Sitting of 28 February 1940

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

  POLISH GOVERNMENT AND THE WAR.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed that the Polish Government shall participate in meetings of the Supreme War Council?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): It has been agreed that a Polish officer should be appointed to collaborate with the appropriate Anglo-French military authorities when questions affecting the employment of the Polish forces are under consideration. The Polish Government have nominated an officer for this purpose.
  Mr. Mander: Would it not be in accordance with the spirit of the Anglo-Polish Treaty that there should be the closest possible co-operation and co-ordination at all meetings held between the Allies?
  Mr. Butler: I am glad to say that this arrangement has been made in consultation with the Polish Government and has their approval.
  Mr. Leach: May I ask when this Government was elected, where and when it sits, and what legislation it is passing?

  CHINA AND JAPAN (SHANGHAI).
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Prime Minister whether his intention has been drawn to the announcement of the Japanese official spokesman that the districts of Yangtzepoo and Hongkew in the Shanghai International Settlement will be restored to the Shanghai Municipal Council when the dispute as to the
  2036
  control of the outside roads area has been disposed of; what is the position as regards these two questions, and whether the Japanese have yet taken any steps to put an end to the lawless and dangerous conditions prevailing in the areas under their control adjoining the foreign settlements of Shanghai?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. My attention has been drawn to the Press reports in question. A modus vivendi for the policing of the western outside roads area at Shanghai was signed on 16th February by the Chairman of the Shanghai Municipal Council and the Mayor of the Chinese City Government. The Japanese Consul-General then issued a communiqué that the Japanese authorities were ready to resume negotiations with the Council regarding the policing of the Hongkew and other areas north of the Soochow Creek. Conversations are in fact to be resumed between the two parties and it is hoped that these negotiations will lead to a settlement of other questions at issue concerning the Council's jurisdiction in those areas. The latest reports indicate that the crime situation is still very bad in the western extra-Settlement district, but the Japanese authorities have expressed their intention of doing away with a number of the gambling houses and dens of vice to which the disorderly conditions in this district have been chiefly due.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Will my right hon. Friend express the appreciation of this country at Japan's contemplated action and press them, if possible, to get on with the work of establishing order in the country?
  Mr. Butler: Certainly, I will see that that expression of appreciation is passed forward and that the work the hon. Member desires is pressed on.

  ALLIED WAR AIMS.
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make it clear that, although it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to restore the Polish and Czech territories, it is not their policy to partition Germany, in view of official German propaganda alleging that such is the policy of His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) on 31st January, which characterised such propaganda as "fantastic and malicious."
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to maintaining peace in Europe, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that the peace conference which will be held at the termination of the present war, should hear the representatives of any European Government which desires to place its national grievances before the conference?
  Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the Prime Minister's speech at Birmingham on 24th February, in which he made it clear that we and our French allies could not and would not wish alone to settle the new Europe.
  Mr. Henderson: Arising from that answer, is it the intention of the Government to allow any European Government which desires to be at the conference to put forward its national grievances?
  Mr. Butler: I am sure that any such settlement will be comprehensive in scope. The fact that we do not want to settle alone should reassure the hon. and learned Member.
  Mr. Thorne: You have not settled the date yet?
  Mr. Mander: I take it that the neutral countries will not be confined to those in Europe?
  Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Prime Minister whether he will now give to the House specific points upon which His Majesty's Government would be prepared to enter into peace negotiations?
  Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's speech at Birmingham on 24th February, in which the position of His Majesty's Government was clearly stated.
  Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Member aware that I asked for "specific points"? Is he further aware that there is a certain amount of suspicion in the country with regard to the Government's intentions, which retards the national war effort? In view of that, will he not take steps to allay that suspicion by placing down the specific points?
  Mr. Butler: I think each one of us can help the national war effort. The statement which most accurately represents the Government's view was made by the Prime Minister in his Birmingham speech.
  Mr. Davidson: Is the Under-Secretary aware that when hon. Members at public meetings do try to assist the war efforts, they are met with suspicions of the Government's intentions? Does he not agree that that can only be allayed by the Government specifically stating terms under which they would enter peace?
  Lieut.-Colonel Acland Troyte: Is not the only suspicion of the Government in this matter held by the country the fear that they will be too soft in their peace terms?

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY (CAUCASUS).
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the recent military and diplomatic developments on the Russian and Turkish side of the Caucasus?
  Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has received no official confirmation of the incidents on this frontier recently reported in the Press.
  Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister not aware of any activities in this part of the world at all?
  Mr. Butler: There is always activity everywhere, but we have no confirmation of the extent of the incidents which have been reported in the Press.

  CHILE (FOREIGN DEBT).
  Mr. Liddallasked the Prime Minister whether the Chilean Government have completed their sinking fund purchases due up to 31st December, 1939, in accordance with the unilateral law imposed upon foreign holders of defaulted Chilean obligations; and, if not, will he remind the Chilean authorities that, as the sinking fund proposals are their own proposals, it is expected that they will be punctually carried out?
  Mr. Butler: The existing arrangements with regard to the Chilean foreign debt were made unilaterally by the Chilean

  2039
  Government, and were not recommended for acceptance by the Council of Foreign Bondholders. As at present advised my Noble Friend is not prepared to request the Chilean Government to carry out a scheme which the representatives of the British interests concerned have not recommended. I am circulating a statement on the present situation in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the statement:
  According to a statement issued by the Chilean authorities in December, 1939, the revenue received during 1939 for the service of the external debt amounted to United States $9,456,203. Out of the 50 per cent. of this amount to be applied to sinking fund purchases it was stated that bonds of the nominal value of £120,560, United States $5,882,000 and Swiss francs 228,000 were bought and withdrawn from circulation. I understand that the balance not utilised was carried forward to increase the funds applicable to amortisation this year.

  FINLAND (ASSISTANCE).
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether the Governments of Norway and Sweden have, in accordance with the recent decisions of the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations in connection with the conflict between Russia and Finland, expressed their willingness, in accordance with Article 16, Section 3, of the Covenant, to take the necessary steps to afford passage through their territory to the forces of any of the members of the League of Nations who are co-operating to protect the covenants of the League of Nations?
  Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Swedish delegate at Geneva on 15th December, 1939, reported in paragraph 23 of Command Paper 6160.
  Mr. Mander: Can the Under-Secretary say whether that statement did in fact accept this obligation of the Covenant?
  Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member will refer to the Command Paper in question, he will see that the Swedish delegate, speaking on behalf of the delegations of Sweden, Denmark and Norway, declared
  2040
  that they made every reservation in so far as the Resolution involved any measure coming within the scope of the system of sanctions.
  Mr. Mander: Would it not be a serious breach of international law and treaty obligations if any country such as Norway and Sweden were to refuse to carry out the Covenant?
  Mr. Butler: As a matter of accuracy, the Resolution adopted on the occasion of the Assembly of the Council contained no reference to Paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Covenant.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the Swedish Government are affording considerable assistance to Finland?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    AIRMEN (COMMISSIONS).
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any information respecting the present number of airmen recommended for commissions; and how many of these received elementary, secondary and public school education, respectively?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Approximately 1,250 airmen to date have been recommended for commissions. I regret that I am unable to furnish the information asked for in the second part of the Question, which is not available and cannot be obtained without an undue expenditure of time and labour.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that one of his colleagues is in fact trying to find information regarding the origin of these commissions? Can he not in the course of time endeavour to get this information?
    Captain Balfour: I have no knowledge of any of my colleagues trying to obtain this information. I should be glad to receive information.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is not the main object to ensure that the best men are chosen for commissions and not that they should come from any particular class of school?

    DEPENDANTS' EXTRA ALLOWANCE, LONDON AREA.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that discontent has been caused by the exclusion of Dagenham, Barking and other parts of East London from the extra allowances granted to airmen's dependants living in the London postal area; and whether he will consider giving these to all those living in the London transport area, in view of the high rents, fares, etc., which have to be met by residents in outer London?
    Captain Balfour: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 21st February by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, which is also applicable to dependants of airmen.
    Mr. Parker: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is a great deal of feeling in the East London district, that the Government do not realise that London has grown since the last war, and that many parts of it are outside the postal area?
    Captain Balfour: I am not aware of any great feeling, but in cases where, owing to exceptional circumstances, there is serious hardship for wives or other dependants because of the calling-up of soldiers or airmen, which cannot be met by normal allowances, applications for special assistance can be considered by the War Services Grants Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that there are many such anomalies, due to the fact, as my hon. Friend has stated, that London has grown in the last 20 years? Would he not reconsider the matter with a view to extending the area in which these extra allowances will be made?
    Captain Balfour: The matter has been considered, but wherever you draw a line, there will always be someone who does not come within it.
    Mr. Thorne: Why not extend the area to the Metropolitan Police area?

    AIRCRAFT CREWS.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Secretary of State for Air whether there is any age limit with respect to youths sent out on reconnaissance flights over Germany;
    2042
    and whether a youth now aged 18½, who joined the Force a year ago is held liable for this duty?
    Captain Balfour: Aircraft crews are drawn from personnel who have elected to serve on air duties, and provided they have reached the age of 18 and are fully qualified, they are liable to be employed on duty in the air in any part of the world.

    ACCIDENT, WALLINGTON.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give any information in connection with the Royal Air Force plane crash at Wallington, Surrey, on Saturday; how many people were killed; and whether any compensation is to be paid?
    Captain Balfour: I regret that at the present time I am not able to add anything to what has already been reported in the Press concerning this accident, which resulted in the death of a woman, her child and one officer. The accident will be the subject of an official investigation and the question of compensation will receive full consideration. I feel sure I am voicing the feelings of the House in expressing our sympathy with the relatives of those killed.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Can my hon. and gallant Friend give an assurance that compensation will not be withheld on the ground that this is the class of case in which it was contemplated that compensation should not take place until the conclusion of the war?
    Captain Balfour: I have said that it is intended to investigate the cause of the accident and that the question of compensation will receive full consideration.

    ENTERTAINMENTS (UNPAID ARTISTES).
    Mr. Denvilleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that performances are being organised on a Sunday with artistes on behalf of branches of the Royal Air Force, in districts where there are already ample entertainments provided; and whether, in view of the serious effect which this form of competition is having on local enter prises, he will consider putting an end to this practice?
    Captain Balfour: My hon. Friend has sent me particulars, which only reached me yesterday, of the performance forming

    2043
    the subject of his Question. I will make inquiries into the circumstances and communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Mr. Denville: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the artistes who take part in these performances are not paid for their services, but that money is taken at the door and that artistes are out of work who could well do with the salaries that ought to be paid?
    Captain Balfour: I have said that I will inquire into the circumstances of this particular performance, but it is difficult to say that those who are willing to give the benefit of their skill and experience for nothing should be denied the opportunity of doing so or that troops should be denied the opportunity of hearing them.
    Mr. Denville: The artistes to whom I am referring are working six days a week, and then they give their services on Sundays, while artistes in the same towns are out of work all the week.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    AIR MINISTRY (CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS).
    Mr. Dolanasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will issue orders to all concerned who are in charge of confidential documents not to leave these in unattended motor-cars, as nearly a dozen cases of theft of these valuable secret documents have been reported since the beginning of the war?
    Captain Balfour: Instructions on this matter have already been issued. So far as I am aware, there has been no case since the outbreak of war in which the staff of my Department have been involved.

    MINISTRY OF FOOD.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Food what are the duties of Mr. W. A. Harley, as sub-area chairman at Inverness; what is his total remuneration, including staff and office accommodation; what salary he earned prior to his appointment; whether he is still acting in and receiving salary for his former employment; and whether he is acting for his former employers?
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. T. Williams: Can the Minister state to the House the actual salary paid to this individual to-day and the salary he received prior to his appointment?
    Mr. Morrison: As the question is rather involved, I will ask the hon. Member to look at the original answer, and then he can ask me a further question if he so desires.
    Mr. Lunnasked the Minister of Food the names of those engaged in the administration of his Department, including the livestock and meat rationing scheme in the West Riding of York; their salaries; and the duties assigned to them?
    Mr. Morrison: As the reply consists of a tabular statement, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Lunn: Can the Minister state whether the West Riding is a separate administrative area?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the assistant head of the Butter and Cheese Trade Division, to whom a salary of £500 per annum is being paid, was appointed at the age of 71; and whether, since this officer is not dependent upon his Civil Service salary, he will consider appointing to the post a qualified but younger officer who has no alternative income?
    Mr. Morrison: The officer in question is not the assistant head of the Butter and Cheese Trade Division, but holds a responsible post.

  CIVIL AVIATION.

    DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Secretary of State for Air the names of the members of the Civil Aviation Development Committee and the number of meetings that this committee has held since the outbreak of hostilities?
    Captain Balfour: On account of the altered circumstances due to the outbreak of hostilities my right hon. Friend did not proceed with the appointment of this committee.
    Mr. Simmonds: Was this committee not unanimously proposed by the Harold Brown Committee set up by the Secretary of State for Air? Is this not a long-term planning committee, and is it not essential that all the work in connection with civil aircraft development should be planned?
    Captain Balfour: The setting-up of that committee was for our peace-time programme. If my hon. Friend will look at the terms of reference contained in the White Paper for that committee, he will see that it does not provide for war-time developments. The Secretary of State for Air, however, intends to deal with this matter and other civil aviation matters in his speech on the Estimates.

    "G"-CLASS FLYING BOATS.
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Secretary of State for Air the percentage to completion of the three "G"-class civil flying boats; whether their construction is actively proceeding; and by what date each boat will be completed?
    Captain Balfour: The flying boats referred to by my hon. Friend have been completed. One was slightly damaged recently and is being repaired, and another has been returned to the makers for modifications to the crew's quarters. Certificate of airworthiness trials are to be commenced immediately on the third boat and will, given reasonable weather conditions, take some three to four weeks. Extensive flying trials will, however, be necessary before the boats can be put into service.
    Mr. Simmonds: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether it is his firm hope that these boats may be used on Transatlantic services this year?
    Captain Balfour: It is our hope, if present Transatlantic plans materialise, that all three boats may be used for Transatlantic services, but, of course, that depends on technical problems and also on the development of the war and war needs.

    OVERSEA ROUTES.
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Secretary of State for Air the number and gross weight of British civil aircraft, excluding those upon Dominion register, operating on oversea air routs during August, 1939, and at the present date?
    Captain Balfour: On 31st August last the number of aircraft registered in the United Kingdom so employed was 63, with a total gross weight of 742 tons. The corresponding figures on 27th February were 45 aircraft, with a total gross weight of 603 tons.
    Mr. Simmonds: Is there a firm intention to increase the number and tonnage at an early date, in view of the importance of civil aviation, equally with the Mercantile Marine, in time of war?
    Captain Balfour: We have every hope of being able to continue and where possible to develop our civil aviation services, but this reduction is in part due not to war causes, but to the cessation of the summer Transatlantic service.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    PATROL SERVICE (AGE LIMIT).
    Mr. Loftusasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider abolishing the maximum age limit of 45 included in the Admiralty appeal for fishermen to volunteer for mine-sweeping, naval patrol work, etc., in view of the fact that many fishermen above 45 years of age are thoroughly fit and anxious to volunteer?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): Personnel in sea-going fishing vessels are accepted up to the age of 55 for any branch of the Royal Naval Patrol Service for the period of the war. When, however, a volunteer is particularly suitable, he may be accepted up to the age of 60.

    SHIPBUILDING (PALMER'S WORKS,JARROW).
    Miss Wilkinsonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to see that the restrictions against shipbuilding in the Palmer Yard, Jarrow, imposed by National Shipbuilders' Security, Limited, are removed; facilitate the grant of a lease or sale of the site from the

    2047
    Commissioner for the Special Areas (England and Wales) or his successor, or other the owner at present; place this yard on the approved list for the construction of naval and/or merchant vessels; and give equal treatment in the supply of finance, labour and materials, in the matter of reconstruction, adaptation, extension and the building of ships to the Palmer Yard, as to other shipbuilding yards on the approved list?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Discussions, with which the Admiralty are associated, are now taking place between the Minister of Labour, the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation and the trade unions on the capacity and labour required to carry out the Government's shipbuilding programme. Until these discussions are completed and until a decision on policy has been reached, it is impossible to make any further statement. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 14th February, which states the Admiralty's policy in broad terms.
    Miss Wilkinson: I am aware of the answer given on 14th February. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since then inquiries have been made in Jarrow, from which it appears that finance can be provided if the conditions laid down in the Question are provided by the Admiralty, and that that is why the question is now brought forward in view of the serious conditions that still obtain in this town? Will the hon. Gentleman give the matter his special consideration?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I am anxious not to be specific in regard to any particular shipyard, because it would be wrong to raise any hopes. The hon. Lady must be patient a little longer, because the matter is shortly to be decided by the authorities.
    Mr. John Wilmot: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on this site and others in the district the piling and preparation of the yard, which take years to complete, have already been done, and that in order to accelerate the shipbuilding programme it is necessary to make use of existing yards?
    Mr. Shakespeare: My right hon. Friend answered last week as to the policy and said it would be wrong to assume that yards which had been totally dismantled could soon come into production.
    Mr. A. Edwards: Is it not essential that the first step should be taken now by removing the restrictions imposed by National Shipbuilders' Security, Limited?

    DEPENDANTS' EXTRA ALLOWANCES, LONDON AREA.
    Mr. Parkerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that discontent has been caused by the exclusion of Dagenham, Barking and other parts of East London from the extra allowances granted to sailors' dependants living in the London postal area; and whether he will consider giving these to all those living in the London transport area, in view of the high rents, fares, etc., which have to be met by residents in outer London?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War gave him on a similar Question about the dependants of soldiers on 21st February.
    Mr. Parker: Would the hon. Gentleman like to see some of the letters from sailors' wives, who want to know why they cannot get the 3s. 6d. extra which wives next door are getting?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Certainly.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman consider extending the area in which these grants are paid from the London postal area to the London transport area?
    Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is discontent also in Portsmouth and other towns in which the rents, rates, and cost of living are high, at sailors' wives being excluded from the allowance granted to those living in London?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I understand it has always been the trade union practice that if special rates of pay are payable, they are paid to those living in the London area. We have to choose some area, and I think that the area which has been chosen is the correct one.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is not the postal area an arbitrary one as an area covering London, and is there not a larger number of people living outside the area than inside?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I do not think the claim has ever been made by the trade unions for extra scales in respect of the area to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned trade union agreements, will be examine the areas covered by London trade union agreements, and if he finds that some of the representative areas are beyond the areas he has taken, will he give favourable consideration to the request made by my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I will certainly look into that matter.

    CONVOY SYSTEM.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that there is a great loss of effective tonnage owing to slow convoys; and will he endeavour to minimise this by arranging that, so far as is practicable, ships capable of a faster speed are not hampered by the presence in the convoy of less quickly moving vessels?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir. The Admiralty is well aware of this, which is an inherent disadvantage of any convoy system. To lessen the loss so far as possible, additional fast convoys were instituted at an early stage wherever practicable, and this policy will be continued.

    WIRELESS OPERATOR, "SULTAN STAR."
    Mr. Thorneasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information in connection with the wireless operator, Mr. P. G. Winsor, who was on the "Sultan Star" that was torpedoed?
    Mr. Shakespeare: From the account sent by the master of steamship "Sultan Star," it is clear that the wireless operator, Mr. P. G. Winsor, behaved with great bravery after the ship had been torpedoed. He refused to leave the vessel until he had obtained an answer to his signals, and consequently he went down with the ship. By great good fortune he was able to swim clear, and he was picked up after about 20 minutes. He received immediate medical attention on board one of our warships, and although he was extremely exhausted, I am glad to say that he survived.
    Mr. Thorne: Will there be any recognition of this very gallant action?
    Mr. Shakespeare: There is an authority which deals with exhibitions of gallantry like this.

    NIGERIA (LAGOS: HEALTH SERVICES).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to clean up the slums and create better drainage in Lagos; and whether he will take energetic action and see that the necessary money is forth coming so that a big programme of housing, slum-clearance and sanitary improvement is immediately and energetically embarked on?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Slum clearance in Lagos is being carried out by the Lagos Development Board established in 1929, when a sum of £200,000 was placed at its disposal. By the end of 1938 one-third of the slum areas had been dealt with, and in that year a further grant of £50,000 spread over four years was approved to enable the work to be continued. I am asking the Governor of Nigeria to consider what steps can usefully be taken to accelerate work on the matters raised in the hon. Member's Question, and he will no doubt bear in mind the possibility of applying for assistance towards it in due course under the policy which was announced last week.

    TRINIDAD (UNSOUND FOOD).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the amount of unsound food, particularly of the tinned variety, imported into Trinidad; and whether he will take the necessary steps to secure legislation that will give the necessary powers to the authorities in Trinidad to deal with this danger to public health?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I am informed by the Governor that instances of unsound food arriving at Trinidad have been infrequent. Consignments are examined by the Customs authorities and held for inspection by the medical officer of health if there is any doubt as to their condition. The public health authorities are already empowered and do take action to prevent the sale of food unfit for human consumption, but in view of a recent case in which

    2051
    a consignment of tinned milk deteriorated after arrival, the Governor has under consideration the making of additional regulations under the Public Health Ordinance to provide for the examination and seizure of imported food which may constitute a danger to health.

    BRITISH GUIANA (REFUGEES).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what numbers of refugees are now domiciled in British Guiana; and when it is expected that settlement may become available there for large numbers of refugees?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: My latest information is that up to 30th September last about 40 persons who might be classified as refugees had obtained admission to the Colony. With regard to the second part of the Question, as I indicated in replies to questions on this subject on 20th September and 25th October last, owing to the war the refugee organisations have been obliged to suspend action in regard to the experimental scheme which was suggested by the Commission which visited the Colony in the early part of last year.
    Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that six months have elapsed since that experiment began, and that the refugee problem ought to be dealt with more energetically if it is to be solved?
    Mr. MacDonald: The difficulty is that the voluntary organisations which were concerned find it impossible in the present circumstances to raise their part of the money for the scheme.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: Are the Government providing a motor road to the highlands, which is absolutely essential if this scheme is to succeed?
    Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir. The Government did express their willingness to finance the making of that road, but only if that initial experiment in settlement indicated that settlement would be a success and the road of practical use.
    Mr. Davidson: May we first have some decent roads in the Scottish Highlands?

    GOLD COAST (NATIVE WELFARE).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether,
    2052
    when he supplies the promised Return from the Governor of the Gold Coast relative to the profits of the gold companies and the amount spent upon welfare of their workers, he will exclude those sums expended upon compound houses, compensation for disablement and medical attention, etc., which are obligations of contract and cannot properly be designated as native welfare schemes?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I have asked the Governor whether it is possible to furnish this information in the form desired by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Adams: Will the Minister note that some of the gold companies are now announcing the acceptance of certain elementary responsibilities as though these were new welfare works?

    STATE OF SARAWAK.
    Sir J. Graham Kerrasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the proximity of the independent protected State of Sarawak to British possessions in the East and its strategic importance, he will inform the House regarding the recent deposition of the Rajah muda, and the resignation, some months earlier, of five senior members of the Civil Service, including the chief secretary, the financial secretary, the chief justice and the principal medical officer?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The relations of His Majesty's Government with the State of Sarawak are governed by the Agreement of 1888, under which Sarawak was recognised to be an independent sovereign State, in the internal affairs of which His Majesty's Government had no authority to interfere, except for the limited purposes mentioned in the Agreement. In these circumstances I think it would be improper for me to make any comments on the facts referred to in my hon. Friend's Question.

  WEST INDIES.

    ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will have placed in the Library for the use of Members a duplicated copy of the report of the Royal Commission on the West Indies, or, if this is not possible, a fair summary or abridgement of the report?
    Mr. Jaggerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can see his way to placing a manuscript copy of the report of the Royal Commission on the West Indies in the Library so that interested Members may have an opportunity of reading it?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I regret that I cannot meet the hon. Members' request. With regard to the second part of the Question by the hon. Member for Leyton, West (Mr. Sorensen), I do not consider that the report could be satisfactorily summarised or abridged except in the form of the statement of recommendations prepared by the commissioners themselves, which was published last week.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the evidence upon which the report is based is already published, and, further, does he appreciate how difficult it is to consider the recommendations of a Commission when we are not fully aware of the material upon which they are based?
    Mr. MacDonald: Both those facts were taken into consideration when the Government were considering the matter.
    Mr. Sorensen: Then will the right hon. Gentleman not assist Members to discuss the matter?

    AGRICULTURE (NEW APPOINTMENTS).
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in considering the appointment of a comptroller and an inspector-general of agriculture in connection with development work in the West Indies, he will bear in mind the importance of securing, if possible, highly qualified men with a wide experience of West Indian social and economic conditions; and will he bear in mind the desirability, in making the appointments for the comptroller's department, of drawing no distinction between white and coloured candidates where qualifications are equally satisfactory?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The hon. Member may be assured that the considerations which he mentions will be taken into account in making selections for these posts.
    Mr. Riley: May I ask whether the representative council of the West Indies will be consulted, or will information be
    2054
    sought from them, in regard to the appointment of a comptroller and an inspector-general before an appointment is made, and, further, whether coloured as well as white people will be eligible for these positions?
    Mr. MacDonald: The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the first part, I do not think there will be any formal consultation, though I would not rule out the possibility of informal consultation.

    SIERRA LEONE (DEFENCE REGULATION).
    Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to inform the House what actions, prejudicial to the safety of the public, Mr. Wallace Johnson was, at the time of his internment, suspected of intending to commit; and whether he has yet received information as to the standard of living in the camp where Mr. Johnson is interned; and whether he is allowed to receive books and papers?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: As regards the first part of the Question, I am not in a position to add anything to the answers which I gave to Questions by the hon. Member on 8th November last. As regards the second and third parts of the Question, the scale of diet in the internment camp is the same as that laid down for British troops in West Africa, and on the information before me I have no reason to think that in other respects the conditions of the camp are not satisfactory. During his detention in the camp, Mr. Johnson was accorded the same treatment as the other persons there interned and was allowed to receive letters, parcels and papers, and presumably books as well.
    Mr. Paling: In cases like this, where people are detained, is there any intention of reviewing the circumstances of the case, or is it intended to keep them there until the end of the war—particularly in cases like this, where they were detained on such trivial accusations?
    Mr. MacDonald: I cannot accept the last part of the hon. Member's comment, but certainly these cases will be reviewed from time to time.
    Mr. Paling: But is there any machinery for reviewing them? Does the machinery operate? If not, how are these people to have an opportunity of securing a review?
    Mr. MacDonald: It is a matter for the discretion of the Governor and the Secretary of State, and I can assure the hon. Member that both of us do intend to review cases like this—there are very few of them—from time to time.
    Mr. Creech Jones: When Wallace Johnson is released from prison—he is not in a camp at the present time—is it the intention to transfer him from prison to a detention camp?
    Mr. MacDonald: I cannot anticipate what the decision will be. One will have to consider the whole case when the time arrives. At present, as the hon. Member says, he is serving a term of imprisonment after conviction on another charge altogether.

    KENYA (EDUCATION).
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much the Government spend in Kenya per head on educating European children; and will he give the comparable amount for African children?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: On the basis of the figures for 1938, which are the latest available, the amounts in question are: European children, approximately £17 12s. per head; African children, approximately 12s. 3d. per head. In neither case are contributions from the funds of local authorities taken into account.
    Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the amount spent upon the education of African children, and in view of the fact that it is the declared policy of the Government to prepare the natives of these regions to take their part in government, will he not consider doing more in the matter?
    Mr. MacDonald: On more than one occasion I have stated that the Government are not satisfied with the rate of progress in these African Colonies. It was partly for that reason that, in the statement of policy which was issued last week, we announced that in future it
    2056
    would be possible to finance education services out of the funds made available by the British Exchequer.
    Mr. Paling: Is this 12s. per head reckoned on the number of African children actually in school or on the whole of the children who are old enough to go to school?
    Mr. MacDonald: On the number of those actually in school.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask how much per head it is estimated will be spent under the new arrangement?
    Mr. MacDonald: I could not possibly say that. We have not even got the legislation through Parliament yet.

  PALESTINE.

    PUBLIC WORKS (CONTRACTS).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the principle of fair conditions of labour can be applied to all contracts for public works made by the Government in Palestine?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: It is the declared policy of the Government of Palestine to ensure fair conditions of labour on Government works, and various safeguards have been provided by means of legislation. I doubt whether any useful purpose would be served by the adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion, but if he has any specific difficulty in mind I will gladly ask the High Commissioner to investigate the matter.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Do the public works now being carried out by the War Department come under the jurisdiction of the right hon. Gentleman, and, if not, will he make representations to his right hon. Friend that stipulations regarding conditions of employment should be included in the contracts?
    Mr. MacDonald: I will look into that point.
    Mr. T. Williams: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "fair conditions"?
    Mr. MacDonald: I was not aware what the hon. Member meant by it. It is a very general term. In our legislation we

    2057
    provide for conditions of a specific kind but it would take me too long in answer to this Question to outline the position.

    LAND TRANSFER REGULATIONS.
    Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make regarding the issue of regulations controlling the transfer of land in Palestine?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. The High Commissioner for Palestine has been authorised to issue regulations controlling the transfer of land from Arabs to non-Arabs in certain areas. These regulations are being published in the "Palestine Gazette" this afternoon, and will be deemed to have come into force on 18th May, 1939, when the last Statement of Policy was issued. As, for reasons connected with the international situation, the Council of the League of Nations has not yet been able to discuss the last report of the Permanent Mandates Commission, His Majesty's Government have furnished the Council with a copy of the regulations, accompanied by explanatory memoranda, in case any of its members should wish to ask that the Council should be convened to discuss this matter. The letter to the Secretary-General of the League, with copies of the regulations and explanatory memoranda, are being laid before the House in the form of a White Paper, copies of which will be in the Vote Office at 4 o'clock.
    Mr. Attlee: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the action of the Government, in making themselves the judge in their own case, in taking action contrary to the Permanent Mandates Commission's decision, and in disregarding the Council of the League of Nations, will cause very wide mistrust of the Government, and a very wide feeling that, instead of acting up to their obligations under the Mandate, they are flouting the authority of the League and international law?
    Mr. MacDonald: We are not disregarding the Council of the League of Nations. We recognise fully the position which the League Council occupies in relation to the administration of the Mandate for Palestine, and it is for that very reason that, as I have already announced, we have communicated to-day a copy of these regulations to the Council, and have
    2058
    indicated that we are fully prepared to attend a meeting of the Council, to discuss the matter, if the Council so desires.
    Mr. Attlee: Why is action taken now, and the League Council presented with a fait accompli? Why have the regulations not been held up until it can be determined by the League of Nations whether they are in accord with the Mandate or not?
    Mr. MacDonald: Two courses were open to His Majesty's Government. The first would have been to publish these regulations in draft and to suspend their coming into operation for an indefinite period, until the Council had had time to consider them. If I may be very frank with the House, for many reasons the Government would have preferred to follow that course; but we are faced with a delicate situation in Palestine, and there were certain practical objections to that course, which made it extremely undesirable to follow it. The second alternative was to publish these regulations and let them come into operation at once, but to inform the League Council of them immediately, and, as I say, to express our readiness, if the Council so desired, to attend a meeting to discuss them; and if there were such a meeting, and if the Council expressed any view upon them, we should be bound to give most serious attention to that view, whatever it was. As between those two alternatives, we have adopted the one which we thought right in all the circumstances, which is certainly not one which ignores the Council in any way.
    Mr. Amery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that misgivings on this subject are not confined to one side of the House? If he is anxious about the creation of a delicate situation, does he not think that he is going to create an even more delicate situation by his action now, and a yet more delicate situation if the League should afterwards decide that his action is not in accord with the terms of the Mandate?
    Mr. MacDonald: I fully recognise, and the Government do, that this is a matter upon which all parties in the House are divided; and the Government do not in any way underestimate the very sincere feeling, held in all parts of the House, on both sides of this very difficult question. I think the House will recognise that

    2059
    whatever course we might follow would be attended by certain disadvantages. We have had to weigh up those disadvantages, one against the other, and we have taken the line which we think is the least disadvantageous, and which does recognise all our obligations to the League Council and other bodies concerned.
    Sir Archibald Sinclair: Seeing that it is nearly 10 months since the White Paper was published, and that since then the only impartial authority to which it has been referred has expressed the opinion that it is contrary to any reasonable interpretation of the Mandate, would it not have been better, rather than to have faced the League with a fait accompli, as the Government are now doing, to have postponed for one month, or perhaps two months, the bringing of these land regulations into operation, so that the League Council could have considered them without being faced by this action on the part of the Government?
    Mr. MacDonald: We took those considerations into account, and I have told the House very frankly that, for many reasons, we should have preferred to follow that course; but in our judgment, and in view of the situation in Palestine, we felt that, in the present circumstances, the course that we have adopted was the wiser and better one.
    Major Cazalet: Why has the right hon. Gentleman chosen this particular moment, after six months of war, and six months of peace in Palestine, for the first time for the last six years, when all sections of the community are working loyally with the Government in that country, to introduce a measure which will exacerbate Jewish opinion, not only in Palestine, but throughout the whole world?
    Mr. MacDonald: I think the whole House recognises the way in which both communities in Palestine have co-operated with the Government, and with each other, in these six months of war, and the whole House would wish to pay a tribute to the people in Palestine for the way in which they have assisted us during these six months. If I may answer my hon. and gallant Friend in one sentence, I would say that it is because the failure to introduce measures of control of land transference in Palestine any longer might have prejudiced
    2060
    that peace, that we have decided upon this course.
    Mr. Attlee: In view of the gravity of the action taken by the Government, and owing to the entirely unsatisfactory explanation by the Secretary of State, I beg to give notice that we shall put a Motion on the subject on the Paper.

  TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAY WAGONS.
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken by him to increase the production of wagons; and whether the wagon-building industry is being used to its full capacity at present?
    The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): This matter is constantly under consideration by my Department in conjunction with that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. The production of railway wagons has to be viewed in relation to other demands upon materials and the productive capacity of the country, but I understand that at present the wagon-building industry is fully employed.
    Mr. John Morgan: If I submit to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman evidence that there are complaints in Doncaster that the wagons are not being employed, will he look into the matter?
    Captain Wallace: Probably the hon. Gentleman is talking about wagon repairing, which is slightly different, but I shall be glad to look into any specific complaints.

    WORKERS' TRAVELLING FACILITIES, FIFE.
    Mr. McLean Watson: asked the Minister of Transport what representations have been made to his Department concerning the inadequate supply of omnibuses for the conveyance of workers to and from naval establishments in Fife; and, as considerable loss and inconvenience are being caused, will he take the matter up with the appropriate authorities?
    Captain Wallace: Consultations between the authorities in question and the operators of public service vehicles have been taking place and are still proceeding, and a good deal has already been done to meet the demand for additional services.

    2061
    The Regional Transport Commissioner is actively concerning himself in this matter, and I hope that a satisfactory solution of the remaining difficulties may soon be found. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, and will send me details, I will see that it is brought to the Regional Transport Commissioner's notice.
    Mr. Watson: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman look into this matter, which has been the subject of public comment for months past, and hurry up the negotiations which are going on and so prevent this serious loss of work in Government establishments?
    Captain Wallace: There are particular difficulties in the situation. The bus companies are not always told when people are to work overtime, and new men come into the widely scattered villages; while an occasional exodus of workers coincides with men coming on duty. The matter is being handled expeditiously on the spot.

    ROAD MATERIALS (TENDERS).
    Sir Cooper Rawsonasked the Minister of Transport whether it is his custom, when considering tenders for road materials, to have regard not only to the tendered prices but to the efficiency and the durability of materials and their suitability for the purpose in view; and does he also have regard to the technical qualifications and financial standing of the contractors, as is the practice of the Ministry of Health?
    Captain Wallace: Yes, Sir.

    AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (SCHOOL GRANTS).
    Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into and report on the under standings reached and the undertakings given, in the negotiations between local authorities and the Home Office with regard to the payment of grants in respect of air-raid precautions work for schools; by what authority and to what extent these have been varied; and to report on the position generally?
    Mr. J. Morganasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed by the Doncaster Education Committee on 19th February last asking for a Parliamentary Committee to be set up to examine certain relations entered into between the Home Department and local authorities concerning air-raid precautions; and whether he will move to appoint such a committee?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. I see no reason to set up a Select Committee such as is suggested by the hon. Members. The position in this matter has been clearly stated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in reply to Questions which have been addressed to him.
    Mr. Mander: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a good deal of feeling on this subject throughout the country, among local authorities, and could the right hon. Gentleman do something to make them feel that they have been justly treated?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any foundation for the suggestion in the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. Thorne: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities swear and declare that the Government have broken the agreement of 1937?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Member is not aware that the Government swear and declare the opposite.
    Mr. Thorne: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to facilitate the arrangement, could he spend a little time in seeing a deputation?
    The Prime Minister: I have not been asked to see a deputation.
    Mr. J. Morgan: If the right hon. Gentleman receives representations of the kind indicated in the Question, will he look a little further into the matter, because of the growing dissatisfaction everywhere?
    The Prime Minister: Representations have not been made to me; but they have probably been made to the Home Secretary.

    SUPREME WAR COUNCIL.
    Mr. Liddallasked the Prime Minister whether he considers it necessary for

    2063
    all our representatives to meetings of the Allied Supreme War Council, at Paris or elsewhere abroad, to cross the Channel in the same vessel at the same time; and will he, in the national interest, henceforth so arrange that when making a sea journey to attend such meetings the principal officers of State shall do so in different vessels?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend can rest assured that the considerations which he has in mind are not overlooked.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the House to be denied any opportunity of a bit of work?

    ARMED FORCES (SERVING MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
    Mr. Jenningsasked the Prime Minister whether he will publish a complete list of Members of Parliament serving with any of His Majesty's Forces, showing in each case the rank and the nature of the duties performed?
    The Prime Minister: I would remind my hon. Friend that this information has recently been given in answer to Parliamentary Questions. I am sending him copies of the replies. As regards the last part of the Question, it would not be desirable to give precise details as to the nature of the duties performed.
    Mr. Jennings: Would it be possible to investigate the numbers of combatant and non-combatant officers?
    Sir H. Williams: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been called to the disabilities under which many constituents are suffering through the absence of their Members of Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    ARMY AND AIR FORCE CAMPS (WASTE PREVENTION).
    Sir Joseph Leechasked the Minister of Food whether he will assist the military authorities in their endeavour to discover the reasons for the waste of food in military camps?
    Sir Reginald Blairasked the Minister of Food whether he will make investigations, taking power, if necessary, to discover whether wastage of food of
    2064
    any description in all military and Air Force establishments is caused by the food being of inferior quality, badly cooked and/or badly served; and then advise whether more supervisory help given to messing officers would remedy these defects?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for War and for Air, who are fully alive to the necessity for preventing waste of food and are closely watching the matter. I am assured that care is being taken to ensure that a high standard of cooking and meals is maintained and that there is no ground for supposing that food of inferior quality is being issued.
    Viscountess Astor: Would my right hon. Friend consider what we did in the last war to prevent this position arising? We had a very good system.
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, that is being considered.
    Viscountess Astor: Five months late.

    DOG FOOD.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Minister of Food whether, when meat is rationed and all slaughtering is carried out in Government slaughter-houses, the trimmings from joints will be issued to butchers to be passed on by them to their customers as food for dogs?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: Very little trimming of carcases takes place at the selected slaughter-houses, but certain by-products not suitable for human consumption, which are mainly used in the production of livestock feeding-stuffs, including dog foods, are available to manufacturers. In addition, supplies of offals unsuitable for human consumption are obtainable by butchers from the wholesale distribution depots.
    Sir A. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend realise that these offals are very difficult to obtain in country districts? What arrangement does he propose for feeding pet dogs, or is he really condemning them to death?
    Mr. Morrison: I do not think that any dogs are being condemned to death.

    MILK.
    Mr. Tree:asked the Minister of Food whether he proposes to announce the

    2065
    Government's price policy for milk for next summer and winter in the near future, in order that farmers may make stocking plans?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am at the present time engaged in discussions with representatives of producers and distributors in Great Britain. As soon as possible an announcement of price policy will be made. The period to be covered is one of the questions now under consideration.
    Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the increased cost of feeding-stuffs?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. We are bearing in mind all those factors.
    Mr. Treeasked the Minister of Food what steps are being taken by the Government to build up adequate storage during the summer months to ensure that farmers have the necessary supply of oilcakes in order that milk production may be maintained next winter?
    Mr. Morrison: I appreciate the importance of accumulating reserves of all suitable foodstuffs, and this will be done, so far as the shipping position permits.
    Mr. Treeasked the Minister of Food whether he can give any assurance that conditions such as those which led to a serious shortage of milk, involving the temporary abandonment of the supply of milk in schools at Market Harborough, will not recur?
    Mr. Morrison: I am informed that the weather conditions at the end of last month were responsible for a temporary cessation of the delivery of milk to schools in Market Harborough. I understand that the schools in question are now obtaining their normal supplies of milk.

    CATTLE GRADING.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the altered circumstances, he will now consider revising the control of livestock prices by increasing the general grading for cows by at least 2s. 6d., and by introducing an intermediate class for calves at 9d. per lb.?
    Mr. Price Lasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction with the method of grading and paying for fat cows and calves;
    2066
    and whether he will consider the setting up of fresh grades affording better remuneration for these classes of animals?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have received representations from the Farmers' Unions on the lines suggested by the hon. Members which are at present under consideration.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the widespread complaints about the grading of cattle at the various collecting centres; and what steps have been taken to remedy these grievances?
    Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of any widespread complaints about the grading of cattle at the various collecting centres. A relatively small number of complaints have been received from individual farmers. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ayr and Bute (Mr. Sloan) on 15th February.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is the Minister aware that if he visited one of these collecting centres he would find that the farmrs—not a few, but practically the whole of them—are disgruntled at the treatment which they are getting?
    Mr. Morrison: No, I cannot accept that. The conditions under which the grading is being carried out are the same as those in peace-time. That is not to say that everyone is satisfied; at the same time we do take steps as we did in peace-time to ensure that there is uniformity and on the whole the farmer recognises as he did in peace-time that the system is as good as it can be.
    Sir J. Lamb: Is the Minister not aware that a great deal of trouble arises from the fact that the farmer does not know in what grade his cattle has been placed until it is too late?
    Mr. Morrison: I would like to say that if that is a specific cause of complaint, I will gladly look into it and see whether notification of the grade can be expedited. There may be points of detail like that in which we can improve the system but I cannot accept the suggestion that it is generally causing complaint.
    Mr. W. Roberts: Can the Minister say whether the actual returns of the slaughter-houses show that grading is in fact accurate?
    Mr. Morrison: We have made some tests in connection with that matter, and the tests which I have seen show that they are extremely accurate.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is not this grading generally unsatisfactory?

    SHEEP PLUCKS.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Food why nearly 400 sheep plucks were wasted by being sent to the Inverness municipal destructor; whether he is aware that prior to the establishment of the control price of 3s. these plucks could be sold locally at prices which the people could afford to pay; and whether he will therefore reduce the control price?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have looked into the incident referred to and I have ascertained that, in the first fortnight of control 325 sheep plucks were overlooked at the Inverness slaughterhouse and in consequence were condemned by the local inspector. This happened, not, as suggested by the hon. Member, because the price of these plucks were too high, but because of a regrettable oversight on the part of an employé of the Wholesale Meat Supply Association, who admit liability for the loss incurred. I am glad to say that there has been no recurrence of the incident, and I am assured by the local officers that none is likely in the future.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that it is alleged that last week 380 plucks were destroyed and that, with the Saturday's killing, these were put into bags and sent over 100 miles to Aberdeen; and does he not think that if there had been a reasonable price they could have been purchased locally?
    Mr. Morrison: Apart from the incident mentioned in my answer, I am told that there is nothing of the kind. I am also told that the trouble was not that of price but was due to an oversight on the part of the firm.

    SAUSAGES.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Food whether he has now further considered the question of the admitted variable and reduced meat content of sausages since the introduction of meat and livestock control; when his Department is likely to arrive at a decision respecting controlling the price and the meat content of sausages; and whether, in view of the
    2068
    adverse dietetic and financial effect on working-class consumers, he will consider applying the same principle respecting the composition and standard of value of sausages and similar foodstuffs as is now applied to preserved and other foodstuffs?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The question of the meat content of sausages is still under consideration, and a decision respecting their price and meat content will be announced in the near future. With regard to the last part of the Question, I should explain that no action taken by my Department in this matter will in any way affect the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that however humorous the subject may seem, numbers of working-class people do not find it humorous when they attempt to buy sausages and pay merely for bread? In view of this deception, which works adversely towards the working class, will he expedite a decision in this matter?
    Mr. Morrison: The position at present is that the peace-time protection of the Food and Drugs Act provides for any question of adulteration and so on, and we are seeing whether we can provide further protection in the manner that I have suggested.
    Mr. J. Morgan: To whom may a consumer lay a charge of adulteration?
    Mr. Morrison: To me.
    Mr. Thorne: Can the Minister say when a food controller of a local authority has power to prosecute?
    Mr. Morrison: When there is any contravention of the Food and Drugs Act.

    ANIMAL FEEDING-STUFFS.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food whether, in connection with the supply of feeding-stuffs to grain merchants and corn dealers throughout the country districts, he is aware that these dealers are still unable to supply their customers with even 30 per cent. of their normal requirements; and whether he will make some statement to clarify the whole position?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I cannot accept the general statement contained in the first part of the Question, so far as the country

    2069
    as a whole is concerned. If my hon. Friend has the county of Worcester in mind, I would refer him to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson) on 21st February, which applies to that county also.
    Mr. De la Bère: Was not my right hon. Friend quite recently Minister of Agriculture, and should he not therefore know something about the feeding-stuffs position? He cannot annihilate the truth by trying to snub me.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Food whether he intends to take any further steps to ensure a fairer distribution of livestock feeding-stuffs?
    Mr. Pearsonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the acute shortage of cattle foods in Wales; that farmers are not receiving nearly the 66⅔ per cent. basis promised by the Ministry of Food; and will he make added provision for Welsh farmers, in view of the fact that in past years very little food was produced by themselves for their own use?
    Mr. Morrison: Efforts are continually being made to secure an equitable distribution of feeding-stuffs, having regard to the Government's policy of giving preference to certain classes of livestock and certain groups of producers. Returns are now being received from the distributing dealers in feeding-stuffs giving particulars of their pre-war trade, and these will be used for the purpose in question. With regard to the position in Wales, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 21st February to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson) and the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte).
    Viscountess Astor: Seeing that war has been likely since Munich, whose fault is it that there was no storage of feeding-stuffs? Might I have an answer?
    Mr. Morrison: I would refer the Noble Lady to the statement made on this matter on 25th January, in which she will see all the circumstances set out.
    Viscountess Astor: That statement was most unsatisfactory, and not quite true.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Was the Noble Lady aware that war was likely after Munich, at the time of Munich?

    WORKERS IN HEAVY INDUSTRIES.
    Mr. Priceasked the Minister of Food whether he will consider making arrangements for extra food rations for persons engaged in heavy physical work like miners and tinplate workers?
    Mr. Morrison: I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) on 24th January.
    Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider increased butter rations for those who are engaged in physical work?
    Mr. Morrison: I think that the reply which I gave to the hon. Member deals with the general position, and it would be difficult to modify it in detail.
    Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep this matter under constant consideration?
    Mr. Morrison: Certainly, Sir.

    BACON IMPORTS.
    Mr. Priceasked the Minister of Food why, at the end of January, an embargo with retrospective effect was placed on the import of bacon from Latvia, Lithuania, and Esthonia, as this is contrary to the terms of trade treaties in force with those countries; and whether, before imposing this embargo, he consulted with the Ministry of Economic Warfare and the Foreign Office?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: An Order prohibiting the import of bacon, ham and lard from all countries, except under licence, was made on 20th January by the Board of Trade. As one of a number of measures taken to adjust the bacon supply position at that date representatives of the countries referred to by the hon. Member were informed that it was not intended for the time being to issue licences to import. As regards the last part of the Question, my Department is in constant touch with other Government Departments, including the Ministry of Economic Warfare and the Foreign Office, on questions affecting the supply of foodstuffs from overseas.
    Mr. Price: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that bacon from these countries will almost certainly go to Germany if we do not carry out our side of the agreement?
    Mr. Morrison: All the considerations involved will be taken into account.

    BREAD.
    Mr. Jenningsasked the Minister of Food whether he will cause tests to be made in various districts as to the palatability of bread provided for the military and air forces, and for the Women's Auxiliary Force, in order to find out whether the waste of bread is due to unpalatability, and, if so, the reasons?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am assured that there is constant inspection of all bread provided by the Service bakeries and by contractors, and that there is no reason to believe that the bread is unpalatable or that there is any general waste of bread.
    Viscountess Astor: Would the Minister consider the use of tin boxes for keeping bread in when it is delivered to these different units? There is a good deal of bread wasted because of the bad conditions in which it is kept.
    Mr. Morrison: I will bring that suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

    POTATO PROCESSING FACTORIES.
    Mr. Quibellasked the Minister of Food whether he can now state when it is proposed to commence the erection of potato processing factories; whether the cost of such factories will be met out of the accumulated levies on the producers; and whether they will be operated as a public corporation, or handed over to be completely run by private enterprise?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: Negotiations for the erection of new factories are still proceeding, but it is hoped that the work of erection will commence in the near future. It is proposed that the factories shall operate under private ownership. Pending completion of the negotiations, I am not in a position to make any statement as to the cost of their erection or as to the nature or extent of the Government assistance that may be necessary.
    Mr. J. Morgan: Will any of the existing milling interests be interested in these potato plants?
    Mr. Morrison: Not that I am aware.
    Mr. T. Williams: When private enterprises erect these factories will they be guaranteed a price which will produce a reasonable profit?
    Mr. Morrison: All the financial implications involved are at present under discussion and pending the completion of these negotiations I would not like to give a statement on that point.
    Mr. T. Williams: If it is the intention of the Government to allow private enterprise to erect these factories and to guarantee a reasonable profit why did not the Government do so at first?
    Mr. Wilmot: Can the right hon. Gentleman state who is going to run these factories?
    Mr. Morrison: Not yet, Sir.

    SUGAR ALLOWANCE (SCHOOLS).
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Minister of Food whether he is satisfied that the sugar allowance for school meals is adequate, seeing that milk puddings and fruit dishes form such an important part of the menus?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have no reason to think that the sugar allowance for school meals is inadequate. The allowance is, in any case, additional to the domestic ration.
    Mr. Williams: Is it not the fact that allowances to cafés are additional to the usual allowances?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, but that does not affect my answer.
    Mr. Williams: If there is a special case for the community having a little more sugar than the normal allowance should not an extra allowance be given to these children who have their meals at elementary schools?
    Mr. R. Morgan: Is there any possibility of an increase of this absurdly low sugar ration in the near future, especially in view of medical evidence of its insufficiency for these young children?

    MAXIMUM PRICES.
    Mr. Joelasked the Minister of Food whether he will consider publishing, for the convenience and guidance of the public, a complete weekly list of maximum prices which govern controlled foods?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I appreciate the desirability of securing adequate publicity for the prices prescribed in the Ministry's

    2073
    Orders, especially when changes occur, and have the matter under consideration. A complete list of the maximum prices would inevitably be long and detailed, and for this reason I do not think my hon. Friend's suggestion is practicable. A list of maximum retail prices is available to the public at each food office throughout the country, and in the case of a number of foodstuffs notices of the retail prices are required to be displayed in the shops.
    Mr. J. Morgan: Is the Minister aware that during the last war a very valuable journal called the "National Food Journal" was issued, and will he consider such an issue at this time?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. That is under consideration.

    PIGS.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food on what day the present price of pigs was fixed; whether this was on the same day as the new order fixing the price of feeding-stuffs; and, since the price of feeding-stuffs showed a very heavy percentage rise, he will so adjust the price of pigs as to allow for the rise which was permitted in the price of feeding-stuffs?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The present prices of pigs came into force on 15th January last; those of feeding-stuffs on 8th January. The former were fixed so as to reflect the increases in the prices of feeding-stuffs which have occurred since the outbreak of war, including those which took effect on 8th January.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend realise the one essential and vital fact that the cost of production is higher than the selling price? What steps does he propose to take to adjust this matter?
    Mr. Morrison: That is a matter ofopinion.
    Mr. De la Bère: It is not; it is a definite fact.

    IMPORTED MEAT (INSPECTION).
    Mr. Lambertasked the Minister of Food whether carcases of cattle, sheep, and pigs imported for human food are examined for their edibility in the country of origin or in this country; and whether he is satisfied that the inspection is such
    2074
    as will secure that only so much meat is retailed here as is fit for human consumption?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: All imported meat from Australia, New Zealand, and South America is closely inspected by qualified inspectors at the time of slaughter. Every carcase bears a certificate that it has been passed for export, and is not admissible into the United Kingdom unless it is accompanied by certificates issued in accordance with arrangements recognised by the Ministry of Health. On arrival in this country, imported meat is subject at the port of entry to inspection by officers of the port health authorities, and again, when it is offered for retail sale, by the health officers of the local authorities. I am satisfied that the arrangements are adequate to ensure that the meat retailed is fit for human consumption.
    Mr. Lambert: Is my right hon. Friend aware that meat which has been sent to Devonshire, for instance, has been condemned by the medical officer of health, and that that is having a very bad effect on the confidence that is felt in the Ministry of Food?
    Mr. Morrison: It is the case that meat is inspected before being sold to the retailer, and, even in peace-time, certain condemnations take place. If my right hon. Friend will give particulars about the meat that was sent to Devonshire, I will have the matter looked into.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Why was that miserable stuff sent to anybody?

    POULTRY FEEDING-STUFFS.
    Mr. Rileyasked the Minister of Food why there was a total absence of purchasable feeding-stuffs for poultry in the Dewsbury area during the week ended 24th February; and when supplies will be available?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: My information is that the Dewsbury area is receiving a fair share of the available supply of feeding-stuffs, and I have no evidence to support the suggestion in the Question. Perhaps the hon. Member will let me have particulars of the cases he has in mind.
    Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although my Question refers only to last week, I am now informed that for eight weeks there has been no supply of these feeding-stuffs in Dewsbury? What is the remedy?
    Mr. Morrison: I made inquiries into this matter as recently as yesterday, and I was informed that the position there has improved.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Archibald Vivian Hill, Esquire, O.B.E., F.R.S., Sc.D., for the University of Cambridge.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 118.

Division No. 27.]

AYES.

[3.58 p.m.

Acland, Sir R. T. D.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd & Chisw'k)

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

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

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

Gledhill, G.

Nall, Sir J.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Gower, Sir R. V.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Bernays, R. H.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Bird, Sir R. B.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Blair, Sir R.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Owen, Major G.

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.

Grimston, R. V.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Bossom, A. C.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Peake, O.

Boulton, W. W.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Hambro, A. V.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Hammersley, S. S.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Harbord, Sir A.

Procter, Major H. A.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

Harland, H. P.

Pym, L. R.

Bull, B. B.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Radford, E. A.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Harvey, T. E.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

Butcher, H. W.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Hepworth, J.

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Carver, Major W. H.

Hill, Dr. A. V. (Cambridge U.)

Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Reith, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Holdsworth, H.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Channon, H.

Holmes, J. S.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Horabin, T. L.

Robertson, D.

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Christie, J. A.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Colfox, Major Sir W. P.

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Russell, Sir Alexander

Colman, N. C. D.

Jennings, R.

Salt, E. W.

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S)

Joel, D. J. B.

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Samuel, M. R. A.

Craven-Ellis, W.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)

Schuster, Sir G. E.

Crooke, Sir J, Smedley

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Scott, Lord William

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Selley, H. R.

Cross, R. H.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Cruddas, Col. B.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Culverwell, C. T.

Leech, Sir J. W.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Davidson, Viscountess

Lees-Jones, J.

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Leigh, Sir J.

Simmonds, O. E.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

De la Bère, R.

Levy, T.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lewis, O.

Smithers, Sir W.

Donville, Alfred

Liddall, W. S.

Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

Doland, G. F.

Lipson, D. L.

Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)

Drewe, C.

Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Lloyd, G. W.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

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

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Storey, S.

Dunglass, Lord

Loftus, P. C.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Eckersley, P. T.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Ellis, Sir G.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Thomas, J. P. L.

Emery, J. F.

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Train, Sir J.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

McKie, J. H.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

Magnay, T.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Everard, Sir William Lindsay

Mander, G. le M.

Turton, R. H.

Fildes, Sir H.

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

Wakefield, W. W.

Findlay, Sir E.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Foot, D. M.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hall)

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Warrendar, Sir V.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Webbs, Sir W. Harold

Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

Wells, Sir Sydney

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Mr. Munro and Major Sir James

White, H. Graham

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Edmondson.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Price, M. P.

Adamson, W. M.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Ammon, C. G.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Ridley, G.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Hollins, A. (Hanley)

Riley, B.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)

Ritson, J.

Banfield, J. W.

Jackson, W. F.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Barnes, A. J.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Sexton, T. M.

Barr, J.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Shinwell, E.

Batey, J.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Silkin, L.

Beaumont, H. (Batley)

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Bevan, A.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Buchanan, G.

Lathan, G.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Burke, W. A.

Lawson, J. J.

Sorensen, R. W.

Chater, D.

Leach, W.

Stephen, C.

Cluse, W. S.

Leonard, W.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Leslie, J. R.

Stokes, R. R.

Cooks, F. S.

Lunn, W.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Collindridge, F.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Cove, W. G.

McEntee, V. La T.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Daggar, G.

McGhee, H. G.

Thorne, W.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

MacLaren, A.

Thurtle, E.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Maclean, N.

Tinker, J. J.

Dairies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Marshall, F.

Tomlinson, G.

Dobbie, W.

Martin, J. H.

Viant, S. P.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Mathers, G.

Walkden, A. G.

Ede, J. C.

Maxton, J.

Watkins, F. C.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Milner, Major J.

Watson, W. McL.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Montague, F.

Welsh, J. C.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

Wilkinson, Ellen

Gardner, B. W.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Mort, D. L.

Wilmot, John

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Muff, G.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Naylor, T. E.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Groves, T. E.

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Woodburn, A.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Paling, W.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

Parker, J.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Hardie, Agnes

Parkinson, J. A.

Hayday, A.

Pearson, A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Reduction of age at which old age pensions become payable and adjustment of contributions.)
    4.6 p.m.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: On a point of Order. I would like your guidance, Sir Dennis, on the question of having a discussion on the Amendment which stands in my name, to cover also the second Amendment in the names of some of my hon. Friends, which I understand you intend to call. I suggest that it would be convenient to debate these two Amendments together, as they are interlocked.
    The Chairman: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Amendment in his name—in page 2, line 6, to leave out Sub-section (3)—and to the Amendment which next follows it on the Order Paper—in page 2, line 16, to leave out "threepence," and insert "twopence." If the Committee generally assent, I have no objection to allowing these two Amendments to be discussed together, on the understanding that if the second Amendment is called, it will be called only for the purpose of putting the Question without debate.
    Mr. Stephen: Why has the first Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)—in page 2, line 2, to leave out "sixty" and insert "fifty-five"—not been called?
    The Chairman: Because it is out of Order
    Mr. Stephen: May I, on a point of Order, submit that no financial contribution would be required from the Treasury if the age were reduced, as the charge would be covered by the increased contributions of the employers and the employed?
    The Chairman: The Amendment is outside the terms of the Financial Resolution.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out Sub-section (3).
    2110
    The Minister of Health and the Committee will realise at once that in this Amendment we are raising the whole question of the method to be employed by the Government in financing this scheme. The Bill is divided into two parts; Part I provides pensions for unmarried women at the age of 60 and for the wives of insured men at the same age. Part II provides supplementary pensions which are to be financed by the Treasury. This Amendment deals only with the proposed method of financing, by means of contribution income, the 10s. a week pension for unmarried women and for the wives of insured men at60. We make no apology for raising this fundamental issue. In the first place, we regard this method as a violation of what I will call the tripartite principle which has prevailed in the past in the financing of our social services. It will be remembered that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) stood at that Box in 1911 and propounded the first National Health Insurance scheme, the largest of its kind in this country if not in the world, he laid down the principle that three parties were to contribute to it, namely, the State, the employer and the employed. The first complaint which we have to make therefore against the provisions in this Clause is that the Government are departing from that principle and are laying the whole of the obligation of providing the revenue for this purpose on the employers and the employed only. The Committee will realise I am sure the importance of the issue which is raised by the Amendment.
    Let me now proceed to analyse the Government proposal. Be it remembered that the Government do not find a penny piece for these pensions for the first two years. I submit that that is a definite and an alarming departure from the attitude of Parliament in relation to our social services, and I think we are entitled to complain on that score. We are promised that at the end of two years the Government will come to the rescue of the scheme and that they will probably return again to the tripartite principle under which the State will also contribute to this fund. But I am not so sure about the promises of the Conservative party in regard to matters of this kind. I would not trust any promise which they made about what they intended to do two years

    2111
    hence if they were in power. They have inserted provisions in this Bill whereby a surplus of £3,000,000 or thereabouts will be released on the health insurance account. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are in power when that surplus is released, I would not be surprised to see them utilise it in due course in order to finance the pension scheme which we are discussing this afternoon. They have done such things before.
    It will be noted that there is an increase of 2d. per week in contributions in the case of insured males, 1d. from the employer and 1d. from the man; but when we come to the case of the unmarried women what do we find? I do not know what the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary will have to say to this proposal unless she believes in the truth of the old adage that "the woman always pays." Certainly she pays under this Bill. We find here that in the case of the unmarried woman there is an increase of 3d. per week in contributions of which 2d. is to come from the woman, and 1d. from the employer. Why has not the right hon. Gentleman followed the usual practice in this case? If this additional 3d. is necessary, why not put 1½d. on the employer and 1½d. on the women respectively?
    Mr. A. Jenkins: Or 1d. on the Government?
    Mr. Davies: No, the Government do not give anything; and as far as this part of the Bill is concerned, the insured population can say to the Government, "Thank you for nothing." In financing this scheme the Government, as I say, will not contribute a penny addition for two years. We come, therefore, to this point, that in order to reduce the pensionable age for the wives of insured men and for unmarried women to 60, the money is to be found by the contributors themselves while the Government are to be immune from any additional financial liability. That is a new principle which is being introduced in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must understand what is happening in some cases in the country. These people will pay increased contribution in order to get pensions at 60. I have had a case sent to me this morning where a man at the age of 65, because he gets his pension, also gets a
    2112
    reduction in wages to the exact amount of that pension. I am told there are many cases of that kind. If that can happen to a man, the exploitation of women in industry will almost certainly bring to light a large number of cases of women who, working for about 30s. a week, will get their wages reduced to £1 as soon as they get their pension of 10s. at 60. In that case they would be better off if they were not included in this scheme at all.
    I do not want to dwell unduly on this proposition, except to say that we object to this method of financing the scheme by contributions only. When Tory Governments have introduced Amendments for improving these schemes they have always nibbled at wages in order to save the Exchequer. What will happen to insured people who get low wages? I told the story some years ago how the depression was affecting the people of Lancashire. I then came across the case of a young man of 22 who cycled six miles, from my own constituency to Bolton, to work 58 hours a week for 12s. If you deduct 3s. 4d. from that sum, you see at once the high percentage the State is taking from wages for social services. Although there has been improvement in the textile industry in Lancashire consequent on the war, I once met a married man of 23 years of age, with a wife and child, who worked full time in that industry for 18s. 3d. a week. It has been the case for several years, in the textile industry of Lancashire that men have been employed full time for less wages than they would get from Poor Law relief. Every hon. Member from Lancashire will bear me out when I say that. To increase the contribution for social services for these low wage earners therefore is an offence. Why not a State subsidy instead? These increases will not stop there.
    The Actuary's report on this scheme is excellent, but it is only excellent within the financial limits laid down for him by Government. If the Government say to the Actuary, "We are not going to find any money for the first few years," he drafts his report accordingly, and if they say, "I think we will increase the contribution at the end of a calculated period," then he puts an additional penny on. I have, therefore, no complaint to make as to what he said, but I want the Committee to understand that the

    2113
    Actuary's report is based on calculations which are dependent upon the policy of the Government. I say, therefore, that the White Paper is only helpful in order to show us what can be done within the limits proposed by the Government. This is a piffling Bill from beginning to end; and I think I am right in saying that there were people in this country who, in the first flush of their enthusiasm were delighted to see the provisions of this Measure, but who have helped to swell the criticism against it when they examined what it contained. I sat through the Debate on the Second Reading, and I heard hardly a single word from the supporters of the Government to show that they are satisfied with its proposals. When we come to the test of need, we shall probably have something even stronger still to say than we have already said on this Amendment.
    4.22 p.m.
    Mr. Leach: I understand from what you said a few minutes ago, Sir Dennis, that the Amendment in page 2, line 16, to leave out "threepence" and insert "twopence," with which I and some of my colleagues are associated, cannot be discussed but will be voted upon without discussion?
    The Chairman: It can be discussed on the Amendment which is before the Committee. Later on, when this Amendment has been disposed of, the hon. Member's Amendment, if he wishes, will have to be put to the Committee without discussion.
    Mr. Leach: I understand. I have to take my opportunity of saying what I have to say on the larger Amendment now before the Committee. What I have to say concerns the case of the unmarried worker. It has always been the contention of the unmarried insured industrial worker that her pension contribution was too high for the ultimate benefit which she received. This matter was subject to a great deal of discussion by the Special Committee on Pensions for Unmarried Women which sat last year and produced its report. Before examining what that report says, I would like to look more closely at the spinster's own case. If you took a census, you would find 4,000,000 unmarried women, from the ago of 16 upwards, who are paying for their future possible old age pension. The total contribution received from that class of people is £4,500,000. By the
    2114
    time the pensionable age of 65 has been reached that number has been diminished to 61,000—the figure given by the Government Actuary on page 15 of the report. Marriages, deaths, lapses and misfortunes account for this reduction. The amount paid to these 61,000, who ultimately reach the age at which they can receive a pension, is £1,800,000, so that on the face of it the unmarried woman and her employer together pay, in each year, £4,500,000, under the heading of pension contributions. This seems to be a pretty strong case for the allegation of the unmarried woman worker when she says she is already paying too much for the pension she ultimately receives.
    The special committee said a great deal on this point. The figures I have given are confirmed, but the argument is partly rejected. They say we have no business, in making this calculation, to include payments of those women who subsequently marry. I do not know why. The woman who marries usually goes into the class where her contributions are paid by her husband. Her departure from spinsterhood does not involve loss to the contribution fund under that heading. That remains steady by the normal influx of newcomers. The special committee, aided by Government actuaries, then proceeded to form its own estimate as to what is the correct amount to be credited to the unmarried woman, under the heading of contributions towards future pensions. I, personally, regret their methods of whittling down the figures; it is a strange kind of juggling, but let us take their conclusion, for the sake of argument. They find the total amount required from an unmarried woman to meet her ultimate pension is 3·9d. per week, and they have to admit that the woman and the employer together are actually contributing 5·5d. per week. That means, on their own quite open admission, that the spinster is out of pocket, for value received, to the extent of £1,130,000.
    The other day I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say in the House that the State was finding 60 per cent. of the whole cost of contributory pensions as we now have them. Presumably, that State expenditure includes the pre-Act widows, where no contributions have been paid at all. But 60 per cent. or not, the State has never paid a penny piece towards the cost of the unmarried woman's pension.

    2115
    The boot is entirely on the other foot. There has been a contribution of £1,130,000 each year towards widows, orphans and old age pensioners, according to the Actuary's own figures. I say that sum is £2,700,000. The special committee is quite clear on this point and goes on to say, quite frankly, that the spinster has just cause for complaint. If this Amendment to which I am speaking is carried, the spinster and her employer will still be called upon to pay an extra 2d. a week. The White Paper does not tell us how much that will bring in. Perhaps I am in error in putting it that way, but I am speaking to the Amendment to reduce the 3d. to 2d. The White Paper does not tell us how much that will bring in, but obviously it is in the neighbourhood of £1,500,000, and with that extra contribution the unmarried woman will still be able to say, "My pension is costing the State nothing at all." On these grounds I think a very powerful case exists for the refusal on the part of this Committee to countenance the extra charge which the Bill imposes upon contributors.
    4.31 p.m.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: During the whole of these Debates I have been struck by what I would call the nineteenth century flavour in the tone of hon. Members' speeches towards women. Unfortunately, only one woman has taken part in the Debates, but hon. Members opposite have approved the Bill because it will help weak and helpless women who are suffering from premature decay at the age of 60. I was much shocked when the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary talked about tired women. From the Debate one would think that this Bill is introduced by a benevolent Government in order to help women who are tired out at 60. I want to say to male Members opposite that this argument is completely fallacious. If they will examine the vital statistics, they will find that a woman, once she has passed the child-bearing period, has an expectation of life much longer than that of a man. Let us dismiss from our mind the feeling that this Bill is introduced to relieve tired women. I must admit that I have digressed a little, but I wanted to explain to the Committee that this Clause is adding insult to injury. There is no fatherly
    2116
    treatment on the part of the Government towards weak and tired women at 60, as one would imagine from listening to the speech of the Minister of Health. What the Government are doing is to behave like a bad and exceedingly hard-headed business man towards women of 60.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member's speech would be quite in Order on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but I have not heard anything she has said which refers to either of the two Amendments we are now discussing.
    Dr. Summerskill: I want to explain how unjust it is that women should be asked to pay 3d. and men 2d., and that is more than unjust because the Government have given the impression that they are being kind and helpful towards women of 60 when, in fact, under this Clause they are heaping further financial burdens on their shoulders by asking them to pay 3d. and the men 2d. The hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) has explained the spinsters' case excellently from the actuarial point of view. The spinsters never approached the Government because they felt they were decrepit and old at 55 or 60, but because they felt they were being asked to contribute towards the support of the dependants of insured men, widows and children.
    The Chairman: I think the hon. Member would find it much easier if she made her speech on the Question, "That the Clause stand part." Quite frankly, I have not discovered that she has anything to say on the limited subject of the Amendments now before the Committee.
    Dr. Summerskill: You have ruled that the two Amendments shall be discussed together, and the second Amendment is to leave out 3d. and insert 2d. I am explaining how unjust it is for the Government to insert 3d.
    The Chairman: If the hon. Lady likes to go on, she must do so, but at her own risk. I have made a suggestion to her, but if she proceeds on the lines she has hitherto followed, she is likely to find herself in difficulties through my being obliged to interrupt her.
    Dr. Summerskill: May I ask the Minister of Health whether he thinks this Clause does improve the conditions of spinsters of 60?
    The Chairman: The hon. Lady does not seem to understand my point. She must not ask questions about the Clause as a whole; she can only discuss the very limited questions which arise on the two Amendments now before the Committee. That is why I suggested to her that she would find her task very much simpler if she made her speech on the Question, "Thai the Clause stand part."
    Dr. Summerskill: May I ask that 2d. shall be the amount which a woman shall be asked to pay instead of 3d.? That is the point I wish to stress, and I hope it is in Order. As the Clause stands it aggravates that injustice.
    4.39 p.m.
    Mr. Holdsworth: I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach), I know that I shall be out of order if I deal with the speech made by the hon. Lady opposite, and I do not intend to do so except to say that it is no use going to the textile areas and telling a woman who has to get up at 7 o'clock in the morning that she is not tired at 60. You can get all the statistics you like, but you will never convince her otherwise.
    Dr. Summerskill: What I explained was that a man is just as tired at 60 as a woman.
    Mr. Holdsworth: That is not what the hon. Lady said.
    Dr. Summerskill: If I had said anything more the Chairman would have ruled me out of Order.
    Mr. Holdsworth: The whole point of the hon. Lady's speech was that the Bill deals with tired women at 60. If she went into the textile areas and talked to women who had to get up early in the morning, they would very soon contradict her.
    Dr. Summerskill: They would believe me before they would believe the hon. Member.
    Mr. Holdsworth: Let me deal with a matter which is in Order. I want to ask the Minister of Health to give some attention in his reply to what was said by the hon. Member for Central Bradford. There is a feeling that women, in having to pay an increased subscription, are being asked to pay too much. I am not saying that it is too much, but I think that some
    2118
    adequate explanation is called for to convince them that the figure mentioned is a legitimate figure. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say whether the hon. Member for Central Bradford is right in his calculations. I think that the figures he quoted can hardly be correct, and I hope we shall have some explanation, which has not so far been forthcoming, which will give satisfaction on this point. I beg the Minister to take particular care in answering the point.
    Mr. Leach: The figures which I gave are not my figures; they are figures taken from the Actuary's report.
    Mr. Holdsworth: I should have said the figures quoted by the hon. Member from the report. I did not want to suggest that the hon. Member has been taking some fictitious figures.
    4.41 p.m.
    Mr. Graham White: There is a good deal of feeling about this extra charge of 3d. which is being put on women contributors. Anyone who has taken part in these discussions has received many letters and communications on the point, and it is very important that for a change, which seems to reverse the normal method of contribution, there should be an adequate and full explanation. I feel that in these matters we are getting into a state of confusion, and we shall be grateful to the Minister if, in dealing with them, he will make a statement which will relate the proposals of the Bill to the general scheme and finances of the whole pension system. Are we to have some regard to actuarial considerations or not? Are we to put the whole on the State? We must proceed one way or the other; either a total State contribution or by actuarial considerations based on contributions by the employers, the employed, and the State.
    If we are going to do that, I should like to know what will be the consequences of these proposals. We are proceeding now on a policy which will put another penny on both sides in 1946, and which in 1956 will bring the total contributions up to 1s. 3d. and 7½d. Anyone who enters at the age of 16 and carries through during the whole period will have paid for the whole of the benefits received, but alterations have been brought into the scheme, and the situation is not now so

    2119
    favourable. To what extent the proposals of the Bill will alter the scheme further as against the State I do not know, but I think the Committee should bear in mind the fact that the State underwrites the whole transaction and that if there is a shortage for any reason, the State will risk the burden. That is a very relevant fact in considering the importance of the Amendment. I hope that in our anxiety to consider and sympathise with tired women, and with other people who may be tired, we shall not get away from the sound principles of finance.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I hope I shall not be misunderstood when I say that such is the anxiety of the poor people in this country to get some security in their old age that it would be difficult to find any insuperable objection to the payment of increased contributions. That is something which has been pointed out by hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, and it is one of the reasons we on this side were prepared to pay much larger contributions in order to secure adequate pensions. Therefore, on the narrow question of whether people are prepared to pay increased contributions, there is no division between us. But if the Government always had the intention to finance increased pensions, or a lowering of the age at which the pensions are given, in this manner, I do not see why the Bill could not have been introduced some years ago. Why need the Government have waited all this time?
    We had always understood that the reason the Government were chary of improving the old age and widows' pensions scheme was that any such proposals would be certain to increase the charge falling upon the Treasury. Indeed, it would have been impossible for the Government to have brought forward this scheme in peace time without the Treasury having to pay a share of the contributions, for the principle of tripartite contributions is so deeply embedded in the National Health Insurance scheme that the House and the country would not have tolerated a departure from it in peace time. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) said that the scheme must be on a sound actuarial basis. We are not attempting to violate that principle; our contention is that the contributions of the employers
    2120
    and the workers would be less if the State found more. That would not affect the actuarial soundness of the scheme, but it would affect the apportionment of the contributions. There is all the difference in the world between the State underwriting any possible loss—which already the Government have sought to avoid—and the State bearing from the beginning a proper share of the burden. I am certain that if ultimately it is found in 1946, or before 1946, that the increase in the contributions will be inadequate to support any increased expenditure, the Treasury will come to the House for an increased contribution; I am certain of that for the reason that if they did not do so, they would then have accepted the principle that they ought to make a contribution towards the increase. If they are ready to accept that principle, why not do so now, and pay their share of the contributions?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): We are doing so, as I shall have no difficulty in showing the hon. Member.
    Mr. Bevan: I shall be delighted to hear the Minister. We all recognise the right hon. Gentleman's virtuosity, but we are sometimes suspicious of his facts. There is another side of the matter to which hon. Members ought to give some attention. It is assumed that the employer finds one contribution and that the workman finds another, but the fact is that in many cases the employer does not find the contribution. In the coal-mining industry, for instance, 85 per cent. of the increased contributions will be found by the miners. Whenever the cost of production goes up in the mining industry, the ascertainments upon what the wages are based are affected. I have no doubt that the coalowners have presented no great objection to this increase because they will not have to find it; the miner will have to find his share of the contribution and the coalowner's share, or most of it; and what the miner does not find, the consumer of domestic coal will find, because the coalowner will pass on the charge.
    That brings me to another very important aspect of the increased contributions. In the past, when industry was of an entirely different character, it was much more difficult to persuade the employers to pay increased contributions

    2121
    than it is now. In the past, the employers often had to find the increase out of their revenue, but in recent years there has been such a change in the character of industry, and the employers have got so much more control over the prices of their products, that if there is any increase in the cost of production on account of the social services, they can at once pass on the increase. If the costs of the railways are affected, the railway companies either come to the House or go to the Railway Rates Tribunal and get an increase in railway fares. The same thing is true of a vast number of monopolistic or semi-monopolistic concerns in the country which now have a legal or semi-legal power over the prices of their products, and are able to get back from the poor people, in their capacity of consumers, any increase in the cost of production resulting from a rise in the contributions towards the social services. Either as original contributors or as consumers of the products, the poor people have to find the overwhelming proportion of the burden of meeting these social services.
    What the whole thing amounts to, therefore, is merely a redistribution among the working classes of the same amount of money, but of course, the redistribution has the intrinsic advantage, which we do not deny—and that, indeed, is why we are so enthusiastically in favour of the schemes—of providing to members of the working classes who are sick or aged sustenance which otherwise they would not get. But it would be a mistake to suppose that the increased amenity is not being provided out of the earnings of the working classes. I ask hon. Members who intend to take part in the Debate whether they can challenge those conclusions on the basis of facts. That is one of the reasons the Government are making these proposals at the present time. They hope to be able to introduce into the social services in war-time a revolutionary principle which would have been repugnant in peace-time. They hope to be able to use the emergency of the war as an excuse for not putting an immediate charge upon the Treasury. By so doing, they are preparing the way so that if any further increase in pensions is made, it will be made entirely at the expense of the working classes. I submit that it will not be enough for the Minister to say that by this means and that means
    2122
    the Treasury will find some proportion of the increase. The point is that the amount which the Treasury will find will be unknown.
    What the right hon. Gentleman will have to do is justify a departure from the existing practice of tripartite contributions. The principle of tripartite contributions has this merit, that whereas the original contributions by the workmen and the employers almost wholly fall upon the workmen in one way or another, that part of the revenue which is found by the State contributions can be recruited from the tax-paying population. It can be a charge upon the rich; it can in many ways effect a redistribution of wealth. That is the reason we have always demanded it. It is no credit to the Government that an insurance scheme is brought forward which mobilises the resources of the poor in order to pay 10s. a week to some workers.
    Mr. Radford: On a point of Order, Sir Dennis. Is not the hon. Member going outside the terms of the Amendments and making a Second Reading speech?
    The Chairman: I have been listening vary carefully to the hon. Member, and although he has made occasional remarks which were a little wide of the Amendments, I think his main argument has been in Order.
    Mr. Bevan: I must say that in all my Parliamentary experience I have never listened to a speech that was more relevant than mine now is. I do not know what type of speeches we shall be able to make—
    The Chairman: I would ask the hon. Member not to discuss that question.
    Mr. Bevan: I was simply pointing out that the hon. Member need not have raised the point of Order. When it comes to the financing of social insurance schemes, strict regard should always be had to the fact that the necessity for those schemes, in the first instance, arises out of the impoverishment of the working classes. If the people were not too poor to provide for their own old age, they would not need these schemes. Millionaires do not come to the House to ask for insurance schemes. When poor people ask for the payment of increased pensions, or the lowering of the age at which pensions are given, they do so because

    2123
    they have no resources. The proposals of the Government diminish the resources which these people already possess. That is why hon. Members on this side always insist that the Budget should be used as a means of financing an improvement in the social services out of the taxation of the well-to-do members of the community in order to redress the inequalities that exist.
    It is for this reason that we object, not to the fact that the contributions have to be paid—although I object to any contributory scheme because I consider that it violates a first principle to which I think attention ought to be given—but to the fact that the proposals make a profound departure from the traditional history of our social services and the reason the people of this country want an extension of the social services. It is true that if contributions are taken from some members of the working class and distributed in the form of pensions to others, the same amount of income is spread out more thinly over the whole line. That brings about a greater equality between the people, but it is an equality which takes everybody downwards, whereas if there were increased revenue from the State at the disposal of the scheme, it would raise the general level of the working class. That is why I say to the Minister that we are not grateful for the Measure. We have to find the money for it. It is a Measure which, in its present form, could have been brought forward years ago, and now it has been brought forward, the Government are using the psychology of war conditions in order to introduce principles which are repugnant to all of us. Unless we resist them now, later on any further improvement in the social services will have to be financed entirely out of the incomes of the poor, and we shall then lose the leverage which the social services give us in bringing about a more effective redistribution of the wealth of the community.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Radford: The few remarks that I wish to make on these Amendments refer to the contribution that insured women are to pay. I cannot see, unless my right hon. Friend can give us chapter and verse with regard to actuarial calculations, why a woman should be called upon to pay
    2124
    2d. a week while a man only pays 1d. I am excluding in both cases the employer's contribution. The women are to pay 2d. out of probably much smaller wage levels than those that the men enjoy. Before the Bill was introduced unmarried women were most dissatisfied with the fact that, after all their contributions, their pension was not payable till 65, and they strongly felt that they were not getting the same pro rata benefit from their contributions that the married people were getting, and now when their pensionable age is being dropped from 65 to 60, the married women's pensionable age is similarly dropped, and they see themselves being called upon to pay twice the rate that the men pay. I know that there is a strong feeling of dissatisfaction among them. I have a strong feeling of uneasiness, and I hope the Minister will be able to give us statistics which may reconcile us to this charge of 2d. a week out of the women's own pockets as compared with 1d. out of the men's pockets.
    5.2 p.m.
    Mrs. Hardie: I am not so much concerned with the fact that the men are called upon only to pay 2d. and the women 3d. What I am concerned with is the fact that the Government told the women, "We are giving you a pension at 60," and they are not giving it at all. They are calling upon the women to pay the whole cost of the pension. That is the injustice and the grievance that we feel. It does not seem a very serious matter to argue about 1d. a week and, as a matter of fact, I am quite prepared to advocate increased contributions if we get a reasonable and proper pension scheme, but this scheme is so small that we feel that women are being cheated and deluded by being told that they are getting a pension when they have to pay the whole cost themselves. Not only are the Government paying none of the cost, but, in the division between the women and the employers also, women are being treated on a worse basis because they have to pay two-thirds of the cost and the employer only pays a third, while, where the men are concerned, the employers are paying a half. Why should there be this discrimination?
    But I want to deal with the case of the younger women. There is another grievance here. A very large proportion of young women will pay into this for

    2125
    years and never draw anything. The Government are doing their best to remedy that grievance, because, if the war goes on and another two or three million young men of marriageable age are killed, the women can look forward to qualifying for this old age pension, but we will hope that that will not take place and that a sufficient number of men will be saved to prevent them from the need of drawing the pension. The extra 2d. a week may not appear very much for them to pay, but it is like the last straw that breaks the camel's back. They are already paying contributions, and, with the low wages that many women earn, particularly in trades such as the Parliamentary Secretary knows about in Dundee, they will find it a fairly heavy contribution. Those are the points I wished to make. The women are being deluded because the Government are not giving them pensions—they are giving themselves the pensions—and also that the proportion between the employer and the worker is unequal in the case of the women.
    5.6 p.m.
    Mr. Collindridge: I want to stress the point that my hon. Friends have made that we are not opposing increased contributions at this juncture if we get in return adequate pensions for our people. We have 150,000 miners in Yorkshire. The 2d. a week contribution will amount to £1,250. It has gone forth that this is going to be equally shared between the miners and the mineowners. I heard it put at one meeting that, because the owners were so few and the miners so many, it was a good thing on the side of the mineowners. My reply was that the owners may be few and the miners many, but at the end of life the mine-owner has generally left about £500,000. Let us see how this £1,250 a week is going to be shared out. Under the miners' wage ascertainment, all the costs other than wages are first deducted from the proceeds of the industry. That permits this £1,250 to be deducted before the miners have a penny of wage consideration. In effect we are to have this £1,250 shared out in this manner—£1,080 to the workers and £170 to the owners. Further, the fact that the Government are bearing no share of this in the early years makes the levy upon the miners much greater. The right hon. Gentleman said he hoped to show that the Govern-
    2126
    ment were going to make their contribution. It would be wrong for me to anticipate, but, if the suggestion is that the Government by way of supplementation are to have a financial burden imposed upon them, we say that they are very belated in taking on that burden. Too long have the industrial districts borne the burden for the Government, and I feel that they ought to be ready to do it and not impose this levy upon the industry, and particularly the workers. We are in favour perhaps, in the circumstances that we have at present, of meeting our share of contributions if we can get adequate pensions, but we are dubious whether these pensions will go to the people who want them, and that is why we support the Amendment.
    5.10 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: It was my intention to allow everyone who wished to do so to speak. I have no desire whatever to avoid the argument and Debate which will be necessary if we are to bring the Bill through Committee with the assent of all Members instead of one or other section feeling that they have been voted down by a majority which has not fully appreciated the arguments that they have put forward. [Interruption.] It is from that side that I hope to draw my majority, not this side.
    Mr. Mander: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously think that his friends will have an opportunity of appreciating his arguments if they are not here?
    Mr. Elliot: I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate my arguments if he will listen to them. The Debate, of course, has placed us in a slight difficulty, since it is nominally on a Motion that all contributions whatever should be remitted, though during the Debate the argument is also carried on that a certain type of contribution, that in respect of women, should be reduced by a penny. Therefore we sometimes find rather contradictory arguments advanced from the other side, sometimes in the same speech.
    Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely unjustified in making that remark. It arises entirely out of the Chairman's permission that the two Amendments should be taken together. If there is an apparent contradiction, it is a formal one arising out of that fact.
    Mr. Elliot: I hope to show from the hon. Member's own speech that he is in error in that. He advanced the argument that the contributions should be lower, saying at the same time that he himself was opposed to any contributory scheme at all, and subsequently arguing that the contributions were all paid by the workers anyhow, so that it did not really matter whether they were found on one side of industry or the other. [Interruption.]I do not think so. If he reads his own speech, he will find that to be true. We want to consider, first of all whether there should be an improved pension or not, because the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) seemed rather doubtful about it. He said, "You will find that wages will come down by the amount of the pension in the case of certain people. How much more so in the case of women?" The Committee can dispose of that argument, because time and again during the Second Reading Debate on all sides of the House it was said, "We welcome Part I of the Bill." Can we take it, first of all, that the Committee is agreed that it is a good thing that the pension should be paid and that it should be paid at a lower age than at present? [Hon. Members: "Agreed."] Proceeding from that, we come to the question whether there should be contributions or not, and, if so, by whom—employer, employed, and the State. I take it that the Committee generally is agreed that the principle of contributions should be accepted. We now proceed to the question, first of all, Are the contributions which are being asked for fair in themselves and, secondly, are they properly distributed? That I conceive to be the real purpose of the two Amendments and the discussion that we have had. I hope I have carried the Committee with me so far. The question, first of all, as everybody, I think, agrees, is whether there should be contributions from employers, employed, and the State. Hon. Members opposite have said that the State is not making here any contribution, but it is stated in the Government Actuary's report, which is in no way a party report, of course, that the State is making a contribution.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but on page 9 it will be seen in the Actuary's re-
    2128
    port that in the scheme as enlarged by the Bill the excess of expenditure over income falling on the Exchequer for the next two years is £50,200,000 and £52,500,000. If we turn to page 7, we find that the figures given for the existing scheme are £50,500,000 and £52,600,000. So that in the enlarged scheme the figures are very nearly the same. What we charge the Minister with is that the State is not contributing anything additional in the next two years to meet the additional financing of the scheme.
    Mr. Elliot: That is, indeed, a point to which the Committee must address itself, and it was raised in some detail by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). I would refer the Committee to page 6 of the report, where it is pointed out quite clearly:
    "The actual machinery of the Exchequer grants for pension purposes under the existing scheme is as follows:
    (a) An annual grant is made to the Treasury Pensions Account out of which pensions up to age 70 are paid…The Exchequer contributions to the Treasury Pensions Account are intended to make good the excess of estimated expenditure over estimated contribution income over a series of years…"
    That, I submit to the Committee, is a justification for my contention that the Government here are making no departure in the practice of previous years—the practice which has been followed all through the contributory scheme. We are financing this scheme, as on previous occasions, by moneys paid into the account over a series of years.
    Mr. Bevan: From that I take it that if the increase in contributions was not paid at the moment, the increased expenditure would entirely fall upon the Treasury?
    Mr. Elliot: No, I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. If the increased contributions were not now paid, the increased expenditure would fall entirely upon the balances at present to the credit of the fund. Obviously the balances would thereby be more quickly exhausted—the balances representing moneys from all three partners. These would, as I say, be more quickly exhausted. In that event the Government would either have to allow the scheme to go bankrupt—and it could hardly do that—or to come back to the House for authority to raise contributions. I think that we are agreed on that point.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: This is really important. During the next two years, when the Government are extending the pensions to unmarried women at 60, and to the wives of insured men at 60, the Government, according to this report, are not adding a penny piece more to the total sum they are paying. True, they are paying towards the scheme, but our complaint is that the contributions in this case have to meet an additional expense embodied in this scheme.
    Mr. Elliot: Certainly, that can only be true if the finances of the insurance scheme were to balance year by year. The Government Actuary's report indicates that that is not so, and it never has been so. It is really most important that the Committee should grasp this point. I repeat that the scheme has been financed in blocks of years, and within those blocks of years it is not worked out on the narrow outgoings and incomings, but on an average. Later on the Government's, liability increases—no one denies that the Government's liability exists. The Government's liability matures and then the Exchequer's contributions will undoubtedly have to be paid. I hope I carry the Committee with me on that.
    Mr. Burke: It will cost every woman in the next year 8s. 8d. for this scheme. Can the Minister tell us how much it will cost the Government in the same year?
    Mr. Elliot: I have already said that the Government do not contribute year by year. I think it would be unnecessary for the Committee to go into the actuarial refinements, but in the earlier stages of the scheme it will, speaking broadly, be financed by drawing on the existing balances, and in later years by a combination of increased contributions which will have to be made and made also by the Government. My justification is in a report, not a party statement, or a report of my own, but a report from the Government Actuary. It is a completely non-party document. It is a singularly clear document, and I think we have to take the opinion of experts on this matter. It brings out most clearly the fact that there will be a very considerable increase in the Government's contributions and that the Government's share of the pensions scheme will be carried out. It has been said that this is a departure from the tripartite arrangement. Not at all. The State is paying 6s. out of every 10s. of
    2130
    contributory pensions to-day, and it will have to pay in the same proportion in the future. The employers and the workers are being asked for an additional contribution of 2d. for men, and 3d. for women. But the State is undertaking a large liability also in these new pensions, and it will clearly be a substantial contributor. These facts are clearly stated in the Government Actuary's report.
    Mr. Buchanan: Can the Minister tell me why, assuming the Government do take on a liability, the Government do not make a contribution in an equal arrangement? From the Minister's own point of view then it would lessen the future liability he is talking about. It would merely lessen the burden which in any way they will carry in the future.
    Mr. Elliot: No. The hon. Member will agree with me that nothing can be more irritating to the poor people than continually coming back for small additional contributions—say, ½d. this year, and 1d. or 1½d. the year after—instead of the contributions remaining steady over a long period. The employers' and workers' contributions will now remain steady, but the contributions from the State will rise. The Committee will agree that there is nothing more aggravating to hon. Members than they should have continually to explain small increases to their constituents.
    Mr. Bevan: The Minister seems to be in slight disagreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, during the Second Reading Debate, took great care to impress on the House how impossible it would be to consider any budgetary expenditure at the present time. He said:
    "if pensions were to be improved, it must be done by increased contributions, and that with my responsibilities as Chancellor I could not agree to substantial sums being paid by the Exchequer for this purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1940; col. 1488, Vol. 357.]
    The whole speech was that the Bill had been so designed as to prevent any substantial increase from the Exchequer and the speech of the Minister is designed to convince the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong.
    Mr. Elliot: I think we find ourselves in a little difficulty if we go back again to the Second Reading. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, does both himself and me less than justice

    2131
    in this matter. On the Second Reading we were discussing, as everybody knows, the great scheme involving heavy increases in contributions, admittedly brought forward by the party opposite and by the trade unions in their original plans. Clearly the Chancellor brought forward these arguments in discussing this general question. I am now debating what we admit to be a much smaller scheme than the scheme brought forward and turned down. I am discussing the scheme of Part I of this Bill, and I am doing my utmost to address myself to it. I hope I have carried the Committee with me in these three things—first that we should have a lowering of the pensions age, secondly, that we should do that by a contributory scheme, and, thirdly, that the contributions to the scheme should be shared. The three parties to the scheme, I think we also agree, should be employers, employed, and the State.
    I have addressed myself at some length, but not without certain co-operation by the Committee, to the question whether the State is, indeed, finding a contribution to the scheme. I hope I have been able to make it clear why I believe the State is finding a substantial contribution. For the people who are immediately concerned, the sums which they are receiving are sums which have been derived from contributions over a much shorter time than the contributions payable by a person who has been contributing right through from entry into employment at the age of 16. There is no beneficiary who will not be in debt to the State and to the scheme, because the scheme is carrying all the people who have entered insurance in later years, and for whom the scheme has not received any of the contributions in the earlier years which are really required to make it balance. I hope I have dealt with the point put to me. It may well be that I have not fully succeeded in convincing the Committee, but within my powers, I have tried to face up to the important problem which the Committee has laid before us.
    I now come to the question put by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) and the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach), which are not unrelated to the vigorous campaign undertaken by Miss White, who has seen a great amount of her ambition realised in a relatively short period of campaign-
    2132
    ing, a thing which comes to very few people. For that we should certainly give her recognition to-day. The hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) brought up the same point, which was roughly this: Is it fair that the contributions in respect of the woman insured in her own right—and that applies to married as well as unmarried women—should be put at 3d. and that the contributions for the man should be put at 2d.? The question of the contribution by the woman insured in her own right has been the subject of debate in the House and outside. The discussions ended with the appointment of the Le Quesne Committee, and the question was settled by the committee's report. What we have to discuss now, therefore, is whether, granted that these contributions were reasonably fair at the introduction of this Bill, the practice of insurance has been disturbed and whether it has been departed from by the admitted fact that the woman insured in her own right is being asked for a contribution of 3d. whereas the man is being asked for a contribution of 2d. The argument has been brought forward that a fair deal has not been given to the unmarried woman because a 3d. contribution is being asked from her, while only 2d. is being asked from the man.
    Mr. Bevan: Why has a sex basis and not an actuarial basis been taken?
    Mr. Elliot: In this extremely complicated matter it is simpler to take one question at a time. I am now considering whether a fair contribution is being asked for a fair benefit. I am willing to discuss the question whether there should be a lower age for women than for men, but not at the moment. We have the uninsured woman who gets a pension in virtue of her husband's insurance and the insured woman who gets a pension in virtue of her own contributions. The answer to the question why the contributions are different is not difficult, and I think it will carry conviction to every Member. It is simply this, that the insured woman gets her pension at the age of 60 in virtue of her contributions, and the married woman gets it in respect of her husband's insurance at an age which averages not 60, but 62 to 62½. Clearly it is a fair thing to say that a pension at 60 should be paid for by a higher contribution than a pension at 62½.
    Mr. Leach: Has the right hon. Gentleman read paragraph 42 of the Le Quesne Report?
    Mr. Elliot: I have, but I do not think the Committee will dissent when I say that by and large the Le Quesne Report said that the argument into which they had inquired in respect of spinsters did not bring out that they had a grievance.
    Mr. Leach: May I contradict the right hon. Gentleman? Paragraph 42 says:
    "A majority of us are also of opinion that, if the 17 per cent. method of allocation is accepted, the spinster who does not marry has a just cause of complaint in respect of the amount of her contribution towards the cost of the pensions under Item (d)."
    Mr. Elliot: That was the complaint of the spinsters as against the married women, and the hon. Member must read that passage in conjunction with paragraph 44 of the report and take into consideration also the considerable benefits and increases which are given to unmarried women. The fact is that if the actuarial charge were made upon spinsters for the pension at 60 they would have to pay a further 2½d. beyond the 8½d. In fact, the pension is being given on a reduced contribution rate. What I am asked is whether, starting from the basis of the Le Quesne Report, this change is justifiable and why should one set of women have to pay 3d. and another set—through their husbands—have to pay 2d.? The answer is that the first set of women are getting the benefit of a pension at 60 and the other set get the pension at 62 plus. An increased contribution has, therefore, been charged for an increased benefit, and I think the whole Committee will agree that that is fair. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate, that is the reason for the increased contribution.
    Mr. Watkins: Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to take into account the number of spinsters who live and become 60 in comparison with the other groups of insured people? If that is taken into consideration, 3d. is unfair.
    Mr. Elliot: I think on that point the hon. Member would find himself at loggerheads with the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill). I am willing to go into the argument as to the respective lengths of life of married women and single women, but I do not think it is necessary to do that.
    Mr. Watkins: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has missed my point. I was not talking about expectation of life. I was talking about the number of contributors who remain in insurance for a sufficient number of years to reach 60 and to receive a pension. So many for one reason or another drop out of insurance, and that ought to be taken into consideration.
    Mr. Elliot: I have no doubt that that factor has to be taken into consideration, but I would ask the hon. Member to realise what a great difference is made to it by the shortening of the period of insurance by five years, as we are doing. I do not think anybody will deny that fewer people will drop out of insurance if they can qualify at an earlier age.
    Dr. Summerskill: I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman has now adopted the principle of putting the sexes into two pools. He says that the spinster has to contribute 3d. because she is getting her pension at 60, and that a man contributes 2d. because his wife will not get her pension until 62 plus. That principle has never been adopted before. Spinsters have always contributed to the insurance pool, and they have had to pay for the man's widow and dependent children. Why has the principle now been changed so that there are two pools, instead of letting the man help the woman as the spinster has helped the man?
    Mr. Elliot: I am not sure that the hon. Lady has given full attention to the pamphlet of her own party on this subject. The principle of lower age for wives of insured persons was brought forward in that pamphlet, but a lower age for spinsters was left out altogether. The fact of the matter is that it so happens that by reducing the age of the married woman to 60 you do somehow or other hit on a group which brings in the largest number of wives. I have stated before, in the Debate on the Second Reading, that the proportion of cases in which husbands and wives both qualify for pension when the husband reaches 65 will, if this Bill is passed, be brought up from 28 per cent. to 63 per cent. For many years the question of lowering the age of the wives of insured men has been the subject of debate, and it has been generally agreed that if a way could be found to do that it would be a convenient thing to do. It was always recognised that if the age was

    2135
    lowered you would not give a pension to a woman at 60, but at 62 plus because the difference between the ages of men and their wives is a variable and not a fixed one.
    I hope that I have now dealt with most of the arguments advanced. We are bringing forward an improvement in the pensions scheme, of the financial burden of which I hope I have been able to prove the State is bearing a new share, according to the rules of insurance schemes which have worked for many years. I hope I have proved also that the difference between the contributions exacted for uninsured wives and for women insured in their own right is reasonable and just having regard to the improved benefit which the women insured in their own
    right are to get. I hope it will be possible now to pass from this important and interesting aspect of the Bill. There are a great many subjects to discuss, and I hope we shall be able to discuss them in the same reasonable manner as we have been able to discuss this important point.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Leach: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out "threepence" and to insert "twopence."
    Question put, "That the word 'threepence' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 142.

    Division No. 28.]

    AYES.

    [5.7 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Align, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)

    Emery, J. F.

    McCorquadale, M. S.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    McKie, J. H.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

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

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Etherton, Ralph

    Markham, S. F.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Bernays, R. H.

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

    Blair, Sir R.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd & Chisw'k)

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

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

    Boom, A. C.

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Boulton, W. W.

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

    Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)

    Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

    Gledhill, G.

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Nall, Sir J.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen H. C. (Newbury)

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Bull, B. B.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Butcher, H. W.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Cary, R. A.

    Harbord, Sir A.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Harland, H. P.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Cazalet, Major V. A. (Chippenham)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Channon, H.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Pym, L. R.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Chorlton, A. E. L.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

    Christie, J. A

    Hill, Dr. A. V. (Cambridge U.)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Clarry, Sir Reginald

    Holmes, J. S.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Colfox, Major Sir W. P.

    Harsbrugh, Florence

    Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Robertson, D.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)

    Salt, E. W.

    Cross, R. H.

    Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

    Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Lambert. Rt. Hon. G.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    De la Bère, R.

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Scott, Lord William

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Selley, H. R.

    Denville, Alfred

    Levy, T.

    Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

    Doland, G. F.

    Lewis, O.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Liddall, W. S.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Simmonds, O. E.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Webbe, Sir W. Harold

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Touche, G. C.

    White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)

    Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)

    Train, Sir J.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Spent, W. P.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Storey, S.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Wragg, H.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Mr. Grimston and Mr. Munro.

    NOES.

    Acland, Sir R. T. D.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Pearson, A.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Harvey, T. E.

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Hayday, A.

    Price, M. P.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Hicks, E. G.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Ridley, G.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hollins, A. (Hanley)

    Riley, B.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)

    Ritson, J.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Horabin, T. L.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Barnes, A. J.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Barr, J.

    Jackson, W. F.

    Shinwell, E.

    Batey, J.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Silkin, L.

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Bevan, A.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Sloan, A.

    Broad, F. A.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Burke, W. A.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

    Cape, T.

    Lathan, G.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Chater, D.

    Leach, W.

    Stephen, C.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Leonard, W.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Collindridge, F.

    Lunn, W.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Daggar, G.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Thorne, W.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    MacLaren, A.

    Thurtle, E.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Maclean, N.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Dobbie, W.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Marshall, F.

    Viant, S. P.

    Ede, J. C.

    Mathers, G.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

    Maxton, J.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Messer, F.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Milner, Major J.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Montague, F.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Foot, D. M.

    Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

    White, H. Graham

    Frankel, D.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Mort, D. L.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Muff, G.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Woodburn, A.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Owen, Major G.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Paling, W.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

    Parker, J.

    Hardie, Agnes

    Parkinson, J. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Groves and Mr. John.

    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill;"
    5.55 p.m.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I understand that an Amendment which I had put down—in page 3, line 6, to leave out from "Act" to the end of the Clause—is out of Order, and on this Motion "That the Clause stand part," I wish to raise one or two questions which I had hoped to discuss on my Amendment. Sub-section (6) of the Clause rules out from the provisions of Part I of the Bill the special contribu-
    2138
    tors who were dealt with in the Act of 1937. This Clause deals solely with Part I of the Bill, and all that I can read into the words which appear at the end of Clause 1 is that these special contributors are excluded from Part I; but the Financial Memorandum to the Bill says:
    "Clause 1 (6) provides that the special contract embodied in the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions (Voluntary-Contributors) Act, 1937, with the special class of so-called 'black-coated workers' is not to be affected by the provisions of the Bill."

    2139
    I wish to ask the Minister of Health whether the Financial Memorandum is correct in its entirety or whether my reading of the words is correct, and that it is only from Part I of the Bill that these special contributors are to be excluded? It is a very important point. I appreciate the point that as the Bill stands, the special contributors do not get the advantage of the lowering of the pension age for women from 65 to 60 which is given to ordinary contributors. Whether they are spinsters or the wives of men contributors, they remain precisely as they were, with the understanding, of course, that if they themselves are ordinary contributors and their husbands are special contributors that then they do get the benefits of Part I of the Bill. Part II of the Bill deals with supplementary pensions, and I have not discovered anything in the Bill itself which shows that these people are to be excluded from getting supplementary pensions. If the Financial Memorandum is correct they are excluded not only from Part I but from Part II. Perhaps the Minister will make clear which position is correct.
    The second point I wish to raise is also one upon which, I imagine, there is a certain amount of confusion in the country. The Minister has really answered the point in a reply to a Question which I put on Thursday, 15th February, but I think it will be for the benefit of voluntary contributors if he will tell us precisely which of the voluntary contributors do get the benefit of Part I and which do not, because in spite of his answer to my Question I think there is still a certain amount of confusion. Although I have studied the matter a little more closely, perhaps, than some other people I myself am not quite clear exactly how things stand.
    A third point which I put is one of substance. Why has the Minister taken this course? I appreciate that the fact that the special voluntary contributors who are brought into a scheme of insurance by the Act of 1937 are on a different footing from the ordinary contributors, but I thought the object of the Act of 1937 was to enable persons who were not insurable under the terms of the principal Act to get the same effective benefits. It would be rather a retrograde step to place them outside the advanages of Part I of the Bill, which is being brought forward
    2140
    to assist other contributors. I realise that contributions paid by the special voluntary contributors are of a much more complicated character than those which are being paid by the contributors under the principal Act. They are taken by the age of entry, and the additional contributions are paid at varying rates; but still the object of that Act, I thought, was to arrange contributions so that in effect entrants paid at one and the same time not only their own and the employers' contribution but to a large extent the State contribution. That may not be wholly the case, but I thought that in part that was the intention which was to be carried out by the Schedule to that Act.
    It would be a degree of hardship it there were two women contributors—I will take the case of spinsters, as I suppose they will appear most commonly in this category, possibly two voluntary contributing spinsters—who for many years had been contributing and both thinking that they would be on the same footing when they reached a certain age. One of them finds that she is included and the other that she is excluded under this provision that pension will begin at 60 years of age. I want to know whether it is the intention of the Government permanently to exclude these special voluntary contributors or whether these contributors are left out of the Bill merely because it is a rather complicated matter. Is it the intention of the Government to introduce subsequently a small Bill dealing with them in particular and bringing them in on special terms? If the latter is the case, I do not quite see why it should not have been done at one and the same time in this Bill. If it is not to be done at all, I cannot help thinking that it is a blot on the Bill.
    This Part I has a very large amount of support on all sides of the Committee; and the omission of this category of women will create a certain amount of dissatisfaction among spinsters whose agitation was partly responsible for the Bill appearing before us at all. I do not know how far those who were responsible for the spinsters' agitation have been consulted, and I do not know what sort of numbers are involved, but no doubt the Ministry of Health will have the information and will be able to tell us how large is the number of women voluntary contributors under this special

    2141
    scheme. Even though the number were small, I should have thought it was unwise to create a differentiation that might give rise to a great deal of trouble in future years. It is not necessary for me to go any further with the matter. After other points have been put I shall no doubt receive a reply from the hon. Lady. I shall be glad if she will elucidate this matter, not only for the benefit of this Committee, but in order to put on record a statement of the facts which will be remembered and referred to on future occasions.
    6.6 p.m.
    Mr. Mander: As I have not had an opportunity of saying anything on the Bill so far, I would like to contribute a word or two upon the matters covered by Clause 1. I heartily welcome the action of the Government in bringing forward the proposal in the Clause in response to an overwhelming demand which has arisen in the country over a considerable period. It will be very greatly appreciated indeed, as I well know and as my own constituents have so often said to me. My only regret about it is that it has not been possible to reduce the age to 55. That would have been well worth while, and a much more satisfactory solution. Something is being done not only for married women but for spinsters too. While much has been said about the success of the spinsters' agitation, it is only fair to say that a comparatively limited number of spinsters will benefit by the Bill, which does not go a very long way in meeting the demands of the National Spinsters' Association. This body has been carrying on an active agitation. At any rate this is a beginning, and for that reason I am sure that the Bill is heartily welcomed.
    I would call attention to one point and ask the Minister whether anything can be done about it. It has been put to me that a woman of 60 years of age dislikes very much the idea of being called an old age pensioner. Is it seriously suggested that people are in their old age when they are 60? If so, that is untrue and is a misuse of the expression, which was all right when the system was first started and you were dealing with people of 70 years of age and over. You then had, properly speaking, old age pensioners, but we have gone down to 65, and now we are getting down to 60. The
    2142
    Government should consider some other words to give a truer description of the real position and not hurt the feelings of people who are really in middle life and who do not merit the other description.
    Another point is that some women who are now working in industry fear they may suffer in their employment, because it will become known to their employers when they have reached pension status by the discontinuance of their health and unemployment insurance. This point has been put to me, in particular connection with the jute industry in Dundee, which the hon. Lady who will reply to this discussion helps to represent so effectively. The matter should be taken into serious consideration. One can quite understand that women may suffer whose age is not realised, when it is discovered that their age is more than was actually believed. I call attention to these points in order to see whether anything can be done about them. The principles of the Clause are to be heartily welcomed. I hope they are only a step to a further move in due course in the same direction.
    6.10 p.m.
    Dr. Summerskill: I would endorse the contribution which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has just made. It emphasises my point that women are neither worn out nor decrepit at 60 years of age. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) said that I was doing women a disservice; I have spent quite a lot of time in this House trying to promote the interests of women, and I would like to make it clear that all I am concerned about in this Bill is that men should also be regarded as worthy of a pension.
    I want to say a word about the voluntary contributors. I am very concerned about their lot, because I feel that there is one category of woman who may suffer hardship. I am not thinking particularly of the spinster but of the married woman who is, let us say, the wife of a greengrocer in a little corner shop in a poverty-stricken road that has been evacuated. She may have become a voluntary contributor under the 1937 Act. It is a little hard on that woman, because discrimination is being made against her. I am not an actuary, but surely that special voluntary contributor might be asked to make an extra contribution on an actuarial basis now. The oldest of the women

    2143
    under the 1937 Act will not be 60 years of age for more than three years yet. I think I am right in that statement, and if so, there would still be three years of the extra contribution towards this pension. I ask the Government to consider, even at this late hour, this special category of woman who will not be brought under this scheme.
    6.12 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): Perhaps I might reply now to the points that have just been raised by the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill). I was interested when she pointed out that she was hoping to get the age reduced to 60 for some women. I had thought before that she was thinking that women should not have the pension before the men.
    Dr. Summerskill: I want it for all.
    Miss Horsbrugh: She wants it for all. She has raised the case of the woman in the greengrocer's shop. This woman is a special voluntary contributor and the hon. Lady asks whether she should not be brought into the scheme. She asks also the number of women in the special voluntary scheme. The reason for not bringing these people in is that a special scheme was set up with a special contract and a special arrangement for contributions. There are 150,000 women in the special voluntary scheme. It is interesting to note that 85 per cent. of them are over 40 years of age. If additional contributions were to be asked from these women in order that they might get a pension at 60 years of age, the cost, I find, would be about 1s. 7d. a week, or an increase of more than three times the present contribution.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Can the hon. Lady give us any idea of the percentage of these women who have previously been in insurance?
    Miss Horsbrugh: These are in a different category and are special voluntary contributors. The ordinary voluntary contributors are those who have been in compulsory insurance and have gone into ordinary insurance as voluntary contributors.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The married woman was never able to become a voluntary
    2144
    contributor until 1937. How many of the 150,000 women have previously been in insurance?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman without notice, but I will try to get the answer for him. Under this Bill women who have gone into ordinary voluntary insurance enjoy the extended rights, but those about whom I am talking are in a special voluntary scheme and, as 85 per cent. came in over the age of 40, it would mean an enormous increase in the contributions because as the hon. Lady has suggested some of them would only have three years to run. To bring them in it would require a very much larger contribution.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: That arises from the continuous segregation of these people.
    Dr. Summerskill: They have a special pool.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The difficulty here is that this is a voluntary insurance scheme. It is not because they are segregated. It is an extremely good bargain for people to come into it in later life, but if they were to get a pension at 60 instead of 65 the contribution would have to be increased to such an extent that I do not think they would feel they were getting a good bargain. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) then asked whether the exclusion of these special voluntary people would be permanent. I do not think that we can say anything here is permanent. Even the present pensions scheme with the age limit of 65 is not permanent, because we are reducing the age to 60. We hope to introduce improvements but for the time being I do not think we can bring in these special voluntary contributors.
    I will now come to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). He said that he did not like the expression "old age."
    Mr. S. O. Davies: At 60.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Gentleman thought that if it was reduced to 60 it should have another name.
    Dr. Summerskill: Call it a service pension.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I do not think it really matters; we must deal with age rather

    2145
    than status. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make some suggestions, but we must make it clear that from now on we are having a new type of pension, whatever the hon. Gentleman may like to call it. I think that whatever it is called the majority of the people will still look upon it as an old age pension.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: Call it a diamond jubilee pension.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The next point which was brought up by the hon. Gentleman was that many people would dislike the pension at 60 because it would show that they had reached the age limit. I was particularly interested because he referred to a letter from Dundee, my own constituency, in which letter it was said that the jute workers in Dundee are very interested in this matter. I think the probability is that the letter was sent by the Spinsters' Association. I have received a number of letters from Dundee—naturally, as my constituents have never been reluctant to express their opinion. I have noticed that the majority of them are in favour of this Bill. There was only one letter which differed from all the others, and that is the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred; there was only one letter dealing with this point where the writer did not agree with the age of 60. I would add that it is the only letter which is anonymous; every other one was signed.
    Mr. Mander: The words are "A great many jute workers."
    Miss Horsbrugh: Not one of those great many dared put his or her name. I know the jute workers better. A great many individual jute workers have written to me and continue to write, but the only time that they have written in that strain they do not seem to have been able to put their names.
    A point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh was in connection with the special voluntary scheme; he asked whether we realised that these people were excluded from Part I of the Bill and whether they were excluded from Part II also. The answer is that they are not excluded from Part II. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to Clause 18, he will see the definition of "old age pension." The right hon. Gentleman knows that at the begin-
    2146
    ning of Part II anyone who has received an old age pension other than a blind pension will qualify for supplementation. In Clause 18 the definition of "old age pension" includes the 1937 Act, but it comes under the Pensions Acts, 1936 to 1939. So the answer is that they are included in Part II although they are excluded from Part I. Another point which the right hon. Gentleman raised was that he thought there was a misunderstanding as to the voluntary contributors. I can explain the scheme on which I have been asked one or two questions broadly like this. If a man or woman comes to the stage in insurance when he or she does not continue in insurable occupation, as we all know, there is a certain term during which they continue in insurance. If you have 104 contributions there is a free period up to 18 months or two years.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Eighteen months.
    Miss Horsbrugh: It depends on the date in the half year when insurable employment ended.
    Mr. Tomlinson: You cannot get two years under any circumstances.
    Miss Horsbrugh: At any rate, you can get over 18 months. Having reached that stage, the individual may enter voluntarily into the ordinary insurance scheme and pay the full contribution, but he must do that before his free period is finished. He is given notice that his free period will end on a certain date, and before that date he must give notice if he wishes to become a voluntary contributor. He then enters the scheme as a voluntary contributor.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Is it not also the fact that there is another class of person in this original scheme under the principal Act who fall out of the scheme by virtue of the fact that their wages exceed the maximum for non-manual workers? Those people, I gather, are in the voluntary scheme and not in the special voluntary scheme. Is that right?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Yes. If they have been in an insurable industry and either go out of the industry or out of the area of the wages limit they can then go into the ordinary insurance scheme. If they have not that qualification the only other insurance scheme is the special voluntary insurance scheme.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady as regards the male member, but could she explain the position with regard to the female member, whether married or unmarried?
    Miss Horsbrugh: The only difference with regard to a female member is that a married woman cannot go into voluntary insurance for health rights but only for pension rights.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Is it not the fact that she has only been able to go into voluntary insurance for pension purposes since 1937?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I thought the hon. Gentleman's question was addressed to the law as it is now. That is as it is at the present time. The only difference is that a married woman can go into voluntary insurance for pensions rights but not for health rights.
    Mr. Tomlinson: If I may follow this point for a moment, the hon. Lady said that it was based upon an actuarial computation and that it would cost too much. What I want to know is this: A number of people who are in this special scheme and who have come in since 1937 were previously insured but fell out of insurance as married women because they were unable to become voluntary contributors as married women. I would like to know how many had previously been in insurance.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I do not think it would be possible to give a definite answer to that, because some of these people have had nothing to do with previous insurance, and have come into this scheme as new contributors. If it is possible to trace their history with regard to insurance, I will go into the matter, and if I can obtain any figures I will give them. I hope I have now answered the questions which were put and that I have made them clear.
    6.27 p.m.
    Mr. T. Smith: One Clause in this Bill with which I agree is Clause 1. The reduction in the age for receiving a pension from 65 to 60 is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction. The only complaint I have is that it does not give a higher pension than 10s. a week. However, the Clause has removed an anomaly which has caused a good deal of hard-
    2148
    ship during the last few years. It is more in accordance with some of the Old Age Pensions Acts which are in operation in the various Dominions. In Australia a man receives the pension at 65 and the woman at 60. As to this part of the Bill, there is not much complaint from this side. I hope the hon. Lady will be able to get out the figures which have been asked for by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), because it has an interesting bearing on what we term the special section of voluntary contributors.
    I can foresee the time when there will be a demand for extending the benefits of this Clause to the special voluntary contributors. I can quote a case. In my case I paid from the inception of the National Health Insurance Act and I am pleased to say that for many years, in an industry where the work was hard, I never needed to draw any national health benefit, and I did not complain. I have always believed in national health insurance and friendly societies, and I think it is better to be able to pay and not draw benefit because by drawing benefit one does not have better health than one otherwise would. Many people did not realise that attached to the National Health Insurance Act there would be a pensions scheme. Although sometimes we are known as shrewd Yorkshiremen, some of us neglected to become voluntary contributors, and many people who were similarly fixed were wise enough to come into this special scheme. There must be in the country a large number of married women, and I can also visualise unmarried women, who in the early days of the Act had continually paid contributions, and then found they were handicapped because they were married to or subsequently married men who were not in insured occupations. There must be thousands of such cases. It would be interesting to have the information that has been asked for. Additional weight is given to that request by the fact that it will be necessary, sooner or later, to amend the special contracts scheme. A good many who came into that scheme were contributors; and they, to some extent, built up the financial structure of the scheme. Whatever criticism we may have to offer on this part of the Bill, I, personally, welcome Clause 1, and I think a good word should be said for it.
    6.31p.m.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: I have sat through most of the Debates on this Bill, and this afternoon's discussion has certainly not added to my satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman's answer to the question as to why the Government have gone away from the old tripartite arrangement with regard to contributions has been far from satisfactory. At one moment I was prompted to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he could not be as frank with the Committee as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was when, with a frankness which was almost unique in the House of Commons, he told us that the Exchequer would not incur any additional liabilities. I feel that the whole Bill, and particularly Part I, is a mean, miserly contribution towards the solution of a great social problem. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary smiles at my description of the Bill, and particularly of Part I. She will perhaps forgive me for saying that I noticed that she was far less lyrical about it to-day than she was when she spoke at that Box last week. There may be an explanation.
    The hon. Lady has told us, more than once, how pleased and proud the women of Dundee, in particular, will be when Part I becomes law. They may be pleased, but they cannot be proud. Nor has the Parliamentary Secretary much reason to be proud of a mean, pettifogging contribution of this kind. She knows that Part I will exclude tens of thousands of women who ought to be helped, and who would have been helped if the Government had had sufficient courage and sufficient interest in the well being of the elderly women of our country, and had produced a Bill that would mitigate a little the horrible difficulties with which so many of them are confronted to-day. What a miserable explanation was given with regard to these special voluntary contributors. Is it beyond the wit of even this Government to produce a Bill which would offer some help to these 150,000 women, 85 per cent. of whom are already over 45 years of age, and who are completely excluded from the effects of the Bill? I felt last week that the excessive enthusiasm of the hon. Lady was almost a wicked insult to the womenfolk of this country. I am satisfied, from my experience as an old trade union official, that of the considerable number of women
    2150
    in employment comparatively few will be covered by this Clause. Many will find that this 10s. a week will be regarded by their employers as a subsidy for wages.
    The hon. Lady should not attempt to make capital out of the fact that any correspondence that any hon. Member receives on this subject from working men and women is anonymous. To divulge a worker's name in a case of this kind would mean certain victimisation. I have seen too much of it. The hon. Lady smiles, in her complete ignorance of matters of this kind. No amount of rhetoric, no vast rhetorical pretensions about "these poor tired women," will bluff hon. Members on this side. This Bill is a mean Measure which will disappoint tens of thousands of women. In all that we have heard this afternoon, there is very little hope that those women will be assisted in the near future. The Bill is a reflection of the absence of any desire on the part of the Government to do anything for the womenfolk of this country. I am certain that when this Measure has been in operation for a few months, the hon. Lady will discover that, if the womenfolk of Dundee have not yet been disillusioned, they will be then.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Consequential amendments of enactments relating to unemployment insurance, and national health insurance.)
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. Leach: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out:
    "the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1939, and."
    I think that the purpose of my Amendment is quite clear. The Bill provides that women, on reaching the age of 60, must be excluded from the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. My purpose is to keep them in. The Bill says that at 60 the woman ceases to contribute, and is no longer eligible for unemployment benefit. I should like whoever replies for the Government to give one reason to justify this arbitrary change in the unemployment insurance rights of women. This is a pensions Bill. There is nothing in the Title that deals with unemployment insurance, or any other kind of insurance. I know that

    2151
    these insurances and old age pensions are bound up together, but I do not understand why a pensions Bill should be used as an opportunity to alter the unemployment insurance law. If my Amendment is carried, a woman worker will be called upon to pay her contributions until she is 65. Women workers are perfectly willing to do this, as far as I can ascertain from my constituents and from my correspondence with women's organisations. A woman knows that at 60 her 10s. a week pension will not be enough to keep her free from the necessity of going to work, and she knows that at 60 her hold on a job will have become precarious. She will have reached a time when unemployment benefit is more important to her than ever it was before. That is the time selected by the Government to deprive her of it.
    There is another danger which especially menaces the widows and spinsters of 60 in industry. Under this Clause, the employer will automatically be advised of each case in which a woman in his employment reaches the age of 60. Rightly or wrongly, these women fear that that will often mean the loss of their jobs; that the conscience of the employer will not be hurt quite so much when he sacks women of 60 if he knows that, from that time, she will be in receipt of a pension of 10s. a week. Do not forget that there are hundreds of thousands of women involved in this matter, and that over 100,000 are unmarried women, who believe their livelihood is at stake. I hope that, in putting the case as briefly as I possibly could, I have convinced the Minister that there is some reason for accepting this Amendment.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Barr: I beg to support the Amendment. As I said the other day, it has been my lot to take a considerable part in this spinster agitation, and I know that they attach great importance to this particular Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) has said, the fact that at the point when they pass out of Unemployment Insurance, their age is proclaimed to their employers and others, may militate very much against the continuance of their employment. I am not so sure that they are always as successful in disguising their ages as they think. It comes out one way
    2152
    or another. On one occasion the judge in a law court asked a lady witness her age, and she said it was 25. He then said, "We know the value now of your evidence, for I find from the records that you were here five years ago, and you gave your age as 25 then," to which she replied, "I am not one of those people who say one thing at one time and another thing at another." An Irish jarvey, on receiving an exceptionally gratuitous and generous tip, thought he must pay some compliment to the lady who had given it to him, so he said to her—the highest compliment he could pay—"Madam, I do not know what your age is, but whatever it is you do not look it." I suppose that when it comes to the point with which we are dealing, and when a lady worker comes forward to declare her age, the employer may say, "I would not have thought it. You do not look like it." But after she has been paid that compliment, she will be entered on the list of those who are in peril of losing their situation, because they pass into a new position.
    I was addressing a meeting of spinsters in St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow, and I received a letter, also anonymous, in which a working woman protested against the idea of giving pensions to spinsters at all on the ground that they would stand in danger of losing their occupation when they reached the age of 55 or 60, or whatever it might be. She said she could not sleep at all at nights because of the fear that, on the payment of the pension, she might lose her occupation. When I read the letter, I quoted a phrase which the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary will know. It was:
    "Ay waukin, O,
    Waukin still and weary, O;
    Sleep, I can get nane,
    For thinkin' on my dearie, O!"
    I did not add the words:
    "For thinkin' on my dearie, O,"
    as they are not quite applicable to the spinster. But it is a real peril. There are really two serious considerations which I wish to bring before the Committee. The first is that we cannot estimate the life expectancy or the power of work of a woman at 60, as compared with a man at 65, but there is a certain advantage in what we are considering. It might be found that many of these women at 60 were better able to go on

    2153
    working than a man at 65. At least we are lowering the age, and that raises the question.
    The other serious consideration is one which I raise as one who has been closely connected with industry. For seven years and more as Member for Mother well, and for the last four years as Member for Coatbridge, I have been in purely industrial constituencies, and none could be more so. The lessons are very tragic of men who, on reaching the age of 65, find that, because they are entitled to an old age pension, they are dismissed their employment. There are a very large number of these men, and therefore it is not mere imagination on the part of those women. It is not something which comes only into their sleeping and waking dreams, as the letter suggests. It is a real peril, and it is on that ground that I gladly support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.
    6.52 p.m.
    Mr. Dingle Foot: I want to support the second consideration which has been brought to the attention of the Committee by the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr). It may be that these fears which are being felt by women engaged in industry are not as serious as they imagine, but there can be no doubt that there is some apprehension about the effect of this Clause. I have here a letter which I received from a number of Dundee jute workers, and I would like to read one passage of it, because it reinforces what the hon. Member has just said. They refer to a reference that was made in the Debate last week as to "tired women at 60,"and they go on to say:
    "You may say we do not know any of them. All the women in our establishment are very capable, alert women and willing to work. We understand that it will affect women in the jute industry if employers and those in authority get to know when we are on pension. The very name of 'old age pensioners at 60' would make you feel uncomfortable. They might have given it a better name. We hope something can be done to keep our employers from knowing."
    It may be that that is exaggerated, but I co not think it is without foundation in every case, and one can see the objection which might very well be made. I hope that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Ministers in charge of the Bill, and that even if they cannot accept this Amendment they will consider
    2154
    whether they cannot amend the Clause before the Bill leaves the House of Commons. I do not know whether, if they cannot accede to the Amendment, they will be prepared to concede the possibility of giving women working in industry an option as to whether they take the pension or continue in Health and Unemployment Insurance. That would be an improvement. It would not damage the structure of the scheme, but would enable women who had apprehensions on these grounds, on reaching the age of 60, to avoid the consequences that they envisage. I shall listen with great interest to hear what is said about these apprehensions which are felt by women in Dundee and other places where a large number of women workers are engaged in industry.
    6.55 p.m.
    Mr. Messer: It is important that the Minister should consider the position of the women of 60 entitled to statutory benefit under the Insurance Acts. As the Bill is drawn, the woman of 60, instead of drawing statutory benefit, will be drawing 10s. a week pension. It may be said, if the 10s. is not enough, that the woman may be able to apply to the Assistance Board and obtain a supplementary pension. But she would, if she were allowed to continue under the Insurance Acts, continue drawing her full statutory medical benefit for at least 26 weeks. It seems strange to tell people at the age of 60, after they have been paying their full contribution into the National Health and Unemployment Insurance Schemes, that they can no longer draw 15s. Unemployment Benefit, but must draw 10s. a week old age pension. There is some substance in the point that has been made that, if this Bill is to benefit anybody at all, it should benefit them without injuring anybody.
    6.57 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: The points which have been raised on the Amendment have undoubtedly caused a great deal of interest and have been very carefully examined. They were in fact very carefully examined by the Le Quesne Committee, which was a body set up as a result of discussion in this House to go into the whole of these points. That Committee specifically examined both those points and came to very definite findings on each. In paragraph 128 it says:

    2155
    "On the whole, we are disposed to think that, if the pension were, granted to spinsters at 55"—
    mark you, a very much lower age than 60—
    "they should cease, when they became recipients of the pension, to be insured, either in Health Insurance or Unemployment Insurance."
    They also say most definitely, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Leach), and referred to by the hon. Member for Coat-bridge (Mr. Barr), and repeated by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), as to the fear of dismissal:
    "Our conclusion is that, whilst the fears that 'undercutting,' or a general depression of women's wages, or the dismissal of spinsters at 55, or the reduction of wages of spinsters of 55, will follow from the granting of a pension to spinsters at 55 cannot certainly be treated as groundless, yet these possible dangers should not be regarded as an obstacle to the granting of such a pension, if the granting of it should appear to be desirable on other grounds."
    This point had our very careful consideration, and more than that, it had the careful consideration of the expert committee sitting for some time considering this very problem, and I think that the result of their examination will be supported by Members of the Committee on the whole. It has been for a long time now the principle that people who come under the payment of these pensions are in general no longer within the industrial field. It is a point which is stressed rather emphatically by the Labour pension plan, the whole essence of which is that these pensions should not be granted to encourage people to remain in industry, but rather to encourage them to withdraw.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Make them adequate.
    Mr. Elliot: The proposals in the Labour pension plan for dealing with the spinster are, of course, much more drastic than the proposals in this Bill.
    Mr. Foot: Surely, the Minister is not suggesting that these pensions payable to women of 60 should be an inducement to withdraw from industry as such. The Minister addressed us at some length on the Second Reading on the inequity of the work test.
    Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member is slightly incorrect in his recollection of what I said. At that time we were arguing
    2156
    whether the compulsory work test should be applied or not; the desirability of persons not continuing in work when they were no longer capable was a matter upon which we were all agreed.
    Mr. Silverman: What more stringent work test could there possibly be than a pension inadequate to support them?
    Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member does not fully grasp the argument or the proposals of the Bill. The suggestion here is the dangers to insured women—first, the danger that a pension might mean that their wages are undercut; secondly, that they might actually be dismissed; and, thirdly, that it means the employer will know the age of the worker. In the case of health insurance it was suggested that there might be some form of "wangle" by which people might go on paying for pension while, in fact, enjoying the pension. That would be so flagrant a matter that I do not think anybody will suggest it should be continued. Then there is the question as to the disclosure of the age.
    Mr. Leach: If a disclosure of the age is accompanied by a continuance of benefit, the damage is less.
    Mr. Elliot: It is suggested that there is a peril if the age be known at all, but we cannot in any case have persons continuing to pay for pensions which they are already enjoying whatever happens, and, therefore, at the age of 60 a new insurance card of some kind or other would need to be issued to these persons. The fact that the expert committee examined this matter and reported that in their view the dangers do not outweigh the advantages should weigh with the Committee. Secondly, the universal practice in pension schemes that on reaching the pensionable age the insurance terminates, also should weigh with the Committee. It has been our practice for a long time, and the anomalies which would arise from going away from it are much greater than the anomalies which would be created if it continued to be followed. We shall all agree that in future we must work towards the idea that at the age of 60 these women will receive this State payment, which taken week by week is of much greater advantage than the temporary advantage which they gain by unemployment benefit payable for only a certain time, and then coming to an end.

    2157
    There is some force in the suggestion that hardships may arise to some persons who have paid up their stamps when the Bill comes into force and find that they are not able at that time to draw unemployment benefit to an amount regarded as the condition of the contract entered into. Therefore, in a later Clause we have taken steps to deal with that matter and have inserted a provision by which a person who has been paying up to now, and who is looking forward to that as part of their right, will be fully safeguarded and will be able to draw the full benefit of the stamps on their book. I hope the Committee will agree with the Government that the practice that when the pension age is reached payment stops should be adhered to in this case.
    7.5 p.m.
    Mr. Lawson: This is not a simple question at all, I agree. It is very complicated. The right hon. Gentleman has a good memory for certain portions of the Labour pension scheme, but a very bad memory for some of its other proposals. He has reminded us that it put the age at 55,but he did not say that the Labour proposals were for £1 a week pension, not 10s. Therefore, you are dealing with a very different proposition altogether. In dealing with a single woman, she may be in such a position as not to be able to receive any supplementary allowance, and the fact that she is 60 years of age may also penalise her for the future. I do not want to see anyone working who is in receipt of a pension, but I do not think this Committee should make it possible for a woman to have to depend on 10s. a week pension when she is employed and earning a passable wage. It seems to me that there is something in the Amendment and that we ought to be careful about applying the Unemployment Insurance Act and depriving these persons of certain benefits for which they have paid. I hope the Committee will not accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman as satisfactory.
    7.7 p.m.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot quite follow the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman in his opposition to the Amendment. On a previous Amendment he told us that the Government had to be concerned with the actuarial position of the Bill and that it determined their attitude towards
    2158
    it. Now, in dealing with spinsters' pensions, he has referred to a committee and provided an argument against the case by quoting it. As a matter of fact, this has no reference to spinsters at all. Spinsters are incidental, and it seems to me that everyone is leaving out of account the married woman worker who is insured. I cannot understand why the Minister should have taken the trouble to put down an Amendment to Clause 3 providing against the contingency against which we are arguing now in the case of women between 60 and 64 who do not qualify. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that it is unreasonable to expect that a woman should remain in unemployment insurance when she is receiving a pension, but the woman between 60 and 64 is worse off. If there is anything at all in the first argument as to the actuarial consequences, surely you could have brought in people between 60 and 64 and allow them to continue their contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I do not see that the drawing of a pension has anything to do with the question whether a person is in employment or not.
    It was a surprise to me when I became a trade union secretary to find that in the industry this particular system applied and that the individual was cut out of unemployment insurance. I could keep the Committee for hours detailing individual cases of men of 65, and now it is going to be women at 60, who immediately they reach that age, because they have lost their position in unemployment insurance, will automatically lose their position in industry. I am not saying anything about the argument that women do not like to disclose their age. I know that young women do not like to do so, but I have still to find an individual who is nearing the pensionable age who does not come four months before in order to get her papers signed. That is an out-of-date argument. We have to consider the position of women at 60. In the cotton industry of Lancashire if they remain until they are 55 they very often go on until they are 65. The shrinkage is not after 60 but well before 60 as far as the cotton workers are concerned. What will be the position under unemployment insurance? It means that if the mill stops for a month a woman over 60 and between the ages of 60 and 65 under this scheme will not need to sign on at the

    2159
    Employment Exchange, but the person next to her who is under 60 will draw benefit for time she is stopped. The Minister has not put forward a single argument to justify taking these women out. Suppose the spinsters' demand had been met and that we had reduced the age to 55; is it assumed that they would have dropped out of industry at 55? Surely the need for unemployment benefit is just as great when the individual is receiving
    10s. as when 10s is not coming in; that is unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to argue that 10s. is sufficient for maintenance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think again before refusing to accept the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 145.

    Division No. 29.]

    AYES.

    [7.15 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Findlay, Sir E.

    Mason, Lt.-Col. Han. G. K. M.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd & Chisw'k)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

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

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

    Gledhill, G.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Cower, Sir R. V.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Bernays, R. H.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Bottom, A. C.

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Pym, L. R.

    Brooklebank, Sir Edmund

    Hambro, A. V.

    Radford, E. A.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Harbord, Sir A.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Harland, H. P.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Cary, R. A.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Robertson, D.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Higgs, W. F.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Channon, H.

    Hill, Dr. A. V. (Cambridge U.)

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Holmes, J. S.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Chorlton, A. E. L.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Christie, J. A.

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

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

    Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

    Colfox, Major Sir W. P.

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Jennings, R.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

    Selley, H. R.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Lamb, Sir J. O.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    De la Bère, R.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Levy, T.

    Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)

    Denville, Alfred

    Lewis, O.

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Dodd, J. S.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Doland, G. F.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Spens, W. P.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Lipton, D. L.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Loftus, P. C.

    Storey, S.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Emery, J. F.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    McKie, J. H.

    Touche, G. C.

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Magnay, T.

    Train, Sir J.

    Etherton, Ralph

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

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

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Markham, S. F.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    Wragg, H.

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

    Webbe, Sir W. Harold

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

    White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Mr. James Stuart and Mr.

    Munro.

    NOES.

    Acland, Sir R. T. D.

    Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

    Parker, J.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hardie, Agnes

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Pearson, A.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Harvey, T. E.

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hayday, A.

    Price, M. P.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hicks, E. G.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Ridley, G.

    Banfield J. W.

    Hollins, A. (Hanley)

    Riley, B.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)

    Ritson, J.

    Barr, J.

    Horabin, T. L.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Batey, J.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Jackson, W. F.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Bevan, A.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Shinwell, E.

    Broad, F. A.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Silkin, L.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Sloan, A.

    Cape, T.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Chater, D.

    Lathan, G.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Leach, W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Collindridge, F.

    Leonard, W.

    Stephen, C.

    Cove, W. G.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Daggar, G.

    Lunn, W.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Dobbie, W.

    MacLaren, A.

    Thorne, W.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Maclean, N.

    Thurtle, E.

    Ede, J. C.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Marshall, F.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Mathers, G.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Maxton, J.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Foot, D. M.

    Messer, F.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Frankel, D.

    Milner, Major J.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Montague, F.

    Welsh, J. C.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)

    Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

    White, H. Graham

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Mort, D. L.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Muff, G.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Woodburn, A.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Groves, T. E.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Owen, Major G

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Paling, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. John.

    7.25 p.m.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, after "sixty-five," to insert:
    "except the reference in Section fifty of the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, and."
    The reference in the 1936 Insurance Act is to the right of an insured person to sickness and disablement benefit on attaining the age of 65. Ostensibly the purpose of the Bill is to confer a benefit upon an insured person. According to what the Minister said on the Second Reading, and during the discussion so far in Committee, spinsters and married women qualify for a pension in their own right at 60 because they are insured. What I cannot understand is why there
    2162
    should be a curtailment of a right which was previously held, because a change is taking place in the age at which the old age pension is to be granted. I would like to point out from practical experience—and I think it can be proved actuarially—that the last five years of a married woman's or spinster's insurance life, 60 to 65, is the period of greatest benefit. I have here some figures, the last I could obtain, which deal with 100 persons drawing sickness insurance benefit. These are the facts with regard to them. Between the ages of 45 and 50, there are 4 men, 8 spinsters and widows, and 11 married women; between 50 and 55, there are 5

    2163
    men, 9 spinsters and widows, and 14 married women; between 55 and 60, 8 men, 12 spinsters and widows, and 18 married women and between 60 and 65, 13 men, 17 spinsters and widows, and 25 married women.
    That, in itself, is proof that between the ages of 60 and 65 the benefit which has been contracted for is of greater value to the individual who has entered the contract. I contend that not only is the incidence of sickness higher, but that they are entitled to reap the benefit for which they have paid. For a woman who enters insurance at the age of 16 and who may be insured under this Bill, who pays contributions for 44 years and is insured in her own right, this means that between the ages of 60 and 65, whether she is married or a spinster, she will, as the Bill now stands, be deprived of the benefits which should accrue to her during that time. This cannot be justified in the case of those particular insured persons because we have admitted, by the Bill itself, the right of the married woman who is not insured to receive a pension at 60. She receives it in the right of her husband's contribution and, therefore, if a married woman, who is also insured, and paying her full contribution along with those of her husband, is to cease receiving national health benefits at 60 then she is being deprived of five years' possible benefit, for which she has paid and contracted. That is the case as far as married women are concerned.
    I want the Committee to consider the case of a widow who is receiving a widow's pension in the right of her late husband's contribution, and is in insurance and industry. The fact that she goes to work means that she must come under the National Health Insurance Act. From her wages week by week is deducted an amount of money which cannot under any circumstances cover her pension at 60, because being a widow she will continue to receive the widow's pension whether she is in industry or not and whether she is insured or not. Such a woman when she reaches the age of 60 and goes out of insurance loses the benefit of the insurance for which she has been paying over a period of years and receives nothing in return. I can illustrate the matter better by giving an actual case of a woman in my own trade union who is nearly 60 years of age.
    2164
    She is receiving at the present moment not only a pension of 10s. but a disablement benefit of 6s. When she reaches the age of 60 her 6s. a week will come to an end under this Bill. If I read the Bill aright that is what it means. She will be left with her 10s. and a problematical supplemental pension based upon a household means test. That, I consider, is an injustice. She is being deprived of benefit for which she has paid and that I suggest is contrary to the spirit of the Minister's statement on the Second Reading. It has been suggested that we should not go back to the Second Reading Debate but I do not see why Ministers should escape even at the risk of some repetition.
    My contention is that when a woman is deprived of 10s. a week and receives nothing but a problematical supplemental pension, based on circumstances which cannot be visualised, she is losing something under this Bill. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry has been complimented many times on her efficiency during this Debate. I could have wished that the hon. Lady's efficiency was a little less pronounced and her humanity a little more marked. Be that as it may, she attempted to deal with the position of widows by suggesting that they had occupied for a long time a privileged position in insurance. That, in effect, was what she said. She said that she thought most people who had studied insurance matters would agree that the widow had been well treated throughout her insurance life, and she went on to say that the widow received the 10s. because of the death of her husband and that if she went into industry while keeping her pension and paid contributions she would receive for those contributions exactly the same benefits as others in industry.
    As a matter of fact she does not receive the same benefits as others in industry, because being already in receipt of a widow's pension she cannot possibly get another pension. Therefore by the contributions she makes, by deductions from her wages, she is paying for something which she can never hope to enjoy. I suggest that the case for the Amendment is not only strong but unanswerable. The Minister is attempting to meet the position of the individual who goes into the scheme late in life by putting down an Amendment later. I suggest that

    2165
    unless he is prepared to meet the particular cases I have mentioned, and especially the case of the widow, there is no possible justification for attempting to do what is attempted by the later Amendment which has been suggested.
    7.35 p.m.
    Mr. Mander: I should like to support what has been said by the hon. Member above the Gangway and I would ask the Minister to make quite clear what is to happen under the proposal in the Bill. I take it that a person would have to go to the public assistance committee to get sickness benefit. That I should have thought an extremely unsatisfactory arrangement, quite apart from the injustice of it. Having contributed for years to obtain sickness benefit, a person will be deprived of it at an age which is one of the most difficult for all persons and at a time when a person is most likely to need assistance of this sort. I hope we shall receive a sympathetic reply from the Minister.
    7.36 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: There is an aspect of this matter which has not yet been touched upon. It was said time after time during the Debates on the Second Reading and on the Financial Resolution that no one would be put under a means test by this Bill who was not already subject to one. That claim was made repeatedly, but I think the hon. Member who moved this Amendment has demonstrated to conviction that here we have a whole class of cases put under a means test or a needs test—it does not matter how you camouflage it—who were not under it before. I would like to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member below the Gangway and I would ask where these people are to go for sickness benefit. It is quite true they may ask for a supplemental pension, but a supplemental pension, I apprehend, would have nothing whatever to do with sickness benefit or with any disability or illness. A benefit for which they paid during many years is to be taken from them. The benefit of their contributions is to be taken by the Treasury. Where are they to get sickness benefit? I suggest that the only answer is that they will have to go to the Poor Law for it.
    I thought that the whole merit of this Bill in the eyes of the Government was that it would take people in their old age
    2166
    away from the Poor Law and give them some other right outside the Poor Law, but here you have a class of people who are being deprived of the benefit for which they have paid and are being put upon the Poor Law for relief in case of sickness. The Poor Law is not to operate in relation to these supplemental pensions but medical needs are excepted, and medical relief has been defined in circular after circular from the Ministry of Health as going far beyond the mere provision of a doctor and medical attention. All sorts of things come under the heading of medical relief, such as care of the teeth and eyesight, and special food. The people with whom this Amendment is concerned have paid contributions during many years and one would have thought they had acquired a contractual right to benefits. Yet those benefits are being taken away and the only place to which they may go is the Poor Law. They must demonstrate, if they can, to a Poor Law authority that the effect of this Measure upon them has been to produce destitution. For my part I am, I will not say surprised, but horrified at the incredible meanness of it. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment.
    7.42 p.m.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Much of the general argument in regard to this matter took place on the last Amendment and I do not wish to go over the same ground again although I must point out that the Committee's report did deal with this matter very carefully. The conclusion reached was that even if pensions were given at 55 the rights to benefit under National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance should cease.
    Mr. Tomlinson: That report dealt specifically with spinsters. The two classes of cases we are concerned with now are married women who are insured and widows.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I agree, but the report said that whatever happened, if you gave pensions at 55 you would have to come to that conclusion. I mention that in order to point out that this subject has been considered. It is a subject which, naturally, the Government went into very carefully when deciding to make a fresh reduction in the pensionable age from 65 to 60. The hon. Member for Nelson and

    2167
    Colne (Mr. Silverman) seemed to think that in this way we were going to drive people back to public assistance, and I think it was also suggested by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that that would be the result. That is a point I would like to examine. What will be the position of these people in future? The actuary's report says that the benefit they will receive will be 10 times that which is taken away, but putting aside the actuary's report and looking to the actual facts of the case, what will happen?
    It is agreed that the medical benefit continues, and what we are talking about are the cash benefits—for a single woman, 12s. a week, and for a married woman 10s. a week, with 6s. and 5s. a week respectively for disablement. In future, the woman will draw 10s. a week as her pension. I think hon. Members will agree, if we set one case against the other, that she will get an improvement. If the woman is drawing a pension, she will receive £26 a year. If we take the extreme case of a woman who is sick for the whole of the year, she would draw 12s. a week for 26 weeks and 6s. a week for 26 weeks, and she would receive in all £23 8s., against the pension of £26. I think this proves that the woman will get a better bargain. That is an extreme case. In a great many cases she will get a considerably better bargain, because she will stay on in industry and draw the 10s. a week. Instead of not receiving any other benefit, she will get £26 a year.
    Mr. Glenvill Hall: Has the hon. Lady forgotten that from July the woman will be paying contributions for the 10s. pension?
    Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Member means whether I have forgotten that after July people in industry who are to get their pensions at a later stage will be paying contributions, I have not. The 3d. a week contribution is to make up the difference between getting the pension at65 and 60. If the hon. Member will study the report of the Government Actuary, he will see that, taking all things into account, the woman will receive 10 times the benefit she was getting before. I have been asked where the woman is to go if she wants further help. At the present time, she has to go to
    2168
    public assistance. There are many cases where a person is out of employment and drawing sickness pay at 12s., and because that is not enough, has to apply to the public assistance committee for more. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asked whether we are going to drive these women back to public assistance. I would put the question another way, and ask whether we are going to take them away from public assistance. To that question my answer is, "Yes." The woman is to draw an old age pension, and she has the right to supplementation. Under the Bill, if a woman is drawing a pension of 10s. a week and is sick, and because of her sickness is involved in extra expenses arising out of it, she will have the right to get a supplementation through the Assistance Board.
    Mr. Buchanan: The Minister said that no person would be worse off under the Bill than under public assistance. In the case to which the hon. Lady is referring, the woman is being made very much worse off under this scheme than she would be under public assistance, because the first 7s. 6d. paid to her under the Health Insurance Scheme is exempt, whereas under this scheme it is not exempt, because the woman does not receive it. Consequently, she is very much worse off than she would be under public assistance. I would also point out to the hon. Lady that although she was quite right in her remarks about the 12s. sickness payment, it must be borne in mind that a large number of people receive extra benefits from societies.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I agree with the hon. Member's last remark, but equally I am sure he will agree with me that there is nothing under the scheme which says that a woman who is getting a pension of 10s. is not to receive medical benefits from the societies.
    Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Lady misunderstands me. The societies have surpluses from which they increase the 12s. to, say, 14s.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The old age pensioner is to have his or her needs met by a supplementation. The hon. Member said that the woman will be worse off under this scheme than under public assistance, the reason being that if the woman who is receiving 12s. goes to the public assistance committee, it disregards 7s. 6d., and,

    2169
    therefore, she goes to the public assistance committee with an income of 4s. 6d., as it were.
    Mr. Buchanan: Let me put the matter simply. If there are two persons, one drawing an old age pension of 10s. a week and the other drawing 10s. a week sickness benefit under the National Health Insurance, the old age pensioner goes to the public assistance committee with an income of 10s. and the other goes with an income of 2s. 6d.
    Miss Horsbrugh: One person with an income of 2s. 6d. goes to the public assistance committee, which has to see that that person is not destitute. The other person has an income of 10s. and goes for a supplementation. In the case of the first person, the committee takes into account the help which that person could be given by her relatives. In the case of the second person, that need not be, and therefore, a larger amount of money could be paid to her than could be paid to the woman who went to the public assistance committee with an income of 2s. 6d., because in her case other people would have to keep her.
    Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Lady is right in her contention that under this scheme no beneficiary will be worse off, will she explain to the Committee why she resists the Amendment?
    Mr. Woodburn: My hon. Friend has put this point to the hon. Lady. The person who is receiving sickness benefit finishes up with 7s. 6d. sickness benefit in addition to her needs. That person has 7s. 6d. which is her own. Therefore, she has 7s. 6d. more than she would have under this scheme.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asked why we do not accept the Amendment. The answer is that from the time the woman becomes 60 she is to be relieved of all payments into the fund. If she were allowed to go on drawing benefit without paying contributions, the situation would become impossible. What we are saying is that from the time she becomes 60 years of age, she will be in exactly the same position as the people of 65. She will cease to pay contributions and she will cease to draw benefits. I am now dealing with the question of whether or not the woman
    2170
    will be better off during the actual period of sickness. I think hon. Members will agree that over the whole period she will be better off, and I have given my reasons for believing that she will be no worse off during the actual period of sickness. I think that if a woman were asked whether she thought she would be better off with a pension of 10s. for life from the age of 60, or with no pension, but with sickness and disablement benefits, there is no doubt that she would prefer the pension. I have asked them over and over again which they would prefer. [An Hon. Member: "Whom have you asked?"] I have asked plenty of people. I saw representatives of the Spinsters' Association in the Lobby last night, and I put the question to them, "Would you get better value by the pension, dropping the other, or not having the pension and keeping the other?" and with one exception they said they would rather have the pension.
    Now I want to come to the second point. The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) not only talked in a general way but gave us an actual case that he knows. We all agree that in legislation in which an improvement is made you may have hard cases. We have tried to see how we could deal with hard cases. We have had a case of a person who is permanently disabled or sick. We have had these and other cases under consideration. The hon. Member gave the case of a widow of 60. She is disabled and is getting 6s. disablement payment. The hon. Member says, "If it had not been for this Bill, for the next five years between 60 and 65 she would draw her 10s. pension plus 6s. Now you are making the change at 60 and she is going to be worse treated."
    Mr. Tomlinson: It is an individual case, but it represents a number.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Member has not looked at Clause 3, because we have made particular provision for that person. I want to tell him that she and people like her are not going to suffer. Their condition is going to be improved. There is a transitional period of five years, because we realise the difficulty of people, as in this case, who have been paying into the fund and are suddenly stopped. In that period anyone who has not qualified for the pension can con-

    2171
    tinue qualifying for it, though she has ceased to pay her own contribution. Although she is not paying into the fund, if sick or disabled she will receive 10s. sickness payment. During that time, between 60 and 65, the widow that the hon. Member has mentioned will not only be receiving the pension of 10s. that she is receiving now, but, instead of the 6s. disablement benefit, she will receive 10s. sickness payment. She will go up 4s. We have tried to meet these very hard cases that hon. Members opposite also have realised. I think this is something on which the Government might be congratulated. We have had a lot of criticism, although the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) spoke in high praise of Clause 1. On this occasion I think he might agree that the Government, in bringing in this change, have tried to look into every detail of very hard cases and see whether we can deal with them. The hon. Member for Farnworth has brought one case to our notice which will not be a hard case, because she will receive better treatment than she is getting at present.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I should like to find that in the Bill. I know there is a possibility of making regulations, but it would appear that the cases in which regulations are to be made relate to another class of insured persons altogether who have not qualified for benefit. Can we have a definite assurance that this particular case will be included in the regulations?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I can assure the hon. Member that regulations can be made to deal with it. It could not be done without regulations covering the transitional period of five years.
    Mr. Buchanan: I understand that the hon. Lady means that, if a widow or a single person before the commencement of the Act has a claim on national health insurance, for the next five years that claim will be maintained.
    Miss Horsbrugh: An unmarried insured woman who has not qualified for a pension, if she is in insurance at 60, can qualify. If she is in employment, she carries on but does not pay contributions. Payment of 10s. is made when sick, during this transitional period of five years, till she draws the pension. The
    2172
    widow would have drawn national health sickness payment up to 65. What happens in the case of the widow of 60? During that transitional period she would receive sickness payment of 10s. It is perfectly clear. The Clause says the Minister may make regulations—it could not be done without regulations. As that particular difficulty has now been explained, perhaps the hon. Member will be satisfied.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It seems to me quite correct with regard to women who are or may be on transitional benefit, assuming that the Act goes on for some years until a Labour Government come in and clear the whole mess up, but you will still want regulations to deal with this point which my hon. Friend has raised. I rise to ask whether we can get an assurance that this will be put into the regulations, especially as I understand it is not yet fully decided whether we are going to get regulations.
    8.10 p.m.
    Mr. W. Whiteley: The hon. Lady has cleared up some misconceptions with regard to this matter, but I would like to know who is to be responsible for this extra 10s.? Are the approved societies to be responsible or is there to be some special arrangement whereby the Government, either through the people who pay the supplementary pension or through the approved societies, will hand this addition to the woman when she is entitled to it? The hon. Lady has dealt with the widow in receipt of sickness benefit. If we take the case of both the widow and the married woman in receipt of the pension and in employment, who do not require or have not been receiving sickness payment for a period of three years, do they, automatically, come into this benefit before they reach 65? It is well to be quite clear about this matter because it is important, particularly to approved societies. I can see that those who are actually in receipt of a pension and sickness benefit will be considered during this transition period, but I am anxious to know whether the same thing applies, for a period of five years, to those who may not be in receipt of sickness benefit but who may have to apply for it. Those people are now receiving the benefits in their own right without any question of a test of any kind. When the Bill comes

    2173
    into operation they will not receive such benefits in their own right as they receive them to-day, but will again have to undergo a test to see whether any additional pension is justified. Those are points on which we want to be clear before we leave this part of the Bill.
    8.13 p.m.
    Mr. Buchanan: In her Second Reading speech the hon. Lady said there was no special case for a widow receiving sickness benefit, and therefore it would stop at 60, Now she says the widow is in some cases to get 4s. more. In Part II of the Bill, which has some bearing on the point, the Minister is to safeguard the right of the old age pensioner, at least during the transitional period, not to be worse off than he would be under Poor Law assistance. The single woman, and in many cases the married woman, who draws health insurance but still has to go to the Poor Law or to public assistance is worse off under the Bill than under the old position. The position now is that 7s. 6d. of Poor Law assistance is exempt, but it is not exempt in respect of the supplementation of which the hon. Lady spoke This part of the Bill is a contradiction of the other part, which gives the guarantee to the old people that they will not be worse off. Yet under this portion of the Bill this section of people will be worse off. I consider that the Minister should either accept the Amendment as proposed by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), or give a guarantee that in dealing with this class of people, the 7s. 6d. will be disregarded when it comes to calculating means. If that is done it will go some way to meet us; otherwise people will be worse off under this scheme than they are at present.
    8.16 p.m.
    Mr. Woodburn: In regard to what the hon. Lady has said I would be grateful if she would clear up one point which seemed a little indistinct. I gathered that according to her statement during this period between 60 and 65 there was a possibility of a woman drawing her 10s. pension and in addition drawing this 10s. from the National Health Insurance. I gather from Clause 3 to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, that that is only
    2174
    "in respect of any periods in which they may before old age pensions begin to accrue to them be rendered incapable of work by some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement."
    When the old age pension begins to accrue that payment ceases according to Clause 3. Therefore there seems no possibility at all of the woman drawing the pension, in addition to the 10s. National Health Insurance. In regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) the situation is that during that period before she goes on to the pension, if she has to go to the public assistance committee they disregard the 10s., but immediately the pension of 10s. accrues, the same amount of 10s. is taken into account, which means that she is worse off than she was previously. That is the point we should like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with because it will bring hardship to these particular women.
    8.19 p.m.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I will do my best to clear up the point which has been put to me. I think the hon. Member who spoke last looked only at Clause 3 (1, b) of the Bill. If he turns over the page and reads on he will see that there are certain difficulties about what I might call the gap in sickness—the case of the person who is drawing sickness benefit when the Act comes into force. When this ceases and the person becomes sick again within the five-year period, the sickness payment provided for in the Bill would still be payable. There are certain difficulties but, in general, they will be in the same position during these five years as if the Measure had not been brought into operation. I say "in general"—there are of course certain intricacies—they will be in the same position as if the Measure had not come into force. We want those five years to be a transitional period. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said that I was putting a different view from that which I expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill. On the Second Reading I was making a general point dealing with the general scheme in the future. In the future, all insured women cease to be in National Health and Unemployment Insurance at 60. In the future, after the transitional period of five years, it will be quite clear that they will cease to pay and cease to draw benefit.

    2175
    The10s. sickness payment is taken from that £3,500,000. The first charge on this sum is the 10s. sickness payment and it is for Parliament to decide what is to be done with the surplus.
    Mr. Silverman: May we take it that it is agreed between us and that there is no longer any doubt that, if the people concerned retained their present rights, the 7s. 6d. of the 10s. would not be subject to any means test and that under the regulations it is proposed to make, whatever payment is made will be taken into account in assessing any supplemental pension? If that is agreed would it not also be agreed that the people are worse off to the extent of 7s. 6d. a week?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Of course, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is for him under Part II of the Bill to argue the point again and whether he will convert me or whether I shall be able to convert him to my point of view, I do not know.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot withdraw the Amendment because under these regulations and under the promise given not
    only is the individual not safeguarded but the rights of a whole section of people are in danger. I will quote what the Parliamentary Secretary said on the Second Reading:
    "The age at which all insured women received old age pensions and ceased to receive benefits under those schemes was 65. The age now is to be 60. Surely, nothing would be fairer than that a widow who enters industry, and has 10s. a week pension as a widow, should come under the same scheme of insurance as the other women, spinsters or married women, as the case may be. A special class cannot be made for widows. Therefore, the age at which they cease to draw the benefits is 60. I do not think it would be right to say that the widows should continue to draw the benefits longer than other insured women."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1940; col. 1419, Vol. 357.]
    From what she has said to-night, they are, by regulation, not only to draw benefits, but are to have additional benefits. I want to express thanks for the probable four shillings increase but I would rather see the Amendment accepted as a guarantee of the benefits.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 179.

    Division No. 30.]

    AYES.

    [8.25 p.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Maxton, J.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Messer, F.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Groves, T. E.

    Montague, F.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hardie, Agnes

    Mort, D. L.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Muff, G.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Harvey, T. E.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Barr, J.

    Hayday, A.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Batey, J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Owen, Major G.

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Paling, W.

    Bevan, A.

    Hicks, E. G.

    Parker, J.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hollins, A. (Hanley)

    Pearson, A.

    Cape, T.

    Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Horabin, T. L.

    Price, M. P.

    Chater, D.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Cluss, W. S.

    Jackson, W. F.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Collindridge, F.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Ridley, G.

    Cove, W. G.

    John, W.

    Riley, B.

    Daggar, G.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Ritson, J.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Dobbie, W.

    Lathan, G.

    Shinwell, E.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Silkin, L.

    Ede, J. C.

    Leach, W.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Leonard, W.

    Sloan, A.

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Foot, D. M.

    Lunn, W.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Frankel, D.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

    Gardner, B. W.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Maclean, N.

    Stephen, C.

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Mander, G. le M.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Marshall, F.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Mathers, G.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Thorne, W.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Thurtle, E.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Woodburn, A.

    Tinker, J. J.

    White, H. Graham

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Tomlinson, Q.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Viant, S. P.

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Walkden, A. G.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Watkins, F. C.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Mr. Adamson and Mr. R. J.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Taylor.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Peters, Dr. S. J.

    Albetry, Sir Irving

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Piokthorn, K. W. M.

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Pym, L. R.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Radford, E. A.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Gledhill, G.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Raid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M

    Robertson, D.

    Beechaman, N. A.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Bernays, R. H.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Hambro, A. V.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Harbord. Sir A.

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Harland, H. P.

    Sanderson. Sir F. B.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Higgs, W. F.

    Selley, H. R.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

    Holmes, J. S.

    Shakespeare, G. H

    Bull, B. B.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

    Burghley, Lord

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

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

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Burton, Col. H. W.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Jennings, R.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Cary, R. A.

    Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)

    Channon, H.

    Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Christie, J. A.

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Storey, S.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Colfox, Major Sir W. P.

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Levy, T.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Liddall, W. S.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Craven-Ellis, W.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Thomas, J. P. L.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Lloyd, G. W.

    Touche, G. C.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

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

    De la Bère, R.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Magnay, T.

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Denville, Alfred

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Dodd, J. S.

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

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    Doland, G. F.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Webbe, Sir W. Harold

    Drewe, C.

    Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd & Chisw'k)

    White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

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

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Wragg, H.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Munro, P.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Neven-Spance, Major B. H. H.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Emery, J. F.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and Mr.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Boulton.

    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Transitional provisions.)
    8.34 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) Regulations may be made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee
    2178
    under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1936 to 1939, with respect to the administration of sickness payments, and such regulations may, in particular, make provision as to the bodies by or through which such payments are to be administered, as to the keeping of accounts of sums expended on such, payments and the determination of the amounts chargeable in respect of expenses of such bodies as aforesaid' in connection with

    2179
    the administration of such payments, and as to the audit of such accounts and expenses, and regulations so made may apply any of the provisions of the said Acts, with or without. modifications."
    The Bill provides for insured women receiving sickness payments during the transitional period, but it does not include provision for the administration of these payments. The question was raised while we were discussing sickness payments on the last Clause as to who was to administer them. Regulations will be made for the administration of these payments, including such matters as the bodies by or through which the payments are to be made, the keeping and auditing of accounts and the payment of expenses of administration. Hon. Members, especially those connected with the administration of approved societies, will be glad to know that we do propose that these payments shall be made through approved societies. That was a point which the approved societies put to us, and I am able to announce that that is the way in which these payments will be administered.
    8.36 p.m.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what allowance for administration will be given to approved societies? He knows that the allowance at present is about 4s. 6d. per annum.
    Mr. Elliot: We shall be in negotiation with the approved societies on these points, and I am sure that we shall be better able to reach a satisfactory conclusion if I do not announce a figure on the Floor of the House. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will allow me to say that it is our intention to work through the approved societies and that these points will be settled with them.
    Mr. Buchanan: But not without taking any notice of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman will still consult us?
    Mr. Stephen: Can the Minister say whether any appeal will be open to the individuals concerned in these cases? Will he take care that the individual shall have an appeal if he is not satisfied with the decision which has been come to?
    Mr. Elliot: I will consider the point raised by the hon. Member.
    8.38 p.m.
    Mr. Woodburn: I have one or two points which I think I can put to the
    2180
    Minister upon this Clause. There is one question which is causing concern to many women. Under the Measure they have to disclose to their employers that they have become 60 and are entitled to a pension. Women are rather more tender about making such disclosures than are men, and for industrial reasons they fear that it may affect them both as regards wages and conditions of employment. I hope that between now and a later stage of the Bill the Minister will devise some means whereby women may not find it compulsory to disclose to their employers that they have attained the age of 60, and may voluntarily continue to pay their contributions through their employers and recover them from the Ministry at the end of the year or some other suitable period. Women now look younger than they have ever looked in the past, even when they become 65, and it is rather important—
    The Temporary-Chairman (Major Milner): I do not think the hon. Member is in Order in raising this point. This Clause relates to transitional provisions.
    Mr. Woodburn: I hope, however, that the Minister will consider the point.
    Mr. Elliot Mr. Elliot indicated assent.
    8.40 p.m.
    Mr. White: The Minister is, taking power to make regulations under the principal Act and proposes to take some direct responsibility for the regulations made. The power which he takes in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of this Clause will also apply to any regulations which may be made under the National Health Insurance Joint Committee. I am anxious to know where we are, because so many people now seem to be making regulations. Will the Minister have direct responsibility for any regulations made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee?
    8.41 p.m.
    Mr. Lawson: I should like to underline the point which the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) has just put forward. Whatever may be said in this House, whatever promises may be given in regard to provisions of this kind, we cannot forget our experience of the Bill setting up the Unemployment Assistance Board, where everything was done by regulation. What the right hon.

    2181
    Gentleman is doing is taking to himself the power to legislate on even more definite lines than are in the Bill itself. For all effective purposes the regulations are the real legislation. Already we have had experience of such procedure. When this Bill comes to be applied, it will be discovered that the real legislation was not in the Bill which the House passed into an Act but in the regulations themselves. Parliament never gets really excited on these matters until we come to the regulations. I wish to emphasise what the hon. Member for East Birkenhead has said, and I ask the Minister to tell us how these regulations will be made and what we shall have to discuss when they come before the House, as I assume they will. It is important that their presentation to Parliament should not be a mere formality but that they should be presented in such a manner as will give the House an opportunity of discussing them, so that we may know what we are doing.
    Mr. White: If I may add one word to what I said, I take it the regulations will come up on the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman himself?
    8.43 p.m.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: There is another aspect of this problem to which I hope the Minister will give attention. After our experience of the administration of the Unemployment Assistance Board, we are bound to feel concerned about regulations. I am not as much concerned about them on this Clause as I shall be later, but even on this Clause the position ought to be made clear. Under the administration of the Unemployment Assistance Board we have found that varying interpretations have been put upon regulations, which has resulted in variations ranging from 3s. to 6s. in payments made throughout the country. There have also been varying interpretations put upon the needs of particular households. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to have the regulations framed in such a way as to bring about uniformity of interpretation as far as possible throughout the country.
    Mr. Buchanan: Does my hon. Friend mean uniformity which will bring all up to the highest?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) knows me well enough to know what I have in mind. In my Second Reading speech I made it clear. I hope the regulations will be drawn up so as to bring about uniformity of interpretation throughout the country.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: I sympathise with the desire of the Committee to be clear on this point. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) wishes to be assured that the regulations will come forward with the full authority of the Minister. I can give that assurance. The Amendment merely authorises the making of regulations to deal with certain matters of administration which are set out in the words on the Paper. They come under the principal Act. There is nothing new here. This is under the old National Health Insurance Act, where is set out, in Section 160, the constitution of the Joint Committee and the fact that I am not merely a member of that committee, but am the chairman of it. Anything that is brought before the House comes with the full authority of the Minister, who is chairman of the Joint Committee.
    As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) said, these are not regulations of the importance of those to which we shall come later. Both the Committee and the Minister will be very alive to what is done there, because those later regulations will be of the most vital importance to the ordinary citizen in his everyday life. In this case we are dealing merely with regulations as to who is to administer certain payments. That can properly be done by bringing regulations before this House, and by giving the Minister power to make such regulations under the old-established Insurance Act. These regulations can be laid on the Table of the House, and are not like the others, which are subject to an affirmative Resolution. The main regulations, under which the lives of the citizens will be affected, will be the subject of further discussion.
    8.48 p.m.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Did the right hon. Gentleman mean or intend to say, in the assurance which he has just given, that any regulations that he may issue during the transitional period for the avoiding of hardship would involve no greater

    2183
    hardship, or any reduction of the present status of the people concerned?
    Mr. Elliot: I am afraid that the point does not arise upon the Amendment we are now discussing. I gave the Committee an assurance that the bodies referred to in the Amendment will deal with the narrow point, and that the Minister will have explicit authority to make regulations allowing the approved societies to administer these sickness payments.
    8.49 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: I would like to be clear on this matter. Under Clause 3, the Minister may make regulations for the avoidance of hardship. I take it that they will lay down a scheme relating to the income of the persons concerned. Subsequently, regulations will be made, not by the Minister, but by the Joint Committee responsible for administration, and that they will be applying the regulations which were previously made by the Minister under the first Sub-section of the Clause. Am I right in supposing that those regulations will be more a matter of arranging how the persons shall make their appeal? Is that the position? How a person will come out, under this Clause for the avoidance of hardship, will depend upon the regulations made by the Minister rather than on the regulations made by the Joint Committee. These will have nothing really to do, but the regulations made by the Minister will be the determining regulations as to what the person will get if hardship is to be avoided.
    Mr. Elliot: If I got the hon. Gentleman's argument aright, I would say that I think that that is roughly the case. These regulations are administering regulations.
    Amendment agreed to.
    8.52 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, at the end, to insert:
    "or under the enactments relating to unemployment insurance in force in Northern Ireland."
    This Amendment relates to Northern Ireland. The Committee may be aware that reciprocal arrangements at present exist between Great Britain and Northern Ireland relating to benefit payable in either of these two countries by virtue of contributions paid in the other part
    2184
    of the Kingdom. The Parliament of Northern Ireland will be passing legislation similar to the Bill, and it will be necessary to extend the reciprocal arrangement to cover the payment of contributions and benefits. Accordingly, this Amendment and that which follows are necessary, with a view to that occurring.
    8.53 p.m.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: I do not want to pursue this point unduly, but did I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Parliament of Northern Ireland will make reciprocal arrangements in this connection, or that it is expected that they will?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The latter.
    Sir W. Allen: I notice that in Part III of the Bill it does not extend to Northern Ireland "save as otherwise expressly provided," and I presume that as Northern Ireland would follow suit, Part II of the Bill would also come in for similar special consideration.
    8.54 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There is no intention to legislate for Northern Ireland. What we are doing is to legislate for Great Britain, in order that we may maintain that reciprocal arrangement with Northern Ireland by paying the benefits here, in respect of contributions paid in Northern Ireland; and that will occur if and when Northern Ireland has the same proposals as we are laying before the Committee to-night. There is no suggestion that we are legislating for Northern Ireland, or that we are taking on any more than we expect Northern Ireland will be willing to pass.
    Mr. Buchanan: Possibly the Minister of Health will be able to answer a question. I take it that a person granted a pension at 60, whether spinster or widow, will retain the right of going to a Colony and of retaining the present pension?
    Mr. Elliot: This point really does not arise on the Amendment.
    8.55 p.m.
    Mr. McEntee: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether an arrangement has been made so as to make this matter reciprocal between ourselves and Northern Ireland? If they adopt the Act in Northern Ireland and somebody pays

    2185
    contributions there, that person will receive benefit if he comes to this country. I would like to know whether an arrangement has been come to so that in similar circumstances a woman in this country who reaches the stage where she becomes entitled to benefit and goes to Northern Ireland can receive the benefit as she would have done if she had remained here?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If our anticipations are fulfilled people will receive benefit in those circumstances. That, of course, is primarily a matter for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McEntee: Surely, the Minister will agree that if he is making a concession to Northern Ireland—and I regard it as a concession—before making that concession he should have an assurance from Northern Ireland that if a Bill is introduced to the Northern Ireland Parliament they will make similar arrangements for persons going from here to Northern Ireland?
    8.57 p.m.
    Mr. Buchanan: As I understand the Amendment moved by the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland, if Northern Ireland adopts proposals similar to these, you will take in National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance. There is reciprocal treatment for people who move from Northern Ireland across here. Under unemployment insurance a person with 30 stamps who moves from Northern Ireland to England and who satisfies certain conditions can qualify for benefit. The same applies to health insurance, and as I understand it when this Amendment is accepted a person will only be able to receive benefit if Northern Ireland passes legislation of a similar kind. I would like to know what constitutes similar legislation. Is it to be a Bill the same as this, or will the Minister of Health say it is a reciprocal arrangement if the Northern Ireland Government pass a different Bill, at least with regard to Part I? For the moment I am not discussing Part II.
    I must confess that I read with great interest and with a sense of admiration the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he condemned the household means test. That is to his credit. My point is this: Supposing the Northern Ireland Government decide not to have a Part I exactly the same as the Part I in this Bill with
    2186
    regard to each item; in other words, a single person now in receipt of national health insurance benefit will be worse off under this section of the Act than she would have been under the Poor Law assistance. That is admitted. Supposing the Northern Ireland Government take a different view, would this reciprocal arrangement still apply? I think we are entitled to know exactly what is meant by "reciprocal." If it is said that Northern Ireland must pass the same sort of thing it is an unanswerable case against the Northern Ireland Government because of the liberty they are going to have in passing the same Act that we are passing.
    The other point I desire to raise is this: With regard to the question of social legislation, has the time not now come when the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Health, might open negotiations with the other section of Ireland with a view to having reciprocal legislation which might do something towards increasing friendship between North and South and between Ireland and this country?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have listened to the points raised by the hon. Member but they do not really arise on this Amendment because this Amendment is confined to the transitional provisions which are to be enacted in this Clause. The points which the hon. Member raised relate to the other provisions of Part I to which this Amendment does not apply. The question as to what constitutes similarity no doubt will be considered, but on the limited scope of Clause 3 no such general question will become material. Accordingly on this Amendment there is no room for considering the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Buchanan: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, and I will raise my points later on.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made:
    In page 4, line 27, after "to," insert:
    "under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1939."—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
    9.2 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, at the end, to insert:
    "(4) On the application of the body charged with the administration of any special

    2187
    scheme made under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1939, the Minister of Labour may by order vary or amend the provisions of the scheme in such manner as may be necessary to secure that during the transitional period women who immediately before the commencement of this Part of this Act were persons to whom the scheme applied shall, after attaining the age of 60 and before they attain the age of 65, be entitled to benefits under the scheme not less favourable than those provided with respect to insured contributors by the provisions of the last foregoing Sub-section."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with a provision under the special schemes for persons employed in the banking industry and the insurance industry. The general position under the schemes is safeguarded and people covered by those schemes are brought in by Clause 2 which we have already passed. Without this special Sub-section, however, the transitional provisions that occur in Clause 3 would not apply to these special schemes. The object of this Amendment, therefore, is to ensure that the persons in the special schemes are not only on the same footing so far as the general provisions of the Bill are concerned but that they are not on a less favourable footing so far as the transitional provisions are concerned.
    9.3 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: I notice that the Amendment says that the Minister "may by order vary." I wonder whether the word "may" will have the same force as "shall." It might mean that the Minister of Labour would not do this and there would then be persons in the schemes who until the Minister of Labour took action would be put into a worse position. I take it that the Government do not intend that these people shall be put into a worse position, but that they are moving this Amendment so that the rights of these people shall be safeguarded adequately. I suggest to the Solicitor-General for Scotland that instead of "may" the word should be "shall" so that it will be obligatory on the Minister of Labour that immediate steps should be taken on the passage of this Bill to secure the rights of these people. I myself am experienced, for example, in connection with people in the insurance scheme and I think at certain times there has been a tendency for them to get a little out of parallel. I hope that no
    2188
    mistake will be made on this occasion, and I desire to know from the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether it would not be better to make the alteration which I have suggested even if he has already intended that "may" has the effect of "shall." If that is his intention, would it not be better draftsmanship to say "shall," so that there may be no question about it afterwards? Although I am a lawyer myself, I do not want additional work to be made for lawyers as a result of this Measure.
    9.6 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think that the mere fact of our putting forward this Sub-section indicates the Government's intention to act under it. With regard to the substitution of "shall" for "may," I do not think it would be at all good draftsmanship. Look at what follows. The Minister
    "may by order vary or amend the provisions of the scheme in such manner as may be necessary."
    Accordingly, whether you put in "may" or "shall," the Minister must determine in what manner it is necessary to proceed, and that discretion is necessarily permissive. It appears that the use of "shall" would conflict with what follows.
    9.7 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: I am completely dissatisfied with that explanation. The hon. and learned Member says that because the term "may be necessary" is used, there is nothing to make it obligatory upon the Minister of Labour to take action. But if it is made obligatory, by the substitution of "shall," the Minister will have a job given to him, and afterwards he may decide what may be necessary in order that he shall carry out the duty imposed upon him by this House. It is all very well to say that the Government intend to do this, and that the fact that they are moving this Amendment shows that they do; but the fact that it was not originally in the Bill shows that it was only an afterthought on the Government's part. If the Minister of Labour becomes very busy with the National Service work that is handed on to him, it may well be thought that the interests of these people can wait. I do not suppose any Ministry is busier than the Ministry of Labour; but I cannot see why the Government should

    2189
    not make it plain that this duty is obligatory. I am sure that the Minister of Labour, who is here himself, would not object to having it made obligatory. I am sure he would welcome it, because he would know then what this House wanted him to do.
    9.8 p.m.
    Mr. A. Jenkins: May not this be the position if the word "may" is left in the Bill? If the Minister of Labour were, for some reason or other, to fail to act in accordance with the intention of this House, would not the women concerned be deprived of the protection that the Clause attempts to give them? If that be so—and it seems to me that it must be so—in the interests of the women concerned, the word "may" should be altered to "shall." I should like to know from the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether the fear that I have expressed is not well-founded.
    9.9 p.m.
    Mr. McEntee: Surely the Minister is not right in his interpretation of "shall." In the Sub-section reference is made to the body responsible to the Minister for special schemes, and then it is laid down that the Minister
    "may by order vary or amend the provisions of the scheme in such manner as may be necessary."
    to provide for the people concerned certain benefits which they are now getting, and to see that those benefits are not in any way diminished. Under the Subsection, as it stands, the Minister, it is true, may do so; but equally he may not. I take it that if the Sub-section is to remain in its present form, it will be necessary to have some court of appeal to which the people concerned may appeal against the Minister's decisions. The Minister's duties will prevent him giving his individual attention to all cases that come forward. Suppose two or more societies applied to the Minister to vary conditions now existing, for the purpose of guaranteeing benefits. One set of applications may be considered by one official, and another set of applications by a different official in the same Department; and these two officials might easily come to different conclusions on cases in respect of which the circumstances were exactly similar. Each, after writing his letters, will bring them to the Minister to sign. The Minister will not have time to go into the
    2190
    merits of every individual application, and it may well happen that two diametrically opposite decisions may be arrived at for similar cases. If the intention is to do a certain thing, why on earth should we not insert the word "shall," so that the officials of the Ministry will have an instruction which is definite and which will secure equality of treatment for all concerned?
    9.13 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There are two points which have been made by hon. Members. The first is that perhaps the Minister might not move at all. The second is that, if he did move, he might not give equal justice all round. The second point cannot possibly be met by inserting "shall" because there is no more guarantee that equality of treatment will be carried out if the Minister is instructed than if he is merely empowered. The remedy is that somebody raises the matter in the House, and it is put right. On the other point, I would remind the Committee that it has been a very long-standing subject of debate in this House whether "may" or "shall" shall be used. In innumerable cases, and more especially in the Section of the Unemployment Insurance Act which deals with these schemes, the word "may" has been used. If you now start varying it, and putting in the word "shall," you rather throw a doubt on what has always been understood about the meaning of the word "may" in these Sections. [An Hon. Member: "By the courts?"] There have been several cases where the courts have interpreted "may" as being the same as "shall."(Hon. Members: "And others where they have not."] Where a Department is told that it may do something, and there is an obvious need that that should be done, I know of no case where the Department has failed to act, on the ground that "may" does not mean "shall." It would be very unfortunate, not only from the aspect of throwing doubt upon the principal section of the Scheme, but of throwing doubt upon innumerable other sections, if we should now decide to change the traditional word "may" into "shall." It would, I can assure the Committee, throw a great number of existing provisions into something like confusion.
    9.16 p.m.
    Mr. Davidson: I do not think that the Solicitor-General for Scotland has put up a very good case in his special pleading for this particular Clause. It may be that he has not participated very often in the discussions of this House, and as he listens more to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who is an adept at explaining the little intricacies in a very round about way, he may improve. To say that some of the courts agree that "may" means "shall," and that some of the courts do not agree that "may" means "shall" is hardly a reasonable case to put forward. One ought to be very definite with regard to this matter. The Amendment asks the Members here, in view of the failures of the court, one way or another to make absolutely certain themselves that they use the right word. I do not think that there is any right hon. or hon. Member who would disagree that when it is laid down in a Clause that the Minister "may" do a certain thing, it also means that he may not do it. If we state that the Minister "shall" do it, it means that the Minister must take a certain line of action. The Solicitor-General for Scotland forgets that before the Minister can move at all the Amendment states:
    "On the application of the body charged with the administration of any special scheme,"
    and it is only on the application of that body that the Minister of Labour may vary or amend certain provisions. We on this side of the Committee have had experience of outside organisations. Even the Unemployment Assistance Board have acted and have incorporated regulations in such a manner that hon. Members have had to come to the House with protests to the Minister in order to force the Minister to take some action. If the Solicitor-General for Scotland says that the application must be made by one of these bodies, and that if they make application the Minister then may only do a certain thing, it means that, if there is dissatisfaction with that body, and they do not make representations to the Minister of Labour, nothing is done. Hon. Members have therefore to come to the House and question the Minister, or make statements, or put the case, all of which could be clearly avoided if the correct wording was used in this Clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman has
    2192
    begged the whole question and has failed to recognise all the bodies to which the administration may be allotted so that an application may not get to the Minister at all. If they make an application it is left to the discretion of the Minister himself as to whether he will try to bring the applications up to
    "the provisions of the last foregoing Subsection."
    The Clause is very badly worded. I am only a layman, but I am sure that the legal fraternity both in this House and in the country could make this Clause unintelligible. Neither the Solicitor-General for Scotland nor the right hon. Gentleman should appeal to hon. Members that because of certain enumerable cases in which the word "may" Is used, it should be used on this occasion. That is not an argument, but merely an appeal to a silly kind of sentiment. The Solicitor-General for Scotland will agree that in enumerable cases, as he has suggested, it is debatable and its meaning can be questioned, and it causes trouble, discussion, and legal proceedings. Therefore, why not take this opportunity of putting in clearly that the Minister himself shall take this action, and show that the Government really intend to leave no loopholes that will prevent these people from being assisted?
    9.22 p.m.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: I should like to put a direct question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and it would satisfy me if I could receive a definite answer. Assume that an application had been made to the Minister of Labour by the body charged with the administration of these several schemes that they should be covered by the first part of this Bill. Would not the Minister then be entitled, as far as this Clause is concerned, to say, "No"? There is nothing in the Bill that makes it obligatory upon him to vary or alter the provisions. I want an answer to the question, Would not the Minister of Labour be entitled, as far as the phrasing of this Clause is concerned, apart from any other kind of consideration, to say, "I cannot be compelled to do what you ask me to do because there is no compulsion and no definite strict obligation placed upon me. The word is may and not shall." I would like an answer to that question.
    9.24 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: I have been looking at this a little further, and I want to ask another question in connection with this part of the Bill. I notice that the Amendment begins with:
    "On the application of the body charged with the administration of any special scheme."
    If those who are responsible for the banking scheme or the insurance scheme do not make any application, are their members from 60 to 65 not to have the advantages, if there are advantages, under Part I of the Bill? That question is very pertinent and important. The whole question as to what is to be the position of the women in the banking and insurance industry is being determined, I take it, under this Amendment, and possibly the people responsible for the conduct of the banking or insurance scheme may think that the disadvantages, as far as their workers are concerned, will be sufficiently great that they will not want to have them applied. It might mean a lot of work to them in connection with this scheme, and they may not want to apply it. When these schemes were agreed upon the one principle upon which the House went was that the workers in no respect should be worse off than under the general scheme. I want the Solicitor-General for Scotland to tell me whether the Government first consulted the representatives of banking and insurance companies as to what their views were on this new legislation, and, if they have had no such consultation, whether they think it sufficient to simply leave the workers in these industries at the mercy of those administering these respective schemes.
    9.27 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The body referred to in the Amendment is a representative body, and, accordingly, as the Amendment proposes to confer benefits on the constituents of that representative body, it does not seem necessary to compel them to act in the interests of their own constituents. On the other question as to the Minister carrying out this matter, there is a very clear direction in the Amendment as to what the Minister has to do. It is perfectly true that you cannot compel a Minister to do things by taking him to the courts in the Strand, but you can compel him to do his duty by requiring him to answer in
    2194
    the House of Commons the criticism of hon. Members.
    Mr. Ede: With the Government Whips on.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is the force of the criticism and not the force of numbers which counts. Surely the better scheme is that the Minister responsible to Parliament should be responsible to Parliament, and should not be haled to the courts.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: I thought I was voicing the demand of the nation that it should be made obligatory upon him; I had no idea that I was taking the Minister to the Strand.
    Mr. Davidson: Surely the Solicitor-General will agree that the purpose of the Amendment is to see that these people do not lose anything in accordance with the provisions of the previous Sub-section. Why then say that we must come here and question the Minister of Labour? Surely we want to avoid that, and an unnecessary waste of Parliamentary time.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. H. Beaumont: I want to clear up one matter which is confusing me. The Government say that it is undesirable to compel a Minister to act in the interests of his constituents. That is perhaps a very sound argument, but I suggest that it is much more desirable that a clear direction should be given to the Minister as to what his duties are In the third line of this Amendment there is the little word "may," and I want to ask why not substitute "shall" for that word? It seems to me that if these people "shall be entitled to benefits," it is equally the duty of the Minister of Labour that he shall do so and so. I submit that the word "shall" in that connection makes it desirable that the word "may" in line three shall be altered to "shall."
    9.31 p.m.
    Mr. Tomlinson: It seems to me that the Minister is taking the very powers and duties which we suggested should be left to the people who are already in charge of this money, and that he is setting up by this Clause a body which shall be answerable for the spending of the money. If the case I put on the previous Amendment is to be met by these regulations, it seems to me that the individual

    2195
    who will receive benefit is going to receive it from some other source than the one from which he is receiving it at the present time. An insurance society will no longer be responsible to the member for the payment of benefit for which he has contracted, and the new body which is set up by this Amendment is to make payment to people who are already provided for in existing legislation.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: We are not setting up any new body. The body to which the Amendment refers is already charged with the administration of this scheme, and they will, of course, administer the extra money.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Granted that this is a special scheme, it is because it is a special scheme, and this extra machinery is required, that I am objecting to it. The answer given bears out my point, that these people are already provided for in the national insurance Acts. The people who will be dealt with by this new machinery are being dealt with already, but there is to be a transition period. This is duplicate machinery to deal with the same people. It is intended to provide for people who in the transition period will be passing from National Health insurance in a period of five years, and in order that no hardship shall arise a new body is to be set up to deal with these people. It would have been much simpler to leave these people under the Acts which cover them and allow them to draw the benefits for which they have contracted. They would not be receiving these benefits if they had not contracted for them.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    9.35 p.m..
    Mr. Woodburn: There is a fear on this side of the Committee, and among many who are coming under this scheme, that they will be worse off in many ways under the Bill than they would have been if the Bill had not been passed. I take it from what the Minister has said that the Government are very anxious that nobody should be worse off, and we would like in the discussion on this Clause to have some guarantee from him that the changes that will be made will prevent a
    2196
    woman who has passed 60, and has not reached 65, from suffering by the passing of the Measure. As far as I understand this Clause, if a woman is 60 now, she benefits until she is 65, but if she becomes ill and has to go on public assistance, a sum of 7s. 6d. or, at least 6s., will be excluded from any consideration. If a woman of 60 is disabled for life she carries on drawing the 6s. a week and if she goes before a public assistance committee, her position is unaltered. In other words, she still draws the scales, plus 6s., but if she ceases to be entitled to the 6s. disablement benefit or any benefit under the National Health Insurance scheme and goes on the pensions scheme, and requires additional benefit, she can never receive more than the maximum under national health insurance, minus 6s. or 7s. 6d. Whatever has been done, or whatever change may take place, a woman will be worse off after this Bill is passed than she would have been, in these circumstances, had the Bill not been passed.
    May I put one or two questions? If a woman is 56 now she will be insured under this Measure until she is 61. By that time, this provision will have come to an end and, therefore, four years afterwards she will have no claim on the National Health Insurance Fund. If she is 57, she will go on at 62, and if she is 59 she will go on at 64, and so on. But this will be a transition period of five years and at the end of that time all the advantages there are under this Clause will cease to exist. I am sorry to say there is a suspicion in the country that there are provisions in this Bill which provide a gentle way of reducing certain benefits that now accrue to old age pensioners. We want an assurance that that is not the case, and an assurance from the Minister that he is prepared to put in alterations which will guarantee that no woman will be worse off after the passing of the Bill.
    The Chairman: Before the Minister replies, I should say I am in some little doubt as to whether the hon. Member has addressed himself to this Clause at all or not. I must reserve the rights of the Chair. This Clause deals with the transitional period and the hon. Member was talking about something outside that period.
    Mr. A. Jenkins: This applies to the few people: who come within the transition period.
    9.41 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) put a point which arises out of the useful discussion we had earlier. The point put by hon. Members is something like this: At present, a local authority disregards a certain payment which a woman may have if that payment is made in respect of sickness. When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it may not be possible, for a woman receiving that payment, to define that she is receiving it in respect of sickness and, therefore, the body before which she goes—the Assistance Board—might not be willing to disregard that, with the result that the insured person might be worse off in going for supplementation, than she would have been, by going for supplementation to the public assistance authority. That is a point to which I shall certainly direct my attention. I do not think I can go further at the moment, and I do not think the Committee will expect me to do so. I am glad that the point has been brought to my notice and I will gladly look into it before the next stage of the Bill.
    9.42 p.m.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I would like to raise one other point. Is not this the situation? A person aged 59 would get her pension, under sickness benefit and 7s. 6d. would be disregarded, leaving her with a net amount of 2s. 6d. She would go to the public assistance committee, who would give her, on the average, 8s. So she would have, during the period of sickness, 18s. A woman now 61, gets 10s. old age pension and is entitled to go to the Assistance Board for a supplementary pension. The first thing is to make her up to the scale rate, us. The Board will have to consider whether they will exercise their discretion on account of her sickness, and I think that in their most generous mood the Board would not give her more than 2s. or 3s. Actually she will be 6s. a week worse off. Both the Minister and the hon. Lady have stated that it is not the intention of the Government that anyone should be worse off as a result of this Bill and I hope they will bear that in mind. There is another point: Under this Clause you
    2198
    define this new payment you propose to give during the transition period. It is described as sickness payment. Has the Minister described it as sickness payment, in order that it shall be included at its full value when the person concerned makes application for supplemental pension, or will it be regarded for supplementary pension purposes, as National Health Insurance payment?
    Mr. Elliot: The first point mentioned by the hon. Member really arises on a later stage of the Bill. As to the second point the payment is called a sickness payment because it is not disablement benefit or sickness benefit with which we were dealing before. It is given a special name because it is a special thing. It is because he or she has been
    "rendered incapable of work by some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement."
    There need be no apprehension.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Adjustment of reserves of approved societies.)
    Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) This Section shall apply in relation to the Deposit Contributors Insurance Section and the Navy, Army and Air Force Insurance Fund respectively as if they were approved societies."
    This Amendment will make the provisions in the Bill regarding sickness payment apply to insured women who are members of the Deposit Contributors Fund (Insurance Section) and the Navy, Army, and Air Force Insurance Fund, which are not actually approved societies although they are of the nature of approved societies. The Insurance Act authorises the making of regulations specifying the provisions of that Act which are to apply to the funds as if they were approved societies, but the present Bill is not part of the Insurance Act. It is necessary therefore to specify that the provisions of the Bill for financing sickness payments by the transfer of reserves to this Special Suspense Fund shall also apply to these two Insurance Funds.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 5, line 16, at the end, to insert:

    2199
    "and such amounts as may be determined, in accordance with the regulations made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, to be the amounts chargeable in respect of expenses in connection with the administration of such payments."
    This is a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, at the end, to add:
    "(5) If provision is made by any enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland appearing to His Majesty substantially to correspond to the provisions of this Part of this Act, His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for the payment into the Special Suspense Fund of such sums as may be provided by the said enactment and direct that the provisions of this Section relating to the payment out of that fund of sums expended on sicknes payments and expenses in connection with the administration of such payments shall, with or without modifications, extend to Northern Ireland."
    It has been already announced in the Northern Ireland Parliament that a corresponding Bill will be introduced in that Parliament. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised a question whether that Bill would vary from the provisions of this Bill. I should think the answer would certainly be "Yes." It would not be an identical Bill but a Bill similar to this one. If that Bill provides for the transfer of the reserves of Northern Ireland Approved Societies into the Special Suspense Fund under Clause 4 it will be proper that sickness payments to women members should be paid out of that fund. This Amendment provides that by Order-in-Council Clause 4 (3) of the Bill may be extended with or without modifications to Northern Ireland.
    9.50 p.m.
    Mr. T. Henderson: I am reminded that a few years ago a bright and shining light in the present Government was invited to Northern Ireland, and he came back to this House and asked the British taxpayers to pay a sum of £4,000,000 to the Northern Ireland Government for the purpose of making their Insurance Fund solvent. I am afraid that by the use of the word "substantially" in this Amendment we may have a repetition of what took place at that time. It is quite true that at that time the Minister received from the Northern Ireland Parliament a shillelagh and a cutty pipe, but £4,000,000 was rather a long price for the British taxpayer to pay. If the Minister would agree to drop the word
    2200
    "substantially," I think the Amendment would be acceptable, but if that word is kept in, I would suggest that hon. Members on this side of the Committee should oppose it.
    9.52 p.m.
    Sir W. Allen: The reference made by the hon. Member to £4,000,000 may be humorous, but I think hon. Members ought to remember that in Northern Ireland we pay taxes identically the same as are paid here. It is only right therefore that we should participate in the case of moneys transferred from our Exchequer to the Exchequer here. We now have an opportunity in Northern Ireland of giving to the people of Northern Ireland whatever benefits there may be under this Bill.
    Mr. Messer: Is not the meaning of this Amendment that the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland may make it impossible to have exactly the same legislation there, but that it will be expected that there will be no wide departure from the legislation here? Therefore, the word "substantially" is necessary because although the legislation may not be identical it must be as nearly the same as is possible.
    9.54 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: I think that roughly that is so. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) himself drew attention, I think, to the undesirability of laying down that the provisions in the Bill should be identical in each country. If it is undesirable that the two sets of legislation should be identical I think it will be agreed that they should be substantially the same so that they may be brought into harmony. If they were widely different they could not be harmonious, but it would be wrong to enact something that said that unless in every respect the Northern Ireland Act corresponded identically we would not have anything to do with it.
    9.55 p.m.
    Mr. McEntee: I hope the Minister will find a better word than "substantially." After all, I might say that 4d. was a substantial part of is., but the Minister might say that a substantial part of is. was 8d. The word "substantially" could be interpreted in a number of ways. I suggest that perhaps "closely" would be a better word to use. I am a little

    2201
    afraid that something similar to what my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson) has described may happen. It is true that £4,000,000 was given by the taxpayers of this country to Northern Ireland.
    The Chairman: I very nearly called the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson) to Order when he was referring to that matter. I would point out to the hon. Member that the word "substantially" in the Amendment has nothing to do with figures.
    Mr. McEntee: I merely want to say that I hope that between now and the Report stage the Minister will find a better word than "substantially." There is one other point to which I want to refer. The Minister used the word "may." If he had used the same word in connection with the matter we discussed on the last Amendment, it would have been very much better. In the case of this Amendment, the word is not "may," as the Minister said, but "shall."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    9.57 p.m.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Hon. Members will notice that the object of this Clause is the adjustment of the reserves of approved societies. I should like to read a passage from that part of the Actuary's report which relates to this Clause.
    "In respect of existing insured persons, approved societies with female members will be relieved of a considerable liability by the termination of the right to sickness and disablement benefits at the age of 60, since hitherto their reserves have been maintained on the basis that these benefits would continue until the age of 65."
    Apart from those who receive transitional sickness benefits between the ages of 60 and 65, women will ordinarily drop out of approved societies at the age of 60 because they will be in receipt of a pension of 10s. a week at that age. This will release a great deal of the reserves that are held by approved societies in respect of these women who would otherwise continue their membership until 65 years of age. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to make clear one point in respect of these women who draw a pension at 60. They will be entitled to
    2202
    medical benefit throughout life. I believe I am right in saying that approved societies who can afford it pay some forms of additional benefits to male insured persons over 65 years of age, in addition to the medical benefit to which they are entitled for life. I notice that in Clause 4, Sub-section (1), there is a reference to "other than additional benefits," and although the words I have quoted refer to women who are to receive transitional sickness benefits, I am still wondering whether any kind of additional benefits will be payable to women in general from 60 years of age upwards.
    I want, once again, to pay a tribute to the Civil Service on the clever way in which they put through these things to cover up the many tricks that Government plays on Parliament. This is one of them. The money that is to be released by virtue of the fact that these women go out of the approved societies is to be utilised according to Sub-section (4) of this Clause—
    "The residue of the sums standing to the credit of the Special Suspense Fund shall be dealt with in such manner as Parliament may hereafter determine."
    I will explain to the Committee what that means in the language of the Actuary—
    "The provision needed for these benefits"—
    that is, the transitional benefits—
    "is necessarily very speculative, and I estimate with some reserve that the sums required will amount to between £750,000 and £1,000,000 in the aggregate, and that accordingly the amount of the balance remaining to be dealt with thereafter will be rather less than £3,000,000."
    I want to direct the attention of the Committee to that sum, a little less than £3,000,000, which is to be released from the funds of the approved societies consequent upon the fact that women between the ages of 60 and 65 will no longer be entitled to sickness and disablement benefits. What is it intended to do with this money? It is to be left in the suspense account until Parliament decides what to do with it. I remember the present First Lord of the Admiralty, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, coming down to the House and asking us to tighten our belts. Some people were asked to tighten their belts who had no belts left to tighten. The Budget was in difficulty, and the right hon. Gentleman reduced the subsidy to

    2203
    the approved societies by about £2,250,000 per annum. Those who are connected with approved societies are a little afraid, therefore, that they may be called upon once again to do something in the nature of tightening their belts to assist the Treasury. At the present rate of national expenditure, I am not sure that the demand may not come upon us fairly soon. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds out from this Debate and from the Actuary's report that there is available somewhere a sum of £2,750,000, I am almost certain what he will do with it. He will lift it from this Special Suspense Fund and put it to the credit of his own account in the Budget. That is the kind of trick that will be played on us. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to do one thing, and I do not care at what stage of the Bill he does it. I think he ought to take that Sub-section out of the Clause and leave the £2,750,000 which is released in the funds of the approved societies.
    My hon. Friends have been referring to the cases of insured women who are drawing disablement benefits. The most pathetic person in this country is not of necessity the old age pensioner, but the single woman in receipt of disablement benefit from an approved society without a penny piece coming in beyond 6s. a week. I know full well that this £2,750,000 would not add very much to that 6s. I am connected with a society with 15,000 female members. I cannot tell how many of them are on disablement benefit with only 6s. a week, but there must be tens of thousands in all the societies who have gone through their sickness benefit of 26 weeks with probably 12s., 13s. or 15s. a week, as the case may be, and have dropped down to 6s. a week as long as they live. That is the most pathetic little creature that I know in society. I again appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to use his power so that this £2,750,000 shall be utilised to increase the 6s. even if only by 6d. a week. That does not sound much but it means an enormous sum in a household where the income is small.
    There is, of course, a consultative council in existence, and the right hon. Gentleman is able to consult through that body the representatives of all forms of approved societies. I am sure
    2204
    that that consultative council, if it were asked to give its opinion on this subject, would say exactly what I have said, though in better language than I can employ. Probably the right hon. Gentleman will say that he has consulted this body. I do not want to be offensive to him, because I want to get him into his very best mood on this issue. But he knows as well as I do that all that Ministers of Health do with that body is to consult it. It never follows that the Minister does anything that the consultative council desires him to do. That, of course, is the failing of all these bodies that are subject to Government appointment. I appeal once again for these tragic women living on 6s. a week disablement benefit. The terrible thing about sickness and total incapacity is this: You can organise spinsters and old age pensioners, because they are vocal and can attend meetings, but these tens of thousands of women on their sick beds are never able to voice their opinions collectively anywhere; in what I have said I have ventured to say a word on their behalf to-night.
    10.10 p.m.
    Mr. Tomlinson: There are one or two aspects of this question to which I should like to ask the Minister to give a little more consideration before he finally decides upon this drafting of the Clause. One of the principal arguments levelled against the National Health Insurance scheme is being perpetuated by this Clause. In the first Sub-section it is proposed that each approved society having women among its members shall be credited with the amount it shall be adjudged to save as a consequence of women passing out of insurance at 60 instead of 65. My principal objection to national insurance is that it is not national at all, and that the benefits payable by an insurance society are determined to a large extent by the character of the individuals who are insured. You can find societies which are to-day paying large additional benefits to their members. I can find a society which under this will receive the amount that it will gain, and it will be added to their fund. Yet those societies are in a position to pay optical and dental benefit, and sometimes an additional amount of sickness benefit. There are many societies in that fortunate position. But the strange thing is that where the need is greatest the money available is least, and the people

    2205
    who are responsible particularly for the organisation of married women in their insurance societies are the very people who are being hardest hit by this Measure and are not in a position to pay additional benefits at all.
    Take my own society, the Amalgamated Weavers Approved Society. For years we have been working on the minimum benefit. There have been no additional benefits. The consequence has been all the time that, when members come asking for the benefits which other people are deriving from what is a national insurance scheme, we have had to tell them that those benefits were not available. They have said, "What a blue pencil society." Not once but a thousand times that has happened in our experience, and this is perpetuating it at a time when those very benefits could come to the societies as the result of improvements in the financial structure coming through this change which is taking place in the reduction of the age. Surely at such a time it would have been better to decide that this money which is to be available should be set aside for a definite purpose. In my judgment in these times, I was almost going to say with a Chancellor of the Exchequer such as we have, it is criminal to leave this lying about in this way. We pray, "Lead us not into temptation," and then leave £2,750,000 lying about when the Chancellor is looking for it. It is asking for it to be pinched.
    That is what it amounts to, and it would not be the first time that it has happened. I seem to remember something about a Road Fund which had been specifically paid into for a given purpose but was not used for that purpose, and there is no guarantee in this Sub-section that the special suspense fund shall be used to benefit the people who have paid it. All it says is that it shall be dealt with in such manner as Parliament may hereafter determine. There is no reason why this £2,750,000 should not be voted by Parliament for that purpose. It could be done within the Clause.
    My contention is that the money is being saved directly out of the contributions of the people who are paying for something which they will not get when they reach the age of 60. I am not at all satisfied after reading through the previous Clause that the women who have
    2206
    paid these sums will receive just treatment.
    I know it may be possible to meet the special case which has been put up, but in the regulation in which this suspense account is dealt with the word "may" and not "shall" appears. If it can be proved that hardship exists then a special committee "may" make a regulation in order to deal with it. That means also that they may not. First, you have to determine what is a hardship before you can determine to make a regulation to deal with it, and if the Commimttee contends there that no hardship exists there is no need to make a regulation to deal with it.
    This saving which is said to be £2,750,000 should really be £4,750,000, because when you have written off £2,000,000 which is supposed to be owing it does not mean, that simply because it happens to be paper money, you have liquidated your debt to the societies. I contend that the people in those societies which cater mainly for the women in industry are entitled to just as much benefit as other sections of the insured population. They are not getting it. They are getting only what the scheme can actually afford to pay them. If an alteration is being made surely those people who have contributed to the amount ought to be the first and the only persons to benefit. There is nothing in this Clause to prevent Parliament deciding that extra benefits should be given to men in any approved society out of this £2,750,000; or nothing to prevent Parliament deciding that as many societies are not in a position to give optical treatment to their members, this suspense account can be used to make the insured population far-sighted and provide everyone with spectacles. In that way, you can divert it from the people who have paid into the fund to the benefit of the men.
    I could have understood this Clause if it had been suggested that this sum should be kept in a suspense account especially for the people by whom it was being paid. All the saving is being made out of the women, and very unfairly in my judgment. The married woman in industry is paying twice for one benefit all the time her husband is alive, because while she is paying as a married woman she is a potential widow, and her poten-

    2207
    tial widowhood is covered out of her husband's insurance.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member's argument is now getting a little wide of the Clause.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The point I was making is that the £2,750,000 is not being saved as a consequence of the changes that are taking place, but that it arises through the refusal of the Government to accept for benefit payments that have been made for married women who are insured with their husbands, the spinster class up to 60 years of age and the widow. So that the amount of money which these women are paying is a contribution towards that sum. An attempt is being made in Clause 3 to deal with the special case of the widow. I am arguing that if the widow's case is met, as was suggested on the last Clause, by the provision of a new regulation, the case of the married woman, who, for 40 years may have been paying twice for one benefit, has not been met by this Clause, and that she is entitled to a come-back because she has kept her husband alive.
    That sounds strange, but it is true. She is paying all the time, and therefore she is entitled when she reaches 60 to be reimbursed for the contributions she has made and for which she draws nothing. If the husband dies before she reaches 60, she is at once paid 10s. out of her husband's contributions. Either one is actuarially sound or the other is not. If the scheme is actuarially sound from the standpoint of the widow who is receiving the pension, it is over-capitalised from the standpoint of the married woman. I suggest that the Government should think again as to what should be done with the surplus, and that they should begin by regularising benefits under National Health Insurance so that it will be national instead of piecemeal and so that the women who have contributed this money should be given a fair share of that which they have contributed.
    10.24 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: I understand the hon. Member to be saying that he does not object to the Clause generally but that, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said, he does not like the words in Sub-section (4). Otherwise he has no objection to it. Am I right?
    Mr. Rhys Davies: We had an Amendment on the Paper to delete these objectionable words. It was not called, and our only alternative is to oppose the Clause as a whole.
    Mr. Elliot: I think I am not doing the hon. Member an injustice. I took it that his party were advancing arguments on the Clause as a whole because it had not been possible to get the Amendment discussed. But surely the Government are entitled to praise rather than censure from hon. Members opposite for the insertion of these words in Sub-section (4)? If the words were deleted it would not make any difference. If the words "the matter shall be dealt with in such manner as Parliament may hereafter determine" were to disappear all that would have happened would be that the label, so to speak, would have been taken off this strong box, but the strong box would remain. The £2,750,000 or £3,000,000 which has accrued for the benefits which would have been payable by the approved societies has been placed in a strong box by the Government to be dealt with in such manner as Parliament may determine, and that is the only way in which these moneys can be dealt with. I claim that we are entitled to gratitude and not blame for having done this.
    The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) seemed to indicate that people were suffering some injury for which they should be recompensed. The fact is that under this Bill women are receiving benefits ten times as great as they are surrendering. We have increased enormously the actuarial value of the benefits which are being provided, and very largely with money provided by Parliament. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) asked me what was the value of the present rights of an insured woman, and I promised to get him the figures. Here they are. The present value of the pension rights of a woman aged 40 is £69. When we have put through this Bill it will be increased by no less than £42. That is not a diminution of anything that is coming to the woman. The present value of the pension rights of a woman aged 60 is £196. When this Bill reaches the Statute Book we shall have added £113 to that sum.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken off the amount that the

    2209
    woman will not now get in relation to sickness benefits?
    Mr. Elliot: Of course I have. Further it is not merely what I have taken into account but what the Government Actuary has taken into account. There is a long report on the subject. There is a very great advantage to the woman. She is getting ten times the value of the health insurance rights that are being commuted. I have given the actuarial values of the new pension rights first in the case of a younger woman and then in the case of an older woman. In the case of the younger woman the present value of £69 is being raised by £42, and the value in the case of a woman of 60 is being increased by £113. The hon. Member asked about the £2,750,000 and said, "Do not let us leave it here or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will hear about it." Does the hon. Member think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make a speech before the introduction of the Bill and another on its Second Reading without somebody having first done a few sums and discovered this £2,750,000 which is being released from the funds of the approved societies? Surely he does not believe that this money has not been argued over time and time again, and that the fact that we are receiving in contributions £100,000,000 and incurring a liability of £260,000,000, so that the Treasury contribution is £160,000,000, has not been discussed by the Treasury time and again—with the very natural suggestion that some of this money should be swept forthwith into the Treasury? I am not denying that that is, so. These sums have naturally been canvassed repeatedly by the Treasury as sums appropriate to be devoted towards strengthening it for the great liabilities which will have to be met.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it is straightforward finance to suggest that £2,750,000, set aside from contributions for sickness, medical and maternity benefits, should be handed over to the Treasury to make good the deficiencies of a pension scheme quite apart from health insurance?
    Mr. Elliot: Not at all. Everybody knows that the funds of the societies were gathered for health benefits and that
    2210
    a great relief is taking place in the liabilities of the approved societies as a result of the legislation that we are putting through and with the Financial Resolution that we passed last night. Not only is it straight finance but it would be quite wrong not to consider whether that money should, in turn, be brought in to buttress the funds against the great and serious burdens which are being laid upon it by this legislation. So meticulous were the Government to ensure that no such reproach as suggested by the hon. Member should be brought against them, and that there should be no shadow of a suspicion of sharp practice or sixpence-squeezing that they have specifically enacted that these moneys should be placed in a strong box of which Parliament holds the key, and should not be forthwith swept into the Treasury but dealt with as Parliament might determine. I suggest that that is wise and prudent finance and the hon. Gentleman is totally wrong.
    He said: "Go to the consultative council of the approved societies and hear what they say." Will he be surprised to hear that I have gone to the consultative council of the approved societies, and that in the approved societies there were views on both sides? Certain opinion said that the money should be dealt with as the hon. Gentleman suggested, but there were other views. Some said that with the demand coming on the approved societies in respect of contingent liability to meet this sickness payment, with other disadvantages and liabilities coming along, they would say: "This is the moment to conserve our finances and put money to reserve to make sure that we shall be able, in future, to deal with the problems that may come upon our finances." But many of the members of the consultative committee themselves suggested that the action of the Government was right. That is all the more necessary because the argument of the hon. Gentleman suggested that it was not to our advantage and that the money should go to the single woman—to the spinster. That is not where the improvement in life is taking place.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: I did not say that.
    Mr. Elliot: I thought the hon. Gentleman did say it.
    Mr. Davies: I said the insured woman who was drawing disablement benefit.
    Mr. Elliot: He said that he was speaking particularly of those women who were drawing disablement benefit and who were not married.
    Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman must not mislead the Committee. I said, following on that statement, that I knew of no more pathetic figure than that of the woman who was single, drawing disablement benefit and had been totally incapacitated for several years.
    Mr. Elliot: I say that the experience of recent years shows that the unmarried women's claims for sickness benefit have been a little in excess of expectation. It is with married women that the position in regard to sickness benefit is more satisfactory. I could understand indications of disapproval from hon. Members opposite if we took advantage of the present position by still further improving the position of the married women and depressing the position of the single women. The money is being placed in reserve against the incalculable fortunes of the future, and none of us can say what is the most appropriate use to which this money can be placed. What we can say is that the women are receiving very great, definite and calculable benefits as the result of the action which the Committee is taking this evening.
    I would like to deal with some other points which have been raised. It was suggested that this might be an appropriate occasion on which to pool the funds of the approved societies. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the sort of storm that would arise up and down the country if that were done. He knows that all the storms we have had in connection with other matters would be nothing compared with what would arise if it was said that the war is a grand occasion on which to pool the funds of the approved societies.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Was that the cause of the dispute in the consultative committee, because of the various approved societies who do not cater for women workers?
    Mr. Elliot: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with another point. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman wished to intervene, and I thought he was going to intervene on the argument that I was addressing to the Committee at the
    2212
    moment. I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I will take note of the points which have been raised. I would say that we are unrepentant as to the course which we have taken. We are not sweeping money forthwith into the Treasury, but by placing it into a reserve account we are acting wisely, and I ask the Committee to take that view. Hon. Members having heard my explanations, I hope that we can pass from this Clause.
    10.37 p.m.
    Mr. Isaacs: I have heard the phrase about not bowing down and worshipping any graven image. We can see the Treasury Bench bowing down and worshipping the Actuary. Like other actuaries, the Actuary who produced these figures has left a hole by which it is possible to escape from them, because he said they were speculative and had been made with some reserve. In estimating the sickness of married women many years ago the Actuary made a similar mistake to that which is being made now. If there is to be any saving out of this new scheme why not let it remain to balance the losses that have already occurred in the women's societies? I am the secretary of a society for women, a society where it can be said that we know almost every one of those women, and time after time when our sickness details have come out we have had people from the Ministry trying to find out why there is this heavy sickness amongst women. These are some of the reasons why most of the societies for married women are not able to give additional benefit. We should have some guarantee that any surplus moneys shall not be taken under any circumstances until those societies which have suffered from the sickness experience of these women have had the reserve values made up to the experience of those who have had the average sickness experience.
    10.40 p.m.
    Mr. McEntee: I should like to be able to think that the Government were honest in regard to this Clause, but if they were, they would at least say what they propose to do with this money. Everybody knows what is meant by the words, to which a great deal of reference has been made:
    "as Parliament may hereafter determine."
    What can that mean, except what it always has meant in practice? That is,

    2213
    that the Government will determine, and that, having determined, they will put the Whips on, and their supporters will vote as they are told to do. If there were a free vote on the matter, I do not believe that Parliament would permit the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use the money for any other purpose than that for which it was subscribed—for the benefit of the members of the approved societies. If the Government were really honest in what they said when we discussed the previous Clause, that they were anxious that all the benefits of the members of the approved societies should be guaranteed to them, and that, between the ages of 60 arid 65, those members should not lose as a consequence of this Act, they would take steps to secure that.
    The Clause begins by saying, in effect, that the Government Actuary shall estimate and certify what amount has been saved by the approved societies in consequence of the Act, and that such amount shall be discharged by cancelling outstanding reserve values to that amount, and it goes on to say that the surplus shall
    be used as Parliament shall determine, after it has been put into the Suspense Fund. It is asked, Why should it not be used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I answer, Why should it be used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any other way than the way that the members of the approved societies decide? If you believe it should be used in the way laid down in the previous Clause, why not, after the words:
    "as Parliament may hereafter determine,"
    add:
    "provided always that it shall be used as shall be determined by the persons concerned"?
    If you are not going to give it for the benefit of the people who have subscribed it, at least say, "We intend to use it as we have used the Road Fund when we raided it, and other funds which we have raided from time to time."
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 185; Noes.111.

    Division No. 31.]

    AYES.

    [10.45 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Harvey, T. E.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

    Denville, Alfred

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)

    Dodd, J. S.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Doland, G. F

    Higgs, W. F.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Drewe, C.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Horabin, T. L.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

    Dunglass, Lord

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

    Beechman, N. A.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Bennett, Sir E. N.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Blair, Sir R.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Jennings, R.

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Etherton, Ralph

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Leech, Sir J. W.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

    Levy, T.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Fildes, Sir H.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

    Foot, D. M.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Burghley, Lord

    Fremantle Sir F. E

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Butcher, H. W.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Cary, R. A.

    Gledhill, G.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Goldie, N. B.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

    Channon, H.

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Chapman. A. (Rutherglen)

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    McKie, J. H.

    Christie, J. A.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Magnay, T.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

    Maitland, Sir Adam

    Colfox, Major Sir W. P.

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Grigg, Sir E. W. M

    Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentfd & Chisw'k)

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

    Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

    Hambro, A. V.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Munro, P.

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Harbord, Sir A.

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Harland, H. P.

    O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Owen, Major G.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Tree, A. R. L. F.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Selley, H. R.

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Shakespeare, G. H.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Pym, L. R.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Shepperson, Sir E. W.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Wayland, Sir W. A

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windser)

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)

    Robertson, D.

    Spens. W. P.

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Storey, S.

    Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)

    Wragg, H.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Thomas, J. P. L

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sandeman, Sir N. S.

    Thomson, Sir J. D W.

    Mr. James Stuart and Lient.-Colonel Kerr.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Touche,. G.C.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

    Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

    Hayday, A.

    Price, M. P.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Quibell. D. J. K.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

    Hicks, E. G.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Ammon, C. G.

    Hills, A. (Pontefratt)

    Ridley, G.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hollins, A. (Hanley)

    Riley, B.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)

    Ritson, J.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Barnes, A. J.

    Jackson, W. F.

    Sexton. T. M.

    Barr, J.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Shinwell, E.

    Batey, J.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Silkin, L.

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

    John, W.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Bevan, A.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Sloan, A.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Burke, W. A.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cape, T.

    Lathan, G.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Leach, W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Chater, D.

    Leonard, W.

    Stephen, C.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Stewart, W. J. (H'ghtn-le-Sp'ng)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lunn, W.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Collindridge, F.

    Macdonald, G. (Ince)

    Thurtle, E.

    Daggar, G.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Maclean, N.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Marshall, F.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Dobbie, W.

    Messer, F.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Milner, Major J.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Ede, J. C.

    Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S)

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Mort, D. L.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C)

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Woodburn, A.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Paling, W.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Parker, J.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Pearson, A.

    Mr. Mathers and Mr. R. J. Taylor.

    Clauses 5, 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Adjournment.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
  GERMAN LEADERS (PUBLICITY).
  GERMAN LEADERS (PUBLICITY).
  BRITISH NEWSPAPERS (NEUTRAL COUNTRIES).
  BRITISH NEWSPAPERS (NEUTRAL COUNTRIES).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  TEAM VALLEY TRADING ESTATE (CONTRACT).
  TEAM VALLEY TRADING ESTATE (CONTRACT).
  SOLICITORS (DEFALCATIONS).
  SOLICITORS (DEFALCATIONS).
  LAW SOCIETY (PROPOSED LEGISLATION).
  LAW SOCIETY (PROPOSED LEGISLATION).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE STATIONS (SALE OF ICES).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE STATIONS (SALE OF ICES).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  CEREALS (BREWING AND DISTILLING).
  CEREALS (BREWING AND DISTILLING).
  FISH PRICES (GLASGOW).
  FISH PRICES (GLASGOW).
  MEAT SUPPLIES (GLASGOW).
  MEAT SUPPLIES (GLASGOW).
  NORWEGIAN FISH (NEWCASTLE).
  NORWEGIAN FISH (NEWCASTLE).
  PIG-BREEDING STOCK.
  PIG-BREEDING STOCK.
  MEAT SUPPLY ADMINISTRATION (YORKSHIRE).
  MEAT SUPPLY ADMINISTRATION (YORKSHIRE).
  RABBITS (PRICE).
  RABBITS (PRICE).
  MEAT (PRICE).
  MEAT (PRICE).
  POULTRY FEEDING STUFFS.
  POULTRY FEEDING STUFFS.
TRANSPORT.
  FACILITIES (BIRMINGHAM).
  FACILITIES (BIRMINGHAM).
  BLACK-OUT SCHEDULES (LONDON).
  BLACK-OUT SCHEDULES (LONDON).
  FOOTBRIDGE (SWANSEA).
  FOOTBRIDGE (SWANSEA).
  SUBURBAN RAILWAY SERVICES, LONDON (ELECTRIFICATION).
  SUBURBAN RAILWAY SERVICES, LONDON (ELECTRIFICATION).
  COAL (SUPPLIES).
  COAL (SUPPLIES).
POST OFFICE.
  WOMEN TELEPHONISTS, LONDON (OVERTIME).
  WOMEN TELEPHONISTS, LONDON (OVERTIME).
  LONDON-NEW YORK (AIR MAILS).
  LONDON-NEW YORK (AIR MAILS).
  POSTAGE RATES, FRANCE (TROOPS).
  POSTAGE RATES, FRANCE (TROOPS).
  COLONIES (SUGAR PRODUCTION).
  COLONIES (SUGAR PRODUCTION).
  COLONIAL OFFICE (BUSINESS ADVISER).
  COLONIAL OFFICE (BUSINESS ADVISER).
  WEST INDIAN COLONIES (INCOME TAX).
  WEST INDIAN COLONIES (INCOME TAX).
  AFRICAN COLONIES (FLAX-GROWING).
  AFRICAN COLONIES (FLAX-GROWING).
  TIN (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT).
  TIN (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT).
  OVERSEAS TRAVEL (EXIT PERMITS).
  OVERSEAS TRAVEL (EXIT PERMITS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  SHEEPSKINS (IMPORTATION).
  SHEEPSKINS (IMPORTATION).
  COMMODITY INSURANCE SCHEME.
  COMMODITY INSURANCE SCHEME.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE BOARD.
  UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE BOARD.
  APPOINTMENTS.
  APPOINTMENTS.
  EVACUATION (SICK PAY).
  EVACUATION (SICK PAY).
  INSURED WORKERS (SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).
  INSURED WORKERS (SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN).
ROYAL NAVY.
  SHORE LEAVE (EMERGENCY ACCOMMODATION).
  SHORE LEAVE (EMERGENCY ACCOMMODATION).
  ISLE OF WIGHT (MINES).
  ISLE OF WIGHT (MINES).
  REQUISITIONED FISHING VESSELS (AYRSHIRE).
  REQUISITIONED FISHING VESSELS (AYRSHIRE).
  INVALIDED RATING (PAY).
  INVALIDED RATING (PAY).
  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY OLD AGE PENSION (APPEAL).
  CONTRIBUTORY OLD AGE PENSION (APPEAL).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  FOOD INSPECTION.
  FOOD INSPECTION.
  VENEREAL DISEASE (TREATMENT).
  VENEREAL DISEASE (TREATMENT).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE (ROMFORD).
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE (ROMFORD).
  HAND-TORCHES.
  HAND-TORCHES.
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  MOTOR CYCLES (TAXATION).
  MOTOR CYCLES (TAXATION).
  LOANS (INTEREST RATES).
  LOANS (INTEREST RATES).
  ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE.
  ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE.
  POLAND (BRITISH POLICY).
  POLAND (BRITISH POLICY).
BRITISH ARMY.
  WOOLLEN COMFORTS.
  WOOLLEN COMFORTS.
  LEAVE.
  LEAVE.
  COAST BATTERY FIRING (LEITH).
  COAST BATTERY FIRING (LEITH).
  AIRCRAFT (SOUND LOCATION).
  AIRCRAFT (SOUND LOCATION).
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  TIMBER.
  TIMBER.
  WOODWORK CONTRACTS (SWANSEA).
  WOODWORK CONTRACTS (SWANSEA).
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES (EMPLOYMENT).
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES (EMPLOYMENT).
  NATIONAL SALVAGE CAMPAIGN.
  NATIONAL SALVAGE CAMPAIGN.
ECONOMIC WARFARE.
  CONTRABAND (RE-EXPORT).
  CONTRABAND (RE-EXPORT).
  ANGLO-NORWEGIAN TRADE AGREEMENT.
  ANGLO-NORWEGIAN TRADE AGREEMENT.
  GERMANY (IMPORTS).
  GERMANY (IMPORTS).
AGRICULTURE.
  FRUIT AND VEGETABLES.
  FRUIT AND VEGETABLES.
  TRACTORS.
  TRACTORS.
  MILK MARKETING BOARD (PUBLICATION).
  MILK MARKETING BOARD (PUBLICATION).
  HOME-GROWN OATS (SALE).
  HOME-GROWN OATS (SALE).
  PETROL RATION COUPONS (LICENCES).
  PETROL RATION COUPONS (LICENCES).
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
COMMERCIAL GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  FARNHAM GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]

    GOSPORT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    SOUTH-EASTERN GAS CORPORA- TION LIMITED (ASSOCIATED COMPANIES) BILL. [H.L.]
    SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the Commercial Gas Bill, the Farnham Gas and Electricity Bill, the Gosport Water Bill, the South-Eastern Gas Corporation Limited (Associated Companies) Bill and the South Suburban Gas Bill. The necessity for suspending the Standing Order is that owing to unavoidable circumstances the Examiners were not able to deal with these Bills in time to allow of their being read a second time according to Standing Orders.
    Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

COMMERCIAL GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
FARNHAM GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
GOSPORT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SOUTH-EASTERN GAS CORPORATION LIMITED (ASSOCIATED COMPANIES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

WAGES AND PRICES.
4.3 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had given Notice that Vie would call attention to the fact that unless the consumption of goods by the civilian public can be drastically curtailed a vicious spiral of alternate rising' of prices and wages is inevitable; ask His Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take in order effectively to limit consumption; and move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on January 10 the Prime Minister made a speech in which he laid down certain items in the policy of the Government on the Home Front. If may respectfully say so, it was a very admirable speech. The Prime Minister explained that war must necessarily involve a diminution in the quantity of goods available for civilian consumption, and that therefore any attempt to maintain the pre-war standard of living would be not only futile but dangerous as well. He also referred to the vicious spiral, and he said that it was the Government's considered policy to avoid inflation. It was on the day following that speech of the Prime Minister that I put down on the Paper of your Lordships' House the Motion which is before your Lordships to-day. I felt that if this great task were to be successfully accomplished it was necessary for the whole population to have a much more detailed guidance as to what is expected of them than had up to that time been given. It so happened that three days after the Prime Minister's speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer also made a speech, and he reinforced and
622
repeated what the Prime Minister had said. He said in effect that it had been his concern and that of the whole Government from the very first day of the war so to shape policy as to avoid the vicious spiral. He also said that, in order that the Government policy might be carried out, it was necessary for the British people to understand what was required of them, and he said that British citizens cannot be governed by edict. With that I entirely agree, and it is for that reason that I hope that, as a result of this Motion in your Lordships' House to-day, we may extract from the Government some important detailed statement of the size of the problem and the colossal nature of the savings which are necessary, and some indication of what the individual citizen is expected to do in order that that policy may be successfully carried out.
Let me say, my Lords, that the decision to avoid inflation is one which has been received with approval by all sections of the community. That being so, I do not propose to labour the point, but I would just remind your Lordships that of all the ways of restricting consumption inflation is the worst. It is the most unfair between one class and another; it bears most hardly on the poorest people and on people of fixed income. By raising costs it creates difficulties for our export trade, difficulties which perhaps would be acutely felt not only during the war but afterwards, and of course our policy must be so established as to lead us into happy times after the war, as well as enabling us to win the war. Lastly, inflation has the effect of progressively increasing the cost of Government borrowing. That was seen in the last war, and if carried to an extreme it might have the effect of completely undermining confidence in the Government's credit. For all those reasons I welcome the decision of the Government to avoid inflation at all costs.
The task which we have to accomplish is a colossal one. We have to increase production to the utmost of our ability, and above all, we have to divert the greatest quantity of our production from civilian consumption to the service of our war aims. Everything that we can possibly spare has to be devoted to the service of our fighting forces and to the reinforcement of our export trade. That means

623
the greatest possible restriction on civilian consumption. Again, the restriction on civilian consumption will enable us to reduce unnecessary imports. By reducing unnecessary imports we not only have available shipping space for things which we need more, but also we conserve our foreign exchange. Bearing in mind that inflation will occur if an increased quantity of spending meets a fixed quantity of goods, we can see at once where the danger of inflation arises. Increased spending meeting a fixed quantity of goods—or, of course, still more a diminished quantity of goods—must give rise to a rise in prices. We have to conceive of our national income as the whole physical output of the whole community in terms of goods and services. Our prewar national income was in round figures £5,000,000,000. In very round figures the Government's share of the loaf may be taken as £1,000,000,000, leaving for the civilian public to spend £4,000,000,000. Those figures are true both in terms of income and in terms of production. On the one side there is spending power, and on the other side there are goods and services produced. Out of the loaf, pre-war, the Government took £1,000,000,000 worth of goods, and the civilian public had the balance.
What happens when we change over to war? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his emergency Budget told us that at that time Government expenditure was running between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 a day—that reaches £2,400,000,000 a year—and he said that it was increasing. Consequently, for a figure of the Government's expenditure in a full year of war, I take £2,800,000,000. Pre-war expenditure was £4,000,000,000 for the civilian public. If the Government are going to take out of £5,000,000,000 as much as £2,800,000,000 that leaves £2,200,000,000 to the civilian public. The reduction in expenditure consequently—the reduction in the stock of goods available for the public—is in the order of £1,800,000,000. Some noble Lords will say, "Oh, but national production will increase in war time." So it will, and for the sake of argument I will take the figure which economists give us of an increase of 20 per cent. Let us assume that national income will rise from £5,000,000,000 to £6,000,000,000. The Government share remains at £2,800,000,000. The civilian
624
public's share of the loaf consequently is £3,200,000,000. That means that in what I may call old expenditure, the reduction is a reduction of £800,000,000 only. But in the meantime parallel with the increase in production is an increase in spending power. Consequently, with the additional £1,000,000,000 of spending power we get back to the old figure of a necessary reduction of £1,800,000,000.
Those are the figures which I have been able to glean from a perusal of the Press which deals with these matters. But before I put my first question to the noble Lord who will reply for the Government, I should remind your Lordships that we can also establish a comparison with the Budget. The Budget, as I have already said, is to be £2,800,000,000. Of that the Chancellor has imposed taxes calculated to yield £1,100,000,000. Consequently there is a gap to be filled by borrowing of £1,700,000,000. That need not all be definite saving, because there are some capital resources which can be diverted for that purpose. In the £4,000,000,000 of which I spoke there was a certain sum, not of spending for consumption but of saving, which goes into capital. We may call it £400,000,000. There was also a certain amount spent on renewals and replacements, representing current expenditure on keeping plant up to standard. There was another capital asset on which we can draw, and that is our foreign resources. The less we draw upon them the better, but obviously it may be that as time flows along we shall have to draw upon those resources. We will say, for the sake of argument, that out of those three capital resources we can take, in the first year, £700,000,000. That leaves as a net figure which has got to be saved no less than £1,000,000,000.
As far as I can make out, my Lords, all the economists are agreed that unless we can save £1,000,000,000 a year by genuine savings, that is, reduction of consumption, then inflation is inevitable. The first question, therefore, which I have to put to the noble Lord, is: does he accept those figures? If he does not, I hope he will tell us why; because I do not think I am overstating it when I say that there is a consensus of opinion among economists that that is the order of the problem with which we have to deal. If he accepts these figures, does he think really that that can be done by voluntary saving, or

625
does he think the occasion is one which demands some drastic plan? You have to remember, my Lords, that it is not as though we were working for an examination in which a pass is all that is required. We are working in a competitive examination, and what we have to do is to see to it that our resources exceed those of our opponents. I am informed that if we had adopted in this country all the measures which have been enforced in Germany, our productive capacity would have increased by no less than 50 per cent. If I may say so, it is a great mistake to jeer at the sacrifices which have been forced on the German people. Sacrifice is a measure of efficiency, and without sacrifice efficiency cannot be attained.
In order to form an opinion of whether we are achieving this object, I survey the first six months of the war. I am told that the figure of saving is now £90,000,000—that is the amount of subscriptions to National Defence Bonds and to National Savings Certificates. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is satisfied that that corresponds to the need, and whether he is satisfied that a substantial proportion of that is not coming out of normal savings which would have been made in any case. It would be a guide if he could give us the figures of the number of individual applications for £1,000 in National Defence Bonds and £500 in National Savings Certificates. It may be that he will not be able to give us that information. It is not essential. That is on the savings side. On the consumption side, my Lords, I would like to ask the noble Lord if he is satisfied that we have not been consuming unduly during these six months. There is rationing, and that must have involved some reduction of consumption, but have we been living on our stocks, or can we be satisfied that we really are curtailing consumption as much as is really necessary? What I want is an assurance that we are not just drifting. The whole time that we are without some policy of individual sacrifice, if I may call it so, there is a danger that all of us may take up sides. We may say: "Whatever happens I will not agree to that." I think the sooner we get our marching orders, as it were, the more likely it is that we shall effectively carry them out.
My Lords, you cannot see half the national income swallowed up for purposes of war without sacrifice, and I am convinced that far greater sacrifices have to be made by everybody than we yet realise. I am also convinced that every class is prepared to take its share in those sacrifices. I am quite convinced that that applies to the Party represented by noble Lords opposite just as much as to the Parties on this side of the House. I am quite convinced that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, would be the first to give up his beer and his betting if that was required of him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure I can say the same of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi——
LORD STRABOLGI: I never drink beer.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH:—and all the other noble Lords who sit on that side of the House. I should like to make one suggestion in connection with taxation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think he makes a great mistake in talking about the standard rate of Income Tax. We all, I suppose, enjoy groaning about paying Income Tax at 7s. 6d. in the pound, but it is remarkable how few of us really do pay tax at anything like that rate. I find that a married man with two children and an earned income of £2,000 pays £525: that is 5s. 3d. in the pound. It is perfectly true that he pays tax at the rate of 7s. 6d., but only on a very small bit. The married man with £1,000 a year and two children pays 3s. 7d. It is rather instructive to observe that if the standard rate were put up to 10s., that man's Income Tax would be increased from 3s. 7d. to 4s. 10d. I have no doubt he would still groan about paying Income Tax at 10s. in the pound, but it would not be true. I suppose all of us dislike going to the dentist, and we dislike much more going to the dentist to have two teeth out than one; and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be much wiser to talk about the maximum rate of Income Tax than the standard rate. Another very remarkable point about the national income is that two-thirds of it is in the hands of people with incomes of less than £5 per week. I find that very difficult to believe, but I have the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I feel justified in quoting it. But another

627
fact which always has to be mentioned in the same breath as that remark is that a large proportion of our population are living on the subsistence level and their standard of living cannot be reduced. It can be reduced neither from considerations of humanity nor—and this is important in war-time—from considerations of efficiency.
My Lords, with your permission, I should now like to turn to Mr. Keynes. Mr. Keynes has put forward a scheme which was mentioned some months ago and of which a revised version has just been published. It is not for me to advocate it. I want to tell your Lordships very briefly what it says, and I want to ask the noble Lord whether it has been considered. The scheme is one of what was called first "compulsory saving"; later it was called "deferred pay." It is neither taxation nor borrowing, but a combination of both. It has the great advantage of insisting that every person in the country down to those with the very lowest income, which is exempt, has in addition to paying his taxes to agree to the deferment of a portion of his income. This will be held in the form of blocked savings. The scheme has this great advantage: that by drawing-off purchasing-power it would go a long way to securing the equilibrium between the spending-power on the one hand and the stocks of goods on the other which is necessary to avoid inflation. I understand that, in terms of families, the family man with children and an income of 75s. a week would have an increased spending power. The family man with an income of £5 a week would have in the aggregate almost the same spending power as he had before, but the increase in his earnings due to harder work would be taken from him and sterilised in the form of deferred pay. In the whole of the classes receiving over £5 a week the aggregate reduction in spending power would be of the order of one-third.
There are two other features in this scheme. One is a scheme of family allowances, which would be 5s. for each child up to a certain number. This is necessary in order to mitigate the hardship to the lowest-paid classes. There is also added to the scheme a capital levy. Well, my Lords, I cannot say that I care about the idea of a capital levy.
628
I suppose it suits me just as well as it suits anybody who owns land and very little else; but, much as I dislike it, I should say that I am not prepared to refuse to take my own medicine, and if from above we were told that this scheme would give us the maximum efficiency and that this is the way to win the war, then of course one would feel bound to accept that sacrifice, as one would expect others to accept the sacrifices which they were called upon to make. I wish, therefore, to ask the noble Lord, have the Government considered this scheme, and have they decided for any reason to reject it?
Then, my Lords, I should like to know how this matter appears to noble Lords opposite. I would say in that connection that it is essential that this scheme should be compared, not with what we should like, but with whatever practical alternative there is. The most likely alternative, if we do not do anything about it, will be inflation, and inflation will not suit the Party represented by noble Lords opposite. Two weeks ago in your Lordships' House we had a debate about exports, in the course of which the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, who is not here to-day, made a proposal for a control of wages. That provoked the retort from the Benches opposite: "Never control of wages without control of prices." My Lords, I can only say that had I sat over there I should have said the same thing. I have tried to look at this scheme from the point of view of noble Lords opposite, and I think I should say certainly two things. I should say, if we accept this scheme, then these blocked savings must not count for the means test after the war.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think I should say that, and I think I should go further and say that there is a thing called Excess Profits Tax, which is 60 per cent. If profits have paid Income Tax as well, they have paid 75 per cent., and I think I should ask whether it would not be fair—I am the workman—that, if my surplus earnings due to harder work are to be blocked till after the war, the remainder of that 25 per cent. should also be blocked. I do not know what the answer would be, but I think that is the sort of line on which I should argue. From the point of view of the Labour Party, this scheme avoids inflation; it

629
provides a reward as an incentive for hard work, in the form of deferred pay. It provides another thing: the maximum freedom of choice to the person who has money to spend, as compared with some elaborate scheme of rationing and price-fixing. It seems to me that that is a great recommendation in a free country. Limit the spending to the lowest amount, but let your spender have the greatest choice of what he is to spend it on. Finally, it does mitigate the burden of sacrifice to those who are least able to bear it.
My Lords, we hear a good deal about equality of sacrifice. How splendid it sounds, and how difficult of attainment! The sacrifices which will be required before the victorious end of this war will be lives and money. The sacrifice of lives, I think we may say, is equal between one class and another, though it is not equal between those of us who are too old and the young and active who are called upon to offer that sacrifice. The sacrifice of money is perhaps even more difficult to make equal; it is very difficult for the sacrifice to be as great for the rich man, or the man in comfortable circumstances, as it is for the poor man who is near to the border of the subsistence level. I believe, however, that the whole country is ready to make whatever sacrifices may be demanded, if only it can be told what they are. Our people are a kindly, easy-going people and they are a forgiving people; but I think, my Lords, that there is one thing that they would never forgive. They would never forgive a Government which, by lack of courage or by lack of leadership, or simply by procrastination, deprived the people of the opportunity by toil and sacrifice to rise to the full height of the effort of which they know them-selves to be capable. I beg to move.
4.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing our gratitude to the noble Lord opposite for enabling us to discuss this vital problem of war finance, and also to thank him personally for the very remarkable speech to which we have listened with so much interest. Those of us who sit on this side of the House do not intend to strike a discordant note so far as the main contention of the noble Lord opposite is concerned; indeed, I think it would be surprising if there was one dissentient voice in the
630
whole course of this debate. We agree with him that the war can be financed only by a much larger inroad into civilian consumption than has taken place at present. We also agree that the most disastrous method of effecting this inroad is inflation, and we hope, as he does, that we may receive some assurance from the Government that it is not pursuing a fatal policy of drift which would lead us inevitably to inflation.
I do not intend to go into the figures on the subject of the reduction in civilian consumption which were dealt with in such detail by the noble Lord opposite. All that I should like to say on that point is this. In the last war, the reduction in the civilian share of the national income was estimated at about 40 per cent. This war, as the noble Lord has pointed out, is likely to be considerably more costly; and it is obvious that we have not as yet surrendered anything approaching a half of our pre-war incomes to the State, and I think approximately one half is the estimate that would agree with the figures given by the noble Lord opposite. He quoted £3,800,000,000 as the civilian share of consumption when our national income had increased from £5,000,000,000 to £6,000,000,000. That raises the rough figure to rather over half our pre-war income.
We do entirely agree with the noble Lord—I think he was a little apprehensive lest he should not receive support on this side of the House—that the least desirable method of eliminating civilian demand is by inflation, and that inflation is the terminus to which an uninterrupted race between wages and prices inevitably leads. But, my Lords, there is one aspect of the problem on which he touched, but perhaps touched rather lightly, to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. If the retail price of certain necessities is to rise still higher, as most people seem to expect, and wages do not keep pace, the obvious consequence is a further fall in the standard of living of the whole wage-earning class. Now, as the noble Lord pointed out, the wage-earner has no desire to shirk a fair share of the financial burden of the war; this has been shown, for example, by the amount of working-class savings which have gone into War Loan. I do not honestly think, however, that he should be blamed for grumbling a little if his

631
standard of living were to be lowered still further before the Income Tax and Surtax-paying class has made even heavier sacrifices than it is making at the moment. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind when they set about distributing the burden as equally as possible, and I hope that they will forgive me for reminding them that a very small increase in the cost of living means far greater hardship for 90 per cent. of the population than a very large increase in Income Tax means for the remaining 10 per cent.
There is one small section of the community that I do not believe anyone would expect to bear even the smallest part of this increasing burden: I mean the children of the poorly paid wage-earners with large families. It has been estimated by sociologists that 20 to 25 per cent. of our children under fifteen were living well below the poverty line before the war began. They almost all belonged to families of more than three children, representing the 10 to 15 per cent. of our total population that have always lived in dire poverty. Sir John Orr, in his well-known report on nutrition, declared that the diet of these children was insufficient in all the vitamins required for normal good health. Expressed in another way, the risk of acute poverty is greater in childhood than at any other period in life, and one out of every five children born into the working class grows up under conditions of malnutrition which impose a lifelong handicap on efficiency and happiness. I have made rather free with statistics, and I hope that the noble Lord who is going to speak next [Lord Stamp] will pull me up if he thinks I have committed the crime of exaggeration.
In considering the distribution of this burden of war finance, there is a passage in a recent article by Sir William Beveridge in The Times newspaper with which I think we shall all agree. He writes:
"If we are to restrict consumption, we must not do so at the expense of vital needs. Above all, we must not do so at the cost of children."
Indeed, it would be universally agreed that even in war-time, when exceptional sacrifices are demanded of us all, so long as the adult population has sufficient to eat, we cannot allow the children to go short. I should particularly like to ask
632
the Government how they propose, when they apply their axe to civilian consumption, to avoid cutting into the standard of bare existence enjoyed by these impoverished families. There are, of course, various ways in which this might be done, and I should like to recommend, as deserving, perhaps, the consideration of the Government, two well-established devices for providing necessities for those who cannot pay for them at the market price. The first of these is price control. So far as my recollection bears me out, price control is included in Mr. Keynes's amended scheme when he talks of the iron ration. It was not mentioned by the noble Lord opposite, and I was a little surprised that he did not include it in his survey of the scheme. We are already spending £50,000,000 a year in keeping down the price of foodstuffs. How far we can go in this direction must obviously depend on how much money the Government can spare for subsidising civilian consumption. In any event, this is the most expensive way of helping the poorest consumers, and for that reason cannot possibly be expected to stabilise the cost of living.
I therefore suggest that the Government should respond to the suggestion of the noble Lord opposite by making the fullest possible inquiry into the feasibility of a system of family allowances that would directly benefit the children of the largest and poorest working-class households This seems to be the obvious alternative, if an alternative must be provided, to higher wages and the vicious spiral that would follow, if these minimum standards are not to be undermined. I am aware that when this subject was last debated in your Lordships' House, though the principle of family endowment was supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, by Lord Dawson of Penn, and by the most reverend Prelate the Archbishop of York and many other speakers, the Government replied that public opinion was not, as yet, ready for this experiment or even inquiry, for that was the principal request. But that was before the war, and the changed circumstances which I have alluded to have not been without their effect on the public mind.
I have been expressing in the last few sentences my personal point of view, but it is clearly of much more interest to your Lordships to hear the point of view of

633
the Party and the trade unions which my friends and I endeavour to represent. It is true that there is some hesitation and apprehensiveness in the minds of many trade unionists about family allowances. What they mainly fear, I believe, is that the value of such allowances will be deducted by employers from their wages, thus lowering the general wage level in bad times and preventing it from rising, as it should do, in good times. If that were to happen it would, of course, defeat the whole object of the scheme, which is to prevent the standard of living of the poorest section of the wage-earning class from being further depressed. The Government, if they were to consider operating such a scheme, should certainly inform employers that these payments are no more a subsidy to their wages fund than the cost of housing, education, health insurance, or any other social service, and they should be prepared to penalise any employer who took unfair advantage of the higher family income of a certain number of their employees. I am convinced that this is the main reason, although there are others, for the doubts of a large section of the trade union movement, and that if it could be reassured on this point it would then view the proposition as a whole in a very different light.
There are certain other advantages in family allowances in war-time which are worth pondering. It has been calculated that during the last war at least half a million fewer babies were born than might have been expected in normal times. Many parents must obviously have been afraid to bring children into a world in which they might be exposed to misery and want. Family allowances would obviously do something to prevent a repetition of this disastrous acceleration of an already steadily falling birth-rate. Another, and admittedly less important, gain from such a scheme is that it would be the most effective antidote to the latest development in German propaganda. German broadcasts are constantly trying to stir up discontent by denouncing the "plutocratic, imperialistic democracies," because they allow the toiling masses, black and white, to be "cruelly exploited" by a mere handful of capitalists. Surely the most effective retort to this sort of propaganda is that which the Secretary of State for the Colonies made last week in an epoch making statement in another
634
place so far as the inhabitants of the Colonial Empire are concerned. By showing what I may call the same prudent generosity nearer home, we could claim that even in war-time we are steadily diminishing the worst poverty both at the centre and round the periphery of the Empire. I should therefore like to supplement the very vital and important question addressed by the noble Lord to the Government by asking for some assurance that the Government plans for reducing civilian consumption will not hit the poorer wage-earners with large families, and if they can give this assurance I should like to know what steps they propose to take to achieve this object. My endeavour has been to draw attention to one aspect of the problem of war finance which might otherwise not have been properly explored—namely, the effect of reduced consumption on the poorest section of the wage-earning class. I hope your Lordships will excuse me—because it is a matter of very great importance to all of us—for having dilated at some considerable length on this one small but, I think, exceedingly vital aspect of the problem.
4.49 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, it is very unlikely that there will be much division of opinion in your Lordships' House upon aims and directions, though there may be, of course, considerable differences of opinion as to methods and degrees by which we should reach them. When I last spoke to your Lordships I had occasion to refer to the fact that the problem is fundamentally one of the total amount of consumable current commodities and transferable services. Since that time there has been increasing public recognition that no amount of juggling with money and prices can actually increase the quantity of goods that our ships can bring to these shores or that we, fully extended, can manufacture. But we must not suppose from that, although the misconception is current, that financial methods do not matter, because, apart altogether from the fundamental fact of the total amount of commodities in the country, there is the competition between the Services' demand and the civilian demand for them, which is conditioned almost entirely by financial methods—by taxation, loans, and all other financial relations with prices which make tremendous difference to the way

635
in which this total amount of commodities is divided and whether there is unhealthy competition between them. The moment there is real competition between them, the inflation—the "vicious spiral" to which the noble Lord who introduced this debate has referred—begins.
I said that the problem is one fundamentally of total current commodities, distinguishing that from the use of all our present old non-renewable assets. It may be necessary for a man to give up a larger house and go into a smaller one for reasons of his private income, but it does not do much to contribute towards the cost of the war merely to change one asset from one ownership to another ownership, or even to leave a house vacant. Those manipulations of the old assets have very little effect upon the fortunes of the finance of the war. And in the same way—I spoke of transferable services—it is quite obvious that to dismiss an old retainer who is not capable of taking up any other class of work does not really make much difference to the total war effort, inasmuch as if you have to pay more taxes to keep him by public assistance, you might just as well have paid him his wages and kept him in the service to which he was used. I do not say that there are not exceptions to these things, but in general the problem is one of current consumable commodities and transferable services. The consumption of commodities per head is substantially greater than it was in the last war, and that is a fundamental fact which we must keep before us when we are considering what degree of sacrifice people are being asked to make and what it is possible for them to make without making them either discontented, unhappy or inefficient.
We have seen from the argument which has been put forward by the noble Lord who introduced this debate that if we can induce those who have increased earnings to put them on one side and not to spend them in competition for consumable commodities, that will go a very great distance towards "paying for the war" to use a popular phrase; but he has shown to us that it does not go far enough and that some retrenchment on pre-war consumption is essential. Now a great deal of retrenchment is possible before we shall, as a nation, be living worse off than we did in 1914 to 1918. We
636
shall expect, naturally, that the higher wages which are being earned in many parts of the country by overtime and the like will be spent in commodities unless by some special measures they are stopped. The question that the House is really considering is whether those special measures should take the form of moral suasion, of intellectual conviction, of statutory compulsion, or of some automatic method such as inflation. We can therefore afford to deduct a considerable amount from the pre-war standard of life throughout the country without destroying the probity of the economic machine. If we can get this intellectual conviction home—and I believe that it is fast getting home, apart from any class rivalry or feeling—if there is conviction throughout the population that these sacrifices are necessary, they can be made without loss of efficiency.
I do not wish to give your Lordships too many figures, but I am sure that you all watch, as a key to this situation, the retail indices published by the Bank of England. Before you draw lessons from those, I want just to give one warning. Your Lordships will have observed that before the war—in August—compared with the previous year, the retail sales were up by 4.2 in value and 6.4 in volume, so that when you are looking at the later figures and you see the amounts of increase in value or volume that you can derive from them, you must remember that the kind of national income figures which have been put before you to-day are not those of August but are much earlier, and therefore you cannot take credit, as it were, for the 6.4 in the month of August as a plus and take the minuses from that: you should take your minuses from the earlier period—from a year before. The retail index only gives you the volume of the retail sales by the process of dividing by the retail price index. But you can get a rough indication of volume; and whereas it looks to be, and indeed it is, a fact that far greater monetary expenditure is going on throughout the country outside London than before the war, the actual volume of things bought, owing to the change of prices, is not so great; and corrected for price, the diminution in total volume of things bought is an encouraging figure—for food somewhere in the neighbourhood of 9 per cent. in volume and for

637
things other than food somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent., in December.
As I say, those corrections of price are very rough, but it is a fairly good indication that some retrenchment is already taking place. In considering these figures, however, you must remember that we are continually draining away from the ordinary retail purchasing clientèle a considerable number of adult purchasers who are going into the Army and other Services and are being fed, as it were, not out of the shops, but from the public larder. The figures are therefore not precise guides to the trend of events, but they are the best that we have, and it is very important that we should watch them very closely. It is important that we should watch the total pay-roll, as our American friends call it, and the way in which it is being dispensed, because it is at that point that we reach the vital situation referred to by the noble Lord who initiated this discussion—the vital point as to whether we are taking enough from current consumption to get rid of the competition between the two great consuming sides, the Services and the civilian side, in which lies the germ of inflation. As I said before, and I think I can repeat it now, there are no very clear signs of inflation at the present time, but I think we may say that possibly some of the seeds of inflation have been sown, and that if the temperature is too high they will very easily spring into full flower; but at the moment we are not suffering from inflation. Before I leave those retail figures, which I hope your Lordships will follow very closely from month to month as this problem develops, I should like to remind the House that, of course, for reasons well known to us all, Central London was down by about 30 per cent. and Suburban London by about 5 per cent. In order, therefore, to get the values up, as they are, you may be sure that in the great spending districts, the manufacturing districts, the increase in volume has been very considerable. It is, however, at the moment diminishing; it is not as great as it was two or three months ago.
There is one great peril that we are facing to-day. We are all very proud of the prowess of the Navy in keeping the seas free and enabling vast quantities of commodities to come to this country.
638
It adds to our prestige; it influences the world, and it is a kind of psychological asset that we are loath to give up; and every sign that a ration can be increased looks like being a national asset of a psychological kind; but I am afraid that there is a peril lest this very freedom of the seas and the good use of our shipping may tempt us to buy and consume more than we can afford. It would be a sad thing if prestige itself were to lead to inflation. The word inflation, of course, usually has the definition applied to it by the speaker. We think of it as a fixed quantity of goods with an increased amount of purchasing power applied to them, but the problem we have to face is a diminished quantity of goods against an un-diminished quantity of money. Now whether that is inflation or not is largely a matter of definition, but that is the situation that we are likely to be faced with, and that, together with the competition between the two purchasing sides, is the situation to which we wish to apply our correctives, and those correctives, as has been said in this House, are scarcity, and, because of it and rightly, the system of rationing. But to apply these correctives to pretty well every class of merchandise is almost an impossible administrative task. We may have a scarcity and, outside the particular cost of living items, allow prices to rise. You only have to realise all that to see that that is not a solution of the problem of paying for the war. What we want to do is to apply to scarcity automatically reduced spending power in order that there should be no price rise benefiting people abroad, but that the transfer of spending power to the Government shall be complete. When I refer to no price rise, I would remind your Lordships that we must have price rises which correspond to really increased costs, otherwise the whole economic machine jams. It is the price rise beyond that figure which we have to fear.
Reference has been made by some of your Lordships to the subject of taxation. Now, nothing that I say from the outset on that subject will I hope be taken to refer to questions of equity. However virtuous what we are doing may be from the point of view of sacrifice, that is not the point I am on. I am going to take the differential types

639
of taxation that we have over different groups of income and wealth, and I am not dealing with whether they are fair—that is not my point at all—but with whether in themselves they can be relied upon to pay for the war. Now it is rapidly getting home, thanks to the speeches of His Majesty's Ministers and others, that if you take a very much larger sum from the wealthy that would only be a drop in the bucket, and leaves another problem we have to consider. However necessary it might be to tax the rich, from the point of view of social justice, it does not solve the problem, because it does not very much relieve the commodity situation, as probably two-thirds of the commodities of the country are currently consumed by people with incomes of under £5 a week, while the actual consumption of commodities—those commodities which are involved in this problem—by the wealthy is relatively small, and much smaller than the amount of their residual wealth. From this point of view it is interesting to look at the immediate pre-war percentages of incomes taken as taxation and what is left as spendable income, and to make a comparison with the year 1940–1941 under the existing taxes. This is a result that we get, taking three levels—£250 a year, £2,500 a year and £25,000 a year (all multiples of ten). At the £250 level the total taxation was 8.8 per cent. It left for spending 91.2 per cent. That 8.8 per cent. has now risen to 12.
LORD STRABOLGI: That is direct taxation.
LORD STAMP: No, all classes of taxation put together. I am following the model of the statement of taxation drawn up in the Colwyn Committee Report, which is based strictly on those lines. On the £2,500 level the tax was 22.5 per cent. and has now risen to 31.6 per cent. The spendable income, therefore, was 77.5 per cent. and has fallen to 68.4 per cent. On the £25,000 level the tax was 55.3 per cent. This is not on investment income, but on earned income, and it has risen to 69 per cent. The amount that was left for spending was therefore 44.7 per cent., and it has now fallen to 31 per cent. No local rates, of course, are included in this, or any Excess Profits Tax or Death Duties.
640
Taking investment income, including provision for Death Duties, on £250 a year the tax was 11.2 per cent. and has become 14.4 per cent. It left formerly 88.8 per cent. for spending and now leaves 85.6 per cent. On £2,500 the tax was 35½ per cent. and it becomes 46.8 per cent. It left 64.5 per cent. for spending formerly, and now 53.2 per cent. On the £25,000 income—your Lordships will have seen the table in the OFFICIAL REPORT last week—the tax of 86.7 per cent. has become 115.9 per cent. That is to say, what was left was 13.3 per cent., and that has now become minus 15.9 per cent. I am not complaining in any way that this is wrong; I am just asking your Lordships to look at the scope of this matter.
It is true that in regard to the small incomes in the first group that I have been speaking of you must multiply them by a very large figure. It is true the income of the rich is large, but you can only multiply it by a very limited number. I know it is rather confusing to give figures in this way, and it is much easier to make them plain by using a diagrammatic form. I would, therefore, with your Lordships' permission pin these figures up in the Library with some graphic illustrations of them. That will enable your Lordships to discover the scope of the taxable resources of the country. Whatever may be done in the future in regard to those incomes from the point of view of equality of sacrifice, we want to keep emphasizing the fact that we are dealing with quantities, with commodities, and spending power on goods. You can never by financial juggling with prices, or by the most ferocious taxation of high incomes redistribute those commodities in the way you want to do in order to avoid inflation.
My final point is to revert to what I have already said in the middle of my remarks, namely, that this is a problem which should be studied by itself before the question of shipping resources and before the maximum we can buy are brought into the picture. If we start with the maximum that we can possibly get from abroad, and then leave it to find its level afterwards, we may find ourselves impelled to inflation by means which we cannot avoid. But if we budget ourselves upon a clear idea of the total that we ought to spend as civilians—and

641
that, I take it, is the real purpose of this debate—then I think that the shipping problem and the exchange problem can be dealt with more rationally. But the foremost problem is competition between the purchasing Services and civilians for a limited amount of commodities, compelling an unhealthy dislocation of our price system and ultimately the vicious spiral.
5.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, one of the additional advantages of having my noble friend who has just sat down in this House is that we not only receive from the speeches which he gives us economic facts and considerations that we can hardly get from anyone else, but we have the advantage as it were of getting two Government replies in an important debate at this time. I shall only intervene for a very few moments in order to direct attention to a particular aspect of this problem in connection with export trade, but before I do that I should like to make one comment on the very interesting speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. He adumbrated, as indeed did the noble Lord who initiated this debate in one of the best speeches I have heard in this House for a very long time, various ways in which the problem could be dealt with.
The problem is obvious to all of us. The noble Lord, Lord Stamp, said you might possibly deal with it by a very elaborate system of rationing covering almost everything we buy and use. He discarded that—and I think that except in the last resort I should agree with him—as being so cumbrous a method and so complicated a method that it would be almost intolerable to those who have to suffer under it, and almost impossible for those who have to work it. If there is any other way of doing it, I think rationing had better be confined to principal articles, with which it is easy to deal. He at once discarded, as we all do, inflation, and I gather that on the whole, as at present advised, he comes out on the side of a voluntary appeal to everybody to budget not according to his own needs, but in accordance with the national need. That may be the right way, but I am perfectly certain that if that is the way which the Government intend to follow then it cannot be followed by ordinary citizens simply after listening to speeches, even
642
speeches as excellent as the one delivered by my noble friend who has just sat down. There must be precise and definite directions given. It really is no good saying to the workman who takes home £9 or £10 earned by piecework that he must so budget that he does not spend unnecessarily. We want precise directions as to the way in which we should limit our expenditure. If we are told that we must limit it in such a way as not to involve dollar exchange, how is the unfortunate individual to know whether his purchase does, or does not, involve an inroad on the dollar exchange? People must receive most specific advice and direction.
But I am bound to say that even after that direction has been given, I believe that something more will be required. I do not believe that you can stop short of some compulsory method of restricting purchase of what is not necessary. I speak, as anyone of us must, with great diffidence on this matter, because only the Government can have full knowledge, and with that full knowledge the Government mast give a lead, and a definite lead, on whatever line is to be followed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that certain kinds of food are being subsidised, and therefore that an iron ration of food was being kept at a more or less stabilised price. But that is only one side of the picture. It really means that a man does not have to spend so much upon these kinds of food and therefore can buy more of other commodities which are not subsidised. That gave Mr. Keynes an easy one in The Times next morning, and he asked when the second chapter was to be published and whether it was "to be continued in our next." As the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, did not say anything about it, I hope that my noble friend Lord Hankey is going to deal with the other side of the picture.
Subsidising certain articles of food, if it stood alone, might be not only expensive and inadequate, but even actually harmful to the particular purpose in view. The specific point to which I want to direct your Lordships' attention is this. Most of what has been written and said on this subject has been directed to the question of the "spiral," to inflation, leading to an increase of the total war bill, and consequently to an increase in the amount of money which has

643
to be raised for Government expenditure. That of course is a very important side, and perhaps the most important side, of the subject, but it is not the only one. It is now axiomatic—though I am not sure it was to everybody, even to members of the Government at the beginning of the war—that export trade is perhaps the most vital of all munitions because by that export trade you supply the sinews of war. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is now giving admirable support to what is known as the drive for export trade, but export trade is not quite so simple a thing as some people think. It has been said, but said I think with only partial truth, that it is very easy to get export trade to-day—that it is a seller's market, and that all people have to do is to go out and sell, provided they can get material to manufacture into the goods they are going to sell. There are a good many risks which have to be taken. There are political risks, exchange risks and many others.
It is true that elimination of subsidised German competition has eased exporters of some difficulties, and that is an important advantage. It is true also that in some markets and in some commodities where there is a shortage it may be easy to get a remunerative, and perhaps a highly remunerative, price. It is of vital importance that manufacturers should not sell at a lower price than they can reasonably obtain. I say that advisedly, because I know of certain cases where a lack of combination has reduced assets which we might have secured. Export trade of that kind, however, is relatively small in amount. But while I am sure that there may be some commodities and some markets in which it is easy to get export trade at a considerable profit, there are other trades and other markets where export must be done, but where it must still be done at fairly cut prices. The competition from the United States of America in South America, for instance, is certainly not going to diminish in spite of all the great orders that are placed from here. Indeed, on the contrary, that competition is probably going to be more intensive, because—this is so obvious and axiomatic—if a factory has been working at 50 or 60 per cent. of capacity, and then an influx of orders from some
644
belligerent country comes to fill the factory rather fuller and at the same time export business becomes available as well, obviously that factory, enabled to work up to 80 or 90 per cent. of capacity, is going to produce at a cheap and efficient rate. Moreover, shipping through seas where ships are not subject to the risk of enemy attack may make freight rates far less onerous than those which have to be paid on export from this country. At any rate I have said enough—and I am sure everybody engaged in industry today will agree with me in this—to show that there is a wide range where, if the necessary amount of export is to be done, cost price will still remain the most important factor.
That brings me to this: that therefore any rise in costs here is not only going to affect the bill which we shall all have to pay for winning this war—as we are going to win it—but also makes it more difficult to export and to get the sinews of war which we need. There are two ways of meeting that possibility. One, the wise way, is to do everything we can to stabilise costs, to keep them down as far as we can, so that business may be done on a natural and economic basis. The alternative—and it is a terribly slippery slope and nearly as dangerous as inflation—is to begin a process of subsidising export. It may be necessary to do it in some cases, but I am sure my noble friend will agree with me that it is a thing to be done only in the very last resort, if you can possibly avoid it. But of this I am quite sure: that unless we can avoid inflation and stabilise costs a great deal more than I see any prospect of at the present time, then we shall either suffer in our export trade or be driven into subsidising it as the only way of getting it. Not only will that be a most unhappy thing for us to have to do in the war, but we must look beyond. In all these war measures we have to be thinking of the trade which is going to come after the war, when a great deal will have to be done by us in trade organisation. I should feel most unhappy if I thought that we were going into that post-war trade having built up our export trade on an entirely uneconomic basis of subsidies. I am perfectly certain that everybody in industry to-day is only too anxious to be organised, to take any wisely-planned direction, to combine in any way to make what is most needed

645
and to sell it wherever it is most needed. Trade, industry, employers, workmen will respond most readily to that appeal, but they must have a policy to follow.
5.25 p.m.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity of saying a few words on this very important subject, but I feel that most of the things I meant to say have been so much more ably expressed already by noble Lords who have spoken that I shall be very brief. Of course, I feel that there are really two distinct problems here. One is the rise in wages, which seems to be going on all over the country the whole time; that must be taking more commodities and putting up prices. The other thing is that the Government's policy of keeping down prices must lead to still more consumption and in the end, I am afraid, to rising prices and inevitable inflation. Mr. Keynes, whose scheme we are, I suppose, for the most part discussing to-day, has always attracted me as an economist, because he is prepared to scrap all old opinions and start from the very beginning again. His powers of argument and deduction are extraordinary. Nevertheless, I find that I disagree with nearly all his ideas. On most occasions he has a scheme to solve the problems with which we are faced at the moment. He had a scheme for solving unemployment I read it at the time, and there were several statements in it at which I simply squirmed. One, which I read again the other day in his "Theory of Unemployment," was that all the Government had to do was to borrow money and put another hundred thousand men at work and the effect would be that 1,200,000 people would be put at work. It made me gasp, and I did not believe him. Since that day President Roosevelt has spent something between £4,000,000,000 and £6,000,000,000—I do not know the exact figure—and has added £4,000,000,000 to the debt of the United States. I listened to a conversation which came from America by wireless the other night, and we were told that there were still 10,000,000 people unemployed in that country. I do not know how much we have paid people to work on Government account in rearmament, but we still have a lot of unemployment. I feel that that scheme is discredited.
One of the main things that was missed out of the argument for that scheme,
646
and a thing on which I think many noble Lords will agree with me from their personal experience, is this. When I find that Sir John Simon takes another £150 a year away from me, I cannot pay wages. Whether the Government borrow money or take it in taxes, they take real wealth away from one person and use that real wealth to employ another person. It takes real wealth to employ a person: he must have food, clothes and so on. One gain cancels out the other. I think that is one of the reasons why the scheme is discredited. I only say that by the way. On this occasion I read Mr. Keynes's scheme originally—I am afraid I have failed to get a copy of the amended scheme—and I agree with nearly every word of it.
The other point on which I am very keen is a statement which he made very plainly, and I think it is time that everybody grasped it. In waging this war we can only spend current savings. In the last war we had the power of borrowing from the United States. That is lost to us. So we are up against the fact that, if we are going to spend £3,000,000,000, or something of that sort, on this war every year, the money must be obtained out of the current savings of the people. The only other source we have is the gold savings that we can sell in the United States of America. Saving is therefore absolutely necessary, and, if we are going to allow increases of wages, increases of income in every way, those increases must not be spent; they must in some way be treated as deferred income. I do not see that, if this were enforced on the working classes, there would be any real hardship, because, after all, wealth is only deferred income. If a man cannot consume the whole of his income he either lends it to a company and receives a piece of paper promising him a share in the future profits of that company, or he lends it to the Government and receives the promise of a share in the future taxes that will be collected by that Government. All that we are asking is that the working man should be on the same basis. It is in fact what I have always wanted; I want to make the working man a capitalist. The Labour Party always seem to have been shy of that, but I think that it would be an ideal world if everybody was a capitalist. If we are to have this saving, I am really in favour of it being done voluntarily if it can be

647
done in that way. I think that Sir Robert Kindersley and the National Savings Movement have done an immense work, but of course the figures are nothing like big enough.
I do not know how that process is going to be stimulated, but I think that the Labour Party must come in and push it for all they are worth. I should like to refer to a speech which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, made the other day. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition in this House will not think me patronising or presumptuous, but I should like to say that since I have had the honour to be a member of this House and to listen to the debates here, the one tiling which has struck me most is the capacity with which and the whole way in which the business of His Majesty's Opposition is carried on in this House. It must be a very difficult position, I feel, with such a large number always of the opposite opinion, but I want to say that I have never seen any sign of an inferiority complex on the other side of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, made a speech the other day which got me on the raw, because it touched on two of my pet sins. The noble Lord spoke about butter and petrol and—I quote from memory—said that if anyone managed to "wangle" an extra ration of butter or an extra gallon of petrol he deserved to be whipped through the streets at the tail of a cart. One of my vices is that I like butter, and as far as petrol is concerned I happen to live in the country, where an extra gallon is an enormous advantage. If you live in London there is no petrol ration, for you can burn as much petrol as you like by getting on a 'bus or taking a taxi. I recalled, however, the old saying about those who
"Compound for sins they are inclined to, By damning those they have no mind to."
And I looked round to see whether I could find a sin of the noble Lord.
Now there are sins of omission, and what I want to draw attention to is that wages have been rising all over the country. In the month of January—the figures were given the other day—there was an increase of £280,000 in weekly wages among two million men. I cannot see that the leaders of the Labour Party have ever made any protest against that; but, if we are going to allow these increases of wages, in the end it will not
648
benefit the working men, because prices must go up. It seems to me that it is the duty of the Labour Party to help in this matter. It is quite hopeless for a Conservative to suggest that wages must not be put up, but I do appeal to the Labour Party to do all that they possibly can to teach their own people the true facts of the situation.
LORD SNELL: We are always doing that.
5.37 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I am sure that I am expressing the opinion of the House when I congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech. I should like to say that I hope we may often hear him again. I am intervening only for a very few minutes, and I propose to deal only with one matter. I find myself in full agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in his most admirable speech in introducing this subject. I am clear, and I think that we are all quite clear, that if inflation is to be avoided something must be done to cut down the consumption of the civil population. But to every rule there is an exception, and I believe that we shall not succeed in stopping the rise in wages or in cutting down consumption unless we recognise that at the present time there is a considerable section of the community which is suffering from under-consumption. Until in some way that problem is dealt with, you will be faced with it every time you endeavour to call some halt to the rise in consumption. Investigators have told us that something like 10 per cent. of the total population have insufficient consumption, and, if you turn to the child population, according to Mr. Seebohm Rowntree one third of the children of the country have insufficient nourishment during the first five years of their lives. Surveys undertaken in districts such as Merseyside, Bristol and Plymouth all point to the same conclusion, that in families of three children and upwards there is a very large amount of undernourishment, in some cases up to 50 per cent. As long as this continues, whenever you talk about the reduction in consumption generally it will be pointed out that there are these hard cases. Whenever you appeal to noble Lords opposite to do their utmost to point out the dangers of the spiral and of the rise

649
in wages, they will quite naturally point to this considerable section of the community who must have their consumption increased for the sake of their health and their happiness.
This under-consumption, of course, is due to the fact that, roughly speaking, wages are fixed with no kind of reference to the number of children in the family. A wage which is quite sufficient for a man with, say, two children may be hopelessly inadequate for a man with five children. Unless something is done to meet this deficiency, we shall undoubtedly have this vicious spiral. There are, of course, two methods. There is first the method we want to avoid—a general rise in wages all round. If we have a general rise in wages all round, it will not help in the least the poorer members of the community, for prices will inevitably go up and they will be in as bad a position as they were before. I believe the other remedy which has been already touched on by the noble Earl opposite is the right remedy—namely, some policy of family allowances by which a subsidy is given in respect of every additional child in every family where the number of children exceeds two.
I brought this matter before the House some eighteen months ago, and the noble Lord who replied for the Government, very sympathetically, when I asked for a Committee to inquire into the subject of family allowances, told us it was premature at that time. He may have been right, but I wish we had had that Committee. If we had had that Committee, we should have been in a much better position to deal with this matter. I am not now asking for a Committee, because the subject is much too urgent; but I cannot see how you are going to deal with these large numbers of poorer paid heads of large families unless you have some system of family allowances. There is nothing new about it. It is a policy which has been worked with success in Belgium, France, and some other countries. It is a policy which is advocated to-day by men of very different Parties, and I do hope that the Government, in dealing with this most difficult problem which we are now discussing, will see if something cannot be done in the way of giving these allowances to those families where they are most of all needed.
5.44 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the reply we are shortly to hear from the noble Lord, speaking for the Government, is going to be an important one because notice of this debate has been given for five weeks. It was a deliberate and careful consideration on the part of my noble friend who initiated the debate that he would give the Government ample time to reflect on how the amount of instruction which each successive speaker has urged is needed by the country as a whole. I cannot refrain, in passing, from saying, what will be the thought of all your Lordships, that the charm with which Lord Balfour of Burleigh addressed the House was accompanied by a lucidity which merits that the speech in which he raised this difficult subject should enjoy very wide publicity. The answer shortly to be made will doubtless form the grounds for much writing in the Press, which gives guidance to the country as a whole as to how a problem of this character can best be dealt with, and it will require great skill in presentation. The ground has been prepared by the speeches which we have heard recently by different members of the Cabinet, who have urged the need for sacrifice. There should be no doubt about the seriousness of the desire for this instruction. The problem, however, which in the main is one of conservation of our present consumption, resolves itself into one of substitution, and the export trade springs prominently into mind. That is why, when dealing with it, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, speaking with all the authority of a former President of the Board of Trade. He very properly reminded the House that when talking about exports he did not mean that exports were necessarily easy to achieve, and it is to that particular aspect I wish to address myself.
The thought comes to one that if economy is to be achieved in the consumption of manufactured goods, it must involve export. Doubtless the noble Lord, in reply, will elaborate a little the point which Lord Stamp, with his usual clarity and brilliance, dealt with—the proportion of economy contemplated in what may be called raw material consumption as against the consumption of manufactured goods. Is the sacrifice to be on consumption of, say, sugar of which we

651
take something like 2,000,000 tons a year and produce only 600,000 tons? It would look as if a considerable economy of shipping could be achieved. On the other hand if the economy is to be, in the main, in manufactured goods, which involve bringing into this country raw materials, there must be a distinction between consumer goods and capital goods. I make that point because from the most recent speeches of the Prime Minister and the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade the deduction clearly to be made was that the main achievement envisaged in the expansion of exports is an increase in consumer goods as against durable goods. If in consumer goods, then the price at which we can sell them is an essential consideration to ensure worldwide distribution. We have before us the speeches of the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade who has so strongly emphasized the Government's determination to achieve this distribution. I should like, in passing, as an industrialist, to say how glad I am to see the decision taken by the new President of the Board of Trade to establish this Export Council, composed of men who can be counted to achieve, if it can be achieved, what is aimed at, and at the same time I would felicitate them on the enegy with which they have already approached the job. But, as Lord Swinton warned us, at the level of prices, can the distribution be achieved in sufficient volume? The alternative naturally remains that if it is not to be domestic consumption, and export cannot be achieved, there must result unemployment. Already there are signs of under-employment in many plants, and that will only be increased.
An additional point upon which I hope the noble Lord will be able, perhaps, to give us some guidance in dealing with export in substitution for domestic consumption is this: Is the manufacturer, faced with a requirement to find a market overseas for his production, going to be prepared to sell in many markets where the war hazard is so great? Obviously some indication of Government policy is required, as to whether they will assume the credit hazard which must come into the considerations of the manufacturer who seeks to find markets overseas for his exports. Along the same lines of assisting export, I hope the noble
652
Lord will remember that communications are of vital importance in assisting the export trade; and I hope he may give thought to, and find justification for, urging in the correct quarters that something be done to speed up the communications with the United States and Canada—indeed with the whole of the American continent. The delay which exists, with the tying up of the American Clipper from Lisbon to this country, is a serious inconvenience to traders as a whole, and a severe handicap to the export trade. It is within your Lordships' knowledge that a plane leaves daily from Lisbon for Berlin, and Berlin is in infinitely closer contact with the United States than we are.
A further point is this. If economy in domestic consumption is to take place I hope the noble Lord will give us some indication of what sort of instruction he has been given by the Cabinet to achieve some review of the scale of indent or provision by the Service Departments on the class of commodities which fall within the head of consumer goods, and how authority can be imposed to modify the very proper and natural caution on their part to avoid any risk of under-budgeting. A Cabinet instruction alone can do that. I will give one simple illustration. Take cotton webbing, which involves the importation of cotton yarn to manufacture it here. It is known that the strength of that webbing is sufficient to carry the loom that weaves it, and not only the water bottles that it is designed to carry. The economy of cotton yarn, the economy of shipping and the economy of exchange on that one simple problem would be appreciable on the scale on which cotton webbing is being used. In conclusion, I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, for the graphic way in which he illustrated the problem; and as he has come down to the House armed with charts I hope we may find a means of easily understanding the difficult problems he deals with.
5.55 p.m.
LORD GLENTANAR: My Lords, there is little I can add to the succession of very able speeches that we have listened to this evening, but I should like to support the noble Lord who initiated this debate. Many of your Lordships are aware that leading industrialists in

653
this country have been consulting on these vital matters, for some time, and I think it is not going too far to say that they feel that the time is ripe for the Government to put a comprehensive scheme into action. The question as to how much should be left to what I think the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, called intellectual conviction or to statutory compulsion is a very difficult matter, but I should like to support the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Swinton, when he said that statutory compulsion in some measure was necessary. I would not suggest that the greatest measure of intellectual conviction should not be brought about both in the minds of the general public and of the leaders of industry, who perhaps will have in a great measure to carry out part of the scheme. Two different kinds of education or instruction, will be necessary, and I hope that the noble Lord who will be replying for the Government will be able to assure us that the Government are considering—I do not like to use the word "propaganda," because it has been so much misused—but the education of all sections of the public in the vital importance of these matters. It is not only a question of compulsion, but of keeping a level between those who may have more intellectual conviction than others. It is not fair to ask any one body or any one individual to give a lead as to the amount or as to the way in which the Government's wish is to be interpreted. I suggest that the first thing is to produce the willing co-operator and then, by means of compulsion in one way or another, to tell him exactly how far he is expected to go. The time is come, my Lords.
I feel there is only one further thing I should like to say, and that is to associate myself with those noble Lords who have stressed the vital need that in any measures that are taken the poorest sections of the community should not have any hardship inflicted upon them. The under-feeding of the youth of this country is a shame, and it has lasted too long. We should have put this right long ago, but now is the time, and I hope it will not be overlooked. I hope we are going to get from the noble Lord on behalf of the Government an assurance that this matter is well under way, as I am sure it is, and that we shall very shortly see the scheme in operation.
5.59 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I will delay your Lordships for only two minutes, merely to re-emphasize what was said in the quite excellent speech of the noble Lord who sits behind me. I feel that this argument has not been met or fully considered in this debate. It is that the poor cannot afford to make any reductions in their consumption, and when 25 per cent. of the children in the poorest families are ill-nourished it is quite impossible for us to command any reduction of their consumption. We remember that if they did make such a reduction it would have certain definite results. First of all, it would be taken out of what remains of the vitality of their children. Secondly, it would in consequence reduce the nation's strength in its reserve of man-power. Thirdly, it would do the traders themselves no good. If one hundred people did without one hundred suits in a year or one hundred pairs of boots, so many tailors and so many bootmakers would suffer to some extent in that way.
Nevertheless we agree that at all costs inflation must be avoided. We think too that the situation might be faced in other ways. We might arrange to produce more goods than we are producing. We might set about very earnestly growing far more food on available lands, and we might try to export more and more goods. The argument this afternoon has taken no account at all of the fact that there is a great reserve of wealth-producing power that is not at present being used, that there are nearly a million and a half of unemployed men, and it really does not impress us to ask us to support any restriction of consumption for the poorer parts of the nation whilst the things that I have mentioned are permitted to go on. Of course, we must all do what we can to support the national defences at this time, and I personally feel that I am at a great disadvantage. The worst of living a very simple life and avoiding all kinds of luxuries is that when an emergency of this kind comes along one has nothing to do. One cannot enjoy the thrill and consolation of patriotic self-denial. Therefore I am not quite sure that my life has been run on proper lines. But I would like to say just this word in conclusion, that unless some provision is made whereby the poorer classes are not compelled to share in this self-denial then you

655
will have a lowering of the standard of life. Now, we stand unalterably for an increase in the standard of life of the poorer section of the nation, and if it came to that, we would mobilise the whole strength of the working classes in support of that view. I hope the Government will not be tempted too readily to fall into any trap by asking the most poorly paid in the community to make any contribution by a reduction in the standard of living.
6.3 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD HANKEY): My Lords, the motion which the noble Lord has introduced raises a very large and profoundly important issue. It opens up what is really one of the central problems of our economic policy. It has produced, I think your Lordships will agree, a most interesting debate. I think it may be useful to lead up to my reply to the argument he has developed by recalling the recent history of this question, and, more particularly, the precautionary measures which were prepared beforehand bearing on the difficulties which were liable to arise in the early stages of a major war in this connection. The "vicious spiral" mentioned in the Motion is no new issue. We were painfully familiar with it in the last war; when the problem was frequently investigated but never completely solved. By September, 1918, the situation as described in the "Official History" was as follows:
"Prices, in spite of the controls, and the subsidy which kept down artificially the cost of the loaf, were still rising. The Economist and Statist Index Numbers stood in September, 1918, about 140 per cent. higher than at the outbreak of war; the Labour Gazette Index of retail prices showed an advance of 110 per cent., and the rise had been rather sharply graded during the summer months. The Board of Trade 'Cost of Living' Index Number (which included rent) was just double that for July, 1914, and had risen about twenty-five points since January, 1918, mainly as the result of a sharp advance in the cost of fuel and light, and a still greater advance in the price of clothing. Owing to the decrease in cotton imports, and the large proportion of the woollen output devoted to military or export purposes, the cost of clothing was now nearly half as great again as at the beginning of the year, and nearly three times as great as before the war."
"The effect of high prices, however, though they gave rise to much discontent, was mitigated by the advance in wages, and fell mainly on the professional class and people with small fixed incomes."
656
There you see the vicious spiral mentioned in the Motion. The Government is sometimes reproached on the ground that before the present war it had not thought out these problems of price and income levels, profits and wages, purchasing power abroad, exports and so forth, and that at the outset of the war it did not announce a comprehensive economic policy. As a matter of fact, as my noble friend Viscount Swinton would remember, the Committee of Imperial Defence opened up these questions as long ago as 1929, in the course of inquiries into the connected questions of man-power and supply. As a result the subject was examined by the Treasury in the light of experience of the last war. Their investigations led to a number of fresh inquiries on different aspects of the question, with the result that a series of precautionary measures was drawn up which could be put in operation either before a war, or at its outbreak, or subsequently. Why then, it may be asked, was a comprehensive scheme of economic policy not announced on the first day of the war? I submit to your Lordships that this was impossible in the circumstances in which this war began. There were too many uncertain factors in the problem.
We are a peace loving nation. We hoped to avoid war altogether. So the date of war was uncertain. We were almost equally uncertain as to who would be our friends or our foes; with whom we should be able to trade and with whom we should not. There was uncertainty as to the effect on our economic position of I such factors as the possible closing of the Mediterranean for a time, or unrestricted submarine warfare, and other unscrupulous and inhuman breaches of International Law, to which from previous experience we were bound to expect that Germany, if she became our enemy, would resort. There was the same uncertainty as to the effects of unrestricted air warfare which, for similar reasons, we had to expect, to say nothing of the blackout, the evacuation policy and other war conditions.
Again we knew that our defensive preparations, though progressing rapidly, would take some time to complete. It would have been easy to produce a beautiful scheme allowing from the first day adequate labour and raw materials for exports and civilian needs if we could

657
assume that our armaments would be complete, with huge stocks of munitions and reserves. As things were, we had to assume that we should have to give first priority to armaments, both in labour and material. The pre-war investigations showed quite definitely that no precise rule could be laid down in peace as to the moment when each particular step should be taken, whether at the outbreak of war or subsequently. The only thing to be done was to have all these defensive precautions as ready as possible.
The result was that by the time war broke out a number of defensive measures bearing on this problem which we are discussing to-night had been carefully thought out. Some were put in operation before the war, others on the outbreak, others during the early months. I might mention the following: exchange control; control of imports and exports, in particular the curtailment of luxury imports; bulk purchase of certain foodstuffs and other commodities; the establishment of the Ministry of Food, together with preparations for the control of food prices and for rationing; measures for increasing agricultural production; rent control; the control of materials likely to be scarce and the fixing of maximum prices; petrol rationing; the control of shipping and the control of the railways. These were all measures which were the subject of much preparation before the war; not all of them, of course, have worked out absolutely smoothly, and in several cases it has been necessary to modify the plans originally contemplated. But it is not too much to say that the preparatory work which was undertaken before the war has put us in a stronger position than that in which we should have been otherwise for dealing with the many economic problems that war conditions entail, including among them the vicious spiral that we are discussing to-night.
Then there were further measures which, while not prepared for in the same detail, were so to speak in the programme, and which have an important bearing on the problems before us. There was the supplementary War Budget which its author described accurately as a "swingeing Budget"; there was a great intensification of the voluntary savings campaign; a Prices of Goods Act designed to prevent profiteering in articles of general consumption; and there is the policy recently announced by the
658
Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place for checking the rise of food prices by what are in effect Exchequer subsidies on certain important articles of food, costing about £1,000,000 per week, or (say) £50,000,000 a year. There has been a series of measures designed to promote exports, including the schemes which are now in operation in the cotton and woollen trades for inducing producers in these industries to give preference to export and Government orders as compared with home civilian orders, including also the recent establishment of an Export Council by the President of the Board of Trade, the task of which is the organisation in detail of the export drive. I dare say your Lordships will have noticed that the President of the Board of Trade has now suggested in another place that a White Paper would be issued shortly on the plans of the Export Council. The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, in regard to the Export Council will I am quite sure receive consideration by that body in the course of its work.
All the measures already taken and still in progress provide, I think, sufficient proof that the Government are not drifting, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, fears. It is one of the main objects of several of the measures I have mentioned to help to avert the development of a "vicious spiral" by checking the rise of prices, particularly of commodities like essential foodstuffs which play a major part in the cost of living. I am quite aware that it can be argued that measures of this type, while invaluable for the purpose of delaying the approach of inflation, are not enough; that, indeed, some of them may even aggravate the problem unless they are accompanied by other measures designed to restrict civilian consumption.
That brings me to the argument that has been developed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, with which I will now attempt to deal. The gravamen of the noble Lord's argument is that our consumption is probably proceeding at a rate which is in excess of our production, and that we are eating into our stocks in consequence. He calls accordingly, in the terms of his Motion, for a drastic curtailment of the consumption of goods by the civilian public, and he argues that for this purpose some drastic financial scheme is necessary, such as the ingenious plan for

659
compulsory saving or deferred pay put forward by Mr. Keynes. Of Mr. Keynes's scheme, of which the noble Lord gave a summary and which I have myself read in its latest form from cover to cover, I will only say in reply to the specific question put by the noble Lord that it is being carefully studied and that it has not been rejected. Schemes of that character, however, take one into the region of financial policy. They are obviously very closely connected with the Budget, even though they do not actually encroach upon that ground. The noble Lord will appreciate, therefore, that it is impossible for me to enter into a discussion of the merits of general financial projects such as he has referred to, or to offer any opinion upon them. I would, however, like to make one or two general propositions.
LORD STRABOLGI: Do I understand the noble Lord to say that he is precluded from discussing financial questions in your Lordships' House?
LORD HANKEY: The Budget.
LORD STRABOLGI: We always discuss the Budget.
LORD HANKEY: Well, I am not prepared to discuss the Budget at the present time.
LORD STRABOLGI: I gather that the noble Lord does not mean to argue that it would be out of order to discuss financial questions. If he does that I must on behalf of my noble friend enter a caveat.
LORD HANKEY: I am going shortly to mention some financial aspects of the question. First I will make some general observations, and I should like to mention one typical characteristic of the British Government which has served us well throughout our history; that is, an unwillingness to enact legislation unless we are satisfied that the administrative problems involved can be successfully met. The machinery is of great importance when increasing taxation, and there is a risk of a fiasco if the burden placed on the people who will have to administer the scheme is more than they can successfully carry. The scheme must be examined from that point of view. Next I would observe that in examining any scheme for preventing inflation—the evils of which are fully recognized by the
660
Government—the Government have to assure themselves not only as to its mechanical and practical efficiency but also as to whether it can be fitted into our democratic system of government. A plan that may be admirably adapted to a totalitarian country, where the people have no voice in the Government and have to put up with what their rulers decree, may be wholly inapplicable to a country governed like our own by a Parliament free to express its views without restriction. My point is that a totalitarian Government turns instinctively to compulsion, whereas a free Government, before adopting measures of compulsory saving and so forth, will always need to be fully assured that voluntary effort cannot produce the same result. Of course, we all desire the best scheme that can be evolved, and we have shown again and again in our history what we will submit to in times of war, but our people have, rightly, a very sharp eye for the preservation of those liberties which are the basis of our war aims, and the fact that such schemes must be submitted to the test of a discriminating criticism by both Houses of Parliament compels the Government to exercise the utmost vigilance with regard to them.
Next, I agree with the noble Lord that the question has a very important financial aspect. It is true, of course, that the war expenditure of the Government is only partly defrayed by taxation, and that it serves accordingly to increase the total amount of purchasing power at the public disposal. That, of course, results from the huge orders placed by the Government for the purposes of the war, which put a great deal of money into the pockets of the wage-earners and others. As, obviously, this money cannot all be taken away from them by taxation, they have more money to spend. It is further true that, if the public were to attempt to employ the whole of that increased purchasing power in ordinary expenditure, inasmuch as our war production encroaches on and diminishes the quantity of goods available for consumption, the result would be a general excess of demand over supply, which would act as a powerful force tending to create shortages and to raise prices With all that I agree, and the general financial aspect of the question is therefore, as I have said, important.

661
But my second proposition is that, important as this aspect is, it is by no means the only one, and I am not sure that a false perspective of the problem that actually confronts us may not be conveyed by a purely financial approach, which deals in what I may call "global" figures, or estimates of Government expenditure and revenue, savings, production and the like. Certainly what most forces itself on the attention of the Government, as we deal with the economic problems that arise from day to day, is the great diversity of conditions in different sections of the economic field. The Government's war demands are concentrated in a high degree on certain branches of industry, such as engineering, shipbuilding and the woollen industry; they fall comparatively lightly upon others. That necessarily means that the supplies of some materials that remain available for civilian consumption after the Government's war demands have been met represent a far smaller proportion of the normal civilian demand than do the supplies of other materials. Again, it is far more difficult to maintain the supplies of some materials which are imported from sources where shipping presents especial difficulties than it is to maintain supplies of other materials. For that reason also the proportion which the supplies available for civilian consumption under war conditions bears to our normal peace-time consumption varies greatly from one commodity to another.
This bears on some of the specific questions which have been asked by the noble Lord. Take the question of how far our consumption is outrunning our production, and how far we are eating into stocks. That is a most vital question. In the case of some important commodities it is a serious practical question with which we are constantly preoccupied; but I find it very difficult to answer the question when formulated in general global terms. Such general data as are available, though far from conclusive, are more reassuring than might be supposed. Lord Stamp has already touched on this subject. The indices of the volume of retail sales published by the Bank of England suggest that a considerable measure of economy has been exercised by the civilian public in their personal expenditure in recent months. In the early weeks of the war there does appear to have been an increase in the amount of buying from shops; but
662
since then there has been a marked reduction. Taking articles other than food, the Bank of England indices show a reduction of 4 per cent. in the value of the goods purchased in November last as compared with November of the preceding year, and a reduction of over 5 per cent. for December as compared with the preceding December. That, I would emphasize, is in terms of money values. When allowance is made for the rise of prices, the effective reduction in the volume of sales of non-food articles was not 4 per cent., but nearly 14 per cent. for November, and not 5 per cent., but nearly 15 per cent. for December. The volume of food purchases also seems to have declined slightly by comparison with the preceding year.
I do not want to base too much on these figures. The Bank of England indices are based on returns from certain shops only, which include principally department stores, co-operative societies and multiple organisations, and they are not necessarily representative of retail trade as a whole. Moreover, we must remember that the wants of large numbers of men who are now serving with the armed forces are no longer supplied through shops. But when due allowance has been made for these considerations, it remains probable that there has been an appreciable reduction in the general volume of purchases made by the civilian public. The Bank of England retail figures also cover the stocks held by the retailers who make returns, and these figures, so far as they go, are encouraging. According to them the stocks held by shops in December were somewhat higher in volume—that is, after allowance has been made for the rise in prices—than they were in December of the previous year.
Turning now to another side of the picture—namely, the saving—we have the encouraging fact, announced by the Prime Minister last Saturday, that the sums lent to the Government in the forms of National Defence Bonds and National Saving Certificates have amounted to over £90,000,000 in the first thirteen weeks of the National Savings Campaign. It is possible, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, suggests, that some part of these sums might represent a diversion of savings from other channels. But the rapid growth in the number of savings groups throughout the country suggests

663
that the scale on which new savings are being made is very considerable. I was very glad to hear the tributes paid to the great work of Sir Robert Kindersley in the National Savings Campaign by the noble Lord, Lord Milford, and I wish to take the opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord—I am not quite sure whether he is in the House—on the very interesting contribution, his first contribution to our debates, which he made to-day.
Now, the facts to which I have just referred are not mentioned by me in order to encourage a spirit of complacency; far from it. Rather do I suggest that the problem that confronts us is not to be regarded simply as one of securing a sufficient reduction of purchasing power by taxation or saving or—what is the same thing from another angle—of securing a sufficient reduction of civilian consumption, regardless of the forms which that reduction takes. There are some important commodities in regard to which the maintenance of adequate stocks and the securing of a proper balance between consumption and the flow of supplies represent problems of very great difficulty and of great urgency. Such problems, however, cannot be solved by a general financial panacea. When you have the great differences to which I have already referred between one commodity and another in the proportion of the normal supplies which can be made available under war conditions for civilian consumption, prescriptions for preventing an excess of purchasing power will not really take you very far. If you were to confine yourselves to measures of that type, the most that you could hope to do would be to balance shortages for some commodities by corresponding surpluses in the supply of others, but you would still have shortages of some important commodities. That is why I deprecated a purely financial approach to the question.
The noble Lord Lord Balfour of Burleigh gave your Lordships a calculation of Government expenditure, estimated yield of taxes, available assets in the form of capital resources and so forth, from which he calculated that there remained in round figures about £1,000,000,000 to be found by genuine savings; that is to say, by an actual curtailment of consumption. He asked whether it was enough to rely on voluntary savings to achieve
664
the necessary contraction in civilian consumption. I am not in a position here and now to confirm or to reject the figure of £1,000,000,000; it might be more or it might be less, I do not know; but, as to the answer, I have already pointed out that savings are only one of the several planks in the Government's programme, of which I gave a list in the early part of my remarks. There are in addition rationing, taxation, export and import licences and Prices of Goods Acts. As regards the most important of these, taxation, it is of course not possible to anticipate the Chancellor of the Exchequer's next Budget.
I hope that nothing that I have said will lead anyone to suppose that I wish to minimise the extent of the sacrifices which will have to be borne by the whole of the civilian population if we are to make an adequate effort in this war. The development of our war effort is moving forward steadily, and, as it gathers momentum, the greater must be the extent to which civilian consumption in different directions must be curtailed. This curtailment is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, suggested, in order to keep in check the vicious spiral. It is also important for other reasons, and notably in order to permit the maintenance of a large export trade, to provide the means of purchasing necessary war materials from abroad. In order to prevent the pressure of the home market from encroaching on our capacity to export, steps have been taken, as I mentioned earlier, in the cotton and woollen industries to require manufacturers to give preference to production for export over production for the home market. More generally, in the allocation of scarce materials which are subject to control, we are endeavouring to secure that adequate provision is made for export purposes. These steps will, of course, serve to reduce the supplies available for the public at home; and a readiness on the part of the public to cut down their expenditure on articles of clothing and on other things will be of great assistance in helping to avoid a condition of real scarcity.
That brings me to the very difficult question which was asked by my noble friend Lord Swinton and other speakers, as to what articles we should buy and what we should not buy. I have been asked whether the Government can give

665
a clear lead as to the particular articles which the public should refrain from buying—whether, for instance, a man should postpone his next purchase of boots or of a new overcoat. It is very difficult to draw up a definite list in a situation which is in a state of constant and rapid flux. I can only suggest one rule which seems to be perfectly safe, and that is that for reasons of shipping and foreign exchange it is obviously upon commodities that are imported from abroad or that are made from imported material that economy is particularly important. I should very much like to be able to say something more definite, but I am afraid that it is really not possible at the present time. I would remark, however, that expenditure on personal services which make no call on imports is in a different category altogether. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me for an assurance that the Government plans for reducing consumption will not hit the poorest section of the wage-earning class. It is because of the Government's realisation of this potential hardship that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought into being the scheme to check a rise in food prices by way of Government subsidy to which I have already alluded; and I might call your Lordships' attention to the fact that about 60 to 70 per cent. of the cost-of-living index figure is made up of the element of food, of which the price is largely controlled by this and other means. The next largest element in the cost-of-living index is rent, and that, of course, is already stabilised under the Rent Restriction Acts.
I am afraid that at this late hour I cannot undertake to deal at any length with the question of family allowances raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. All I can say is that a careful note will be taken of the suggestion by the Government. It will be appreciated, however, that the introduction of such a scheme would be something of a social revolution; it would therefore require thoughtful consideration, and not least, I think, from the trade union point of view. The principle of individual cooperation and sacrifice is so important that I only wish that I could find some new and striking way of driving it home. I think, however, that it may be useful to quote an extract from a personal letter which I received a few days ago from a member of this House whom I am glad
666
to see present to-day, my noble and gallant friend Field-Marshal the Earl of Cavan, which he has given me permission to use:
"You know how much the public like to be 'taken into the confidence of the Government.' May I very shortly suggest a simple method? Get a Government representative to broadcast say once a month on the following lines—
'Yesterday, as you saw in the newspapers, we lost a ship carrying (say) 6,000 tons of meat—this means a week's ration for x people. Will you help to make up for this loss by not ordering any meat for one day? Say next Tuesday. This is not an order, it is in response to your keen desire to help.'"
"I am certain," Lord Cavan continues, "the response would be astounding, and it could be made quite clear by the speaker that these losses meant no real shortage, but that the public could almost transform them into a net gain by willing response." I am not committing myself to the details of that suggestion, but I do submit to your Lordships that it is a fine illustration of the spirit of individual co-operation and sacrifice at which we should aim.
6.40 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, even at this late hour I ask the indulgence of your Lordships' House to make one or two observations on the reply which we have had from the noble Lord. I should like to begin by referring to the matter he last mentioned—namely, the very admirable suggestion made by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, because that, as much as anything that has been said this afternoon, reinforces the point I wanted to make as to the need for precise guidance. That is the whole point of what I am trying to say. That is a very good illustration—give precise guidance of that kind and the response will be forthcoming. I think I can say, without contradiction, that every speaker has supported the demand which I make for a comprehensive scheme to be set out and laid down by the Government, which we have not yet had. I was also interested to note that no speaker came out in violent opposition to the scheme which has been put forward by Mr. Keynes. The noble Lord, at the beginning of his reply, gave us a long catalogue of the measures which the Government have introduced. He referred to such things as exchange control, control of luxury imports, rent control, maximum prices, control of shipping, control of railways,

667
and a host of other things. I hope I shall not be considered disrespectful to the noble Lord, but I was irresistibly reminded of the examinee who said, when he was faced with a difficult question, "At this point it may not be amiss to give a list of the Kings of Israel and Judæa." It seemed to me that that part of the noble Lord's answer had as much to do with the Motion on the Paper as that.
The noble Lord, if I may say so, did just a little—quite unintentionally, I am sure—misrepresent my argument. He said my argument was that we are eating into our stocks, and that therefore I called for a drastic scheme of economy. That was not the point. I tried to explain, by figures, that what we needed was £1,000,000,000 of savings. That was why I wanted a drastic scheme. The question whether we are eating into our stocks was quite incidental. The noble Lord did not give a very definite reply as to whether or not he agreed with my argument as to £1,000,000,000, but at any rate he did not very confidently deny it, and if he does not agree with it he did not give us any reasons to support that view. One question which I asked was, have the Government considered Mr. Keynes's proposal, and I was very glad to get the answer that, at all events, they have not yet rejected it. I am bound to say I do feel slightly disturbed at what I regard—again without disrespect—as the rather complacent attitude of the noble Lord on such questions as the diminution of retail sales. He gave us figures taken from the Bank of England index which were satisfactory as far as they go, but, if I am correctly informed, the Bank of England index of retail sales is based on quite a small sample, and I do not think it is convincing proof that retail sales all over the country correspond to that diminution.
LORD HANKEY: I did point that out, of course. I said you must not build too much on it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Therefore it is no real ground for any complacency. I accept that, and apologise to the noble Lord if I misrepresented him. Finally, the noble Lord said that a free Government, before adopting compulsion, must be sure that voluntary effort could not produce the same result. We have
668
not acted on that principle. We did bring in conscription before the war. We did not wait to see whether voluntary enlistment would bring the armies we wanted.
LORD HANKEY: We brought in conscription because voluntary effort had not produced the men.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not think it can be said voluntary effort had failed. Does the Government say voluntary effort definitely had failed?
LORD HANKEY: It failed to produce the sort of Army we required, yes.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should not have thought voluntary effort had been given much of a trial. I am very glad it was not. I am very glad we did introduce conscription. I think it shows that if the Government see the need, they need not be afraid of introducing compulsion. At this late hour I do not propose to pursue the matter. I thank the noble Lord for the courtesy of his reply. I express myself as completely unsatisfied that the Government have, as yet, found the means of conveying to the country sufficiently precisely the sacrifices which are necessary. I only hope that the report of this debate will help to bring home to the country the fact that we have all of us got to be much poorer as a result of this war, and also that it will do something towards inducing the Government to make up their minds about informing the country, and imposing upon us from above the sacrifices which everybody knows to be necessary. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOME DEFENCE SERVICES.
Message from the Commons for leave for the Lord Portal to attend to be examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee on Home Defence Services, appointed by the Select Committee of that House on National Expenditure: Leave given for his Lordship to attend if he think fit, and his Lordship consenting thereto, a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before seven o'clock.