intended to be taken. The right hon. Gentleman took Durham as an instance of his argument. He gave 40 odd cases, and said that he could get more if need be. All that I can say about the right hon. Gentleman's representatives who have gone to Durham and the representatives of other Departments

    1215
    who have gone there, is that they have not left very much to tell when they have finished. As a rule, they have got all they could. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell the House that his representatives have taken £300,000 from the people in Durham during the past year. If hon. Members will read the articles which appeared in the "Times" a few weeks ago they will see the kind of people from whom this money is taken.
    So lamentable is the state of people in areas like South Wales, Lancashire, Durham and Scotland, through the operation of the means test, that it has compelled the Government and those who support the Government to do what we never thought they would do, that is, take note of the fact that there are unemployed in these areas. We have been raising this matter for the past few years, but up to a few months ago we might just as well have talked to the cold rock as talked to the Government. Revelations have come as to the state of things in these areas, and as the facts are well known I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should try to ride off by giving instances of the kind he has given. I am not one of those who try to put on a white sheet and say that we were innocent of this and that. I was not involved in the means test personally, and I could not have been. I will tell the House why, and why none of us in these areas could have been. It is not because we object to an investigation as to means, but because we object to decent men, good craftsmen who have suffered all the evils of unemployment being treated differently from others, as though they were of a lower category of workmen. If I thought it would have made but very little difference I should still have objected to workmen of that class being treated as somewhat inferior. That is what the means test does. Instead of giving them extra consideration for all the years they have been unemployed, their assets gone, their physical and mental condition undermined, instead of doing justice to men who have suffered because of our industrial system, we treat them as a sort of inferior workmen. I should have objected to the means test from that point of view alone.
    Mr. HOWARD: You would have sent them into the Poor Law?
    Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Member does not understand this question at all. The fact of the matter is that the operation of the means test has taken £21,000,000 from these people during the past year. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour sought to soothe the fears of the House as to what is going to happen when this Bill comes into operation. The words in the Clause are extremely vague and the House ought to understand that while the right hon. Gentleman says tonight "I am going to issue regulations," he said the same thing about the means test on a former occasion. There were regulations in connection with the last means test and the right hon. Gentleman gave the House then the same kind of soothing assurances as he has given it tonight. The words of the Clause are :
    "due regard being had also to the personal requirements of those members whose resources are taken into account."
    What kind of regard is to be given? Is it regard which would be given by the type of commissioner who has been operating in Durham? I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) who expressed the wish that certain exceptions and concessions that had been given in Durham would be given in Lancashire. God help the people in Lancashire if they are worse off than the people who have been under the Commissioner in Durham, though I agree that this matter affects very seriously destitute people in almost every part of the country. But I ask the House to listen to what the right hon. Gentleman said in 1931 on the first occasion when regulations for the application and operation of the means test were discussed :
    "I want to assure the House that I think the apprehensions of Members with regard to the working of this scheme are unfounded. I believe it will be worked fairly and not harshly by those who are entrusted with the administration, and so far as I as Minister of Labour am concerned I would point again to the circular I have issued which is the strongest indication that I can give without issuing any directions that I hope these cases will be considered fairly and sympathetically by those who are concerned with the administration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1931; cols. 585 and 586, Vol. 260.]
    That was the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman during the whole of the discussions

    1217
    on the inception of the means test in 1931. He has repeated to-night almost word for word what he said then. But the House must understand that it is here laying down permanently a system which has failed disastrously from the national point of view during the past three years. I take no account whatever of those words and I place no value whatever on them. I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman himself were dealing with every case he would give a generous interpretation. I believe if Members here, with the authority and status of Members of Parliament, were dealing with these cases most of them would give generous interpretations but you are to have five or six men independent of the House to do this and I venture to say that the circumstances to-day are almost the same as they were in 1931. You are making permanent a principle which you have no right to apply to decent working men in this country and which I do not think would be supported in the country generally. In the days to come—I am as certain of it as that I am standing here—the statement which I made on behalf of the Labour party will be carried into operation. It will be done, even as a result of the operation of this Clause, in a few years time by some Minister, whether a Labour Minister, or some other Minister. I stated then, and I state again, on behalf of the Labour party that we will destroy this means test lock stock and barrel, without qualification or equivocation. We believe that the disastrous effects which have been accepted passively during the whole of this days' Debate will repeat themselves during the next few years and that this House and this country will rue having introduced this principle into the life of the nation.
    10.51 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: I will not detain the House long, but as for the past six hours we have ostensibly been discussing Clause 39, I should like to point out that the whole of the discussion has been centred on one sub-section, that which deals with the resources of an applicant that can be taken into account. There is another sub-section which is just as important in its bearing upon what the applicant is to receive—Sub-section (2), which deals with the needs to be taken into account when considering the assistance which is to be given. In the very
    1218
    few references which were made to that subject, the observations the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) were not helpful. He semed so anxious to make a point against the Minister that he neglected the opportunity of wresting a concession from the Minister. He presented the new board with an argument to be used against a generous scale, namely, that if the scale exceeded the amount of ordinary benefit it would lessen the value of the insurance system. I would suggest that this is a very important and a very neglected part of the whole subject of what is to be the basis of the needs, not the resources, of the applicant, taking the Bill as it stands in connection with the explanations of the Minister, that were given in the Committee stage.
    I deprecate the custom that has prevailed during this Debate of discussing the subject as though we were still in Committee and of entirely ignoring what happened on the Committee stage. Three novelties have been introduced into this Bill which differentiate it from the custom under the present Act to the advantage of the unemployed person. The first point is that the scale of asistance given by the board is not to be limited only by benefit. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale seemed to question that fact, but it has been laid down over and over again by the Minister and it is quite clear from the Bill. The second point is that persons receiving benefit can go to the board for supplementary benefit; that also is laid down in the Bill. The third point is that the board covers the needs of a large number of persons who at present have no resort to the Poor Law whatever. Unfortunately there are some classes that the Bill still leaves out—the workers earning above £250 a year. A fourth point about which I want to say a few words is that the test which the board is, we understand, asked to apply, is not to be a destitution test. I would ask the Minister if he could give a little attention to this point, because it is one of which we have learnt nothing so far in this discussion.
    In reply to an Amendment which I moved on the Committee stage, and also in a deputation of persons representative of a great many associations which I led to the Minister, I received certain very definite assurances from the Minister.

    1219
    We put to him the question as to what was the scale of assistance, and on what it was going to be based, and we asked that it should be not less than would be necessary to ensure to the applicant and his household, taking his resources into account, the minimum needs of healthy subsistence. I wish the Minister would attend to me on this point, because I should like to know that I am not misrepresenting the assurances he gave. I want to make the point that if the pledge which the Minister has in fact given is carried out, it foreshadows nothing less than a revolution in the scale of assistance that will in future be given to unemployed people. Suppose that the scale was to be as much as ordinary benefit but no more than ordinary benefit, would that in fact carry out the assurance of the Minister that it was intended that the scale should not be less than enough to provide for the needs of healthy subsistence?
    Any one who compares the scales of ordinary benefit with the scientific estimates which have been put forward by expert bodies of the cost of maintaining households of different sizes, can see that a man getting full scale, if he has no other resources, will be far below the minimum needs of healthy subsistence. Taking the scale of nutrition adopted by the British Medical Association for a man, wife and three children, if he gets full ordinary benefit of 32s. there would be exactly 2s. 3d. left over for rent and everything except bare food, clothing and light. If a man has five children, he has nothing left over for rent and a deficiency on his food and clothing needs of 5s. 3d. It is amazing how little attention has been paid in all these discussions to the question of scales, because we believe the Minister means what he says, and that he does intend to see that the board shall
    carry out the pledge he has practically given that the scale shall be the scale that will keep a family, not on a destitution test, but from destitution. What does it mean keeping a family from destitution if it does not mean keeping the family in ordinary good health? How many Members have studied what kind of burden on public funds it would mean if that were carried into effect?
    I prophesy that when this board is established, it will find itself up against the difficulty which strangely enough has not once been mentioned in these Debates. It will find itself up against this difficulty, if the Minister's pledge is carried out, namely, that the scale that will be adopted will be considerably in excess of the wages for unskilled labour in a large number of occupations. There are suggested ways in which that difficulty can be got over. The scale should be enough for healthy subsistence provided it does not exceed the level of wages in the occupation to which the applicant belongs. In any case, I think that when the board settles down to its work, it will find that the Minister has given an undertaking to the House which he will find it very difficult indeed to carry out, but which, if he does carry it out, will impose an enormous improvement on any scale that has yet been adopted.
    It being Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th December, as amended by the Resolution of the House of 1st May, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'sick' in page 35, line 29, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided : Ayes, 228; Noes, 63.

    Division No. 252.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Burnett, John George

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Albery, Irving James

    Bann, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Calne, G. R. Hall.

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

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Allan, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Cattlereagh, viscount

    Astor, viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

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

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Christie, James Archibald

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

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

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

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

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Conant, R. J. E.

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

    Burghley, Lord

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootie)

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

    Runge, Norah Cecil

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

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cross, R. H.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Leckie. J. A.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Lees-Jones, John

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

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

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Llddall, Walter S.

    Scone, Lord

    Drawe, Cedrie

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

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

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

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

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Slmmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

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

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Invernees)

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-ln-F.)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    McKle, John Hamilton

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Macmillan. Maurlce Harold

    Soper, Richard

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)

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

    Spens, William Patrick

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Stevenson, James

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Stones, James

    Fox, Sir Gilford

    Milne, Charles

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

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

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Sutcllffe, Harold

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

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

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Morrison, william Shepherd

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Gluckstein. Louis Halle

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

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

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Nunn, William

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    O' Donovan, Dr. William James

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Graves, Marjorie

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Greene, William P. C.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

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

    Grimston, R. V.

    Penny, Sir George

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Petherick, M.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Hamilton, Sir George (llford)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Potter, John

    Wells, Sidney Richard

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

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

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Radford, E. A.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

    Wills, Wllfrid D.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Windsor-Cilve, Lieut-Colonel George

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Womersley, Walter James

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Reid, David D. (County Down")

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

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

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Robinson, John Roland

    Captain Austin Hudson and

    Commander Southby

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Kirkwood, David

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Lawson, John James

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Leonard, William

    Banfield, John William

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Batey, Joseph

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

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Bernays, Robert

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    McKeag, William

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vare)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Cape, Thomas

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Cove, William G.

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Milner, Major James

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Daggar, George

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Janner, Barnett

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Dobbie, William

    John, William

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

    Edwards, Charles

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    West, F. R.

    1222

    1223

    White, Henry Graham

    Wilmot, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Mr. D. Graham and Mr. C.

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianeliy)

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Macdonald.

    Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Eleven of the Clock at this day's sitting.
    Amendments made : In page 35, line 29, after "of," insert "any."
    In line 31, after "of," insert "any."—[Sir H. Betterton.]

    CLAUSE 43.—(Issue of allowances.)
    Amendment made : In page 40, line 14, after "may," insert :
    "for the purpose of dealing with special circumstances."—[Sir H. Betterton.]
    Ordered, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Bill, as amended (in Committee and on re-committal), to be further considered To-morrow.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Barnstaple Gas Company, which was presented on the 21st day of March and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

PUBLIC MEETING ACT (1908) AMENDMENT BILL.
Bead a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

PUBLIC MEETING ACT (1908) AMENDMENT BILL.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter after Eleven o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  SEASONAL WORKERS, HOLIDAY RESORTS.
  SEASONAL WORKERS, HOLIDAY RESORTS.
  FAMILY MAINTENANCE, COST (NON-CONTRIBUTORY).
  FAMILY MAINTENANCE, COST (NON-CONTRIBUTORY).
  EDUCATION (TEACHERS' SALARIES).
  EDUCATION (TEACHERS' SALARIES).
  CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.
  CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.
SCOTLAND.
  PRISON SERVICE.
  PRISON SERVICE.
  PERSIA.
  PERSIA.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

IRVINE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Irvine and District Water Board.
Bill presented (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9) read 1ª, and to be printed.

BARNSTAPLE GAS ORDER, 1934.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRIGHTON ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1934.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Plymouth, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in his name.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) ACT, 1923.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
The Question was as follows:—
[To ask His Majesty's Government what are the regulations which bind the

155
Railway and Canal Commissioners in their inquiries under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, by whose authority are they made, and how can they be revoked or altered.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's Question is that by Section 10 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, as amended, relating to the determination of questions under that Act, are applied to the determination of questions under the former Act. The rules relating to the procedure of the Railway and Canal Commission are made by the Railway and Canal Commissioners, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The authority under which these rules are made is Section 20 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1885. The rules may be revoked or varied by the same rule-making authority.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. This is the ordinary formal Motion to appoint a Committee for consolidation purposes. We have in an advanced state of preparation a Bill to consolidate all the County Court Acts, and it is hoped that it may be possible to put it on the Statute Book before the Long Vacation.
Moved, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.

PARLIAMENT (REFORM) BILL. [H.L.]
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Amendment to the Motion for Second Reading moved yesterday by Lord Redesdale—namely, That the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, it has often occurred to me that one of the reasons why this House is able to accomplish so great an amount of business with such expedition, is the well-established custom that those sitting on the Back Benches do not presume to engage in debate unless they happen to be experts on the subject which is under discussion. But here in the Bill which has been brought to your Lordships' notice by the noble Marquess we have a topic upon which all are more or less experts. It is a topic upon which old and young, Ministers and ex-Ministers, Cross-Benchers and Back-Benchers, can all join with some reasonable degree of equal authority; and it is that circumstance which has emboldened me to inflict myself upon your Lordships for a brief space.
Those who are middle-aged are familiar with the fact that for at least a quarter of a century this topic has been constantly before Parliament. Those who are young will be conscious of the fact that on their very entry into politics they were confronted with the urgency of the subject which is now under discussion. I can well remember when, so long ago as 1904, I crept self-consciously into this House, seeking the most inconspicuous seat, and incidentally falling over the outstretched legs of the late Duke of Devonshire, to the shattering of my own nervous system—I can remember very well that never-to-be-forgotten day, the very first occasion when I entered this august place. Harsh voices of complaint rose from the Liberal Benches about the automatic majority which the Conservative Party possessed in this House. And ever since then, at frequently recurring intervals, the same thing has cropped up, until at last we have arrived at a position where it can be debated in concrete form—the Bill which has been presented by the noble Marquess.
It might perhaps not be out of place to remind your Lordships of the immense number of times on which this topic has been before your Lordships in recent years. In 1911 there was Lord Lansdowne's Bill, which occupied many days of Parliamentary debate; in 1917 there was Lord Burnham's Motion; in 1918, Lord Crewe's; in 1931, Lord Selborne's; and in 1922 the Duke of Marlborough's; and also in that year, 1922, Lord Peel introduced a Resolution. In

157
1923 Lord Newton introduced a Motion, and in 1927 there were the well-remembered proposals of Lord Cave. In 1929 Lord Clarendon brought the subject before your Lordships; during the same year Lord Elibank also brought the subject before your Lordship's and in 1934, or rather at the end of 1933, the noble Marquess did the same. So I think it is reasonable to say that no Peer, whether he attends regularly or irregularly to the business of this House, or whether he ever attends at all, can be unfamiliar with the topic now under discussion and can have failed, however little political interest he may personally take, to have formed some views upon the subject.
At all stages throughout the years which have been quoted there have been difficulties of one sort and another preventing this topic from ever coming, so to speak, to a head; and, having listened myself for many years to the discussion of this topic, to the many and various views which have been expressed in regard to it, I came to the conclusion when the noble Marquess drafted the Bill which is before us that surely the moment was most propitious for the discussion again of this subject, with some hope of its reaching finality. I was disappointed yesterday when the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, speaking with the obvious approval of those Peers who sit upon the Liberal Benches, reverted with emphasis to the difficulties which were present to the minds of all who were engaged in politics in 1909, 1910 and 1911, and seemed to fear that this Bill—and in some measure it certainly does—was meant to under-cut the victory then won by the Party which he leads in this House.
I was disappointed for this reason. I myself was brought up to regard the late Mr. Gladstone as the reincarnation of the devil, and for many years I did so regard him. My Lords, how many years ago it is ! How far we have travelled from that kind of political bitterness which was the commonplace of a quarter of a century and more ago. Surely, the circumstances of the day, to say nothing of the War, which the nation waged not as a party but as a whole, have changed our views on politics to a very fundamental extent. I have felt that it would be out of place to recall to mind too acutely the differences which existed in
158
those pre-War and earlier days; and I had hoped, and I still earnestly hope, that this Bill may be made the occasion, not for a reversion to political rancour, but an occasion for co-operation in the truest sense of the word.
I listened last night to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, a speech which, if I may be permitted to say so, both in its manner and in its material, not only should have commanded, but did command, both the respect and in a large measure the sympathy of the House. I listened to that speech with the deepest interest because we on this side of the House, although we may differ in detail, are of course at heart all Conservatives, and it is of the deepest interest and importance to every one of us that we should understand the fundamentally different angle of approach to this great question which Lord Snell brought to bear upon the subject. And for that reason in particular I listened to every word he had to say with the closest attention. But I was left wondering at the end whether the noble Lord was perhaps looking quite far enough ahead. I felt that, even although one recognises that his political tenets would be unshakable, lie might possibly have given more credit to his political opponents for a wider vision than he appeared to give and for a less emphatic tendency to secure political advantage than he seemed to think was possible.
The noble Lord complained yesterday with complete justification that he, in effect, had always been on the side of the angels, that non-violence was his creed, and I know quite well that to the noble Lord and those who sit with him stability and security are as dear as to those who sit on this side of the House. The noble Lord knows as well as I and as well as any of us that the people of this country cannot prosper without that stability and security, and I am confident that neither he nor any of us would wish to disturb the Constitution of this country in such a way as to set these great essentials at stake. Having come to that conclusion, I wonder whether the noble Lord might not perhaps think it well to look just a little further than he did. He knows that under the Parliament Act this House can be swept away. He probably visualises the possibility of

159
a triumphant majority of his own Party at the polls, not just yet but in good time. He probably thinks that the measures which that Party will feel it its duty to introduce must of necessity be resisted by this House, conservative as it is in its elements, and he is apparently willing to take the risk of abolishing this House altogether in order that that resistance may disappear and that the instant wishes of the people who have returned his Party to power by a majority may be fulfilled without delay.
It is conceivable that, however distasteful such measures may be to those who now sit on this side of the House, they may not after all be so disruptive. It is conceivable that this country may quite well subsist after their passage into law, but let him bear in mind that the temporary advantage which he and his Party desire is secured at tremendous risk. History always tells us that the mild revolutionary, if he is lucky enough to escape hanging, invariably has to take refuge in flight from the more violent revolutionary who follows him, and what would be the consequences to the Labour Party if that fate is theirs? Should we not then have noble Lords sitting on that side of the House lamenting the fact that they had removed the one safeguard which stood between the disruption of this State and the people? Would they not then regret that in order to gain some temporary advantage they had opened the door of the flood-gates of the disruption to which I have referred? Once you abolish this House, in spite of the dictum of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, who quoted the precedent of Cromwell, I feel that we cannot look for its restitution until ibis State is brought at any rate to its knees.
Have the Labour Party thought of one other condition of force which might result? The noble Lord, Lord Snell, quoted with horror in his voice the effects of Fascism throughout Europe, and I have no doubt that what he said would find a considerable echo of sympathy on this side of the House. Let him bear in mind that force begets force. With this House swept away, with the country governed by a single chamber and that single chamber controlled, not by politicians of his particular line of
160
thought but by the much more extreme politicians who will in time displace him, does he think it possible let alone probable that then the people of this country, of whom an enormous number have much to lose—for bear in mind there is no class or caste in this country possessing the monopoly of wealth and authority; wealth in larger or smaller degree is spread far down in this country and vast masses have much to lose—are going to tolerate government by decree, autocracy introduced from below? Force begets force, and if you expose the people of this country to the kind of thing which the abolition of this House would entail, you will inevitably have force upon the Right resisting force upon the Left, and that is the prospect which the exercise of the Parliament Act to the extent of abolishing this House opens before this country.
Do not let the noble Lord think that his Party, or the Liberal Party either, have the monopoly of objection to force from the Right any more than they have a monopoly of objection to force from the Left. If on this side of the House very many of us have not had an opportunity of sitting in the House of Commons ourselves, as I have not, at least we have descended from a long line of forebears who have constantly sat in that House, and democracy as represented by the House of Commons is as dear to those who sit on this side of the House as it is to those who sit on the other. Autocracy whether from the Left or from the Right is equally reprehensible to us as it is to you, and think of what is at stake. Under the present Parliament Act your risks are immense, and if the noble Lord to whom I venture to address myself would think of it. in these terms, I feel that perhaps he might be induced after consideration to realise that those of us who support this Bill are not moved by the desire of Party advantage, but are looking far ahead and are as fearful of what may happen as the noble Lord himself.
May I for a brief moment quote a few words of the aforesaid Parliament Act? Clause 2 says:
"If any Public Bill (other than a Money Bill or a Bill containing any provision to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years) is passed by the House of Commons in three successive

161
Sessions (whether of the same Parliament or not), and, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, is rejected by the Rouse of Lords in each of those Sessions, that Bill shall, on its rejection for the third time by the House of Lords, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto …."
Those words are pregnant. They mean that in order to gain temporary advantage, if pressed by their supporters in the country and in the House of Commons, the leaders of the Labour Party are moved, to some extent against their better judgment, to introduce a Resolution abolishing this House, in course of time that Resolution goes to His Majesty for his Assent. It is an impossible position in which to place the Crown. If the Crown were to assent, the Crown instantly loses the allegiance of a large proportion of its subjects. If the Crown were to refuse, the position of the Crown would be intolerable and impossible.
Remember the Crown is the head of an Empire and not only of this country. The hazards to which the passage of such a Bill would place the Crown would be intolerable in the eyes of His Majesty's subjects—a hazard which, I believe, members of the Labour Party as loyal subjects themselves would hardly dare to subject the Crown to. But, under the Parliament Act, that is the procedure. Surely the moment has come when, having approached so great a degree of agreement upon many subjects and having in all Parties given up so much for the sake of unity, we might, on this occasion, endeavour to complete the structure intended by the Parliament Act, and in fact give effect to that Preamble which has taken nearly twenty-five years to come to fruition.
I have dealt more or less briefly with what Lord Balfour of Burleigh so aptly described as the sting in the tail of the Bill. The alteration proposed in the personnel of this House is, in the first instance, matter of chief interest to those who sit in this House, but the question of powers is of universal interest and of universal importance, and, important though the question of personnel may be, the question of powers is vastly more important still. That is why I have ventured to touch upon those powers
162
before coming to deal with the intimate question of the personnel. While leaving the subject of powers, I would hope that Peers of the two Parties who sit on the other side of this House could bring themselves to approach the question in a spirit of co-operation, realising the immense potential dangers which lie in the Parliament Act, and realising, as they must, that they are anxious, as we ourselves arc, to ensure to the people of this country a stable government under which they can continue to thrive as they have done in the past. If the subject is approached in that spirit I feel that the details of the Bill, at this stage at any rate, can be set aside in favour of the larger principle. The details of the Bill will be left to discussion at the proper time, but the great principles involved would be permitted, as I think they should lie permitted, to swamp the details and to give the occasion for the co-operation which I know the noble Marquess himself most urgently desires.
Before, however, I turn to the question of personnel may I devote a moment or two to a phrase which fell from my noble friend Lord Redesdale last night I In a speech of eloquent persuasion my noble friend committed himself to the statement that there was no demand for House of Lords reform. It depends where he looks for the demand. May I remind him that it is a matter which will not appeal to the Liberal Party or the Labour Party, but, on the other hand, it should appeal with great force to those who sit on this side of the House? May I remind him that as long ago as 1911 my noble friend Lord Selborne, at the conference of the National Union of Conservative Associations, introduced a motion for the reform of the House of Lords and it was carried unanimously, and that that body has, I think without the omission of one year, passed resolutions of a similar character ever since?
LORD REDESDALE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? The same statement was made last night by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. I did not say there was no demand. I said that generally speaking, in the ordinary way, you did not hear of it as compared with many other subjects which are of much greater interest to the people.
LORD HASTINGS: I think my noble friend in that is perfectly correct. You

163
do not hear of it unless you go to the conferences of the National Union. At any rate you do not hear of it much, if you hear of it at all; but after all the delegates to the National Union of Conservative Associations are elected by the constituency associations of the Conservative Party throughout Great Britain. They seem to me to number several thousands when I go there, but I do not know exactly what their number is. Anyhow there are a great many of them, and they must be taken to speak with the considered voice of the Conservative Party. They have bad preliminary conferences in their constituencies—I have attended plenty of them myself—and they have at those meetings been urged to raise this question of the reform of the House of Lords when they get to the conference in London or Liverpool or Leeds, or wherever it may be. They have done so frequently and they must be taken as representing the considered view of the Conservative Party.
It would not be reasonable to suggest, while that demand is consistent and insistent, that there is in fact in the country no demand for reform of the House of Lords. There is, on the contrary, a very strong and a very persistent demand. The purposes for which that demand is made are manifold. No doubt some desire that the House of Lords should be reformed in order to provide a permanent bulwark against the Socialist Party. There is no reason why they should not wish that. On the other hand, there are a very large number who support this resolution with entirely different motives in their mind. One of the motives that they have in their mind is the one that I have ventured to explain at some length at this stage, because the persons who hold those views are taking a longer view than the view taken by politicians who are thinking of an immediate majority. But I will leave that subject altogether. Possibly others more intimately concerned with the management of the National Union than I am will develop it at greater length. I thought it right and proper for a moment to touch upon it.
May I come to a consideration—quite a brief consideration—of the question of the constitution of this House as proposed in this Bill? The noble Lord, Lord Snell, and my noble friend Lord Midleton made great play with figures last night. May I
164
say, with the greatest possible respect to both of them, that I have long since ceased to be impressed by those figures? I think I have some sound ground. In the first place, all your Lordships, where-ever you sit, will know that this House is able to call upon a great reserve of expert knowledge upon every known topic, and when I opened my remarks I referred in passing to the fact that it was customary for experts upon a given topic to have the exclusive debate upon that topic when it came up for discussion in this House. Your Lordships will find on examining the figures that the change of personnel as between topic and topic in this House is very remarkable. The mere fact that relatively few attend any one debate seldom, if ever, influences that debate in the bad sense, because those who understand the subject are there and take part in it. That is what is required. Let it also be borne in mind that if a man desires to be an expert on any topic the place in which to become an expert is not here. The place for him to become an expert is outside. If by insistence on his constant attendance here you satisfy the ambitions of some who would reform the House in that sense, you deprive the House of that expert knowledge which can only be acquired outside. It is well to bear that in mind.
I was most grateful personally for the very exceptional manner in which the noble Marquess refrained—in fact he went further than refraining—from criticism of those who do not attend. He acknowledged that much service was being given by them elsewhere in as useful a manner as it was given by others here. I think unquestionably this House does benefit to a very great extent by the fact that not all Peers spend the greater part of their time in attending to the political business of this country in this House, but only come when such expert knowledge as they have acquired may be of use both to this House and to the country. I know the point is strongly felt by many that the creation of a House, whether by election or nomination, whose members would be expected to attend to its political business day by day, would not be in fact so expert a House as that which now exists. But that is by the way.

165
There is another point which I desire to make relative to these figures. Noble Lords ever since I can remember have pointed with some scorn to the fact that a very considerable number of Peers never come here at They have drawn their own moral therefrom. But perhaps because I cannot always agree with everybody, I draw an entirely different moral. In Lord Lansdowne's Bill in 1911 he proposed that the creation of Peerages should be definitely limited to five a year. Not only did he thereby place a restriction upon the Prerogative of the Crown far beyond that proposed by the noble Marquess, but he also in my view made no provision for certain circumstances which have existed because of the continually increasing population of the country. We are told that that increase has now reached its zenith, but that remains to be seen. At any rate hitherto the population has been increasing very rapidly and the opportunity for public service has increased with the increase of population. Moreover, the greater spread of wealth has given the opportunity to vast numbers of persons who in years gone by had not the means to serve the country to do so now. Consequently, the number of those who come into prominence by admirable and excellent service to their country is very much increased.
It appears to me to be natural, right and reasonable that this increase of public service should meet with its proper reward culminating in the grant by the Crown of a Peerage. The contraction of the Prerogative of the Crown with regard to the number of Peerages would, I fear, be gravely detrimental to the natural and proper ambitions of an increasing section of His Majesty's subjects. But that very fact surely carries with it the moral that the creation of a Peerage should not necessarily in the future be linked with legislative responsibility. A large number of Peers who attend regularly to political business in this House have been promoted after long service in the House of Commons, or have come to this House from a shorter service in the House of Commons in order that they may give particular service to their Party in this place, and it is natural and reasonable and proper that they should devote a very considerable proportion of their time to the political business for which their train
166
ing has fitted them and for which they have acquired a definite taste. But there are a very large number of Peers of recent creation who were created for reasons connected, with eminent service to the country and the Crown, deserving in every way of the preferment which His Majesty has thought well to give them, but who have never during all their lives had any political training, who have never given thought to the details of politics, and who might hope never to be brought into the vortex of a profession which is often positively distasteful to them.
If you look at your figures you will find that the worst offenders in the matter of attendance are recently created Peers and not Peers by inheritance. I know of two who, created some years ago, have taken their seats in this House but have never been in the House again. Although quite clearly the bandying of names is undesirable, I make bold to say that my statement is perfectly correct, and relative to numbers is even more than correct. The proportion of Peers other than those created after service in the House of Commons who attend political business here is much smaller than that of those who have become Peers by inheritance. Is there anything wrong in it? What is wrong is the age-old system whereby the creation of a Peerage is indissolubly linked to legislative responsibility. That, to my mind, is what is wrong, and I decline to join, and have for years declined to join, with those who decry the possessors of Peerages for non-attention to political duties, for that reason and that reason only.
I think the correct and proper solution is one such as is found in the noble Marquess's Bill which will give to those Peers who desire and who have the ability to take part in political business in this House the opportunity of election by their fellow Peers. I conceive that almost, if not quite, all of those who desire to give their best to the political business of their country—the majority of them at least—will find their opportunity in that election. For the rest, the great majority will be doing what they now do, and that is apply themselves to the duties of citizenship in perfectly worthy conditions elsewhere. They will be relieved of responsibilities which they have no desire to assume and which those of

167
recent creation even almost repudiate. I think myself that that is the strongest argument which can be used in favour of the restriction of these legislative Peers to a number such as is given by the noble Marquess in his Bill if we come to consider these restrictions in detail in Committee I should be amazed if Peers were found who normally do not take part in the business of this House to come to vote against that proposal, which in their hearts many of them will regard as a release from duties which they have not sought, and elimination from which will in no way prevent their successors in title in their turn from submitting themselves to the suffrages of their fellow Peers.
An objection which I have heard expressed to this Bill is the fear that the election of these 150 Peers will tend to be governed too much by political considerations. I think I have already referred to the fact that many, both in this House and outside it, regard as a great safeguard the mere fact that the great majority of Peers have no pronounced political attachments, whatever they may feel instinctively. That fact is regarded as a great safeguard of the fair conduct of the business of this House, and many rather dread the possibility of electing a House which is entirely composed of those who are politically-minded. Of course the fear is there, but the very fact that half the House is to be selected in another manner—a manner which I personally hope will be by creation by the Crown on the nomination of the Prime Minister of the day—would have, I think, an influence upon the election. It is the fact, I think, that the existence of those 150 members, who might quite easily comprise a number of Peers by heredity—there is nothing to debar them—would influence Peers, in selecting their own 150, against choosing those who had convinced and oft-expressed political convictions. In fact, in this House you would find it difficult to elect 150 of such Peers.
If we looked down the Roll of the House, I think any one of us would find it difficult to mark out 150 Peers who could be guaranteed to vote the same way always. Supposing my name were upon that Roll, what would Peers do about it? Is it a fact that I have always voted with the Conservative Government? Have I not recollections of
168
having done something quite different? And is there not the possibility that any Peer on these Back Benches will at any moment do exactly as I have done, perhaps more often than our own Front Bench would appreciate? No doubt noble Lords on the other side of the House would regard me as a casehardened Tory, but I have a certain independence, and from time to time I venture to display it. I do not think that there is any Peer sitting on this side of the House who does not possess much the same kind of independence and who has not on occasions displayed it. I doubt whether we could find 150 who could be guaranteed to respond to the crack of the whip on every conceivable occasion.
I fancy that I have addressed your Lordships too long. I will not try your patience any longer, but I want, if I may, to quote to you an extract from a speech made by the noble Marquess. Lord Lansdowne, in May, 1911. Those who had the privilege of listening to Lord Lansdowne in this House will know, with me, what a command of graceful language the noble Marquess had. In the course of that speech, having presented his Bill to the notice of your Lordships, he said:
"Such a House we have endeavoured to construct—not upon a site from which every shred and vestige of the old structure has been removed, but preserving the soundest materials which we can find on that site, strengthened and rearranged, so that the new Chamber, while faithfully serving the democracy, will be strong enough to resist the gusts of passion and prejudice with which all democracies are necessarily familiar."
That is the spirit in which the noble Marquess has introduced this Bill into your Lordships' House, and that is the spirit in which I should hope that those who may not at the moment feel entirely with the noble Marquess will treat the introduction of this Bill. Can it but be believed, this Bill has not been introduced with the purpose of scoring Party advantage. No, my Lords, it has been introduced so that the foundations may be well and truly laid for a great and genuine co-operative effort so to buttress the Constitution of this country that under its renewed strength, and under our Sovereign Lord The King, the people of this country may thrive and prosper as

169
they have done in the past, bearing in mind that insecurity and instability spell destruction to any country, and that our people, like any other, can neither thrive nor even live under such conditions. My Lords, I beg most heartily to support the Bill which the noble Marquess has introduced.
LORD STIIACHIEhad an Amendment on the Paper to leave out all words after "That" and insert "no Bill for the reform of the House of Lords will be of any value unless the reformed House has the power of rejecting taxation though no power of initiating taxation, and that this House therefore declines Do proceed further with the said Bill." The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I understood the speech of the noble Marqauss in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, his special argument was that something was necessary to be done with the constitution of your Lordships' Hoarse owing to the passing of the Parliament Act. May I be allowed to remind your Lordships what the Preamble of that Act was? It is now nearly twenty-three years since that Act was passed. The Preamble of the Parliament Act stated this:
"Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for regulating the relations between the two Houses of Parliament:
"And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation … "
Twenty-three years have elapsed since that statement was placed upon the Statute Book, and one wonders why nothing has been done in the meanwhile to regulate the relations between the two Houses of Parliament.
That Act was passed chiefly owing to a crisis which had arisen through this House thinking fit to throw out, as it had never done before, a Finance Bill. It was only a stop-gap measure, as is shown by the passage which I have quoted: but curiously enough during all this time neither the Liberal Party nor the Conservative Party have attempted to deal with this matter. I remember very well that after the Parliament Act had been passed Lord Edmund Talbot, then the Chief Conservative Whip in the House of Commons, now a member of your Lordships' House, declared that whenever his
170
Party came into power they would repeal the Parliament Act. His Party have never attempted to repeal the Parliament Act. It is quite true that I remember very well sitting in this House and hearing the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan, say that he withdrew that. I suppose he saw the enormous difficulties which there were, and that the country as a whole was not prepared to have the Parliament Act merely repealed, but felt that something must he done, as was said in the Preamble of the Parliament Act, to regulate the relations between the two Houses of Parliament, and also—what to my mind has always been more important—
"to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis."
So far, no Government has ventured to deal with this matter, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in concluding his speech yesterday, said:
"I can only assure your Lordships that the question whether any legislation of this character ought hereafter to be brought forward is a matter which the Government are considering, but upon which we should not think it right to reach any hasty decision."
That again shows that the Government, with their enormous majority in either House of Parliament, consider this such a very ticklish question that they are only now considering what may be done in the matter. It also clearly indicates that so far as this Session is concerned, and I think we shall find so far as this Parliament is concerned, nothing will be done in the matter at all.
As I understood the noble Marquess who introduced this Bill, the object of the Bill was to deal with the faults of the Parliament Act, and to do something to give this House greater power over Bills coming up from another place. I venture to say with due deference to the noble Marquess that it does not seem to me he deals with all the essential matters of the Parliament Act. Why do I say that? Because when he deals with the question of the Speaker's Certificate, at present, as your Lordships know, if the Speaker gives his Certificate that a Bill which comes up to this House is a Money Bill, we have no power except to delay it for one month. After that it receives the Royal Assent over your Lordships' heads. I know that the idea of the noble Mar

171
quess is to deal with the matter by setting up a Standing Committe. That may do something, but I have my doubts about it. No doubt it will do better than the present state of affairs, because I remember that in another Parliament I had the honour to support the rejection of a Bill coming up from the Commons during the time of a Labour Government. That Bill was introduced again in the next Session, and although it was practically the same Bill it had the Speaker's Certificate and your Lordships could do nothing with it.
As regards a Standing Committee, the noble Marquess's proposal, as I understand it, is that there should be three Peers and three Commoners, with Mr. Speaker to have the casting vote. I am sure that that would he no protection at all, so far as this House is concerned. You would probably have the three Peers considering that the Bill was not a Money Bill, and the three members of the House of Commons considering that it was a Money Bill, and Mr. Speaker would probably take the view that the House of Commons representatives took. Certainly we cannot tell who is going to be Speaker at any future date, and it might be a Party question and simply regarded as a Party question, and in such a particular case we should simply see Mr. Speaker giving his casting vote on the side which had elected him to the Chair.
I would also remind your Lordships that, as the noble Marquess has very truly said, his Bill does not interfere with taxation; that is to say, taxation would remain entirely in the hands of the House of Commons. What might happen under those conditions? We know what the Labour Party has said with regard to taxation. I think it was the first Labour Party which stated that it was practically going in for the confiscation of all capital. It was said that no man needed more than £5,000 of capital, and that the rest should be confiscated and taken away from him. Under the noble Marquess's Bill there would be nothing to prevent that being done by a Labour majority, and this House would be entirely powerless. On the other hand, they might not wish to confiscate all capital, but might say that the better way was to have a Super-Tax of 15s. in the £ and an Income Tax of
172
15s. in the £, and if they wanted—no doubt the Labour Party desires to get rid of landlords in this country—to increase the taxation of land, it would be easy to increase the Death Duties on land. As your Lordships are aware, the present Death Duties are very heavy, and if they continue in three generations even the largest estates will be broken up and come to nothing. Therefore I do not see what protection there is going to be in the noble Marquess's Bill on matters which really matter to us.
The noble Marquess rather objected to something in my Amendment. It seems to me that reform of the Second Chamber is no protection under this Bill as regards what is really essential. To avoid the danger, which is I believe very great, of a Labour Government coming into power, I am of opinion that there ought to be some reform of the Second Chamber on the lines of the Parliament Act, which suggested that when opportunity offered there should be a newly-constituted Chamber on a popularly-elected basis. My suggestion, which I have ventured to put on the Paper, is that you should have a popularly-elected Chamber, either directly or indirectly elected, with somewhat the same powers as the French Senate. The French Senate has power, not to initiate any taxation, but to reject taxation. That is a very important matter indeed. While you would not be depriving the House of Commons of its right to impose taxation on the people, you would have a Second Chamber to guard against confiscation or the over-taxation of the capitalist, who the Labour Party think ought not to exist in this country. If you had those powers in this House, then undoubtedly there would be a great safeguard indeed. I am quite aware it might entail a great sacrifice on the part of many of your Lordships, to give up the idea of an hereditary Chamber. I must say that I appreciate that idea. I believe in heredity in its proper place, and I believe that the hereditary system might very well be carried on as it is at the present moment. The sons of Peers might take their place in the other House before coming up to take their place in this House, and I should hope that the hereditary Peers would be in very large numbers in another place when this House is reformed and reconstituted.

173
I cannot help thinking that in these days you have to look at things from an entirely different point of view to that from which you had to look at them when you had the two great Parties, Liberal and Conservative, neither of which would have considered for a moment any of the suggestions made by the Labour Party for dealing with taxation. At the present moment you have only got, in effect, the Conservative and Labour Parties. That is at all events what is going to happen after the next Election, and I venture to say that however anxious your Lordships may be to keep the hereditary principle, and however much you dislike the idea of having a Second Chamber directly or indirectly elected, the great majority of those who now attend this House would be elected, and you would really make no sacrifice for all practical purposes. On the other hand, if you sacrificed the hereditary element you would be making some sacrifice in order to make quite certain When a Labour Government comes into power that this country does not suffer from very grave dangers indeed.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I have listened to a large number of debates during the fifteen years it has been my privilege to be a member of your Lordships' House and during the previous nine years when it was my good fortune to be a member of the House of Commons, and I do not think I have ever listened to a debate where, taken as a whole, the level of speaking has been so high. What has been extraordinarily interesting has been the conflicting points of view which have been submitted to us, the ability with which they have been put forward, and the patent honesty with which those views are held.
When the noble Marquess introduced this Bill in your Lordships' House I then voted for it because for a long time I have been in favour of a measure of reform for your Lordships' House, and because I thought it was important to see more clearly than one could even from his lucid speech exactly what the proposals were which he and those who have been working with him wished to put before your Lordships. I think that all who have taken part in this debate have one desire in common and it is this, that the Upper House should be as effective as possible in a bicameral Constitution. I
174
am convinced myself the more I study the history of this and other countries that a nation is weak that only has single-chamber government, and that it is vital that one should have an Upper and an effective Upper House. What is the source of weakness of the present Upper House? Why is it there is talk of reform? It is not because the standard of debate here is inferior to that of another place; I think it compares very favourably. The desire for reform does not come, or does not come largely, because of the non-attendance of a certain number of members of your Lordships' House. It obviously is not through lack of quality among your Lordships. As has been said more than once, there is available here among our numbers an expert on almost every subject and from almost every point of view. But the reason I am keen on reform—and it is the reason why many people want it—is that I do not believe it is possible nowadays, with the powers left to us under the Parliament Act, to use those powers effectively and to the best purpose so long as this House either entirely or mainly rests on an hereditary basis.
I believe that we are weaker to-day than was the intention of Mr. Asquith in 1910 when he passed the Parliament Act. I say this as a realist who tries to face facts as they are We have the power in this House of delaying for two years a measure with which we disagree. Mr. Asquith, when he introduced that Bill, pointed out at some length and with some care that that was a great power. When a controversial Bill—it might be an unpopular Bill—has to be before the public for two whole years, scrutinised during by-elections, in constituencies, at annual conferences, and in the Press, if it were a Bill which was unwanted by the people, it might be very difficult to carry it. During those two years, if the people as a whole did not want the measure passed by the Lower House, public opinion would be able to make itself felt so strongly, not merely by the Cabinet but by the rank and file of the supporters of the Government of the day, that they might be induced to withdraw it altogether or to modify it. That, I understand, is the reason why he advocated the Parliament Act with the two years delay.

175
The essence of that is that the country should have an opportunity of examining the measure in controversy between the two Houses as a single issue and unbefogged by prejudice and misrepresentation. If it is possible to start a good strong red herring and befog the issue, obviously it is going to be much more difficult to get popular opinion mobilised against a Bill. Anybody who went through the two Elections of 1910, as I did, must be conscious of the fact that at the present day it is extremely easy to raise an atmosphere of suspicion, of misrepresentation, of prejudice, against the action of an hereditary House as opposed to the action of the popularly-elected Chamber. It is because of that that I think the House as now constituted is unable to exercise to the full the powers, such as they are, contained in the Parliament Act.
The noble Marquess referred more than once to the risk and the danger before this country. I agree. There is a risk, there is a danger; but that risk is heightened and increased by the fact that at present we are not able to use the powers of delay which are contained in the Parliament Act, for the reasons I have stated. This Bill proposes slightly to increase the powers of the reformed House. It is quite obvious that any measure affecting the Constitution has to go not only through your Lordships' House but through the House of Commons, and, with my knowledge of the House of Commons, I doubt very much whether it would pass a measure, either increasing at all the powers of the other House or increasing the powers of an hereditary, or a mainly hereditary, Upper Chamber.
I understand there has been what is called a "straw" vote. Postcards were sent round to members of the rank and file, asking them to say Yes or No whether they were in favour of a measure of reform. The answers, whether Yes or No given by that straw vote, really do not count. What is the good of voting on a proposal that you have not seen? It does not really mean anything. But I do know this, and I speak as one who not only at election times takes part in politics from the platform, but regularly takes part in elections at the street corners in a large industrial centre. That experience convinces me that it is extra
176
ordinarily difficult nowadays to defend or advocate the hereditary principle when an hereditary House is in conflict with the popularly-elected House. I doubt very much whether it could be done successfully.
What would be the effect of the noble Marquess's Bill if it were passed as it is Since it has been public I have been asking myself, as many others have had to do, exactly how I should vote. What would be the effect? Under Clause 5 it is proposed to create 150 non-hereditary members of your Lordships' House. I gather—although the Bill does not set it out in detail—that the noble Marquess had in mind an indirectly elected section of your Lordships' House. It is really immaterial whether it is indirectly elected or nominated. However selected that non-hereditary section, whatever Liberals, Labour, Conservatives, and probably a certain number of Independents it may contain, in any case the Conservative section of that non-hereditary portion of the Upper House would not be insignificant. I am not giving away any inside information. Anyone can work it out who studies the Bill.
Let us look at what would happen under Clauses 3 and 4, the clauses which deal with the selection of the 150 hereditary Peers. I have no hesitation in saying that the overwhelming majority of the hereditary Peers would be not only Conservatives, but blue-blooded Conservatives. There is where I differ from my noble friend Lord Hastings, who spoke just now. He indicated that he himself voted with a considerable measure of independence. All honour to him. He is able to do that because he does not have to account for his action and vote to any constituency. I understand that when the Home Rule Bill was before your Lordships' House a Scottish Representative Peer ventured to vote contrary to the way in which the majority of the Scottish Conservative Peers voted, and when next he submitted himself for re-election he was not re-elected. As I see it, the hereditary 150 members of your Lordships' reformed House as it would be reformed under this Bill would tend inevitably to be more Party, more partisan, less Cross-Bench, and less independent than now.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They would sit for twelve years.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: But even twelve years come to an end. I think it would tend to make the electoral college select people to represent them whom they thought were strong Party men even without necessarily waiting to see how they voted during the twelve years. Anyhow that is my view. The result of that would be that because of the Conservative section in the non-hereditary portion of the reformed House, the hereditary Conservative majority would have a permanent and absolute control for all time over the actions of your Lordships' House—that is to say that in fact this House would be less independent, it would be more partisan, in the future under this scheme than it is at the present time. The effect of that would be that the Upper House would not be able to utilise the powers which it now has, because it is by no means certain, even if the Commons accept the change of personnel proposed in this Bill, that they would also accept the change in powers. I am afraid that as the result of that the reformed House as it would be reformed by this measure would be less able to utilise the powers that we now possess, and at the same time I am afraid that the scheme, if carried out, would create a sense of injustice which would tell at the next Election against a large number of Conservative candidates in the constituencies.
I have an enormous regard for the action which has been taken by your Lordships' predecessors in the past. On more than one occasion the House of Lords has stood for independence and the wishes of the people to a greater extent than was done by the Lower House, but the fact that this has been done in the past, the fact that your Lordships are able to congratulate yourselves on this, does make one realise that nowadays we are dealing with a different set of circumstances. Our motto should be "Noblesse oblige." After a great deal of consideration I have come to the conclusion that if we reform the House of Lords the reform has got to be much more drastic than is proposed in this Bill. I am always rather attracted when I see a composite scheme such as this, partly hereditary, partly ex officio, partly elected or nominated. It is very attractive, but in a democracy, where you are dealing with a complex and controversial subject, it seems to me
178
that simplicity must be the essence of our proposals. If we wish successfully to reform the Upper House we have to do it on a perfectly simple basis, either have it indirectly elected or have it nominated.
I myself would venture to approach the Liberal Party and invite them to a conference on a scheme of reform, and the contribution which I should make would be that I would not insist on the maintenance of heredity. If you were to make an offer like that to the Liberal Party they would find it extraordinarily difficult to refuse. I am not sure that even the Labour Party would be able to refuse to come into a conference on those terms. If such a conference were held I believe we should in fact get a reformed Upper House which would be sufficiently conservative with a small "c" to prove an effective safeguard and provide an effective bulwark against that dangerous legislation which is present before the minds of many of your Lordships.
This is not the occasion on which to indicate the Amendments which one is going to bring forward, and therefore I shall merely say that if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading I shall myself bring forward for the consideration of your Lordships—because I understand what we want to do is to test out the various alternative ways in which your Lordships' reformed House can be constituted—a scheme on which I have been working for some years for nomination. I only venture to speak today to explain the vote I shall give tomorrow. In its present form I become increasingly convinced that this Bill would not provide a greater safeguard against that dangerous legislation which we know may appear at some future time. I am afraid that, if passed in its present form, it would inevitably result in the loss of the seats of many of our colleagues in industrial centres. I still believe it would be possible to get agreement, certainly from the Liberal Party and possibly from the Labour Party, on consideration of a scheme of reform if we were not to insist on the maintenance of heredity. I venture to put forward these views because I do realise, as so many do, the importance of having an effective bicameral Constitution.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, this Bill is designed, as I see it, to avert a

179
great national danger. There are some critics who, in my humble opinion, are afflicted by a strange incapacity of political blindness and refuse to see any danger in the existing situation. May I recall some undeniable facts? In the first place we have recently conferred the boon of universal suffrage. That being so, the new electorate must inevitably contain a considerable number, a vast number, of uninstructed electors attached to no political Party and an easy prey to alluring programmes and unscrupulous persons. But that is not all. During recent times, partly no doubt owing to the catastrophic unsettlement of the War, there have emerged a number of wild political and social schemes, attractive it may be to the unthinking, but full of danger to the country. As a, result it appears to me that the democracy of the day is peculiarly liable to certain gusts of passion or unthinking emotion which may very well govern and dominate an Election. If that is so, surely it follows that some day or other, sooner or later, there may come into power a Government pledged to the destruction of our political, economic and social structure, and may do their best to carry that into effect.
This is not an imaginary fear. Take the programme of different sections of those who are opposed to this Bill. The Socialist Party have openly announced their intention of destroying capitalism and private industrial enterprise, and of absorbing by the State and under State control the banks, the land, and all the industrial undertakings, and, if need be, abolishing the Second Chamber altogether. If that is so, it appears to me that we have to find a remedy. But there is another section of the Socialist Party, the more adventurous section led by Sir Stafford Cripps, who, with a candour which is certainly creditable—I am not sure there is anything else creditable about it—proposes to pass, on the first day of the new Parliament, an Emergency Bill which will permit of revolutionary changes being passed, not by the House of Commons, but by means of Ministerial Orders which will be subject to no control whatever by the Courts. It may be said that this is too wide a policy for any one to accept, but let us remember that history teaches us that in many cases the extremists have been
180
able to impose their will upon the less adventurous and possibly more cautious colleagues who are working with them, and that is not an impossible thing to happen in this case.
Had there been no Parliament Act whatever in existence these facts would have constituted, as I think, a grave danger to the State, but the dangers have been tenfold increased and intensified by the passing of the Parliament Act. I do not pretend to recapitulate the provisions of that Act, which are well known to your Lordships. I think it is sufficient to say that under that Act the existing Second Chamber has been so paralysed as to render it powerless as a safeguard against sudden, unexpected and ill-considered changes. Are these not dangers flagrantly manifest? If that be so, surely it is our duty so far as we can, to face and to find some remedy for those dangers. What is the remedy that can be suggested for the purpose either of averting or minimising those dangers? It is a striking fact that the only remedy which has been suggested during the course of the whole of this debate for meeting those dangers in any way has been the reform of the House of Lords and the establishment of a Second Chamber, limited in numbers strengthened from outside, and possessed of powers which would enable it to give the democracy time to think, and, if necessary, to think twice before a measure is brought into law which has not been fully considered by them.
It has been suggested, I think by my noble friend Lord Strachie and others, that this Bill would not afford a sufficient remedy against revolutionists. That may be so. But this Bill does not attempt to impose, and was not intended to impose, any restriction upon the permanent desire of the nation, when it has manifested itself, for a change, even if that change be a violent change. This Bill, or something like it—something on the same lines—will undoubtedly meet many of the evils which we anticipate must arise from the present situation. I welcome this Bill. I welcome it as an honest attempt to meet the dangers which are present to the minds of us all. No doubt, as has been truly said, a Bill altering the Constitution cannot be passed into law unless it is a Government Bill. That is true. At the same time

181
I devoutly trust that this Bill may receive a Second Reading by a substantial and impressive majority and may go into Committee, and if that is so there will be at least three most important results.
In the first place, this House will have the opportunity of considering in detail not only the proposals of the Bill and of voting on them, but also of considering any other proposals such as might be brought forward by my noble friend Lord Astor who has just spoken or by any other of your Lordships—considering them and expressing their views upon their possibility or desirability. But that is not all. Those discussions, if they take place in Committee, will, as I think, have a most important effect upon public opinion in the country, and will educate that public opinion to realise the dangers of the present situation and the necessity for reform. There is another result, perhaps the most important of all, which these discussions in Committee might produce, and it is this. They might influence, and largely influence, the mind of the Government of the day, and they would give a strong lead to that Government and encourage them—I will not say force; that would be rather a vulgar expression—strongly encourage them to bring in a Bill of their own at the earliest possible time to meet the national danger. It is said, and with some truth, that there is no general agreement on this subject. There is never any general agreement upon any important Bill. If such an objection were raised to legislation it would paralyse any Government whatsoever. Any courageous Government, whether there is agreement or not, must do what is right and bring in Bills, and trust to their own capacity and the intelligence of the House of Commons and of this House to pass them.
May I, in conclusion, quote some remarkable words which were uttered by Mr. Baldwin only a few days ago in the Albert Hall, in which he strongly deprecated the complacency of the Conservative Party and their inability to face facts? What he said was this
"If ever we sit down—
he was speaking of the Conservative Party—
and are content with everything as it is and do not keep that burning desire for the welfare of the people in the forefront of our work and propaganda, the Party
182
will go to sleep as it has done before, and will be beaten into fragments."
I think those are perfectly true words. Let the Conservative Party, and if I may humbly say so, though I am not entitled to do it, let any other Party, in the words of Mr. Baldwin, not go to sleep but do what they can to keep that burning desire for the welfare of the people in the forefront of their work. If they do that I think we shall eventually see a Bill introduced by the Government in the direction desired. For myself, I hope that the Government will produce a well-thought-out and reasonable scheme of House of Lords reform, and if they appeal to the wisdom and the good sense and sense of duty of the House of Commons they will succeed, and they will earn the thanks of this and succeeding generations.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am not quite certain what stage this debate has reached because it seems to me the Bill itself was killed by the speech delivered last night by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. Are we engaged in discussing a project that this House thinks seriously is going to be converted into law, or are we responding to the initiative of the noble Marquess who introduced this Bill in having what, in effect, is an academic discussion as to the nature of the reform which this House should undertake? I am afraid, or rather I hope, that our discussions now partake of the second of these things, and that there is no longer any intention in this House of passing into law a Bill which in my humble judgment is a thoroughly bad Bill.
It is a Bill which, if I may say so, is by panic out of reaction. It is prompted mainly, not by fear of the Socialist Party, but by fear of the electorate. I venture to think, and I believe it is true, of the people of this country, that their primary characteristic is political common sense. I have no fear that if the issues, the bogies as they have been described, are presented to the free judgment of the people of this country in conditions in which they are able to exercise a reasonable judgment, they will vote for those things which this Bill purports to prevent them carrying into effect. If noble Lords are seriously afraid of the people of this country, of the mature political judgment of this country, a judgment which will be formed

183
after an intensive campaign in the constituencies, the defence will not be the thin red line of coronets and ermine in this House. If they really want to protect themselves against these evils, they should first of all remedy the system of election to the Lower House.
May I read to your Lordships the most recent figures of the way in which the existing system of election operates? They are, if I may say so, the only justification which exists at present for the fears which animate the noble Marquess who introduced this Bill. Just consider the figures at the election of that great body over which my noble friend Lord Snell so graciously presides on the other side of the water. In fifty-four contested constituencies in the South of London the following votes were cast:—For the Labour Party, 395,000; for the Municipal Reformers, 198,000; and for the Liberals, I am sorry to say, only 30,000. That is, 395,000 on the one side and nearly 230,000 on the other. And what was the result? Labour, fifty-four seats; Municipal Reformers, none; Liberals, none. That is the result of the existing electoral system in one place not far from this House. Let me give your Lordships the figures in the Glasgow municipal election last year. Labour polled 98,000 votes, the Moderates polled 91,000, the Scottish Protestant League 71,000, and the Independent Labour Party 35,000. That is 98, 91, 71 and 35, and in the result the seats were allotted as follows: 21, 7, 4, 3. One third of the electorate won two-thirds of the seats.
If you really want to establish protection against the kind of evil which the noble Marquess has in mind the first step is to give the people of this country, whom he accepted as the final authority, the opportunity to cast votes which represent their real opinion. That is the first remedy against revolution. I venture to believe that a system of proportional representation, I do not want to go into details, or of the alternative vote, or of the second ballot—there are many devices of which I think personally proportional representation is the best—will be by far the best protection against revolution in this country and immeasurably better than any attempt to reform the House of Lords on the lines of this Bill.
Now, may I say a word about the Bill? I do not want to say very much, because
184
I think the noble and learned Marquess who leads those who sit on these Benches gave a devastating and final criticism of it last night. It seems to me that it has five fundamental difficulties. In the first place, say what you like, it entrenches a permanent Conservative majority in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, claimed for this House independence in voting. I am prepared to discuss with him later how many votes have been cast in the interests of Liberal or Labour Bills. In the second place, it ends, as I understand it, the system whereby this House is continuously refreshed by hereditary Peers appointed for their special experience and their service to the State—not the least valuable element in this House, as many speakers have testified. It ends that system, and so in my view does very grave damage to this House.
Thirdly, I think the system proposed for election is a bad one because it means that any five hereditary Peers can elect a Peer of Parliament, and I hesitate to think of the kind of House you would get once it is clearly understood that any five can return a Peer of Parliament. Fourthly, the Bill does not contain within itself the proposals for the second half, and I do not see how we can possibly consider the proposals of the Bill unless we understand how the whole House is going to be constituted. Finally, there is the point made with conclusive force by my noble friend Lord Reading last night, that this is the undoing of the Parliament Act, and giving to this House the power to nullify every piece of legislation which any majority in the House of Commons may be returned to carry out, for the duration of the whole of that Parliament.
If anybody thinks that you are going to strengthen the authority of this House by giving to the Labour Party, or to the Liberal, the opportunity of going to the electors of this country and saying: "The great Conservative Party's contribution, the contribution of the great majority of the Peers of Parliament, to the future of this country is to re-entrench in an Upper House a power which can nullify completely every single thing which figures in the programme put before the people at an Election," I am quite certain that that will be giving to those Parties the one argument which will result

185
in the total abolition of this House. But in saying that, I would like to add a word to the noble Lords on the Labour Benches. I think that in putting into their programme, if they have put into their programme, the abolition of this House, they are inviting the opposite Parties to put down a programme for the restoration of the power of this House, and I would ask them to consider very carefully what is the result of proposing the abolition altogether of a House which even now has only powers of revision and delay. It is directly inviting the other side to go to the country and secure a mandate against revolution, which will in effect be giving back to this House powers which neither they nor we wish it to exercise.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgman (who I do not think is here to-day) cast some jibes at the members who sit on this Bench on the ground that they have not yet put forward any ideas of reform. He said that somehow or other we were guilty of not wishing for freedom of speech because we had not put forward a scheme of reform—a process of ratiocination which I confess I am wholly unable to follow. But I welcome the introduction of this subject, and I congratulate the noble Marquess who introduced this Bill on having introduced the subject, because I think the discussion of reform is a very valuable thing; and purely on my own account and not in any way as representing my colleagues, I am going to put forward to-day, if I may, a few ideas on that subject as a contribution to that discussion.
I think that the powers which this House exercises under the Parliament. Act, given a good electoral system, are the right powers for a Second Chamber: revision, delay, but no power finally to withstand the will of the people as expressed in the Lower House or to force any Government to go to Dissolution on account of the action of this House. Those powers are very formidable powers; the difficulty of this House as now constituted is that we do not dare to exercise them. That is the real difficulty we are up against. Our powers are ample. Anybody who has had experience knows the effect on any Party or any majority or any Government of having to wait for eighteen months or two years for its legislation, with the prospect of
186
by-elections and criticism in the interval. It is a very formidable power, and I think that it is the right power for a Second Chamber. Now why does not the House of Lords exercise that power more vigorously and (if you like) more effectively? It is because in present circumstances it lacks authority.
How are you going to restore authority to the Second Chamber so that it can exercise wisely and intelligently those powers which in our view should be exercised by the Second Chamber? In the first place, it is no use anybody contending that heredity in itself to-day carries authority with the public mind. Nobody believes that heredity in itself carries authority in political or in any other matters. There was a great deal to be said for heredity in the days before universal education and a popular Press and so on, because then knowledge and experience were handed on from one generation to another. Now, knowledge and experience are much more widely diffused, and heredity in itself does not carry authority. I do not think that heredity is unpopular, but it certainly does not carry with it authority. The authority which this House does exercise —and I believe that it does exercise a great deal—is based on one thing and one thing only, and that is its experience.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, last night gave some very remarkable figures which seemed to me to explain why this House, in spite of all the criticisms which have been directed against it in other places, does exercise authority and possess influence in this country. The figures which he gave were these: that it contains 143 members who were once in the House of Commons; it contains 104 Privy Councellors, thirty-eight who are or have been Cabinet Ministers, twenty who have been Viceroys or Governors-General, eleven who have been Governors, ten who have been Ambassadors, and six great soldiers, sailors and airmen. And most of these, be it noted, have come in by the non-hereditary road. Now that is what gives this House its authority—that its members do speak from a great deal of practical experience of public life.
If you are going to restore authority to this House you have got to retain those characteristics—they are vital—and you

187
have got to do two other things. In the first place, by some means or other you have got to see that all Parties in the State are adequately represented in it, so that its political debates are genuine political debates and reflect the political controversies which are going on in the country; and in the second place, I venture to think that it might be possible to strengthen the economic knowledge in this House. After all, in the old days the authority of the Peerage depended not only on heredity but, as one noble Lord said last night, on the fact that the majority of the Peers were in fact the big business men of the country. It was true in the days when agriculture was the primary industry; and if by any means we can reinforce this House by a great deal more experience of industry, including trade unionism, we shall, I think, do a great deal to give influence to its conclusions. If in this House projects of legislation can be discussed with real knowledge of their effects on the economic life of the country, it will add greatly to the power which it exercises now by reason of the fact that it represents a great deal of political experience of the nature of which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, spoke last night.
I venture to believe that you do not want a great and dramatic project of reform, at any rate at this moment when the world is in transition, and this country is in transition, and perhaps it is not very easy to see the exact kind of institution which may be necessary when Mr. Walter Elliot has finished his reforms and the reorganisation of the country has created more departments, many of which ought to be directly represented in this House. I venture to think that at this stage at any rate we should move with a minimum of speed, and that there are two things which might be done without great difficulty. I put them forward purely as a personal view for consideration. One is that the issue of Writs calling for attendance should require some qualification of experience. I will not go into the details of the matter, but I suggest that there should be some experience in public life or some experience of public office before any hereditary Peer can receive an actual Writ calling for his attendance. The other is some extension of the principle of life Peerage, which might make it easier to get that representation of those
188
other interests which are not adequately represented in this House than by the ordinary method. Those I merely throw out as personal views. I believe that any attempt to bring forward a measure of reform, and above all a measure so reactionary and dangerous as this Bill, can merely do harm to your Lordships' House and to the prospects of stable government in this country. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will refuse to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I think it will be to stultify ourselves if we pass a Bill to which there are the greatest objections, knowing perfectly well that it has no prospect of ever being passed into law.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, it is with a great deal of diffidence, and a heightened consciousness of my own inexperience, that I rise to speak on an occasion when this House has been fortunate enough to secure so many distinguished speakers to assist it in its deliberations on this measure. I feel that it is almost presumptuous for so junior a member as myself to address your Lordships on an occasion of this kind. At the same time, I think I am entitled to put the blame to some extent on your Lordships' shoulders, for if our little band on this side of the House were not so weak and so small, it would have been unnecessary for inexperience to rush in where experience fears to tread. The whole of this debate has concerned itself, and will concern itself, with two separate subjects of discussion. The first is the Bill introduced by the noble Marquess, which, as has already been pointed out, must be counted a dead letter, and the second is a discussion of the merits and demerits of the whole case for a reform and change in the constitution and the powers of a Second Chamber in this country. This second subject does seem to me to be, as the noble Marquess has just said, by far the more important from the point of view of the country as a whole, and I would like, with your Lordships' permission, in my capacity of a private member of the House and without committing the Party which I am privileged to represent, to add one or two concrete suggestions as to what might be done in the future.
As the noble Marquess who has just sat down, and the noble Viscount, Lord

189
Cecil of Chelwood, are the only two speakers hitherto who have made definite constructive proposals, I think this perhaps will not be repeating what your Lordships have already heard. I should like, in the first place, to accept one suggestion offered by Lord Cecil of Chelwood yesterday—namely, that if it were possible men of good will in all Parties should come to some sort of agreement upon a revised and reformed Second Chamber. I do not agree with the noble Marquess, however, that those who sit on these Benches are alone responsible for refusing to come to a compromise. I think that all Parties are equally responsible, and I feel certain that the only way of avoiding what will inevitably happen, otherwise, in the future—namely, a long period of sterile quarrel over constitutional reform, which inevitably holds up all measures of social reform—will be sooner or later for the various Parties to come and each make a compromise and sacrifice of its own ideas, in order to bring about some mutual agreement for reform.
The only other suggestion I would put forward is in contradiction, I think, to the proposal of the noble Marquess, as to the powers of a revised Chamber. I do not think it should be the function of a Second Chamber in this country either to veto or even to delay legislation that has been brought to it from a popularly elected Chamber. It seems to me that if delay or check of that kind is necessary, it should be the product of the will of the people themselves, and a system of referendum which has been practised with great success in other parts of the world should be introduced in this country. I would, therefore, propose that the revisory function which this House performs so ably to-day should continue to be the function of a reformed Second Chamber, however its constitution and personnel may be altered.
Your Lordships have allowed me to express this personal point of view, and I will conclude what I have to say by remarks to which I think my colleagues would be in general agreement. I venture to disagree, as many others have done, but for strangely different reasons, with the proposals of the noble Marquess in this measure, because, as it seems to me, it does not separate the good grain from the chaff in our present system. He is not content with the present efficiency
190
of the House as a revising Chamber. He is not content with preserving the variety and detail and thoroughness of the expert knowledge which gives the debates in this House so high and intellectual a level, and produces so thorough an examination of all the detailed problems which come before the House for consideration. I think that in a democracy which requires qualification for any profession save that of legislator, it is extremely important that such expert knowledge should be available, and that this represents a solid asset towards sound legislation which our country cannot afford to lose, what ever reforms may be contemplated.
The noble Marquess is not content with that. He is not content even with that atmosphere of courtesy and mutual respect, and the readiness to listen with attention to all sides of each case which is brought up—an attitude of mind and an atmosphere that are specially precious at a time when prejudice, passion, and intolerance tend everywhere in other parts of Europe to stifle the still small voice of reason. The noble Marquess is not even content with preserving the admirable tradition according to which your Lordships give your services without any thought or prospect of remuneration or reward, and devote your energies and your time to work on Committees and elsewhere that those who have experienced it know to be quite exceptionally tedious. He insists upon adding to the good grain of wisdom and reasonableness the chaff of the hereditary principle. I venture to think—and in this matter I think I shall be borne out by noble Lords who occupy the Liberal Benches—that the hereditary principle is, in these days of democracy, as much a survival from the past as, for instance, the hairy covering or the rudimentary tail that appears in the embryo of the unborn child.
On this point I venture to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. There is nothing in the science of heredity to justify a belief in the transmission of talent and ability over an indefinite number of generations. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not present this evening, but I suggest very humbly that the authorities to whom he would refer himself have not delivered themselves in favour of human heredity over a

191
long series of generations. On the contrary, biological research has shown what we might call an equalitarian tendency in nature, a tendency for individuals to rise or sink to the normal level of their species; so that the wonderful gifts possessed by the founder of a great family invariably vanish after a number of generations which succeed him. Your Lordships will think immediately of the noble Marquess who introduced this Bill, and of the magnificent record of his family, and I would only say that there is a very true proverb which says that the exception proves the rule.
If this measure is passed and if a reformed Second Chamber with a preponderating hereditary element is allowed to dissolve a popularly elected assembly, the ensuing struggle would almost certainly sweep away your Lordships' House, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, has already pointed out, and might lead to civil strife and the overthrow of Parliamentary Government. The present friction between your Lordships' House and another place would be aggravated to a quite unimaginable extent, and I implore your Lordships in the interests of a truly reformed Second Chamber, in the interests of that peaceful social evolution of which this country is justly proud, and in the interests of the democratic principle which we all hold at heart, to reject this measure and to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, as a new-comer to your Lordships' House I should like to make one or two observations. I recognise the great sincerity and conviction which are behind the noble Marquess in bringing forward this Bill. There is no man in our political world who holds our respect and regard more than he does, and he will, I am sure, realise that we who disagree with this Bill feel that we disagree with some pain from one who is such an ornament to our political life. I feel that this Bill has been introduced without considering the times in which it is brought forward. After all, we have only to carry our minds back two and a half years to the terribly grave economic crisis through which this country went, when we trusted the people and we were given that wonderful mandate to put the
192
country right, which I am sure ought to carry conviction to each one of us that we can indeed trust our own people. It seems to me it would be wrong, with a House such as we have in another place, to bring in a controversial Bill like this when there was no mandate given at that time by the people.
Moreover, I, who support the National Government and believe that a national effort is needed to carry this country through many years of troubles ahead, believe that this Bill will give ammunition to our opponents. There could be no finer controversial weapon placed in the hands of those who oppose the National Government without argument, without real foundation for their opposition. Such a weapon would introduce into our political life the wrong kind of Party warfare. Going back in my mind to the many elections which I fought, I can well imagine the difficulty of trying to give reasoned answers to the question why a Bill like this is brought forward at this time. I think the Government are very wise to say that they take an absolutely neutral line on this Bill. It may well be that the discussion which we have in your Lordships' House will produce ideas which at some future date may he of value. But not to-day. I feel that our House as it stands to-day has probably stronger roots in the minds of our people than we seem to think. I do not think we need have fears such as the noble Marquess expressed when we are faced with the actual representatives of the people as to what they may do.
After all, threatened men live long. I venture to suggest that this House will long survive the various threats of Sir Stafford Cripps and such as he. There is no logical reason for this House. You cannot defend it in logic, and yet, coming up here from another place, I have been filled with admiration at the way in which business is got through, the way in which business is talked without the ordinary delaying tactics of Party warfare in another place. This House is in many ways an example to another place in the way in which business is dealt with. I feel that if we start to deal with the basis on which this House rests, which is the hereditary element, we shall go a long way towards ending this House, or at any rate altering the whole status of it and reducing it to the position of

193
a continental Senate. I think that would be perfectly disastrous.
When you look at the terms of this Bill and how it is proposed to constitute the House, you find the evils of every system. You have got the hereditary element, which will be the dominating force in this House if this Bill becomes law. At the same time, you have got all the weaknesses of nomination, no doubt to be carried out by the Government of the day, which will lead to endless wire-pulling and log-rolling. I think there is a great deal of force in the argument which has been used that if you have a body of 700 Peers electing 150 to represent them you will then have real Party control. Each Peer elected will have to account to his fellow Peers for his actions in this House, and freedom of vote and freedom of voice will be largely withdrawn. I am glad to think the noble Marquess did recognise that we in Scotland have a just claim to our representation through the Act of Union, and I hope our Represertative Peers from Scotland will not be drawn into electing further Peers from the main body.
Clause 13, I think, would really weaken your Lordships' House. I believe that the Parliament Act whereby, after repeated going and comings between the two Houses, a Bill ultimately is allowed to become law as the voice of the people demands it, is really a safeguard for your Lordships' House; but if you bring in a clause whereby you would be forced to have an Election before a certain measure became law, you will undoubtedly stimulate the demand for the abolition of this retarding Chamber. It would be a terrible calamity to our political machine to put the power of Dissolution, which is what would amount to, into the hands of your Lordships' House. For that reason I consider it would be a dreadful calamity if we started on the basis of Clause 13 to deal with the Parliament Act. After all, the people are all-powerful. We have given democracy the power through our institutions to rule; and to say that you can stop the people from abolishing this House if they want to abolish it is, in may opinion, ridiculous. They can and will do so if they make up their minds to it.
It has been abolished before, but I hope when that time comes, if it ever does, the people will see that the political
194
machine which is to be created by a single-chamber form of government would be infinitely worse and infinitely less protective of their interests than the present form of Constitution. I am not afraid of the people, nor am I afraid of the Socialist Party. I do not believe they will have the power to convince the people of the necessity of interfering with our constitution, and for that reason I think it is bad political tactics to bring this measure forward to-day. We want to carry on this National Government after the end of this Parliament into further constructive efforts for the benefit of this country and the world at a very difficult period, and I for one, though I recognise the great sincerity of the noble Marquess, regret that I must oppose the Second Reading of this measure.
LORD ROCKLEYhad given Notice that, on the Motion for the Second Reading, he would move to insert, after "That," the words "this House, whilst regretting that the Bill does not contain a provision for the limited extension of the existing Acts of Parliament for the creation of life Peers, resolves that". The noble Lord said: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just addressed you, I feel some diffidence in doing so as a very new member, almost the most junior member of this House, but perhaps I may claim attention as I believe I am the first member to address you during these two days debates who was also a member of Lord Bryce's Conference on the reform of this House in 1917–1918. A great deal of ground was scanned during that very interesting and, I may well call it, non-Party Conference, and a great deal of ground has been gone over in the last two days here. If it is true to have said of that Conference that its end could be described as quot homines, tot sententiœ, I think it is equally true to say that of the debates we have just heard. The debates we have heard seem to me to disclose three possible lines of action in this very difficult problem. First of all there is the line of the abolition of the House of Lords. That was touched upon yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Snell. I could not quite make out whether he fully endorsed it or whether he did not. I think he was careful in his phraseology; and it has been indicated as a possible course by one or two other speakers, but I

195
cannot think that would be generally accepted. You have only to go back to history to see what some of its results were. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, mentioned Cromwell and his effort to reconstitute the Second Chamber after there had been only one Chamber.
May I remind your Lordships what the situation was when only one Chamber existed between the years 1649 and 1653? They suspended or annulled the Habeas Corpus Act, they suppressed the freedom of the Press, they stopped trial by jury, they imprisoned the Lord Mayor of London, they extended the law of treason of Edward III, and matters came to such a pass that I believe it was seriously suggested they should pull down and sell cathedral churches. That was all under a single chamber, and I cannot think that that ancient history would suggest we had better go back to it. There are much more recent matters of history that bear upon the same subject. I would ask your Lordships to cast your eye upon the formation of the Third Republic in France. There the most prominent statesman by far at that moment was M. Gambetta, who at first was in favour of a single chamber, and I believe argued strongly for it, but before he died in 1882 he pronounced definitely in favour of two chambers and had no hesitation in saying so.
If you want a third instance of a single chamber in our own Empire, to be observed at this moment, I would ask your Lordships to look at Queensland. The history there is very instructive. Between 1919 and 1922 the Legislative Council—that is to say, the Second Chamber—was abolished. It was abolished after two Bills had been brought in and rejected proposing its abolition. There was then a referendum to the people, such as was referred to by Lord Bridgeman and Lord Listowel just now, and that referendum decided by a majority of 66,000 votes that the Legislative Council should not be abolished. In spite of that a new Government proceeded to abolish the Legislative Council, and at this moment there is only one Legislative Assembly in Queensland. And this is democracy! I do not think that is a precedent that we particularly wish to follow, and it remains to see what the future of Queensland's history may be.
196
The next alternative that was obviously disclosed during this debate was that of staying exactly as we are. Some noble Lords have argued on those lines, but that means refraining from efforts to improve our debating power. It means making no attempt to add experienced members, or to regulate or diminish our numbers. I cannot say that that attitude of mind appeals to me. I do not like closing the door on any efforts at reform. After all, outside conditions are constantly varying, and if suitable measures of reform can be agreed upon I should certainly be in favour of accepting them. On that ground I shall vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not mean by that that I agree with everything in it, if I may say so, but I think that we must not close the doors to reform, and I am anxious to find any good reform that can be made.
That brings me to the third alternative as disclosed in this debate. If you attempt reform, how far is it to go? It is easy, as one noble Lord said just now, to try and reform our Constitution in one part, but it is very like touching a house of cards, and the whole thing may fall down. At any rate I should like to proceed with great caution, and one of the reasons why I have put down the Motion which is on the Order Paper with regard to life Peerages is that I was anxious to focus discussion to some extent on this subject, elicit opinions, and see how far—and I believe it ought to be a very considerable way—the Parties in this House would agree to something of that kind. I was very glad to hear the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, express his personal feeling that that was a possible line of procedure.
I mentioned Lord Bryce's Conference just now, and one of the conclusions to which I think one came after listening to those very interesting discussions was how extraordinarily difficult almost any line of reform would be. There were fifteen members of this House and fifteen members of the other place at the Conference. Some alas! are no longer with us—Archbishop Davidson's shrewd counsels, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Loreburn. I see the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, present. He added very much to our discussions. There were also Lord Stuart of Wortley, Lord Younger, and I think there was also the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who is

197
still in this House. As I have said, the difficulties seem very great. Take such matters as these: Do you want a strong Chamber like the United States Senate or do you not? You have to make up your mind definitely one way or the other. I do not feel at all sure, after hearing Lord Strachie's speech, which was his way of thinking. It is a matter that has to be decided as a preliminary one.
It was talked of at the Conference that election should be by very large constituencies or whole counties. A system of double election might be favoured—either that or a system of one election simply by the very large constituencies. It was suggested that with very large constituencies you would hardly get members of all Parties to stand. It would mean much more expensive elections. I do not know quite whether we could expect to get the Labour Party to come in on those lines. If it was to be double election by members of the House of Commons who represent those constituencies, there was again the danger of more political caucus work than. I think is to be desired. Again, in large elections, experienced men of sixty —I advisedly say experienced—would be less likely to wish to stand. It is not their fancy, possibly, after many years in the other place, to wish to go on standing at hard-fought elections for the rest of their lives. Yet we should lose their experience.
Again, if the Second Chamber members are partly nominated and partly elected as was, I think, advised by Lord Bridgeman last night, another difficulty presents itself. I would refer once more to the Third Republic in France. When the Senate was first constituted it consisted of seventy-five life members and the remainder, making a total of about three hundred, were elected in the ordinary way. But it was very soon found that those seventy-five members were accused of being quite unrepresentative, and their votes were not considered on a par with those of the other members. Since that time they have all been absorbed as elected members of the Second Chamber.
One suggestion was made yesterday by my noble friend Lord Cecil. He said it might be possible that the Government of the day should nominate a third, say 100 of the members of the Second Chamber for three Parliaments. That system
198
has been substantially in vogue in Canada for a number of years. The criticism there was, and has been, that Canadian Ministries last a very long time, certainly that of Sir John Macdonald did as did the Ministries of Sir Wilfred Laurier and Sir Robert Borden. The consequence was that while one Party, as the Government, nominated a large number of the Second Chamber, by the time that Government went out of office a very large proportion of the Second Chamber was hostile to the new Government which came in. That process was repeated on more than one Occasion as successive Governments followed each other.
I am merely raising these points to show how difficult it is to come to complete agreement on any one thing. Therefore, I come to my concluding question: What reform then is to-day desirable and, above all, easily practicable? There I would ask the House to consider very seriously the Motion which I have on the Paper. It may be better that I should only ask through that Motion that noble Lords who speak should express opinions and that when it comes to the point I should either not move it or ask to withdraw it by permission of the House. But I do want to focus opinion upon it, and see how far we can come to an agreement on that line at any rate. The Wensleydale decision in 1856 is surely a mistake; at least I think most of us might think so to-day. I cannot see why we should not have more life Peers, but limiting their total number, and also the number created in any one year. By having an arrangement of that sort we might tend towards balancing Parties more evenly in this House and without any serious difficulties.
If I may go back for a moment, and I have taken the trouble to look it up, to the debates on Earl Russell's proposals in 1869, I see that his amended preamble to the suggestions he then made contained the words:
"persons likely to add weight to the deliberations of the House."
As originally intended their number was to be limited to twenty-eight at any one time and to four creations in any one year. That proposal was not proceeded with. More success attended the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, and the amending Act of 1887, and I should very much like to urge that we might proceed

199
further on similar lines. There was a proposal made in 1888 by the late Lord Salisbury that the total number should not exceed fifty at any one time, but again the matter eventually dropped. There is one other method that occurs to me, if it is possible, and that is that by Resolution of this House we might disqualify Peers who do not attend or vote for a certain number of times.
That concludes what I want to say about life Peers. There is one other Amendment that I should like to see. It concerns Clause 13 upon which so much comment has been directed. Rather than see the proposal as it stands in Clause 13, I should like very humbly to suggest an alteration of the Parliament Act. Perhaps I had better state what the position is now under the Parliament Act. The Act provides that if a Bill passed in the other place is rejected in three successive Sessions by your Lordships' House it shall forthwith by presented for the Royal Assent. I should like to see that Act amended so that this provision should not apply to any proposal for the reform of the Constitution unless it is passed by a two-thirds majority in the other place. By the term "reform of the Constitution" I mean any change affecting the relative powers of Lords and Commons or the Prerogative of the Crown. I hope that in other speeches in this debate special attention will be directed towards the question of life Peerages, and also how much further we can get as conditions or necessities may require in the future.
LORD STONEHAVEN: My Lords, the formidable list of occasions when this matter has been considered by your Lordships, which was read by my noble friend Lord Hastings, shows that this is a matter that has been of long interest to your Lordships. I venture to think that that interest does not grow less as time passes. Contrary to the view of my noble friend Lord Hutchison, I should have thought that an occasion when you had a combination of Conservative, Liberal, and Socialist Parties, acting together in a National Government, would have been the very time when there would have been some hope of carrying out a reform of the Constitution such as is involved in any reform of your Lordships' House. Unfortunately, that has proved not to be the case, because
200
the members of your Lordships' House who belong to the Liberal Party, who were so keen on the reform of the personnel of the House when the Parliament Act was passed, appear to have lost their interest in that branch of the subject. They are quite content, I gather from the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, yesterday, with the present composition of the House. The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, did make some tentative suggestion that the House might be improved if some experience were required before a Writ of Summons could be issued to an hereditary Peer. He also advocated strongly the appointment of life Peers. With that I think all of us would be in agreement, but apparently my noble friend is not sufficiently keen on the further consideration of the suggestion to be induced to vote for the Second Reading, and so the suggestion remains purely academic.
I cannot help thinking that we have got to take the Socialists at their word, and as they say that if they get into power they propose to abolish the House of Lords, it is our business to take such action as we can to thwart their intentions. You may say, and it is said, that if there really is a determined effort on the part of the country to abolish the House of Lords, nothing can prevent that being done. My noble friend Lord Hutchison said that. I do not see that we need accept that defeatist attitude. I do not believe that the country as a whole is anxious for unicameral government. At the same time, experience throughout the world shows that Parties of the Left insist as their first action on abolishing Upper Chambers. That has been the experience in Australia for instance. They cannot get their measures through a Second Chamber. It reminds me of the well-known story of the occasion when Franklin and Washington were discussing over a cup of tea whether there should be two chambers or one. Washington, I think it was, poured his tea into the saucer because it was very hot. "There you see," said the other, "the reason for a Second Chamber." Far be it from me to say that legislation which would come from the Lower House with a Socialist majority would be hot-stuff, but at any rate I think we are bound to admit that it would be new and probably indigestible.

201
The common sense of the country has been frequently referred to, but I am certain that there should be a Second Chamber to examine legislation which may be passed in a hasty moment of enthusiasm or even hysteria by the Lower House. If that is so, I cannot see how noble Lords can pretend at this time that this House, composed as it is, can be satisfactory. In the first place, can a House be described as of satisfactory composition when, as was pointed out last night by my noble friend the Earl of Midleton, one-quarter of its members have not even taken the elementary step of taking the Oath and so qualifying themselves to exercise their functions? That in itself seems to me to condemn the present composition of the House. There is more in it than that. The power exercised through the Constitution is constantly shifting. It was predominantly in the hands of the Crown, it was then exercised by your Lordships' House and it is now exercised by the House of Commons. With the extension of the franchise the power of the House of Commons becomes greater. But that does not alter the fact that we are still governed by a Constitution consisting of Crown, Lords and Commons.
If the Socialists get into power and carry out their threat of attempting to abolish this House, it can only be done in one of two ways. I do not think for a moment that they will wait two years to let the operation of the Parliament Act take effect. They will either threaten the addition of such members to your Lordships' House as to make it perfectly ridiculous, or else they will present an ultimatum to the Crown and force the Crown to create an abnormal number of Peers. Consider the position of the Crown in the Empire to-day—the absolute keystone of the whole thing. Drop the Crown, and the Empire crumbles. It is unfair to put a strain upon the Crown which the Crown was not intended and is not constructed to stand. It seems to me that it is our business to take account of the situation as it is, to take the noble Lords opposite and those who act with them at their word, and when they are good enough to tell us that their intention is to abolish the Upper House, to take such steps as we properly can to see that that does not occur.
202
I am not satisfied with this Bill as it stands; I think its provisions as to the composition of the House can be improved, but my noble friend Lord Salisbury indicated that he was quite prepared to accept ideas and Amendments with regard to that. The composition seems to me a secondary matter as compared with the powers. The all-important thing is the powers. I am in disagreement with Clause 13. I agree with noble Lords opposite that it is quite impossible to go back on the Parliament Act in that respect, and that you have got to accept the fact that the will of the House of Commons as expressed should become the law of the land if it can be found that the country desires it. I favour very strongly the proposals put forward by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman last night for the adoption of the referendum. I cannot see why a system which is thoroughly democratic and which works satisfactorily in every one of our self-governing Dominions should not be made part of the law of the land here. Whether we like it or not, we are confronted with considerable changes. The referendum can ensure that a measure which passes the Lower House and is rejected by this House can then be submitted to the people, and if the people express a desire for it they shall have it. Then it has also this advantage. What is the use of the Commons pretending that they alone know what the people desire, and the House of Lords saying that they know what the people desire, when the only way to ascertain what the people really desire is to ask them? And why not do so? There is nothing mysterious about the method.
It is tried, as I say, in Australia, both in the Federal and in the States Parliaments; it exists in the Constitution of Canada, both in the Federal and the Provincial Parliaments; it exists in the Constitution of New Zealand, and it exists in the Constitution of the Free State. It enables a Government which is at the head in the Lower House of a majority different in. political complexion from the majority in the Upper House, to insist on the people having the measures which they think they want, if the people express a desire for them. For some reason which I have failed to grasp, I know that hitherto the referendum has been unpopular. Noble Lords belonging to the

203
Liberal Party who are opposed, I am sorry to say, to much change in the House, cannot see their way to support what is a thoroughly democratic proceeding; but if, as I hope will be the case, this Bill is given a Second Reading by your Lordships, I trust that alterations will be made in the composition, which I confess seems to me to be a secondary matter compared with the powers, and that as regards the powers a great deal more support will be found for the referendum than has been found in the past.
LORD MARKS: My Lords, as a keen supporter of the National Government I very much regret that while we have a National Government a Bill has been brought in which may cause misunderstanding outside and misinterpretation as to that which is meant by the Bill. Whatever we ourselves consider may be the result of this Bill, of one thing I am quite sure: we are going to throw on to the political platforms of this country a slogan and a cry which will give greater and more forceful ammunition than anything else that we could possibly do. In the House of Commons, for the first four years of my membership there, I knew full well that frequently one of the platform troubles, and at by-elections some of the controversial points, ranged round the House of Lords. For the last fifteen years of my association with the House of Commons that point was never raised in any election in which I was concerned, and I never heard it raised in connection with any political proposals in the House of Commons, the reason being that the Parliament Act had been passed and that there was a recognition in that Act that the will of the people was to be supreme. In that Act delay was provided for, to which no one has objected.
But when there has been no demand for this from the political platforms of the country, no cry made by the people themselves that that which we have been doing here has been oppressive or that that which we have been doing has been one-class legislation, to bring in now when we are united a Bill which is to stabilise the position of one Party and to strengthen those who have against those who have not, will lead to the greatest misunderstanding which has
204
ever been caused by anything in your Lordships' House. The controversies today in reference to political matters are surely keen enough, and the national troubles which we all have to meet are surely well enough understood, without bringing back an old cry that has been dead for twenty years and giving the people now one more chance to do what I saw them doing after speeches by Joseph Chamberlain and John Bright, marching in thousands in procession with banners: "Down with the House of Lords!" You will be starting a new cry; you will be providing them with a faggot which they can easily blow into a flame. I therefore ask those who may be considering this Bill which no one imagines can ever become law, to remember that by this Bill they are going to make a gesture which will become, presently, a menace to those of us who are desirous of helping them.
We stand united in most things of importance. No challenge has been made lately concerning that which we have done. It is suggested that those of us who have come from another place and who have had some experience there, may give our experience here with some little advantage, that those of us who may be experts in some direction may give of our knowledge when such may be useful. The House of Lords never stood in the public eye in so high a place as it stands in at this moment. Right the way through the country there is no controversy; there is no challenge. People know that that which we discuss, we discuss from the point of view of that which we believe. We have no constituents to worry, no persons to challenge, and none to criticise. But now we are about to do something which is to say to the people that whatever they do must be done hereafter wholly with the consent and by the favour of a privileged House of Lords.
That will be a danger; it will be a menace; and those of us who went through the controversy before of "The Peers versus the People" do not want to see it revived. It was dead, and it ought to remain dead. We were told last night by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that the Government propose to take no part in this matter. For that I am devoutly thankful. I wish it to be understood, amongst those who

205
know that I am supporting this Government from one section of the House, that the Government which I am supporting has nothing to do with a Bill which is going to add trouble wherever a political meeting takes place hereafter, or wherever a by-election takes place. We shall be undermining the good that we have done.
Since I have been in this House, like my noble friend Lord Hutchison, I have been charmed with the good spirit, the fairness, and the comradeship that have been exhibited by those who have been here as the descendants of great names, towards those of us who came here with no prestige but only just a little experience of another place. We have been met on equal lines, without any distinction, and it is to my mind going to be a vital error if we do anything which would lead people to feel that we still want this House to be an aristocratic Assembly, a privileged and hereditary House, and that nothing can go through here of which we do not heartily approve. Lord Hutchison said he has trusted the people and was willing to trust them. If you want an illustration to show that what has been done has not been the result of fear and panic of something which might never eventualise, look at what happened at the last Election, when a large and great Party was swept away because people had seen that there was misunderstanding as to their motives, and risk as to their actions.
I believe the people of this country are sane and sensible enough to know that when there is any trouble on it is well to have a body of men such as constitute the House of Lords, who are not acting merely for their own Party. I heard with regret that there had been evidence of a desire for the reform of this House, but the noble Lord in endeavouring to prove this desire said it came from a meeting of the National Conservative Association. It was a desire only from them, and never from the people, and never a challenge of what we were doing. I ask noble Lords, who know that this Bill cannot pass, and know that we are having simply a debate which will be misunderstood outside, to let there be a sufficient majority against the Bill, when a Division takes place, to enable the people to-see that it was purely a debate, that there was nothing real about it, and that it will never do any harm. In that
206
Division I hope with others to help to swell the majority against this Bill.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: My Lords, you will be glad to hear that most of the points I wished to raise have been dealt with, more ably than I could hope to do, by other speakers, and therefore I shall not have to trouble your Lordships for very long. I have listened with interest to the attacks on this Bill, and I am afraid I have a certain amount of sympathy with them, but I intend to vote for the Second Reading for reasons which I will give. The first is one which the noble Marquess will probably consider the least important of all. It is that he and his committee have given an immense amount of time and trouble to the preparation of this Bill, and I do not think it would be very polite to throw it out on the Second Reading. The second reason is that the noble Marquess has not only expressed his intention to consider Amendments, but has invited us to prepare Amendments for consideration, and that can only be given on the Committee stage. The third reason is that there is a very large body of opinion in favour of Part II of the Bill. As the noble Marquess has invited suggestions I should like to make one.
My opinion is that Bill is too heavily weighted, and that it provokes more controversy to the square inch than any Bill I have seen, and especially is that the case, so far as this part of the House is concerned, in regard to Part I, which deals with the personnel of this House. In my judgment all we ought to do at this stage is to show the people what should be done to ensure that they will have the last word before any drastic changes are made. What instrument should be employed for that purpose is really a matter of very minor importance, it seems to me. This Bill, contrary to what my noble friend has said, is intended to increase the power of the-people, and if any alteration of the power of this House is necessary for that purpose it is purely incidental, and of very little importance.
The noble Marquess has expressed his great admiration for this House, and for its personnel. We all know that from his devotion to this House; but I see in this Memorandum of his that he says

207
that "it is recognised there must be an outside element introduced into the constitution of this House." I am not very good at reading between the lines, but I should say that what he means is this: "I hate having to propose any alteration in the personnel of the House, but I am bound to do it because other people say it is necessary." With all respect I should like to suggest to your Lordships that on this occasion, as this Bill is not going to become law, we in this House should express what we think is best for the country and not what we think other people consider best. The proposal in Part I is that we should have a hybrid Chamber. My opinion of that is that it certainly must cause the loss of a great deal of the prestige and tradition of this House, and that this House would then have less influence in the country than it has as at present constituted.
I think the noble Marquess. Lord Lothian, referred to the question of the nominated Peers. I do not suppose many of the people who suggested that we should have an influx of nominated Peers are aware how many nominated Peers there are in this House at the present moment. I took the trouble on the First Reading to examine the Division List, and I found that about 30 per cent of those who took part in the Division were nominated Peers—that is, those who had been nominated by Prime Ministers and did not sit here as the descendants of their fathers. These included the occupant of the Woolsack, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, several other Judges, ex-Viceroys of India, and the Leader of each of the three Parties in this House. That makes the nucleus of a pretty strong team, and I do not see why we should want any more nominated Peers. I object to the introduction of any outside element. If you have elected Peers they have constituents, and they will have to talk to show their constituents how active they are, as happens in another place. The whole character of this House will be changed, and it will be a talking place instead of an acting place, where members talk solely for the purpose of influencing their fellow members.
We are told that the hereditary principle is obsolete. Well, I should very much like to know what principle is not obsolete. Certainly democracy is
208
obsolete almost everywhere. The only thing that is not obsolete is dictatorship in some form or other. Of course, I am not going to argue the question of the hereditary principle. I am certainly not going to use the stud farm argument, though there is a great deal in it; but there is much more in it than that. The sons of distinguished people are brought up in distinguished society. The sons of great statesmen are brought up from babyhood in an atmosphere of statesmanship, and more than that—and much more than that—they are brought up in the doctrine of service; with the result that you see in this House (and you have not far too look) men who have devoted their whole lives to the service of this country, with absolutely nothing to gain, except their own self-respect. Well, that is a magnificent example to set before the country and, in my judgment anyhow, example, in this country at all events, is more powerful for good than all the Acts of Parliament that ever were passed.
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords, while I am entirely in agreement with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that your Lordships' House is in need of reform, yet I find it quite impossible, as I very much regret on personal grounds, to support the provisions of this Bill. I assume that the object of any Bill of this kind is to secure powers for this House so that the Constitution of our country may be safeguarded from eruptions from the Eight or from the Left which may not have behind them the good will of the majority of the electors of this country. To obtain greater powers presumably the prestige of your Lordships' House must be enormously enhanced.
The Bill would attain the object, firstly, by excluding about four-fifths of those of us who have the privilege of sitting here—perhaps because it is reckoned that only about one-fifth of the members of this House are suitable to be legislators. One just wonders whether the majority who are unfit to be in this House will, in fact, elect the best 150 to represent them. They may do so, but there is no guarantee. Next, the Lords Spiritual will be reduced to five, and that will impose an intolerable burden on a very few. It is a very drastic pruning, but I understand from the Memorandum

209
that Part I of the Bill is not to be regarded as the last word, so perhaps I need not dwell upon that. Thirdly, there will be introduced 150 Lords or Ladies of Parliament in pursuance of a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. One wonders who they will be. Various suggestions are made in the report of the committee, and I will not weary your Lordships by dealing with the suggestions, with which we are all familiar.
I ask myself whether the House will really be strengthened when it consists of 150 hereditary Peers who by reason of the system of election may not be the best element, of their order, and 150 miscellaneous Lords and Ladies of Parliament. Personally, I feel very dubious. There is another question which was dealt with in the report, and that was the question of the payment of members. Will it be possible to confine payment merely to a small section of the Lords of Parliament who have passed the "means test"? I see no objection at all to payment of those who must have it, otherwise many who in the eyes of the supporters of the Bill would be a valuable reinforcement to your Lordships' House would be debarred from accepting election or nomination. But will it not be most invidious that one section of this House will be paid and the remainder not? Will it not involve eventually the payment of all members of your Lordships' House? Well, it is not a matter for discussion at length at this stage, but perhaps it is not out of place just to mention the fact that we should reckon on a great additional cost of this House.
Quite apart from such considerations, one is doubtful whether the prestige of this House will be in the slightest degree enhanced by the provisions of this Bill. It seems to me that a House reformed on these lines will be a spurious Second Chamber. It will follow in many respects, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, the model of another place, with all the weaknesses which year by year become more apparent. If that is to be the model then there will be two legislative assemblies too much alike, and in the circumstances it seems difficult to imagine that there is any justification for maintaining a Second Chamber. I have done my best recently to find out
210
from every conceivable source what opinion of your Lordships' House is held by the man in the street, or the man in the tram. The conclusions I come to very much coincide with those of the noble Lord, Lord Marks—namely, that there is no justification for any great inferiority complex here. So far as I can ascertain public opinion of this House is favourable. I am told that we are given credit for some impartiality because we do not periodically have to fear what electors may think of our utterances, and I am told that we do not on the whole suffer by comparison with another place.
We most certainly have not earned an unenviable reputation for making lavish promises which can never be fulfilled. Until ten years ago I had never had any contact with politics at all, and perhaps my first introduction to it was unfortunate. My first experience was to listen to a candidate for political honours who with tremendous fervour advocated the cause of Protection in the Election in which Mr. Baldwin suffered defeat on that issue. I heard that same candidate appeal to the electors at the next Election and warn them of the dangers of Protection, saying that he always had been against it, and so on. I do not suggest for one moment that all candidates are weathercocks of that order, but at any rate I was rather astonished and disgusted; and since then I have found that a simple soldier has a good deal to learn about political expediency and strategic advances to the rear, called by various names.
Whether I am right or whether I am wrong in my estimate of public opinion about this House, the point is to discover what can be done to obtain greater security for the Constitution by the restoration of some powers to this House. Personally, I find it very difficult to imagine that any successful reform of the personnel of this House can come by legislation. Surely, reforms on these lines must be a domestic affair for this House, only to he conducted within this House—reform in the first instance by the elimination of those who bring discredit upon the House. It may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, stated, that such seldom or never come into this House. But the point is: Do the public know that? I do not think that they do. It can scarcely be questioned that any

211
legislative assembly, or indeed any institution which ostracises its delinquents, cannot do anything but better its reputation. In former days monarchs dealt faithfully with nobles who were found unsuited for their position: they amputated the heads of some and they banished others, and they subjected some to forfeitures; since those salutary practices were discontinued nothing has taken their place.
So far as I know, this is the only institution of any importance in the country which does not deal drastically with those who fail to reach a certain recognised standard. Take the General Medical Council: it protects not only the public but an honourable profession against those who transgress a very high professional and moral code. Lawyers do the same. Indeed, it is difficult to think of any profession or of any Service which allows its good name to be tarnished by misconduct of its members. The Church, with some difficulty I believe, unfrocks its failures, and the Navy and the Army and the Air Force deal ruthlessly with officers who are guilty of dishonourable conduct. In some cases in the professions, I believe, decisions do have the force of law behind them. In other cases they do not, but in the latter cases public opinion within the profession is so powerful that the decisions are just as effective as though they had the force of law behind them. I believe your Lordships' House is alone in that it imposes no penalties and no disabilities on its offenders. You may say that there is no precedent and that there is no machinery for action such as is taken in the professions and the Services. Perhaps not in this country, since the powers of kings were curtailed, but if one looks into history abroad one sees that in the days when nobles ruled Venice the Venetians found no particular difficulty in instituting a Council of Ten to deal with these nobles who had become degenerate; and I am thinking on those lines.
The introduction of outsiders into this House is an abdication and surrender to the fallacy that there is nothing in the hereditary principle. To deny this principle is to deny the ordinary forces of nature. Every stock-breeder knows that, but he also knows that nature is not mechanical, that every now and then
212
things do go wrong, and that unworthy specimens appear, and he deals with the situation quite simply by elimination. There is every justification for the hereditary principle provided this fact is remembered and acted on. If we had a tribunal functioning in this House to safeguard the reputation of the House it would be the first step towards developing a legislative assembly which would have the whole-hearted confidence of the country. I doubt if ever there has been any animosity against those who were genuinely noble. How could there be, when nobility implies, amongst other things, a full regard and consideration for the claims and interests and well-being of the whole community, and service in return for a certain position of privilege? There you have real representation, the best that there could be, and if there are any gaps, experts and specialists can always he called in to supply information.
I do not believe it is too late to have an effective internal reform, in spite of many things that may have militated against the good name of this House. I believe many hold that the events of 1910–11 were gross pusillanimity, and of course the scandalous sale of honours in recent years can hardly have done your Lordships' House any good. If there were a systematic reform on the lines I have briefly indicated, and if the reformed House applied itself to the anomalies that exist to-day—one law for the poor and another for the rich—I believe that in due course powers would not be withheld, and the House might become a genuine bulwark of the State that in the next few years may be urgently required.
What is an ideal Second Chamber? I presume it should be a body of men who are trained in the art of government, who are imbued with ingrained nobility of character, who are willing to face unpopularity when they are convinced of the essential rightness of any particular course of action, men able to take a long view and appreciate the effect of legislation, not five years, but fifty years ahead. That is a brief aline, but I cannot see that the reform proposed in this Bill will produce anything approaching this ideal. I firmly believe it could be attained if we had a tribunal sifting

213
material in your Lordships' House and working up to the principle that privileges are only justified by the acceptance of responsibility, and I submit that all the responsibilities are not in Westminster, and no legislation can do this. The course I have suggested has not the objections which wewerw raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. It has nothing to do with another place, it has nothing to do with electors. I cannot see that any Government or any Party will ever ask for a mandate from the country for the reform of your Lordships' House, because they know that the effect of it would be disastrous to themselves. I do not know what the course of this Bill will be, but if it does not reach the Statute Book perhaps some day some consideration may be given to the views of a very humble Back-Bencher.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I propose to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, not because it is a perfect Bill, but because it will give this House an opportunity of considering whether or not there cannot be several alterations which, in my opinion, are absolutely necessary for the safety of the country. I do not for a moment say that a reform such as is indicated by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, or indeed any reform, will improve this place. It is forty-two years since I was elected a member of the House of Commons. For forty-two years, with the exception of five months, I have been a member of one or other of the Houses of Parliament, and though I have always had, and still have, a great opinion of the House of Commons and a great veneration for all its customs, I cannot conceal from myself that, at any rate, the procedure in this House is suite as good as the procedure in the other.
I was not here yesterday, but I read the speech of my noble friend Lord Midleton, and I see he said that one of the drawbacks of this House was the fact that only a small number attended. That is undoubtedly a drawback. He illustrated that fact by pointing out that in a Division last week forty-two members voted with the Government and thirty-three members voted against it, and he proceeded to argue that that was a very small proportion of the members of this House. Since I have been a member of this House I have observed this, that
214
though there has never been a very large number of members in attendance, they have always been in attendance in the Chamber and they have listened to the speeches.
In the House of Commons there are generally very few members in the House. The majority of the members are, if it is summer, on the Terrace or in the smoking-room or in the tea-room or in the Library; there are very few members in the House itself. When the Division bell rings the various members come up. They are met at the doors by their Whips who say: "You are Aye" or "You are No" and the members go into the Lobby as they are told without in the least knowing what has been going on or what has taken place. There was in the old days, when I first went there, a very salutary rule that no member could vote until he had heard the Question put, and consequently when the Question was put and before it was put a second time the doors were locked and no member who was outside could vote. But the Liberal Party altered that. As soon as the Liberal Party had a majority it said: "Never mind about their listening. Leave the doors open and let them come in whenever they want to. What does it matter whether they have heard the debate or not? Their leaders have told them what to do and they jolly well have to do it." Therefore I do not see myself that there is a very great difference between not coming to the House and coming to the House and not taking any active part or knowing what you are doing. I do not think that you are likely to improve the constitution of this House by the manner which my noble friend has suggested.
There is another point which seems to me to be vital and it is this. This House has no power now. It can practically do nothing. Anything that is passed in two years, if the Government in power exists three years, becomes law, and not only that, any financial proposal becomes law at once. The weak point, if I may say so, of my noble friend's Bill is that it does not restore to this House the power of veto over finance. I am not suggesting that this House should have the power to initiate taxation, but I do suggest that it should have the power to veto taxation, and I suggest it for this reason. I am glad to see four members of the Socialist Party in front of me. I

215
do not think that they will deny that their object, if they come into power, as I am afraid is not unlikely at the next Election, will be to spend money. That they have said over and over again. How are they going to get that money? There is no hole in the ground to which they can go and dig up money to give to their friends and supporters. They have to find that money somehow. How will they find it? The probability is that they will say—it was said at the time when I had the honour of being a member of the House of Commons— "No man is worth more than £500 a year." What is to prevent them saying: "We will impose a Super-Tax of 20s. in the £ on all incomes above £2,000." I think it is very likely they will do that.
See what happens? They will do it, as I believe Miss Bondfield said when they were in power, in order to take from the rich to give to the poor—a very popular proposal, inasmuch as the rich are few and the poor are many. But they have gone further than that. They say that the evils which exist at the present moment are owing to capitalism. If they take away a person's capital they do away with capitalism. Therefore, what is probable, if they do not put an Income Tax of £1 on every £ over £2,000 a year, is that they will impose a Death Duty of say 50 per cent. on every estate of £100,000 and upwards. At the present moment there is a Death Duty of 50 per cent. on every estate of £2,000,000. Why should not they extend that? And we can do nothing. I remember reading a pamphlet or article by Mr. Page, the American Ambassador, and he said that one of the reasons for the prosperity of England was that for many hundreds of years there had been gradually accumulating an amount of capital, and that in America, being a new country, they had not had the opportunity of accumulating capital, but as soon as they had accumulated a sufficient amount of capital they would outstrip us in commerce and various methods of business. That, I think, is absolutely correct.
Unless we do something to restore the power of this House, as certain as I am standing here the Socialist Party when they come in will do, as my noble friend Lord Stonehaven said they would do. What they say they will do—and they have said it, everyone of them—is to
216
abolish capitalism. Some of them have gone even further; they would like to abolish the House of Commons and make themselves dictators. I hope that if you give a Second Reading to this Bill, in Committee an Amendment such as I have suggested will be put in. If not, I reserve to myself the right to vote against the Third Reading. I agree with the noble Lords who have said that unless you do something to increase our powers, and give us power, under certain circumstances, to prevent the country being ruined in financial ways, we shall find not only that we may be abolished but that what little we have got will have gone. It will be no consolation then to say: "Well, we told you so."
There is one other point, and only one, that I should like to emphasise. It might be said that nothing serious could be done in the way of a financial imposition without a Bill, and that such a Bill might not be certified as a Money Bill by the Speaker's Committee if the proposal in this Bill is carried. I was a member of the House of Commons when payment of members was introduced. There was no Bill. It was put in the Vote of Supply. I remonstrated, and said I thought they could not put in Supply something which was novel and for which they had not received the authorisation of a Bill. I was told by the Liberal Party, then in power, that there was going to be a Bill, but on further examination, I found that what they meant was that, having got the Vote in Supply, it would be put in the Appropriation Bill, which, as those of you who have been members of the House of Commons know, means that there is no opportunity to discuss it. Under the Bill of my noble friend Lord Salisbury the Appropriation Bill is exempt. Therefore you cannot tell what an unscrupulous majority might not do unless there is some safeguard in a Second Chamber such as I would have liked to see introduced without any alteration of the numbers of this House. But I am afraid that cannot be achieved without some alteration such as is suggested by my noble friend.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, it is some eight or nine years since I accompanied some 240 members of Parliament both from your Lordships' House and another place to a large chamber in these

217
buildings, where we approached the Prime Minister of the day and expressed the urgent need for the reform of your Lordships' House. That Prime Minister agreed with us most heartily. He said no one was more aware of the need of that change than he was and that it should have the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government. Since that day I have attended almost innumerable Conservative and Constitutional assemblies throughout the country and at nearly all of them there has been a resolution urging the reform of the House of Lords. In every single case, so far as I can remember, that resolution has been carried, and carried in most cases without any opposition at all.
I feel therefore a measure of surprise when I hear some of the speeches that are delivered from the Benches on this side of the House, and I say to myself: What changes have occurred during those eight or nine years that have caused there to be no longer any necessity for any alteration in your Lordships' House? Can it be that under the National Government there is no longer any possibility of some sudden chance Election in which extremists, supported by probably an equal number of disgruntled electors and of disappointed voters, bring in a Party with unlimited powers? I say to myself, as I study the newspapers and the results of the by-elections, that that seems to me a curious conclusion. Then I say to myself: Is it by our assiduity of attendance that the House of Lords has suddenly risen to such a pinnacle in the estimation of the country that there is no longer any fear of any unpopularity whatever?
I have been a member of your Lordships' House for thirty-five years and I well recollect that when I was first a member if any Bill of great importance, such as one of the three Bills we have been considering lately, had been under discussion there would have been no room at all during the afternoon for humble Back-Benchers. Yet, as we heard from the noble Earl just below me, the biggest, Division on those three Bills was seventy five. It has been said during the course of this debate that that is all very well, but that the level of debates in this House stands high, that the House gets through its work with expedition, and that it shows on the whole a fair measure of impar
218
tiality. I venture to think that that is largely due to the unwritten laws of your Lordships' House.
As has already been mentioned, it is generally expected that any one who gets up to speak shall have some knowledge of the subject on which he is going to speak. Then it is understood that if one of your Lordships ventures to speak against the leaders on his own side, and even to vote against them, he will not be considered a pariah—or at least only temporarily. It has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Hastings, in other words and I think with great truth, that after all it is not the number of heads that counts so much as what is in the heads. But having educated the people of a country for one hundred years to consider that, numbers are the only things that count and that two people who only just escape being certified are worth exactly twice as much as, say, a professor of economics, you can hardly expect the people of that country to do otherwise than say, when Lords do not vote in important debates, that the time has come when some change is not undesirable.
There is one argument to which I wish specially to refer because I cannot follow it in any way. It has been put forward in the highest places on both side of the House. It is that the Government have no mandate whatever to introduce legislation such as this. I have known many Governments and I fail to recollect any single Government which felt itself bound not to introduce any legislation that had not been put forward in the programme at the Election. What about this Government? We have had three major Bills before us in the last two or three weeks. One was a Tithe Bill, and I have failed to find any single person who has anything to say in favour of it with the possible exception of my noble friend Lord Eltisley. I do not think that any one can suggest that there was any mandate for that Bill. The second Bill is the Betting and Lotteries Bill, which is described by its supporters as a very brave Bill. I think that that is a very just description. I sometimes wish there was not such close connection between bravery and foolhardiness. At all events cannot recall any candidate at the Election speaking in favour of such a Bill, nor did I see any poster "Vote for Jones and have less dog racing."

219
Then we come to the Petroleum (Production) Bill. Suppose a candidate at the last Election had got up and said: "Vote for the National Government, and vote for me, and we will introduce a measure which for Socialist principles will out-Stafford Cripps." Would he have got in? I venture to suggest to your Lordships that he would not be an M.P. at this moment. When the last Election took place we were not quite so fond of Socialism as we are at the present time. We had had a very small dose of it and the taste of it was still bitter in the mouths of the people of this country. I do not think he would have got in.
Have not the Government got a mandate from the country for legislation such as this? What was the mandate given the Government? I venture to suggest that it was to repair the damage that had been done in the preceding two years. It was to restore the credit, financial and otherwise, of this country. It was to ensure peace. It was to give us prosperity and to deal with the vast problem of unemployment. Surely, within that vast mandate the Government could bring in a Bill to ensure that progress towards those objects should not be shattered by a chance majority obtained by extremists supported by disgruntled dog-racers and tithe-payers? I myself consider that they have a very definite mandate. I have heard it expressed on both sides of the House that the view of the people must prevail. That is the very object of this Bill. It is that the will of the people should prevail, and not that the chance votes of disgruntled people should force on the country some measure or measures which the people who voted for them really had no intention of approving. That might apply just as well to extremists on the Right as to extremists on the Left.
There is one other word that I want to say about this Bill. I find myself almost exactly in agreement with the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, in regard to it; so much so, that I was surprised to hear him say that he is going to vote against it. However, he is perhaps just as surprised to find that I am going to vote for it. I regard the vote given for the Second Reading of this Bill as a vote for the reform of the House of Lords. That is how I put it. I look upon other matters as matters for the Committee stage.
220
I find two great objections to this Bill in detail. One is that I think the country would never really feel that a change is justified which leaves an hereditary majority permanently in this House. The second is that I feel very doubtful about the further powers which the Bill proposes to confer on this House. After all, how many of your Lordships really know what powers your Lordships have? If you do know, you certainly know them only by hearsay. So far as I am aware there is only one man with the courage to put them to the test in your Lordships' House, and that is the noble Lord who has just spoken, Lord Banbury.
I think I have finished all that I intended to say, but I would finally add that in my judgment this measure—or rather a measure such as this, not necessarily this but a measure reforming your Lordships' House—is esentially a matter for a National Government. I believe that it is a task worthy of the majority which they were given, and I venture to hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill by such a majority as will cause them to "sit up and take notice."
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive a member of this House who has been here only a short time if he says one word, in view of the fact that he is a very old Member of Parliament. I am one of, I suppose, very few in this House to-day who were elected to the 1895 Parliament. Lord Banbury is another, and indeed he was a member of the House earlier than that. Moreover, with three of my colleagues on these Benches I was in the Government which passed the Parliament Act.
A NOBLE LORD: Shame!
LORD MOTTISTONE: A noble Lord says "Shame!", but I would say that I heartily agree with the plan of the Parliament Act to give power of delay only; and I would say to Lord Banbury that when he says in his melancholy way (unused as I am to a melancholy speech from him) that your Lordships' House has no power and asks, "What are three Sessions and two years? "my reply is that he seems to be gifted with perpetual youth. Two years may be nothing to him, but it is so much in legislation that it has been quite enough to ensure that

221
none of those dreadful disasters which he fears has ever happened. Indeed, if you examine the probabilities of Parliamentary life, you will find that the powers conferred upon this House by the Parliament Act are of almost overwhelming importance.
Since this Bill was introduced, I have been at pains to try to find out from those who really know, that is to say from the servants of this House and of the House of Commons and civil servants, and the people who have to do with the laws which we pass, how this great institution, the House of Lords, really works. It alas astonished me to find that every one of them without exception takes the view expressed by more than one speaker yesterday, that your Lordships' House for all purposes of ordinary legislation and review is the ideal Second Chamber. They all used that same phrase. When you come to consider it, it is very remarkable. Great changes have taken place in our forms of legislation. All of those have made your Lordships' House as at present constituted more and more valuable. First of all, there is the fact that the guillotine has become part of the regular procedure of the House of Commons. Under all Governments, whether they be of my noble friends representing the Labour Party or of the Liberal or Conservative type, the guillotine is becoming part of the established custom of the House of Commons, and that makes it more than ever essential that there should be a revising Chamber. This revising Chamber works, as we are told, admirably, and is the ideal Second Chamber to correct the mistakes made under the guillotine, when a good deal is discussed at great length and a great deal is passed over without any discussion at all.
Then there is the, other principle, which we are told, especially by many of our judicial advisers, is a very dangerous one, under which legislation by reference is achieved by a Bill being passed enabling a Minister by Order to decree this, that and the other. Now those Orders have to lie on the Table of the House, not only in the House of Commons where the Bill is introduced, but in this House too. I think that what I say is correct; I have even higher authority than that of the noble Viscount who leads the House for what I am now saying. It is a great safeguard to the
222
public that those Orders which are ordered to be laid upon the Table of the House are laid upon the Tables of both Houses, except in the case of Orders imposing taxation. Again and again in that case, as in the case of Bills passed under the guillotine, your Lordships' House has intervened to make a Bill a proper and workable Bill
Again, in the ordinary procedure of Parliament, in the setting up of Committees, whether Private Bill Committees or Select Committees, and in all the ordinary business of the House, whether originating Bills in this House or in dealing with Bills originated in the other House, I am told by those who do know that this House is the ideal Second Chamber. And why? I have come to this conclusion, that whereas my noble friends on these Benches and your humble servant speaking to you were right in saying that the best solution was to give the House of Lords power to delay for at least two years, we were wrong—and I say this quite boldly—in saying in the Preamble of the Parliament Act:
"And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis."
If that means constituted by such method of election as is proposed by the noble Marquess's Bill for about half the new House, I say that that is a great mistake.
There are two sorts of people who run our country, those who are elected and those who are nominated, or, in this case, who succeed. About 30 per cent. of those who take part are nominated. I am quite sure that if you attempt to revise the proceedings of a popularly-elected Chamber by another popularly- elected Chamber you will be going backwards not forwards, and running into the very dangers from which you seek to escape. Take the case of those who form our public life; there are the members of the House of Commons, the members of this House, the Judges, and the magistrates. I submit that to put an elective element into this House, however elected, would be as bad for this revising Chamber as to put an elective element into the Judicial Bench or to make your magistracy elective. For the East seventeen years, as one of His Majesty's Lieutenants of counties in a

223
great county, I have been largely responsible for the appointment of magistrates. A very small number are elected, and I do not think that anybody in this House, including my noble friends who represent the Labour Party, would say for one instant that it would be wise to have an elected magistrary. For that reason I am quite sure that the proposals in this Bill, made with great knowledge, great care and great thought by a man who knows more about it than almost anybody else, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, are in effect, though he does not know it, retrograde and calculated to cause the very dangers which he seeks to avoid, by bringing in an elective element which will rob this House of its extraordinary power and value as what it is in effect, a nominated Second Chamber helping, occasionally controlling, and sometimes delaying an elected First Chamber, and which will lead inevitably, I fear, to a clash between the two elected bodies which will end in the destruction of the Second Chamber.
Of course it is quite true that there are anomalies in this House. What are termed the backwoodsmen have been referred to by several speakers—people who come here after not having been here for years and years, and propose to vote on an important subject. We all know that it is very absurd. The best story I have heard—there are many versions, but this is the true one—is as follows. A Peer whom we will call a backwoodsman walked into the House for an important Division. Not having been here for many years—it was not so very long ago—he said: "Who is that talking?" and the answer was "Hush! It is Lord Salisbury." The reply of the backwoodsman was: "Well, he always made a very good speech, but why did he cut off his beard?" That is the authentic story, but there are many other versions of the same kind, which are quite frankly absurd.
I am told there is a way out of this difficulty, and again I will refer to my humble experience as Lord-Lieutenant of a county. A great many magistrates cease to attend or take any interest in their duties, and it is possible, with the Lord Chancellor's approval, to write to each of them and ask if he proposes to continue his function. If he says he cannot, he can be struck off the Commission
224
of the Peace, with the Lord Chancellor's approval. I should have thought it was not impossible to take similar action in the case of the backwoodsmen. I am told also that it is still legally possible for any member of this House to take part in the Final Court of Appeal, and that even the Judicature Act of 1875 has not actually robbed him of this right. I speak under correction, but whether that is so or not I have a legal opinion of great eminence in my pocket which justifies me in making the point. If it is possible, my point is that the right is not exercised. Your Lordships long ago surrendered, either by Act of Parliament or voluntarily, your right to take part in the proceedings of the Final Court of Appeal. Would it not be possible for your Lordships, yourselves, greatly to reduce the number of those who, while taking no part in the affairs of this House, still have the right to come and settle the affairs of this country, although they know nothing about them?
Lord Cranworth made very good points as to whether or not there was a mandate. Assuming there is a mandate, I think it would be extraordinarily unwise to choose this particular moment to try, by adding a democratic flavour to the House, to increase its powers of delay or refusal. I do not think that really under this Bill you would make it any safer against revolutionary change from either the Right or the Left. After thirty years experience of Parliamentary life I do not think it would work that way in practice. I do not think that such a Second Chamber would so well stand onslaughts from the electorate as your present Chamber. I think you are stronger as you are. If there be an old building of acknowledged beauty which stands in the way of traffic, it would be, I think, rather rash to renovate a part of it, if the building stands well repaired and in good order and doing the job it is meant to do. I think the old building has a better chance of surviving than any part-new and part-old one.
I do not fear revolutionary change, nor do I think there is the least reason to fear it, or that there is risk of the Speaker abusing the power of his great office and declaring a Bill to be a Money Bill which is not a Money Bill. Consider what has happened in the past. Since 1895 no Speaker has been opposed in

225
his own constituency; no Speaker's decision has ever been challenged, and the Speaker has grown in power and responsibility. Believe me, no Englishman can rise to that position who will not be fair and impartial in the important matter of Money Bills. For these and other reasons, while acknowledging the care mead and thought given by the noble Marquess to this Bill, I shall have to vote against its Second Reading.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, in rising to support the Second Reading of this Bill I must offer an apology for my presumption in addressing this House after having been a member only for a very short time, on a topic which has exercised your Lordships' minds for many years. I do so only because I have heard that there is urgent need and an urgent desire for reform of the Second Chamber, and it seems to me that the matter falls rather under three categories. In the first, the point of view is that we should do nothing, and should preserve the House of Lords without change, because everything is for the best and it is a perfectly organised Second Chamber. The second point of view is that although we would like to retain the Second Chamber with no alteration, there should be a certain amount of alteration to strengthen the Chamber in the way which is provided in Part II of the Bill. The third point of view is that the Second Chamber should be reformed so as to be an up-to-date Chamber, and strengthened so as to stand the pressure of what may come upon this House in the future.
I feel that it would be very badly interpreted in the country if a refusal was given to the Second Reading of this Bill. All round the country it would be said that the House of Lords did not want any reform and were quite content to get on as they were, although they had been told that dangers might be in front of the country which in time would require a stronger Second Chamber to deal with them. I do not think it is possible that stronger powers should be given to this House unless some reform takes place. So We come to a reformed Second Chamber, and I think the Bill opens up a very wide field for discussion if it passes its Second Reading And goes to Committee. We may not all of us be satisfied with the provisions of the Bill.
226
The essence is that we want to get something really efficient for the future if we are going to reform the Second Chamber at all.
I understood Lord Marks to say that this demand emanated from the Central Office "of the Conservative Party, but I can assure him that it only emanated from the office of that body because constituencies all over the country had passed resolutions urging the Government to deal with the question without delay. Those resolutions have been passed by constituents who have come up to the annual conference, and year after year nothing has been done to move us one step further, although we believe that the time is ripe and that the future may necessitate a stronger Second Chamber. I need not recall to your Lordships' minds how in the last twenty-five years a complete change has come over a great deal of our administration. You hear, I know, that many people fail to attend this House with the regularity that they should. But do your Lordships all remember the amount of work that many members of this House do in local administration in parts of England far remote from London, where it is not possible for them constantly to be going backwards and forwards, to be in their place in this House and yet doing that most important work on county councils, and on local administration in their own counties? I am sure that it is because of that important work that some members of your Lordships' House are not as regular attendants as they might be.
There is one point that I would like to suggest with regard to the provisions of the Bill, if I might do so with all humility, and that concerns the question of the number of Archbishops and Bishops who, it is proposed, shall sit in this reconstituted Chamber. I feel that the time has come when we ought to approach this matter in a rather more broad-minded and tolerant manner. I think that representatives of other denominations should find a place in a Second Chamber. I, for one, cannot see why the Church of Scotland should have no representative in this Chamber. You may well say it is no concern of mine, as I do not live in Scotland. But still, these problems which are followed with such interest by the representatives of the Church of England in this House

227
affect every denomination in the country, and I am sure it would be all the better if in this Chamber we had the opportunity of hearing the views of other denominations.
Your Lordships know too well the difficulties that might come upon us in these days, when the swing of the pendulum at Elections may be very violent and may cause a great change in the political situation. We wish, if possible, to have a Chamber more on non-Party lines than we have at this moment. We wish that it were not Party, Party, Party, at every moment in the Second Chamber. We hope to see people with broad minds, people who have done great work for the State directing the affairs of this House. Now these proposals which are before us seem rather vague and nebulous as to the strength and efficiency of the Opposition. No deliberative Chamber can be adequate and efficient unless it has an adequate and effective Opposition. We should like to assure the election of members of the Opposition to this House, but I do not see in the provisions of this Bill anything which makes it inevitable that that shall happen. If noble Lords elect each other they are, as has already been said, almost sure to elect those with whom they are in political sympathy, and it might cause the House to become one-sided, which is exactly the opposite of what we wish to see in a well-constituted Second Chamber. There is danger in the future that a violent swing of the pendulum might cause such a complete alteration that it would he essential for this House to take a much greater and more active part in the control of the affairs of the nation. As it is at present constituted I do not believe that would he possible.
It is said that this House enjoys great popularity. Perhaps individually its members do, but as a Chamber I am afraid it is rather the popularity of a nonentity, and if we tried to take a very active part in affairs that so-called popularity might very easily fade away. We want to strengthen the Constitution, we want to establish it on broad lines, we want to make it efficient for the future, and I believe that that can be done. But it requires the fullest discussion. We want to have the most searching inquiry made into the best methods. In order that that should be done I feel it is essential that
228
the Bill should be given a Second Reading, so that all the relevant points may have the fullest consideration, and we can devise a scheme which I trust the Government will take up, and which will eventually become the law of the land. It does not brook long delay. It cannot be done in a moment. It will take time to work out the whole scheme; but I sincerely trust that the Bill will receive a Second Reading, in order to enable that full discussion to take place.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, so. many of your Lordships have already addressed the House and have put so much better than I could do the points that I should have put before you had I discussed the matter in detail, that there is no necessity for me to detain your Lordships for any length of time. But I would urge you to give this Bill a Second Reading and so enable the House, as the noble Lord has just said, to discuss the problems which this Bill raises in detail and point by point in Committee. The noble Marquess who introduced the Bill invited your Lordships, if you gave it a Second Reading, to move Amendments and make such alterations as the House may think best. I think we have a great opportunity now to discuss this very difficult question in detail. House of Lords reform has been debated very many times, and from what I have heard, both to-day and on former occasions, it is the opinion of a very large majority of members of your Lordships' House as well, I think, as of a large majority outside your Lordships' House, that such reform is desirable. In fact, it has always seemed to me that the unanimity in favour of reform is only equalled by the diversity of opinion as to how that reform should be carried out.
If the principle of reform is accepted, may we not then say that we accept in principle this Bill for Second Reading? We may not agree with many of the details, we may not agree with any of the details, but at any rate we do concede the principle that reform of the House of Lords is desirable and necessary. If we do that and the Second Reading is carried, then the Bill will go into Committee and we can discuss it point by point. The question of House of Lords reform has been considered by ad hoc Committees, by the Bryce Com

229
mitten and by many others, and there have been Resolutions and debates on the subject in this House. But those have all been debases at large. All the points have been dealt with first by one speaker and then by another, but we have never yet been able to get down to the details of a Bill as we can in Committee.
In times gone by I think all Governments have been rather chary of tackling this subject and, if I may say so I am heartily in agreement with the decision of His Majesty's Government not to take any part in the question to-day, but to remain neutral and hear what the result of the discussion in your Lordships' House has been and how that discussion may affect opinion outside. But on one occasion a Government did take up this question. That was the time when proposals were made to your Lordships' House, known as the Cave proposals, made by the then Lord Chancellor, the late Lord Cave. Then, if I may say so, and I do so without offence because I was a member of that Government, these proposals were not very successful, they did not meet with any great approoation either in your Lordships' House or outside, and the reason was not far to seek. That Government tackled this question without being able to ascertain opinion outside.
Discussion in Committee on this Bill will give an opportunity to the Government and the country to know individual opinions of your Lordships on all the details, not only of the Bill but of any Amendment which any noble Lord may elect to propose. I would therefore express to your Lordships the same opinion as I did the other day upon a different and minor question—namely, the South Downs Preservation Bill—when I asked your Lordships to give the measure a Second Reading, whatever opinions you might hold on the question as a whole, in order that the Bill might go to Committee to be properly thrashed out. For the same reason I would venture to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill so that it may go to Committee where all the details of House of Lords reform may be carefully considered and the opinion of your Lordships' House recorded thereon.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, on occasions like to-day's it appears to me
230
that the one question of supreme importance is whether or not the proposals before us are calculated to meet the particular dangers which are threatening the country at the present time. May I therefore begin by saying a few words about the conditions of the country with which the Bill we are now considering must. be capable of dealing if it is to have any effect at all? At the present moment we, as a nation, are living on capital which is being dissipated at a great rate, and that capital is not being replaced. The Budget is now, and for many years past has been, balanced in name only—that is to say, it has been balanced by using as revenue, to be spent on consumable goods and non-reproductive services, large masses of money that under any sound system of finance would have been devoted to maintaining and increasing our means of production.
The manufacture of most of what the Americans term "capital goods" has either ceased altogether or is being carried on by means of subsidies—that is to say, at a loss. Conditions are such that without a subsidy it is not worth while to pay unemployed men to work. Riots are temporarily being staved off by subsidising the whole of the working classes, employed and unemployed, to abstain from rioting. The trade unions have been allowed to organise the working classes for plunder, and the delicate business of preserving the solvency of the country is prostituted to the cupidity of an electorate that, from the point of view of economies, is imbecile. Parliament is over-awed by the display of force or potential force by the organised bodies. of workmen controlled by the trade unions. Even after an Election like that of 1931, Parliament did not dare do more than nibble at the question of how this country was to be preserved from bankruptcy, because it has no organised body of citizens behind it able and ready to oppose force to the force or threat of force which is at the disposal of the trade unions. This country's fate is sealed unless within a limited time, probably not more than three years, arrangements can be made for permanently increasing real revenue to equal expenditure, or permanently reducing expenditure to equal real revenue.

231
What use would the Bill be for this purpose? The only way to do these things is to organise the thrifty and responsible members of the community in the same way as the reckless and idiotic are at this moment organised, so that the former can and will exert pressure on Parliament greater than that now exerted by the disruptive elements. In what way does the Bill help to do this? The power of your Lordships' House to do anything of importance almost certainly ceased in 1911. Nothing that can be done now is ever likely to restore power to this House. Does any one for a moment imagine that the House of Lords, reformed on the lines of the Bill before us, could stop that flood of organised non-reproductive expenditure which must be stopped if this country is to survive? As well try to mop up Niagara with a pocket handkerchief!
The organised wastrels are at the present time over-awing the House of Commons, partly by means of the voting power of the masses and even more by the revolutionary violence to which they openly threaten to resort if any serious attempt is made to resume sound financial methods—that is to say, pay a man what he can earn and no more. What conceivable House of Lords could possibly succeed where the House of Commons has dismally failed? It is because I am convinced of the futility of trying to achieve anything so long as this country is controlled by a process of counting heads that I am opposed to any attempt to reform your Lordships' House. It is barking up the wrong tree. Things are getting rapidly beyond the control of Parliament. No system can endure which depends upon mass subsidy. If salvation is to he found it will be when the thrifty and intelligent members of the community organise to re
232
sist the plunder to which they are now subjected. When organised revolutionary force, dependent either on voting or on noting, can be met by greater force supported by the intelligence and patnotism of the best elements in the country, then will peace and prosperity be at hand. I venture to think that if the noble Marquess, instead of introducing this Bill, had devoted his great talents and his great position to organising the best people by the sort of methods I have outlined, the prospects of this country would be brighter than they are.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Bayford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

DARLINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and referred to the Examiners.
WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.

BETTING AND LOTTERIES BILL. [H.L.]
Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday, May 30.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.