Sitting of 29 April 1941

PRIVATE BILLS.
STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY
INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that in the case of the following Bill referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely—
Kent Electric Power Bill.
Bill committed.
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills that in the case of the following Bill originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely—
Camborne Water Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Captain McEwen: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of letters and postcards a month which our prisoners of war are allowed to send from Germany; whether he has any information that this quota is sometimes reduced; and whether the same quota is allowed to German prisoners in our hands?
  The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law):German prisoners of war in this country are
  324
  allowed to send two communications a week, either letters or postcards. The number of letters and cards which British prisoners of war in Germany are allowed to send differs from camp to camp, and the practice in particular camps has also varied from time to time. The information available, however, indicates that the average number of communications allowed in prisoner of war camps in Germany is less than the number allowed to German prisoners in this country. Proposals for reciprocal treatment have been forwarded to the German Government through the Protecting Power, and their reply is now awaited.
  Captain McEwen: Can my hon. Friend answer that part of the Question in which I ask whether this quota is sometimes reduced in Germany?
  Mr. Law: I have explained in the original answer that there is in Germany no definite quota, but the practice varies from camp to camp and from time to time.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    DETENTIONS IN BARRACKS.
    Mr. Cecil Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he can give for a date in each three months, and for each year, since March, 1939, the number and location of detention barracks, the number of persons confined therein, distinguishing between conscientious objectors and others; and how many of the former are serving a second or third sentence;
    (2) whether he can state, for a date in each three months since March, 1939, the number of those confined in detention barracks for sentences of 14, 28, 56, 84 days or other periods, distinguishing between conscientious objectors and others?
    Mr. Law: I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving such figures as are available.
    Following is the statement: —

    1. NUMBER OF SOLDIERS CONFINED IN MILITARY PRISONS AND DETENTION
    BARRACKS AT VARIOUS DATES.

    —

    1939.

    1940.

    1941.

    Establishment.

    Date of opening.

    1st March.

    1st June.

    1st Sept.

    1st Dec.

    1st March.

    1st June.

    1st Sept.

    1st Dec.

    1st march.

    Aldershot

    …

    —

    203

    191

    I97

    290

    445(1)

    620(l)†

    515(1)*

    576

    597

    Shepton Mallet

    23/10/39

    —

    —

    —

    145

    363

    315(1)

    345(2)

    347(3)

    252(2)

    Riddrie

    …

    1/3/40

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    334

    444(8)*

    411(5)

    425

    Hull

    …

    24/6/40

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    545

    635(2)*

    660(1)

    Coatdyke

    …

    18/7/40

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    175

    191

    Chorley

    …

    5/9/40

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    514(7)* †

    562

    Carrickfergus

    1/12/40

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    130

    141

    Balgowan

    …

    17/2/41

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    143

    Totals

    203

    191

    197

    435

    808(1)

    1,269(2)

    1,849(11)

    2,788(17)

    2,971(3)

    Notes.—The numbers of conscientious objectors included in the above
    totals are shown in brackets.

    * Includes 1 conscientious objector serving second sentence.

    † Includes 1 conscientious objector serving third sentence.

    OFFICER CADET TRAINING UNITS.
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to include in the training of cadets in officers' cadet training corps courses of instruction as to the avoidance of waste and damage to commandeered property?
    Mr. Law: Instruction is given in this subject to all officer cadet training units.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Captain McEwenasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the number of accidents due to careless driving of motor vehicles or bicycles by the military is increasing, and what steps does he think it necessary to take to reduce it?
    Mr. Law:As has been indicated on previous occasions, my right hon. Friend has been much concerned at the number of accidents in which Army vehicles are involved, and he has been carefully examining all possible means of reducing this number. Strict instructions have been issued enjoining observance of traffic regulations, road signs and speed restrictions imposed by law, and also laying down maximum speed limits for the various classes of Army vehicles in areas where no speed limit is imposed by law. In addition, lectures on this subject are given at training schools and units by officers of the Claims Commission. As regards the enforcement of the instructions, extra patrols have been instituted by the military police, and the civil police are also co-operating by prosecuting any serious cases of bad driving, and by reporting other cases to the military authorities. Each of these cases is carefully reviewed at Command headquarters to ensure that adequate disciplinary action is taken, and further instructions are shortly to be issued on this aspect of the question.
    Captain McEwen: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many parts of the country the complaint is that the civil police seem to be afraid to take action?
    Mr. Law: I think that that is a matter which ought to be taken up with another Department; they certainly have power to take full action.
    Mr. Silverman: Can the hon. Gentle-may say whether, when an Army driver
    328
    is involved in an accident on the road, he is under the same liability as a civilian to report the accident to the police, so that particulars may be taken then and there?
    Mr. Law: I am not absolutely certain whether he is under any liability to report an accident to the police, but he is certainly under the liability to report it to the military authorities. I will look into the point.
    Mr. Silverman: Is it not a fact that when an accident occurs in which casualties happen there is a liability to report to the police?
    Mr. Law: I will have that looked into.
    Sir H. Williams: Can my hon. Friend say what time lapses between a complaint being received and the police being communicated with on the matter?

    DÉBRIS REMOVAL.
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a further statement with regard to the complaints made by the hon. Member for South Croydon, as to the soldiers engaged in clearing a bombed site?
    Mr. Law: The soldiers to whom my hon. Friend refers belonged to a working party of 30 other ranks which had been detailed to assist in rescue and demolition work under the city engineer's department in two roads in the town in question. They were in two parties, each under a non-commissioned officer. No officer was detailed to supervise them because they were working under the direct orders of the city engineer's department, whose representatives were on the spot all day. They were, however, visited by an officer at 3.p.m. and found to be working satisfactorily. They were dismissed by the representatives of the local authorities at about 4 p.m. as their assistance was then no longer required. Both parties then assembled to await transport back to bar racks, and it was during this period that they were seen by my hon. Friend. I may add that the city engineer informed the military authorities the following day that the work carried out by these men was in every way satisfactory and that the troops had co-operated efficiently and keenly.
    Sir H. Williams: Can my hon. Friend explain how it was that a non-commissioned officer at 4 o'clock told me that no officer had been on the site all day long, having regard to my hon. Friend's statement that an officer was there one hour before I came?
    Mr. Law: The explanation probably is that, although the 30 men were divided into two separate units, those units were still further sub-divided and scattered widely about the site, and it is quite possible that the non-commissioned officer missed seeing the officer.
    Sir H. Williams:But the site was less than 100 square yards, and it was impossible that the non-commissioned officer could not see the officer when he arrived; and what explanation can my hon. Friend give of the complete lack of interest of the Brigadier when I reported the matter to him?
    Mr. Law: There was no evidence of a complete lack of interest on the part of the Brigadier, but there was evidence to show that he took up the matter immediately. He might have given the impression to my hon. Friend that he was not interested, but that may have been in the nature of what the psychologists call "defence mechanism," because my hon. Friend sometimes is very violent, even on the telephone.
    Sir H. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that I telephoned to the Brigadier twice and that on both occasions three witnesses heard all that I said and are aware that I was studiously moderate in making my complaint and can confirm it?

    LETTERS TO MEMBERS.
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War when the letter addressed to the hon. Member for South Croydon, which was intercepted by the censorship at Inverness, will be delivered to the hon. Member?
    Mr. Law: The letter to which my hon. Friend refers was returned by the base censor at Inverness to the soldier's unit in view of the fact that its enclosure in a "green envelope" involved a twofold breach of the censorship regulations. In the first place, the soldier had falsely signed a certificate to the effect that the envelope contained nothing but private and family matters; in the second place,
    330
    the letter was enclosed with another letter addressed to a third person, to whom the envelope was addressed. In addition, the letter to the third person mentioned matters of military importance, such as the locality of certain defences. The soldier was accordingly confined to barracks for 10 days for a breach of the censorship regulations. It was made clear to him that his offence lay in a misuse of the "green envelope" and that there was no objection to his writing to a Member of Parliament through the ordinary channels. The commanding officer took the opportunity at the same time to discuss the soldier's grievances with him. As a result of this conversation the soldier expressed himself as satisfied that his complaints were without foundation and stated that he did not want the letters back. They were accordingly destroyed in his presence.
    Sir H. Williams: As a letter, having been entrusted to His Majesty's Post master-General belongs to His Majesty's Postmaster-General until it is delivered to the person to whom it is addressed, can I have an explanation why a letter addressed to me was destroyed without the sanction of the Postmaster-General?
    Mr. Law: I take it that the purpose of the letter to my hon. Friend was to see that certain grievances and complaints were examined. The complaints were, in fact, examined on the spot, which seemed to be the most sensible way of dealing with them, and as the soldier did not want the letter to go forward, and said that he did not, there seemed to be no object in sending it.
    Sir H. Williams: At the moment when the letter was destroyed, it was the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General and should remain his property until delivered to the addressee, and in these circumstances can my hon. Friend say by whose authority this letter was destroyed and is he aware that the letter was written to me in consequence of a letter from Lord Croft which I had sent to the soldier, who was answering Lord Croft's request?
    Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, I am perfectly aware that the letter was in a sense sent at the request of Lord Croft, and, as I have tried to explain to my hon. Friend, if it had not been enclosed illegally in a green envelope, the letter would have been forwarded in the usual way.
    Sir H. Williams: But I want to know why it was destroyed.

    DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is taking any steps to make it known to soldiers that the conditions of allowances for their dependants have been modified and that men making an allotment may have their claim of a dependant investigated again?
    Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. An Army Council Instruction has been issued on this subject, and copies will be made available for detailed reference by the troops.
    Mr. Lawson:Is not this a very important change in the financial allowances to soldiers, and could not other steps be taken to make the matter known more fully so that parents can know that this great change has taken place?
    Mr. Law: I should think that it will get publicity through Question and Answer in this House, but commanding officers have been instructed to explain to the soldier what has taken place.
    Colonel Arthur Evans: Could not this A.C.I, be repeated in all regimental orders?

    OFFICERS' OUTFIT ALLOWANCE.
    II. Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider increasing the outfit allowance to young officers on first appointment, as the £30 now given has been found quite insufficient?
    Mr. Law: The information in my possession does not indicate that, apart from the operation of the Purchase Tax, the present rate of outfit allowance is inadequate. As regards the effect of the Purchase Tax, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to him by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 23rd April.
    Sir A. Knox: Is it not the fact that every unit in the Army is complaining that this outfit allowance is insufficient and that really valuable ranker officers are thus prevented from taking commissions?
    Mr. Law: No, Sir, I do not think there is any evidence to show that ranker officers are prevented from taking commissions by reason of the amount of outfit allowance, which is adequate, if it is carefully used, to provide the necessary outfit.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that many young officers who now find themselves in debt have said definitely that they are in debt as a result of the inadequate allowance provided by the Department; and that, in addition, because of the high prices of Service kit and the operation of the Purchase Tax—and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of this—these officers find themselves in great difficulty, and will he not take some immediate action in the matter?
    Colonel A. Evans: Is it not a fact that when this amount of £30 was arrived at by the War Office it was considered adequate as it was not possible then to bear in mind the subsequent Purchase Tax? If it is not possible for the War Office to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that point of view, will they take over the responsibility of providing officers with an adequate outfit and withdrawing the allowance altogether?
    Captain Strickland: Will my hon. Friend take personal steps to go to one of the military stores and ascertain from them what is the cost of an outfit?
    Mr. Law: I have ascertained what is the cost, and, apart from the Purchase Tax, the amount is adequate.
    Mr. Shinwell: If many officers had declared that the amount is inadequate—and they are in a better position than the hon. Gentleman to judge—why should there be any objection to taking some immediate action? Can we have an answer, as this is a very important question affecting a very large number of men in the country?
    Mr. Law: While it may be true that many officers do complain that the allowance is inadequate, a far larger number have been able to get on with the allowance as it is. The allowance has been carefully calculated, and, apart from the operation of the Purchase Tax, it is adequate to cover the necessities of the officer.
    Sir A. Knox: Is it not a fact that £50 was the allowance in the last war? Why should there be any decrease now?

    EXCAVATION WORK (COST).
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Secretary of State for War the cost per cubic yard for excavating and revetting trenches in

    333
    the areas of which he has been informed on the contract executed for his Department by Messrs. George Wimpey and Company?
    Mr. Law: This information is being obtained from the Command concerned, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as the figures are available.

    WAR COMMENTARIES, CAIRO.
    Sir Hugh O'Neillasked the Secretary of State for War whether the war commentaries, made periodically by an authoritative military spokesman in Cairo, are issued with the sanction and authority of the General Officer Commanding Middle East?
    Mr. Law:All statements made by military spokesmen in Cairo are made with the authority of the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East.
    Sir H. O'Neill: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that these communiqués always give a true report of the facts as they relate to the situation at the time, in view of the; fact that, with regard to Benghazi, it was stated that it was of no importance whatever and that the loss of Cyrenaica would be a matter of no consequence?
    Mr. Law: That seems to be another question, but in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has stated that we can have a Debate on the whole situation at the appropriate time, I think we had better leave it till then and not have it now.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the War Office take this matter seriously, as these statements are carrying less and less authority, not among the critics of the Government, but among the mass of the people who are prepared to give every help to the Government?
    Mr. Law: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this matter is being taken very seriously.

    HOME GUARD.
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider mobilising the Home Guard for two weeks' continuous training in their own districts, all ranks living at home as usual, parading at 8 a.m. daily, or earlier, with rations, suitable pay and allowances being made,
    334
    and exemptions from duty restricted to men engaged on urgent national work?
    Mr. Law: No, Sir. The value of the Home Guard lies to a very large extent in the fact that it enables men already engaged in ordinary civil occupations to fit themselves to take an active part in the military defence of this country against invasion. Any departure from this principle of part-time service could only result in serious dislocation of civilian life and consequent interference with the national war effort.
    Mr. Robertson: Is it not a fact that if invasion takes place, serious dislocation will occur, and is my hon. Friend satisfied that 21½ hours' training per week is adequate for any military force; and will he bear in mind the words of the Prime Minister on Sunday night, that General Wavell had only two divisions in Libya and a small force in Greece? If the Home Guard is adequately trained, it can take the place of some of our Regular troops.
    Mr. Law:Even if, as my hon. Friend says, dislocation will take place in any event, I cannot see any advantage in inviting dislocation in advance. The Home Guards even on a part-time basis, has succeeded in the main in reaching an extremely high standard.
    Mr. Garro-Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of Home Guard units do not parade their nominal roll, and will he satisfy himself that some measures are not required to increase the attendance at parades? May I have an answer, because this is a most important point regarding the strength of the Home Guard?
    Mr. Law: The Home Guard, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a voluntary and part-time organisation, and I do not really see that he has any justification at all for his statement.
    Mr. Garro Jones: What I said was that the Home Guard do not parade their full strength for duty, in many cases often for reasons beyond their control. I asked the Minister for an assurance—and the House will observe that he refused to give it to me—that he would satisfy himself on this point and take steps to increase the attendance at parade.
    Mr. Law: To the best of my belief and, I am sure, the belief of the House, the Home Guard has done patriotic service and will continue to do it to the best of its ability.

  DEER FORESTS, SCOTLAND.
  Mr. Leslieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he has any information as to what proportion of the deer in the deer forests have been killed to make way for sheep and cattle;
  (2) to what extent each deer forest is now stocked with cattle and sheep, or cultivated, relative to its capacity, when cleared of deer?
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): From the returns received, it appears that over 22,000 stags and hinds were killed during the winter which has just passed. This is estimated to be about 9,000 more than in a pre-war year, but, as any accurate census of the deer population is impracticable, I am unable to say what proportion it represents. Up-to-date information as to the stocking of deer forests will not be available until the 4th June returns have been examined, and no assessment has been made of the stocks which could be carried if the forests were entirely cleared of deer. Steps have, however, been taken to secure that the grazing capacities of deer forests for cattle and sheep will be utilised this summer to the extent to which suitable stock is available.
  Mr. Leslie: What became of the venison from the 22,000 deer?
  Mr. Westwood: That is an entirely different question.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    Absenteeism.
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will give the figures of the average absenteeism at collieries for the past six months and for the corresponding period before the war?
    The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): It would not be in the public interest to publish the figures.
    Sir A. Knox: Is it not true that voluntary absenteeism has largely increased and
    336
    that if it were done away with, it would mean that an extra 13,000,000 tons of coal could be produced every year?
    Mr. Grenfell: I have previously answered the hon. and gallant Gentleman on that point. I do not believe that complete elimination of voluntary absenteeism would result in the figures which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has quoted from another source.
    Sir A. Knox: Would it not largely increase the output? Is it not madness to call men back from the Colours to the mines while voluntary absenteeism continues?
    Mr. Grenfell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must remember that what he describes as voluntary absenteeism would not be accepted as the standard in the industry itself.
    Mr. T. Smith: Is it not a fact that the man who made the statement that 13,000,000 tons more coal would be produced ought to have known better?

    INSPECTORATE.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary for Mines whether any of the 10 mines inspectors recently appointed have had practical experience at the coal face; and, if so, how many?
    Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir, all of them. Such practical experience and the statutory manager's certificate are indispensable qualifications for such appointments.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EXPORTS.
    Major Sir Edward Cadoganasked the President' of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement as to the raw material and labour available for export industries?
    Mr. Higgsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to make a statement defining the Government's present attitude towards the encouragement, or otherwise, of overseas trade?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): It has to be recognised that few exports do not in some way make a demand on resources such as labour, material, plant, and shipping

    337
    space which are in heavy demand for the war. It is, therefore, necessary, as I have said on several occasions and as the Industrial and Export Council recently repeated in a circular letter to all Export Groups, to apply a selective policy to exports and to encourage those which help the war effort. The tests are (1) whether the exports earn or save exchange needed for the payment of essential imports; (2) whether, in the case of the sterling area or Allied countries, they are essential to the importing country; (3) whether the value of the exported product its high in relation to the imported raw material and (4) whether the article can be manufactured and exported without putting an undue strain on resources needed for other war purposes. Subject to these overriding considerations it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage exports and to maintain trade connections as far as the circumstances permit. I recognise that the booking of export orders is rendered very difficult by the need to apply these various tests, but my Department have given and will continue to give general guidance to the Export Groups to help them in answering inquiries. I am in constant touch with the other Departments concerned on the question of supplies of labour and raw material for manufacture for export.
    Mr. Cary: Have we increased our exports to the United States?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to reply in the affirmative to that Supplementary Question?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I mean that recently we have increased our exports.

    FACTORIES (REQUISITIONING).
    Sir Stanley Reedasked the President of the Board of Trade whether in requisitioning factories for national purposes, special consideration will be shown to firms which, having been bombed out of their premises, have re-established themselves in less vulnerable areas?
    Mr. Lyttelton: In considering what factories in production can best be released for national purposes, regard must be had primarily to the suitability of the labour and premises and to the relative importance of the present output of the factory for the prosecution of the war. The fact
    338
    that bombed-out firms have moved to new premises in less vulnerable areas cannot in itself be regarded as a reason for protecting them against requisitioning, and I propose in the near future to take steps to prevent, except under licence, the acquisition of new premises by private firms.
    Sir S. Reed: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that some of these firms have shown very great courage and very great enterprise in re-establishing themselves, that they have trained and fully equipped local labour, often evacuees in these areas, and that, therefore, it is in the national interest that they should not be disturbed unless it is imperatively necessary to do so in the interests of the prosecution of the war?
    Mr. Lyttelton: That is exactly what I said. Of course, if firms are engaged in work which is necessary for the prosecution of the war, we shall protect them against requisitioning.
    Mr. Neil Maclean: Is not the supplying of the needs of the civilian population of the country, many of whom are engaged in war work, something that ought to be considered, and will the right hon. Gentleman give a definite answer with regard to the stoppage or closing down of firms which have been bombed out and have re-established themselves in other areas?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Supplies for the civilian population are, of course, necessary for the prosecution of the war.

    FILM INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Granvilleasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to make a statement on the steps he proposes to take to reorganise the film industry on a sound basis to enable it to play its full part in propaganda and information in support of the war effort?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot at present add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) on 18th March last.
    Mr. Granville: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration that the Nazis consider films to be an important part of propaganda in total war, and is he aware that the industry in this country is anxious and ready to put the British war effort on the screens of the world? Will

    339
    he, as far as his Department is concerned, expedite plans to make this possible?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the importance of the film industry. I think it will be found possible to maintain British film production at a level sufficient to enable renters and exhibitors to conform in general with the quota requirements, and this would also carry with it the possibility of producing the propaganda films which the hon. Gentleman mentions
    Mr. Granville:Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great Continent of America is ready and anxious to show films of the British war effort, and that under the present organisation it is not possible for the industry to produce them without the help of his Department?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I do not admit that.
    Sir Percy Harris: Is there in the Department anybody who really understands the intricacies and difficulties of this trade to advise my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir.

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make about the application of the policy of concentration of production to the cotton industry?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The shortage of raw cotton and the need to maintain deliveries of raw cotton to certain mills, about 140, heavily engaged on Government work, has made it necessary in the last few weeks to withhold raw cotton from some 60 mills, many of which have now closed down. Mills in the former category have been provisionally classed as "nucleus" mills and will be expected to contribute by a levy, the details of which are under consideration, funds for the care and maintenance of the closed mills. This will be administered by the Cotton Board, which will try in every other way to help closed mills to cope with their problems, including those of maintaining goodwill and trading connections.
    For the remaining mills in the spinning section and for all concerns in the weaving section, except a limited number whose status may have to be determined without delay, concentration by voluntary
    340
    arrangement is still open to firms desiring to take that course. I hope that many of them will do so, for I feel sure that where these voluntary arrangements can be made they greatly simplify such problems as transfer of contracts and maintenance of goodwill which are inevitable under concentration. Firms able to make proposals should discuss them as soon as possible with the Cotton Controller, who will be in a position to ensure through his contacts with the Department concerned that the proposals are following the proper lines. The Cotton Board has issued a statement for the information and guidance of the firms concerned.
    The problem is urgent; uncertainty is bad for the industry and 1 must set a limit to the period within which these voluntary arrangements can be submitted; the limiting dates accordingly have been fixed as 15th May for cotton spinning firms and 27th May for cotton and rayon weaving firms. It is perhaps unnecessary to add that unless voluntary arrangements can be submitted the Government will be driven to decide which mills can remain in operation.
    Mr. Shinwell:If 60 mills are to be closed down, whether as a result of voluntary agreement or compulsion by the Government, are arrangements in hand rapidly to absorb the displaced workers and use them in the war effort?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Shinwell: What are the arrangements? Are the industries prepared, and so on?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The arrangements are under the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. Shinwell: Have they nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Lyttelton: It is my duty to keep closely in touch with the Ministry of Labour and see that all the workers displaced are absorbed as quickly as possible in munitions work.
    Mr. Silverman: If it is not known which mills are to be closed down, or when, how can it be possible that arrangements are now in hand to absorb the labour?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The reason is that the cut in raw materials has necessitated 60 mills being closed down.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Will my right hon. Friend especially emphasise to individual mills how advantageous it will be to them to produce immediately plans among themselves for concentration rather than to wait until they are forced to do so?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. That has already been done.

    HOSIERY INDUSTRY.
    Mr. McKinlayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to regard hosiery firms whose premises have been partially destroyed by enemy action as being telescoped for the purpose of the concentration of industry?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Special consideration is given to such cases by members of the Industrial and Export Committee; the decision must necessarily depend on the merits of each case.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the representative of this industry made a statement in Glasgow last week to the effect that firms damaged by enemy action would automatically be telescoped, and is he further aware that the machinery used in this industry is imported from abroad?
    Mr. Lyttelton: If the hon. Member will give me details of this particular case, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee working for him recognise the importance of maintaining in different parts of the country hosiery manufacturing units to guard against any possibility of lack of supplies through one concentrated unit being destroyed?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir.

    FACTORY AND STORAGE PREMISES.
    Sir Arnold Gridleyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the newly-established Control of Factory and Storage Premises will affect the acquisition of alternative accommodation by private firms?
    Mr. Lyttelton:The increased demands for factory and storage space for war purposes make it necessary to prevent the uncontrolled use of existing accommodation which might be needed for essential purposes. An Order is accordingly being
    342
    made which will in general prohibit the transfer of production or storage to other premises without the prior authority of the Control of Factory and Storage Premises. Pending the coming into operation of the Order, private firms should in the national interest refrain from seeking alternative accommodation outside their own area unless it is required for purposes essential for the prosecution of the war.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    Unrationed Foods.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider the rationing of sweetened milk and other foodstuffs which are in short supply?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): Consideration has already been given to my hon. Friend's suggestion, but the rationing of many foodstuffs, including sweetened condensed milk, is impracticable owing to variations in demand as between individuals, fluctuation in supply, and other factors. Urgent attention is, however, being given to possible schemes for improving the distribution of foods at present in short supply.
    Mr. Cocks: Will the Minister keep in mind the importance of abolishing so far as is possible the queue system which prevails so much among working-class parts of the country, in the Midlands and in the North?
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.

    CHEESE RATION.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider extending the extra cheese ration allotted to underground miners and agricultural workers to quarrymen?
    Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend regrets that he is unable at present to grant the larger cheese ration to any other categories of workers than those already included in the scheme, in the limitations of which he is supported by the representatives of workers' organisations, with whom he is in close touch.
    Mr. Cocks: Will the Minister consider extending the extra cheese ration to quarrymen, who also work in the open air,

    343
    in view of their difficulty in getting home for food?
    Major Lloyd George: I fully appreciate that there are other classes of cases which can be brought under the same heading as those receiving this ration, but our difficulty, as I mentioned last week, is the question of shortage of supplies. As I said in answer to a Question last week, we are keeping the matter constantly under review.
    Mr. Thorne: Is there any truth in the statement made in the Press, that the Ministry anticipate a big increase in the production of cheese?
    Major Lloyd George: We are always hoping for an increase.
    Mr. Mathers: Are we to understand that contrary to the statement made a few days ago, the question of an additional ration of cheese for railwaymen, who have travelling to do and require an additional ration, has been decided?

    FRUIT PRESERVATION.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether further consideration has been given to the organisation of the preservation and distribution of home-grown fruit; and whether he has any further statement to make?
    Major Lloyd George: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any further statement on this matter.
    Mr. Mathers: If I put down this Question in a week's time will the Minister be able to give a reply, and may I in the meantime send him a spontaneous petition from hundreds of housewives in my constituency, who feel the burden imposed by this centralisation method?
    Major Lloyd George: By all me; ns, and if the hon. Gentleman puts a Question down next week, I think I shall be able to give him a reply.

  CIVIL DEFENCE.

    Romford Gas Company.
    Mr. Parkerasked the President of the Board of. Trade whether he will compel the Romford Gas Company to connect its mains with those of the Gas Light and
    344
    Coke Company so as to lessen the chance of a loss of gas supplies from enemy action?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I have no precise information about the interconnection proposed, but as at present advised I do not think that there is a case to justify the exercise of compulsory powers to divert to this purpose the substantial amount of labour and materials that would appear to be involved.
    Mr. Parker: Is it not a fact that it is not in the economic interests of these companies in peace-time to have their mains connected, and that therefore the Government must give a 100 per cent, grant or else make it compulsory that this connection, which would be in the interests of the people in the event of a serious raid, should take place?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I do not admit that it would be desirable or necessary.
    Mr. Maclean: Is it not necessary to telescope these two firms?
    Mr. Thorne:Would not the better solution be for these two companies to amalgamate in the interests of the consumers and themselves?
    Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir, I do not think so.

    ALLIED ALIENS.
    Mr. Leachasked the Minister of Labour whether the National Service provisions apply to allied aliens resident in this country, and who have been enrolled as members of the Civil Defence first-aid party?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): I am not clear what my hon. Friend has in mind. The provisions of the National Service Acts apply only to British subjects.

  BRITISH WAR AND PEACE AIMS.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he will provide facilities for discussing the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton approving the declarations of British war and peace aims, made in March by His Majesty's Ambassador to the United States in New York, since published as a White Paper?
  [That this House wholeheartedly approves the declarations of British war and peace aims made in March by His Majesty's Ambassador to the United Slates of America, in New York, including as they did co-operation between nations for mutual economic welfare, and, if need be, mutual defence; the establishment of an international order, admitting ordered change in the relations between States; a willingness to join hands with any State which genuinely seeks the peace and prosperity of the world by loyally observing its engagements, and by ensuring individual liberty within its borders; the Possibility of utilising the British Commonwealth, by reason of its geographical dispersion as the bridge of greater world unity; the necessity for treating in many respects the world in future as a single whole; the promotion of the common interest in the greatest possible interchange of goods and services; the maintenance after the war of sufficient armed strength to make effective the will of the nations resolved to preserve peace and freedom; a refusal to negotiate for peace with Hitler, and a declaration that we desire neither a vindictive peace nor territorial gains, but are going to see that steps are taken to ensure the world against the repetition of a war at the hands of Germany.]
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir.
  Mr. Mander: In view of the excellent reception with which this admirable declaration has met, will not the Prime Minister be good enough, in due course, to consider, the possibility of going still further?

  WAR CABINET.
  Mr. Granvilleasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the enormous responsibilities involved in decisions on policy in the prosecution of the war, he will consider appointing a small supreme War Cabinet of Ministers without Departmental responsibility and irrespective of party considerations; and whether he will consider inviting statesmen of the calibre of Mr. Menzies to join such a War Cabinet?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Granville: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that it is still possible for busy
  346
  and overworked Ministers to run great Departments of State and attend War Cabinet meetings for the purpose of giving vital decisions on war policy? Further, as the whole British Empire is involved in this war, does he not think the time has come to invite Empire statesmen to join an Empire War Cabinet, or an Imperial War Cabinet similar to that established in the last war?
  The Prime Minister: We had a Debate about this some time ago, when it was very fully discussed and when I gave a very full explanation to the House. I have nothing to add to that.
  Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is the Prime Minister himself alone responsible for strategy to the country and to the House?
  The Prime Minister: In the statement which I made—I think it was 21½ months ago I gave a very full account of how the machinery of government was run.
  Mr. Granville: Is it the intention to call a meeting of the Imperial War Conference?
  The Prime Minister: At the present time there is no such intention.

  WAR PROPAGANDA.
  Mr. Granvilleasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the vital importance of propaganda to the total war effort, he will now consider the creation of an adequate Ministry of Propaganda, presided over by a Minister with a seat in the War Cabinet, instead of merely attending its meetings?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Granville: Is the Prime Minister aware that we were told during a broadcast by the Director-General of the Ministry of Information that the Ministry of Information had no powers to release certain news from Service Departments, and does he not think that this is a matter which should receive the attention of the War Cabinet from time to time?
  Mr. Lawson: Would not the Minister for Propaganda have less time to attend to propaganda if he were a member of the War Cabinet?
  The Prime Minister: The House has several times shown a desire to limit as much as possible the membership of the War Cabinet, But the Minister of Information, by an entirely novel departure which was taken when the present Government was formed, is present at Cabinet meetings in order that he may be fully informed of what is going on, and, as he is present at the Cabinet, he naturally expresses his opinion when he thinks it desirable, or when he is asked for it.
  Mr. Granville: If the Prime Minister is unable to take action with regard to this, will he see that the country gets more news on the war situation?
  The Prime Minister: I hope the country will always get all possible news on the war situation, but I hope, in fact I am sure, the country will not wish to receive news on the war situation which adds to the dangers of our troops, while delicate, dangerous and critical operations are being successfully carried out.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it not much better to wait and trust the Prime Minister?

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD (FOREIGN HOLDINGS).
    Mr. Manderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation making British subjects, resident or domiciled outside British territory, liable to declare all foreign holdings, and giving the Treasury power to request such British subjects to deliver these holdings, and making them liable to Income Tax, as British subjects outside British territory are under no legal liability to contribute financially to the war?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have had this matter under consideration, but the enforcement of United Kingdom legislation upon persons and holdings outside the jurisdiction of British courts would involve considerable difficulties.
    Mr. Mander: In view of the importance of this matter in reference particularly to the United States, will my right hon. Friend be good enough to listen attentively to any representations which may
    348
    be made on the subject during the course of the Finance Bill?
    Sir K. Wood: Certainly, Sir.

    INCOME TAX (FAMILY ALLOWANCE).
    Miss Eleanor Rathboneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can estimate approximately the percent age of the population already covered, if entitled to it, by some form of family allowance in the form of Income Tax rebates for dependent children or allowances directly paid for such children to members of the Armed Forces, civilian widows and orphans, unemployed per sons, destitute persons in receipt of some form of public assistance, and child evacuees, giving, separately, the figures for each of these classes so far as they are available or can be given in the public interest?
    Sir K. Wood: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has in mind persons already in receipt of allowance or persons who might become entitled to them. I am communicating with her, and I will provide such information as I have available.
    Miss Rathbone: Will the Chancellor confirm this general statement? Am I right in believing that the form of allowance notified in the Question already covers the whole population except employed or semi-employed persons earning less than £3 10s. a week, those being the persons who most need assistance for their dependent children?
    Sir K. Wood: I should like to consider that question, and perhaps the hon. Lady will be good enough to put it on the Order Paper.

    PURCHASE TAX.
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will exempt miners' safety gloves from the Purchase Tax, having regard to their value in pre venting accidents to hands, the most numerous of miners' injuries, and to the urgent necessity of increasing the output of coal?
    Sir K. Wood: I could not exempt miners' safety gloves from the tax without at the same time exempting all other kinds of protective gloves used or adapted for use in industry, and the interests of the Revenue prevent me from doing that.
    Mr. Robertson: Is it not a fact that the sale of safety gloves has almost ceased because miners earning an average of 12s. a day cannot afford to buy them? Having regard to the interest of the men in preventing injury, and the still greater interest of the State, should not this tax be now waived?
    Sir K. Wood: I would gladly help in that connection, but I must point out the difficulty which I have stated in my Reply.
    Mr. T. Smith: Would it not be a good thing if the colliery companies themselves provided them?
    Mr. Robertson: Is it not a fact that the companies do supply them?

  GOLD COAST REGIMENT.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether steps are being taken to make the natives in West Africa familiar with the excellent work of the Gold Coast Regiment in East Africa?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): The excellent work of the Gold Coast Regiment in East Africa is being given the widest possible publicity throughout the Gold Coast by means of broadcasting in English and several local languages, by newspapers, by pamphlets issued by the Gold Coast Department of Information, by addresses given by administrative officers, by photographs displayed in the principal centres of population and by a film of Gold Coast troops in action. Similar publicity is being given to the activities of Nigerian troops.

  GOLD PRODUCTION, AFRICA.
  Mr. Manderasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he has taken to prevent the closing down of gold mines in the African Colonies involving the dismissal of staffs, in view of the importance to the national interest of the maximum production of gold?
  Mr. George Hall: I am not aware of any cases in which mines producing gold in the Colonial territories in Africa have closed down or are likely to close down. Gold production in these territories has in fact
  350
  increased substantially since the outbreak of war. If my hon. Friend has any specific case in mind, perhaps he will be so good as to communicate the facts to me.
  Mr. Mander: I shall be glad to do so.
  Mr. A. Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman use all the influence he has to close as many of these mines as possible, as this work is a complete waste of time and energy?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (WAR SITUATION).
Mr. Lees-Smith (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister when a Debate on the war situation will take place?
The Prime Minister: Although a statement on Business will be made at the usual time later in the week, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say now that on the first Sitting Day after this week we propose to make arrangements for a general Debate on the progress of the war, and for that purpose we shall place on the Paper the following Motion:
"That this House approves the policy of His Majesty's Government in sending help to Greece, and declares its confidence that our operations in the Middle East and in all other theatres of war will be pursued by the Government with the utmost vigour."
Mr. Lees-Smith: Can the Debate on that Motion, if the House so desires, be extended over two days?
The Prime Minister: Yes, if the House wishes, it can take place on the first and second days.
Mr. Shinwell: Apart from the Motion which the Government will place on the Paper, and which the House will no doubt accept, will there be an opportunity to discuss the general conduct of the war, questions of economic policy and the like, as well as strategy?
The Prime Minister: The conduct of the war embraces a very wide field, and the Motion is not intended to have any restrictive effect.
Mr. Lawson: Is it the intention of the Government that the whole Debate shall be held in public?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I think so.
Mr. Granville: Will the Foreign Secretary then make a statement on his visit to the Middle East?
The Prime Minister: It is customary, as my hon. Friend may not be aware, to leave to the Government, the arrangement of their own speeches, but it may be found convenient for the Foreign Secretary to take an important part in the Debate.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. Leach: I desire, with your consent, Sir, and the permission of the House, to make a personal explanation. On 3rd April I addressed a Question to the Minister of Agriculture relating to the Astor gardens at Cliveden. That Question was based on certain statements in the Press in an interview with the head gardener of the Cliveden gardens, Mr. Young, who said:
"I have about 15 men working under me. We do not want to grow for the country, but only for the house. We have not changed much. Unless we are made to by law, we want to alter as little here as possible. We are going to grow all the flowers we can."
My Question did not go beyond any statement contained in that interview. Mr. Young undoubtedly made an allegation against the bona fides of the Astor family in the matter of the national interest. I received from the Minister of Agriculture a promise that he would make inquiries into the matter, and he has done so, and I have his reply. He exonerates the Astor family from the charge that was implicit in my Question and certainly makes very untruthful the statement of the head gardener. In these circumstances I have no option but to withdraw the allegation in my Question and apologise to the Astor family for having made it.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Twelfth Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 80].
Thirteenth Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed' [No. 81].

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT, 1934.

  DETERMINATION AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I beg to move,
  "That the Draft Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulation, 1941, dated 8th April, 1941, made by the Minister of Labour and National Service under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on 10th April, be approved"
  We have now arrived at the last stage in carrying out the undertaking given by the Prime Minister on 6th November. The approval by the House of these draft Regulations means that the household means test, as it used to be known, will be swept away and substituted by a test of personal need based on the circumstances in which the applicant is living. Owing to the procedure adopted on the Bill, namely, the submission of the Board's intentions in the form of a White Paper and the full discussions which followed, there is little need for me take the time of the House for very long now. The Explanatory Memoranda which have been presented set out clearly the interpretation which will be placed on these regulations, so in the handling of this problem we have taken every precaution we could in order that hon. Members may clearly understand our intentions and the administrative attitude which will be adopted towards these changes. There are two sets of Regulations. The first relates to unemployment assistance, made by the Minister of Labour and National Service, and the second to supplementary pensions made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland jointly, it will be convenient if both sets of Regulations are discussed together. They are so alike in their application and so bound up with each other that we hope that the whole range will be taken into consideration in order to avoid a separate discussion.
  The first important Regulation substitutes, in the case of householder applicants, the fixed contribution from non-dependent members in place of the old rule of aggregating the resources. There was great difficulty in finding a method to assess personal needs as against the old household means test, and I am glad that
  368
  this method has been adopted because this part of the Regulations at least removes what was a great grievance because of the difference in treatment of the family remaining at home and the son and daughter who left home. By placing them on exactly the same basis the old grievance of breaking up the home in order to get assistance or proper treatment will be removed. It will be noted that the maximum that can be deducted or taken into account on a wage of 553. is 7s.; it is 5s. where the wages are between 30s. and 55s., and 2s. 6d. if between 20s. and 30s. The Explanatory Memorandum in Clauses 7 and 8 sets out the position clearly and I need not elaborate them. One of the greatest values of this new arrangement is that it minimises investigation and inquiry. Even investigation into wages will not be normally necessary, but I would urge the following point.
  In dealing with this problem we have tried to devise a scheme that will remove the temptation to people to be cunning in order to get assistance. Experience in bringing in the supplementary pensions scheme proves up to the hilt that in 90 per cent, of the cases the returns of the applicants were absolutely honest. That speaks well for the people on this standard of life throughout the country. The desire in the administration of this scheme is to convince people that if they make their returns honestly, they will not be put at a disadvanage. In other words, we do not want to encourage a resort to cunning, by leading people to believe that if they withhold information, they may be better off as a consequence. Therefore, all that the non-dependent wage earner has to do if he comes under the category of contributing 7s. or 5s., is to make an honest declaration, not of what his wages are, but whether his wages are 55s. or over. That is a simple request to make to enable an adjudication to be made of what the applicant is entitled to. We have clearly set out our intentions in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memoranda.
  In the case of non-householder applicants a different system applies. No part of the resources of non-dependent members will be taken into account and the applicants, save in exceptional circumstances, get an addition to the scale rate representing his or her fair share of the rent. This addition will be up to 5s., or 7s. if the applicant has dependants. There is the special case where the applicant has

  369
  no dependants of his own and is living with his father, mother, son or daughter. We have given effect in the Regulations to the pledge that in such a case the income of the householder must exceed £ before the special unemployment assistance rate of 5s. applies or before the pensioner is regarded as not in need of a supplementary pension. We have given effect to the undertaking and the principle of the Bill that if there are dependent children there must be added to the income limit an additional 15s. for each dependant and if more than one applicant an additional 25s. Pensioners will not be regarded as in need of supplementation if they are not required to make any substantial contribution to the cost of board and lodging. Paragraph 17 of the Memorandum on the Supplementary Pensions Regulations sets out how this problem is to be dealt with.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is there any intention of having any grading in relation to the household income? For instance, in one house there may be a son with no dependants other than his wife, earning £6 a week, who has his father, an old age pensioner, living with him; next door is a man in the same circumstances earning £5 15s. In the second case is the old age pensioner to be entitled to the 9s. 6d., or will there be any grading?
  Mr. Bevin: Answers to questions about details will be given in the reply. It is better now to keep to the general outline of the Regulations, and in cases like this to give accurate replies so that no one may be misled. It was explained when the Bill was introduced that the Board will take into account certain border-line points so that: the arbitrary sum of £6 will not determine everything. The circumstances associated with it will be taken into consideration.
  I want now to deal with the question of the standard rent. This change in the rent rule applies in the case of householder applicants where there are non-dependent members. These non-dependent members will in future be excluded from the calculation of the standard rent, because their contribution to the expenses of the household is deemed to include a contribution to the rent. This means that the presence of non-dependent members will in future not affect the amount by which an allowance or pension may need to be adjusted
  370
  to meet the rent actually paid by the householder applicant. When I examined paragraph 18 of the White Paper it seemed to me that it did not quite deal with the problem as fully as it might, and on the problem of standard rent I thought a little further explanation than the White Paper conveys might be well. It will be remembered that under the old rule a non-dependent member of the household was expected to contribute to the household, under the earnings rule and make a contribution to the rent according to the standard of the rent. The way it was calculated was that you took the scale rates applicable to the household, and you took a quarter as representing the standard rent. Thus if a household consisted of a man and wife, two children and a son in employment, and the total under the scale rates was, say 46s., that would give a standard rent of us. 6d., and if the actual rent paid was, say, 14s. then 2s. 6d. would be added to the allowance. Under the new rule provided by the Regulations the standard rent will be one quarter of the scale rates not of every one in the household but only of the applicant, his wife and other dependants. Thus in the case already mentioned the standard rent would be 9s., and if the rent were 14s., 5s. would be added instead of the 2s. 6d.
  The general effect of the change in the rent rule, therefore, is that where there is an earning son in the household the applicant's allowance will be 2s. 6d. more than it would have been if the old rent rule had been retained. This advantage to the applicant is, of course, over and above any advantage he derives from the abolition of the requirement to aggregate the son's resources with his own. It is proposed to ask the Advisory Committees for advice as to the level of rents in their own areas which would be regarded as normal and as such would be met by the Board. I thought the information in the Explanatory Memorandum on how the rent rule was changed was not quite full enough, but that addition will, I think, make it much clearer. In the Regulations we have made provision in connection with war savings, but there are so many financial experts In the House who quite understand the war savings section of the Act that I do not think there is any need for me to elaborate that matter.
  Another point arises in connection with

  371
  the "fall-back," which I think was not discussed in the previous Debate, or, if it was, I do not remember it. When the new scheme came in two courses were open to us. We could make another proviso to deal with the "fall-back," or we could abolish it. After examining the matter we felt that the easiest, best and cleanest way was to abolish it and have no more provisos. At least there will be a saving of paper having regard to the number of regulations and circulars which have been issued in the past. The net result is that those who are already enjoying the 2s. will retain it, and those not in receipt of it will get it. I think that is a cleaner way of dealing with the whole thing and preferable to making any further amendments.
  The Unemployment Assistance Regulations will come into force on June 2, and the Supplementary Pensions Regulations on the appropriate pension pay day in that week, and. I think, having regard to the changes that have to be carried out, that that is as speedily as it can be done. With regard to the procedure to make it known, it is intended that forms of application for supplementary pensions and a leaflet shall be available as soon as the Regulations are made. Steps will be taken through the B.B.C. and the press to direct further attention to these changes and the methods and times of making application. The forms will be available in all post offices. There is one point I should like to emphasise, in order to save, particularly, old age pensioners a lot of difficulty in making application. Existing cases will be reviewed during the period prescribed in the Act, and existing applicants will not need to re-apply. The Board feel that instead of having a re-investigation on a fresh application, with all the multitude of forms that would involve, it will be simpler to proceed on the evidence they have got about the original application and check up.
  Mr. Buchanan: But a person who has already applied and been refused altogether will need to make a new application?
  Mr. Bevin: I understand that in such cases they will have to make fresh application. Another pledge we gave in the Debate was that in the event of the changes that will be made involving a
  372
  reduction—and having examined the position I do not think that will be so in many cases—no reduction will be applied, so that if there are any hard cases they will be protected. A point was put to us as to the possibility of examining the working of these Regulations at an earlier date than usual and the Board have decided to submit an interim report on the working early in 1942. That is the most reasonable time within which it can be done. It will take the matter up to the end of the year. It will be appreciated that it will take some little time before all the cases are reviewed and straightened out and an earlier date would, I think, be ineffective.
  Finally, this subject has been one of very bitter controversy, and I am sure the House will be glad that we have arrived at what we, at least, believe to be the solution of a vexed problem. Somebody said the other day that only thing now left of Queen Elizabeth was one toe sticking out of the ground and that, for the rest, the Poor Law was now buried. In any case this has been, as I say, a long and bitter controversy, and it is gratifying to find that the whole public has now arrived, as I believe they have, at the conclusion that there are two questions affecting two sections of our community which ought no longer to be subjects of bitter political strife. One of these is the care, the training, the education and the development of the young people; the other is the reward of the old people who have done their duty to their country. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the war pensioners."] I quite agree. It applies to the war pensioners too, but at the moment I am confining myself to the two classes I have mentioned.
  I think it is a good thing that we have arrived at the stage of lifting above the realm of party controversy the needs of those sections of our community. Those needs ought not to be subjects of strife. They ought to be subjects of a common endeavour by this House, as the great national housekeeper, to provide a solution of the problem of caring for our people in the proper way. I hope, therefore, that these Regulations will be unanimously adopted to-day and that, as speedily as possible, we shall get on with the administrative side of the work. I think I can say for the Board that they are conscious of the new spirit that has been brought into these Debates and

  373
  that is being shown in the attempts to settle the problem. I can assure the House, as regards the instructions that will be sent out and the administration of these Regulations, that the atmosphere and the attitude which have been manifest in the solution of the controversy in this House, will be continued in the application of the Regulations to those who are affected.
  Mr. James Griffiths: If I may begin on the note on which the Minister concluded, I would say that I, like all my hon. Friends here, have vivid memories of the many heated Debates and bitter controversies which we have had on this subject. Before I came to this House, when the first Regulations were issued, and when the household means test was applied to the unemployed, I took part in a widespread campaign in which was expressed the resentment not only of those generally termed trade unionist and Labour people but, certainly in my own part of the country, of the whole of the people, at the effect of the household means test upon those who had been unfortunate enought to be thrown on the industrial scrap-heap. I welcomed the present Measure, not because it went as far as I hoped or wanted, but because I recognised it as a big step in advance and a big modification of the household means test. When the Measure was introduced it fell to my lot, as President of the South Wales Miners' Federation, as I then was, to collect all available information about the operation of the original household means test and I applied this test to the new proposals. If the unemployed in South Wales in 1935 had been treated in accordance with these Regulations and on these scales, there would scarcely have been a case in South Wales at that time. I, therefore, judged by that simple test— and simple tests are the best—that this was a Measure to be accepted as a step in advance. Speaking not only for myself, but I believe for the whole of my party, I would say that we recognise it as such a. step and we hope that the time will come when even the last remnants of the household means test will have been swept away completely.
  In examining the Regulations, I have sought to find out whether the provisions of the Measure as originally introduced, together with the Amendments made in Committee, and the promises made in
  374
  Committee, are embodied in these Regulations. I have gone through both sets of Regulations carefully and I am bound to say that, as far as I can see, they carry out the provisions of the Act and the pledges given, fully, in the letter and the spirit and that all that was promised is embodied in them. The Minister in his winding-up speech in the Second Reading; Debate used a sentence which I wish to repeat as the text for a few observations upon what I think is the kernel of this matter. When we pass these Regulations, the job will be handed over to be administered outside this House by a body over which we have not as much control as we ought to have. (HON. MEMBERS: "No control."] I would not say we have no control at all. I think that would be carrying it too far. The Minister has to accept responsibility for the Board and we have some measure of control but not enough. What the Minister said in the Second Reading Debate touches the essence of the problem. His words were:
  "You can make your rules as nice as you like, but it is the person who administers them who counts, and the spirit of administration is, after all, the governing factor."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, February 13, 1941; col. 1606, Vol. 368.]
  I agree entirely, and I wish to approach first the problem of the administration of these Regulations. What I say is said not with the intention of reviving the bitter controversy of the past but with a desire to see that controversy buried not only in this House but outside. It is however most unfortunate that these Regulations are to be administered by a body—and speaking for myself I am anxious to help them—which was established in the circumstances in which the Unemployment Assistance Board was established. It is highly important that in the administration of these Regulations, not only shall fair play be done but that the people shall believe that fair play is being done. We have to win a new name and a new place in the estimation of the public for the Unemployment Assistance Board. The Board was created to cut the unemployed. When it was established it had no other purpose. I took the view from the beginning that the creation of the Board was the creation of a new piece of machinery which was entirely unwarranted. Were it not for the fact that provisions in this Measure dealing with old age pensioners and certain matters arising

  375
  out of the war have been brought in, the Assistance Board itself would have found itself unemployed. Originally it was created to deal with that section of the unemployed who had been unemployed so long that they had lost all benefit and if its original work were all that it had to do, it would by now have lost its own benefit rights and would be called upon to adjudicate in its own case. There has grown up in the country an intense dislike of the Assistance Board. In the depressed areas a bitter significance attaches to the phrase "the means test man". If we are to get wise and generous administration one of the things we have to do is to get away from that atmosphere.
  Let me say one thing about the Board, arising out of recent events. The Board is given a very important task in the blitzed towns. I wish to pay my tribute to the way in which that work has been done and to the officers. When I attack the Board I do not attack those poor fellows, as they very often are, who have "to carry out the instructions. I have nothing but praise and commendation in respect of their courage, generosity and kindliness, and I wish the Board in London as well as elsewhere could embody more of that spirit in its own work and could forget the spirit in which it approached its task in 1935. It should adopt a spirit of wise and generous administration, and, if there is a doubt, give the benefit of the doubt. It is better to be generous than to be mean about these.things.
  I share the Minister's hope that inquiries will be cut down as much as possible. I often think that Members of this House completely misunderstand the psychology of working-class people. I shall never forget the wording "not genuinely seeking work" which this House put into one of the Unemployment Acts. That phrase made more liars than has ever been done by legislation before; it was a deliberate incitement to lying. This House did the wrong thing in putting forward words of that kind. Any Regulations which create that kind of cunning are no good and we want to get away from them. We can only do so by introducing an entirely new spirit, and I plead not only with the Minister, but with the Assistance Board, that they will live up to the pledges given by the Minister and by other responsible
  376
  people in this House in connection with this matter.
  Now I would make a few observations upon the Regulations generally and ask a few questions which I hope will receive replies afterwards. I begin with the term "household," which is still in this business. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) explained on the Second Reading that it related to the scales of need which vary with whether a man is a householder or not. I plead for the most generous interpretation of what constitutes a householder. This generosity is particularly desirable because of the exigencies of the war, which are creating all kinds of different households. The Minister of Labour has recently conducted a survey of household expenditure in order to arrive at a new cost-of-living figure. I think the survey shows how wide is the variation in the household circumstances of this country, because the war is driving people to live together as best they may. When a town has been blitzed, families move over a very wide area, perhaps 50 miles, and come to live together. It is therefore essential that there shall be the widest interpretation of the term "household."
  I believe my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) cited in the Second Reading Debate a case in which two different decisions were given as to whether people living in apartments in a certain house were householders. For one purpose it was decided that they were, whilst for old age pensions it was decided that they were not. Let us cut out of the administration of this matter the spirit which asks all kinds of intimate and detailed questions. Let us begin by cutting away some of these definitions of "householder." I hope that, in the instructions that are sent out—we have heard that there are secret instructions—the desire of the Minister, the Government and of this House will be conveyed that there shall be the narrowest possible interpretation of the term.
  Now I come to the question of the wage levels prescribed in the Regulations, and I will ask one or two questions about the two kinds of scale. As far as I can see, the Minister has carried out reasonably the promise he gave as to the scaling below 55, and I think it meets with the approval of the House. I am glad that he has not made a meticulous scale. I

  377
  would ask what is meant by "the normal wage" and how overtime is to be defined? Reading the Regulations, it looks as though they are framed in such a way that ordinary overtime will be excluded. It is essential to get this matter clear. A good deal of overtime might be difficult to ascribe entirely to the war, and 1 would ask whether it is to be excluded or included. I am not proposing to argue the matter just now, but I want to get the point made clear. Several of my hon. Friends have told me their views on the matter, and I believe that some who are interested in the railway industry will give specific examples. I am only pleading that there shall be an explanation whether normal overtime is or is not included in arriving at the figure of £6 and the other figures mentioned.
  The recent Budget has placed upon people who come within the prescribed limits, within the figure of £6, for example, a very big burden. The £6 a week man will, if he is unmarried, have to pay about £42 a year in Income Tax. In arriving at the £6 will the gross wage at the place where he works be considered, or, in discovering whether his earnings are £6 or not, will the tax be deducted?
  Mr. Bevin: Income Tax?
  Mr. Griffiths: Yes. I know that normally that has not been done, but we ought to regard the payment of £42 a year in Income Tax as very heavy. I would press the Minister to consider the point. If a man is receiving £6 a week, he will have only £5 after he has met the tax of £42 a year. Obviously, the man will not wait until he gets the bill for £42, and he will have it deducted from his wages. On the question of rent, I am very glad that the Minister has cleared up a doubtful point. Many hon. Members were under the impression that the rent rule was going to work adversely in some cases to the interests of applicants. The statement made by the Minister and the examples he gave have cleared that matter up very well.
  With regard to savings, I confine myself to asking one or two questions about which people are very vitally concerned. I am very sorry the opportunity has not been taken of changing what I regard as one of the most onerous conditions in the old Regulations, the treatment of workers' savings as capital assets. Frankly, that
  378
  is extortionate. The rule is that the first £25 is excluded, and for each £25 above the first is. per week is deducted. That process is based on the assumption that the worker gets 12 per cent, interest on his savings, but, of course, he gets nothing of the kind. Most of the savings of the workers are tied up in houses, or invested in Post Office Savings Banks or in War Savings Certificates. I wish that the opportunity had been taken of changing the old notional income of is. per week. Think of the position of the poor man who has £50 or £75 savings. He ought to be treated more generously, and the figure of £375 ought to have been made to cover all savings. The fact that it does not is unjust and creates a great deal of resentment, particularly among old people, whose savings, I think, should be excluded from consideration.
  There is another point on which I would like to have an explanation from the Minister, and it is one on which I have had disputes with some of the officers of the Assistance Board. Unfortunately, most of the people with whom I have had dealings in my constituency have had lump sums, not because they had saved them, but because they had been injured at work and their weekly compensation had been commuted to a lump sum. I have always contended that it is absolutely wrong to treat such a lump sum as a capital asset. It is not a capital asset. If I correctly understand the term capital asset, it means money a person has saved and which is available for investment, but a commuted sum for a weekly compensation is not that at all. A man who is receiving compensation because of an injury carries a handicap for life. So far there is no obligation in law—it may come some time—upon the employer to find him a job. There is only compensation for loss of earningsx2014;not even for loss of earning capacity. He receives compensation on the basis that he meets 50 per cent, of the loss of earnings and the employer meets the other 50 per cent. I do not think, therefore, that such capital sums should be treated as assets, but that they ought to be excluded.
  As a matter of fact, there are cases in which a man becomes worse off when he gets a lump sum. When a man receiving 15s. a week compensation applies for unemployment assistance or for an old age pension, half of that sum—7s. 6d.—is dis-

  379
  regarded, and the other 7s. 6d. is taken into account to reduce his allowance after it has been calculated by scale. But suppose that man settled up for £500. In that case the Board applies the same kind of rule of thumb, treating half of it, namely, £250, as a capital asset and applying to that the is. in £25 rule, with the result that the man who only lost 7s. 6d. when he was receiving a weekly payment now loses 8s. when he has taken the lump sum. I would like to make a special plea on behalf of people in such a position.
  During the Committee stage several hon. Members put questions to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on a subject on which I would like a further explanation by the Minister, because this is the last chance to discuss it that we shall have for some time. The question is this: if a man commutes his weekly payment into a lump sum within the dates prescribed in the Actx2014;that is, after 4th August, 1940x2014;and invests the proceeds in War Savings, does he get the advantage of the £375 rule? In other words, is it-new money? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said "Yes." I want to carry that a stage further. There is provision in the Regulation that a man and wife can have £375 each. But it is of some importance to know whether, if a man commutes for a lump-sum settlement of, say, £600, it will be permissible for that man and his wife each to have £300 worth of War Savings Certificates and thus get the benefit of the rule After all, it is not only the man who suffers because he has been injured; the wife also has to carry the burden, and I am not asking much in pleading that it should be construed in this way.
  We accept this Act, and the Regulations which, I think, carry out quite fully the pledges which have been given, as a step in the right direction. In this country we have built up bit by bit, piece by piece, often in unco-ordinated fashion, a system of social services of which I think we have every reason to be proud. To-day at Question-time someone mentioned the Ministry of Information. I wish the world could be made aware of the fact that a democracy, while fighting for its life, can give some of its time, energy and treasure to building up social services. As one who has spent a great deal of time in active
  380
  social service work, I realise that there are grave deficiencies—and one of them lies in the direction of National Health Insurance—and now that we have a Ministry of Reconstruction one of the tasks to be faced when reconstruction begins will be to weave all these bits and pieces of social service—workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, health insurance, old age pensions, etc., —all together into a real security pact. I hope that one day the Government will give a real declaration on this subject, and perhaps, if I may make a suggestion, the Prime Minister, in one of his Sunday night broadcasts, will repeat something the Minister of Labour said, which I know meant so much to the working-class people, that at the end of this war there must be social security. I hope that we shall not only have such a pledge, but that definite steps will be taken now to weld these different pieces of social service together into a comprehensive whole, so that when the workers have slain the dragon of Hitler we shall help them to build up services in this country which will slay the dragon of insecurity as well.
  Mr. Graham White: May I associate myself at once with what the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said about the great importance of making up our minds to reduce to order, at the earliest possible moment, the system of our social insurances and social services, which have grown up not as part of a plan, but in response to a variety of political agitations and of special circumstances atone time and another? It is a remarkable thing that the social services of this country work at all, having regard to the fact there there is no single individual and no body of men charged with the continuous duty of surveying them as a whole or of examining their relationships with one another or with the rest of the social and economic fabric, of the Nation. I shall make a very brief contribution to this debate, the chief reason being the substance of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. It is true that this subject has been the greatest consumer of Parliamentary time and the greatest exacerbater of Parliamentary feeling in my experience, and, with my right hon. Friend, I am glad to recognise that it is now being discussed on a different plane. Another reason why my contribution will be short is that the pro-

  381
  cedure adopted for the Debate on the Bill enabled us to have a very wide discussion on the subject. That procedure represented a tacit admission by the Government of the disability under which the House of Commons labours in discussing this constitutional curiosity, the Unemployment Assistance Board. I hope that so long as that constitutional anomaly exists, the Government will follow the procedure of giving the House the Regulations of the Board in dummy along with the Measure which is to be discussed.
  At the same time, I must emphasise the objection which is held by Members of the House of Commons, including all my hon. Friends here, to Regulations emanating from a Board which is not responsible to Parliament. However, I do not propose to pursue that topic to-day. I have already spoken so much on that subject that I have almost exhausted the right to speak on it even when I am in Order; and I doubt whether I should be in Order in doing so now. But this I might allow myself to say in passing. I am sure that no Minister of the Crown, in the full possession of his faculties, would have invented the Unemployment Assistance Board for the express purpose of administering the payment of supplementary pensions to old age pensioners. If he had done so, the House of Commons would have given him no encouragement, and no support. I very much doubt, in fact, whether any Minister of the Crown or any Government would have set up such a Board for the purpose of administering any of those new special, and very important, war-time duties which have been created. I shall be very much surprised if any Minister will rise in his place and say that for such a purpose he would have invented a Board which is not under the direct control of Parliament. I would like to associate myself with everything that has been said about the way the Assistance Board and its officers are carrying out their urgent duties under very great stress. My hon. Friend has spoken about that from his experience. I would say, speaking of what comes' within my range of observation in my own part of the country, that they are carrying out their duties with energy, tact and sympathy, and with a success which excites the admiration and gratitude of all concerned. But that fact, which my hon. Friend mentioned as
  382
  strengthening the position of the Board, seems to me to point rather in another direction.
  A third point about the Board is that the objects for which it was originally set up no longer exist. The best indication of that is the Regulations which have been introduced to-day. My right hon. Friend spoke with sympathy and warmed my heart when he referred to the necessity for the inquisition being reduced to a minimum. In introducing these Regulations, my right hon. Friend is taking away the Board's work. There is nothing left but the shadow. It will no longer be necessary, for example, for officers of the Board to drive hundreds of miles on motor-cycles, at the risk of their lives and at the expense of the State, into the wildest recesses of Wales or remote recesses of rural England in order to find out whether some individual, living a secluded and sequestered life, has so changed his conduct that he is no longer entitled to an allowance, or whether his circumstances have so changed that his grants should be reduced. I know that I need not argue this matter any further, for the simple reason that no one who considers the matter dispassionately fails to realise that it is only a matter of time before the functions of the Assistance Board are integrated into the social service system of the State, where they will be the direct responsibility of a Minister responsible to Parliament. I shall be very surprised if anyone gets up to contradict the statement I have made.
  I listened with sympathy to all that was said about the contents of these Regulations. They are a great improvement on anything we have had before. They are a substantial simplification of our means test system. I believe I should still be accurate in saying of our means tests that they are seven. It is possible for one household to have no fewer than five of them at the present time. These new Regulations will, at all events, simplify that. I have been thinking of the very large number of applicants for allowances who will receive more generous treatment, of the increased number of allowances which will be granted, and of the large number of old age pensioners whose supplements will be increased. But let us not forget that these Regulations mean nothing to the man who has been working all his life on his own or to

  383
  the man who has been blitzed out of his house and has been working as a self-employer. He has the old test of the Poor Law to deal with. But, as my hon. Friend said, we proceed in this matter by fits and starts. The field is not mapped out in advance so that we can go forward over the whole field at the same time. While we are taking a great step forward for certain classes, others remain outside; and their difficulties and disabilities will to some extent appear to be aggravated.
  There is another matter, which I cannot refrain from mentioning, and that is, that no estimate is made as to the cost of the Regulations to the State, nor is any estimate made of the saving which will be brought about by the operation of this test. It is characteristic of everything which has happened, and of all Regulations connected with the means test, that we have never had a single estimate of the amount of money which it has saved to the State. We have in the Civil Services in this country actuaries of the highest possible qualities and statisticians who can produce statistics about things which would surprise one to a great extent, but we have never, from first to last, had the slightest inkling whether it has been worth while setting up the Unemployment Assistance Board and have a means test at all. Suggestions have been made that the State has been saved very large sums of money, but we do not know what they are, and when the final words come to be said and the epitath of the Assistance Board comes to be written, no one will be able to say what, if anything, it saved the State. But I will let that pass.
  I welcome the Regulations. If they had been the first which had been brought before this House, our industrial history would have been very different in the last few years. I welcome the simplifying of our procedure, because it is another step along that road which we have been travelling since, on the basis of trade-union experience, the first social fabric was laid between 1906 and 1912 in this country. It is the long road upon which we have been travelling, haltingly and slowly, "towards a goal, which, I hope, will mean that eventually we shall have no need for all these meticulous means tests. On the strength of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, 10 per cent, of the population have been driven to cunning—or shall I say dishonesty?—in order to obtain
  384
  greater benefits or allowances. Some of us would not put the figure so high. When we set ourselves to simplifying our social services, we shall advance to a day, when in a democratic State it shall be the right of democracy that a citizen who has done nothing contrary to the proper standards of citizenship and nothing to disqualify himself, shall be able to look forward as a right to a minimum standard of existence.
  Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) has apologised to some extent because he said he had in the past taken part in most of the bitter controversies attached to this subject. I was glad to hear him make such a statement, because I have always taken part in them myself, and I was glad to hear that somebody else had taken his share.
  This subject was a great controversy at a time when the Labour Opposition in this House was a comparatively small one. I do not intend to praise Ministers for what has been done. They receive fairly decent salaries for the job: In fact, I think they are well remunerated, and too much praise does neither them nor anyone else any good. I do not quite take the view of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead concerning the Board. I admit that if there had been no widows or old age pensions, the need for the work of the Board would have long since gone. I do not take the orthodox view of the war as does the House of Commons, but a" "completely opposite view. Apart from that, I fear that, at the close of this war, there will be terrible consequences and that masses of men and women may be again unemployed. As long as we retain the Board, there will be the serious menace that, at any time, just as we may attempt to move Regulations to improve conditions and make things better, the House of Commons, providing that this machinery is at its disposal, can quite easily bring back the old conditions. As a compromise, this is a considerable improvement for the recipients, but, at the same time, I frankly state that, as long as I am in public life, I shall not be satisfied until the Regulation which makes this possible is completely swept away.
  While I genuinely accept this proposal as an improvement, I would appeal to the Minister of Labour for a re-examination of other aspects of the problem. We are discussing the problem of easing the posi-

  385
  tion of persons in receipt of means test benefit of supplementary allowances under the old age pensions scheme. May I appeal to the Minister and to the Minister of Health to re-examine the whole basis upon which this structure is built? You are engaged in improving the position of the man and his family with, say, £6 a week coming in, or with an income of £2 15s. or more. The position of numbers of people has been improved, and I would wish this to continue. But look at the other end of the scale, to the man and woman who have not a penny of reserve, and with the cost of living as it is to-day. Nothing irritates me more than the published figures of the cost of living stating that it has gone up, say, 1.5 per cent. Such a figure leaves me cold, but these poor people know that the cost of living has meant a stiff increase in their household expenses. What is the position of old age pensioners to-day? They live upon an income of about 32s. 6d. a week, and often it is not as high as that. Take the case of two persons of 65 years of age. If they pay a rent of 7s. 6d., that leaves them with 25s., from which ordinary death insurance has to be paid. If there is one thing I have found among the working people, whether in the Welsh Valleys, Glasgow slums or London, it is that they want to assure themselves of a decent burial. Be that good or bad, I take the facts as they are. If is. death insurance is paid, this leaves 24s. on which to maintain body and soul, to buy clothes, pay for repairs and provide tobacco.
  What I would like the Minister to do is to re-examine the basic scales. It may be said that they could live somewhat cheaper if they lived together, but that does not take into account the cut down to £1 each if they are living apart. I hope the Minister will look at the position of a mother and father living together, with, possibly, a son or daughter incapable of work. You have the basic scale of 10s. or 8s., and when we are making an attempt to improve the standard, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again into the question of the family resources of those who may not, through misfortune, be able to work at all. There are, for good or ill, large numbers of people who are still chargeable to the Poor Law authorities. I can never understand our widows' and old age pensions' scheme. We count stamps and this, that and the other, and then we go along to the widow and
  386
  say, "You cannot get a pension because your husband had not enough stamps," as if she had committed a crime. Frequently the man might have done this or that, but the woman has committed no crime. Yet on her shoulders falls the punishment; she receives no pension. Often a man has gone to America to relieve this country of one who is out of work, and he has sent back each week enough money to keep his wife and family. Then, outside insurance, he dies, although the very act that he took was an act to benefit this country. In that case his widow receives nothing. There is a whole range of cases that one could go over every day. These people have only one course open to them, and that is to go on to public assistance.
  I see that in Glasgow the authorities have altered the name from Poor Law and public assistance to what they call the welfare department. I say nothing about this; all I am concerned about is not an alteration in the name, but results. A large number of people are controlled by the local authorities, and I would ask the Minister, the Scottish Under-Secretaries, and the Minister of Health to take steps to see that the local government authorities bring their machinery up to the standard we desire. When we are talking about meanness I find that the worst offender to-day, far from being the Assistance Board, is the War Office. I feel a terribly bitter resentment against the way in which the War Office calculates a soldier's allowance for pension. I received a letter, not a bad letter, from the Board of Admiralty, but if any ordinary person can follow how they cut up the percentages of a man's allowance, he ought not to be among the working class but should occupy an important post in the Government. The way they cut up and make percentages is just too bad for words. May I say to the Lord President of the Council that if there is one thing causing bitter resentment it is this treatment of soldiers for the purposes of dependants' allowances and pension cases?
  I have here a case of a railwayman who earns £2 15s. a week and who had one son on the railway. The son died, and his parents did not receive a penny in pension. During the last war we said that every parent who lost a son lost something, and that the State ought to make recognition of that, however small

  387
  the amount might be. The sum of 4s. 2d. was paid, which was ultimately increased by the Labour Government of 1924 to 5s. a week. That ought to be paid again. I interviewed the parent, and I learned that the railwayman had been told that he should have looked for a better job. It is nonsense to tell a man who has been 30 years on the railway that he should shift at his time of life. You might just as well tell me to shift from the House of Commons. Now that an attempt is being made to humanise the machinery, what steps are being taken to make a new approach with regard to the basic scale on which an old couple is placed? The increase in the cost of living in these cases ought to be taken into account. In Glasgow, a bag of ordinary coal costs 2s. 8d. Deduct from the allowance the rent and the cost of a bag of coal, and what is left? I submit that the basic scale, the question of the Poor Law, and the question of soldiers' allowances ought to be looked into again. I ask the Lord President of the Council, who has influence in these matters, to ask his colleagues to look into these matters again.
  I am glad that the Minister announced the abolition of the fall-back, not so much for its own sake, although in a great many cases it will mean an increase of 2s., but because it was so complicated that few people could understand it. I welcome the change. I ask the Minister also to consider again the question of workmen's compensation where a lump sum is payable. I know that in the case of young women the court does not usually pay the sum to the women, but pays it in weekly instalments which may be increased, if the court thinks fit, on the request of the solicitor or the trade union acting for the women. In the case of older people, however, this practice is not so common. I would like the matter to be looked at not so much from the point of view of £300 or £500 being divided by two, but rather from the point of view of the weekly payments they would have got if a lump sum payment had not been arranged. In that case they would at least have had the advantage resulting from the exemption of the basic limit.
  I regard as the main blemish the provision concerning war savings. Why should a man who saved £375, it may be in much more difficult circumstances,
  388
  before the war not receive the benefit equally? We used to talk about the 1918 Coalition Government rewarding the war profiteers by giving them titles. Now we are going to reward the war savers by giving them an exemption, and not give similar treatment to those who saved previously. Frankly, I believe that after the war, when this provision comes to be worked, it will raise bedlam. Let me give a typical example. A family living in a Glasgow tenement has saved £375 during the war, and next door is a family which has saved £375, not during the war, but before the war. The first family is to have the money increased by 10s., 12s., 15s. or, possibly, £1 a week. The other family will not have this advantage. Who can defend such a provision? Both families have £375 and both families have put the £375 to what they thought was a social use. Yet there is to be this difference of treatment. Nobody in his senses can defend it. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has the platform capacity to dodge most issues, but not even he could get on a platform and dodge this. One of the most difficult things is to get Government Departments, when they are going to do a thing, to do it decently, and get all the credit for doing it. Here they are doing a thing for which they might have got a good deal of credit, but they have attached this miserable blemish to the Regulations. It is the height of nonsense and tomfoolery. Let anybody go to the Board's offices and he will be told that at the end of the war this sort of thing will be impossible to administer properly and decently.
  The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) both dealt with the spirit that animates the Boards. I remember the controversy which there was some years ago as to whether or not public assistance authorities should have certain rights. I remember that the Glasgow Town Council, which had a Labour majority, very much wanted the public assistance authorities to retain certain powers of administration. I took a different view, and felt that it was better that the Unemployment Assistance Board should retain the powers. I say frankly that I have not found the Boards mean and grasping bodies. I have found them capable of adjustment. However, let me say in fairness that in other areas, and in Wales in particular, I have sometimes found a different type of official. When

  389
  my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly and I sat in the small committee on these matters, one of the things we discovered was the difference in the Board's approach in his district and in my district. In my district the Board was tolerant, and in his district it was much more narrow and mean in its approach. In my district I have found the officials not unfair in their everyday administration. For instance, recently I have had many negotiations with them in connection with the tools of trade union members. Unfortunately, many of our Members in London, Swansea, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield have had their tools destroyed. In the case of a patternmaker's tools, for which before the war,£20 was the figure, the Board now put the sum at £35—not an unreasonable settlement. I wish that the same increase could be applied in judging the human standards of those on the 32s. 6d. scale. I wish it could be said that the cost of living has moved up to that extent, and a corresponding increase be made. In the main, I have found the officials of the Board not unreasonable.
  In this matter a great deal depends upon the method of approach. Improvements are now being made in certain aspects. These improvements will not stop my colleagues and me from continuing our efforts. We shall not be content until the unemployed are treated without all this investigation into family resources. We shall carry on until the unemployed are treated better and more decently. One thing I would like to see before long is the total abolition of the Boards and the means test. I say that the community, if it cannot solve the problem of unemployment, should not penalise the unemployed and their families, but should bear the full brunt of the cost of maintaining the unemployed.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I regret very much that I was not in the Chamber when the Minister opened the Debate and explained these Regulations. I may, therefore, be raising some points with which he has already dealt, and I hope the House will excuse me if that is the case. It would be churlish on one's part not to admit that these draft Regulations, which are before the House, will confer substantial advantages on many applicants, both for supplementary pensions and for unemployment assistance. As one who criticised the shortcomings of
  390
  the Act when it was before the House, I feel bound to say that the promises given during the Debate by the Ministers have not only been amply redeemed, but, in general, have exceeded any legitimate expectations. I think that credit is due to them. However, I do not retract some of the criticism in which I indulged on Second Reading, namely, that the Prime Minister's original pledge has not been redeemed either in the Act or in the Regulations which give effect to the Act—in fact, these Regulations perpetuate the grounds of criticism which animated my hon. Friends and myself during the Second Reading Debate.
  I should like to raise a number of technical points in connection with these Regulations. First of all, it must be a matter of regret that this legislation proceeds by cross-reference. It appears, whenever we have to deal with the needs of the poor of this country, that legislation is made as difficult as possible to understand. In this connection these Regulations, which are before the House, have to be considered in relation to the 1941 Act, which amends the 1940 Act and the 1940 Regulations, and the 1940 Act is an amendment and extension of the 1934 Assistance Act. What chance has the poor old age pensioner to establish his rights to a few shillings a week before an unsympathetic tribunal when he has to refer to this mass of cross-references? To use a phrase common in the mining industry, we would say that he would be "blinded by science," and would not get a chance at all. I am hoping that the Ministers will jointly try to issue a handbook putting all these Regulations together, with their legitimate cross-references, in seriated order so that those engaged in trying to obtain what this House intends the old age pensioners should get, and those who appear before the tribunals, have the assistance of some explanatory compendium, setting out all the information they require.
  I assume that it has been stated before that these Regulations, like those before them, still depend almost completely upon interpretation. In that connection, it must be noted that the interpretations placed upon these Regulations are not interpretations stated in this House by a responsible Minister. These interpretations are conveyed in secret instructions to area officers by a body which is outside this House. I think it is iniquitous that

  391
  Members of this House are unable to see these secret instructions for the purpose of the administration of supplementary pensions and unemployment assistance. We have the case of a petty clerk being in a far better position, so far as interpretation is concerned, than a Member of this House. Another complaint in connection with the administration has been due to the fact that the Unemployment or, as it is now, the Assistance Board has been able to interpret these injustices behind the backs of this House. Members do not know what is happening. We are kept in the dark. The instructions are marked "Secret and confidential," and we cannot see them. When we are up against this problem, and we go to see an area officer, we are told, "I have my instructions. I am doing what I am told, and I cannot show you the instructions." We are placed in a very invidious position.
  In this connection it is interesting to remember that the area officers, acting upon the secret interpretations put upon these Regulations by the Assistance Board, have been alleged from time to time in this House to have substantial discretionary powers which they must use to meet unusual cases or special circumstances. We know, however, that the Assistance Board officers in the various areas are haunted by Treasury auditors, who weigh up their payments in the light of secret instructions, and, let the assistance officer or area officer exercise any discretion not justified by the literal wording of these instructions, he gets a red star beside his name, which is always remembered when promotion is considered and when his turn comes along. In my view the intentions of Parliament, and the interpretation of these Regulations, should be stated by the responsible Minister in this House, so that Members should be in at least as privileged a position as the clerks in various area offices. If I may say so, my hon. Friends and I want to use interpretations stated in this House by Ministers as a shield against some of the practices of the Assistance Board in the areas. These are the only interpretations and the only guide which we can use against some of these practices.
  These are all points upon which we should like to have a reply from the Minister. We want his interpretation of certain of these provisions. I am quite
  392
  sure that the question of commuting workmen's compensation has been raised. May I put this point? The workman who has commuted his workmen's compensation can invest one half of that lump sum in War Savings, and that is ignored, and then he can go "on the binge" with the other half, and when he comes back that is ignored.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson):In that case it will not be there.
  Mr. Edwards: Of course it will not be there, and because that man has behaved in such a way as not to put it there, it cannot be taken into account. What this House has to consider is whether or not the workman is to be encouraged to go on the binge, or whether he shall invest the whole of that lump sum in War Savings. So far we have not had a reply to that; we did not have one during the Second Reading Debate. Suppose the Assistance Board say, according to the provisions of the principal Regulation, that half will be taken into account. If a workman decides that he will invest the whole of it in War Savings, half is taken into account, but if he dies and leaves it all to his wife, the whole of it is ignored. So that we shall have a silly anomaly which will not be of encouragement to these men to invest their money in War Savings.
  I want to raise another important point which we shall come up against in administration. That is the question of the treatment of the earnings, or the income, of a son who lives in the household. Take a son who lives with his widowed mother. They are the only occupants. The rent is 8s. a week, the widow is an applicant for supplementary pension, and the son's earnings are 80s. What supplementary pension will the widow get if the household is in her name, and what, if any, will she get if it is in the son's name? I think it will be disclosed, when we have the replies, that our old friend the means test pokes his head up again. If the widow has the house in her name, it is obvious that 7s. of the earnings will be taken into account in assessing her resources, but if it is in the son's name, how are you going to treat those earnings? Then, supposing the son goes on to workmen's compensation and gets 35s., the maximum that he can have as a single

  393
  man, how is that 35s. to be regarded? There is a statutory disregard with regard to workmen's compensation. Is that to be treated as available resources of 355. or 17s. 6d.? If it is to be treated as 35s., 5s. will be disregarded as available resources for the widowed mother. If the statutory disregard applies, nothing will be taken into consideration. This is a point which will apply to all amounts coming under the rule of statutory disregard.
  I come to another point, about which there has been considerable controversy and some heat. The problem is concentrated in paragraph 9, page 5, of the Explanatory Memorandum:
  "Thus, if there are two married couples living in a house the rent of which is 12s. a week and the householder applies for a supplementary pension, the amount of the contribution from the other people will be usually taken as 6s."
  There are the old age pensioners, man and wife, living in the household and their son and daughter-in-law—two couples. If the house is in the son's name and the old people are not the householders, how is it proposed to scale them? Are they to be scaled as joint non-householders at 19s. or as householders at 24s.? If the house is in the pensioners' name, we know that they will be scaled as householders. If they are not to be scaled as householders, we shall have this special situation, that only to old age pensioners will that interpretation apply, because if the son becomes unemployed, whether the house is in his name or not he will be treated and scaled as the householder. That is the invariable practice, and nothing in these new Regulations interferes with it. But it is only with old age pensioners in the past that there has been this rigorous application of a literal interpretation of the Regulations in order to cheat the old people of 5s. a week. The Assistance Board in that paragraph agrees that the rent liability of the old people is 6s. a week. It will be interesting to see if, by their usual subterfuges, the Assistance Board will be able to say that the person paying 6s. a week rent is not the householder. We shall await the Minister's reply with a certain amount of curiosity and apprehension. I appeal to both Ministers to see to it that old age pensioners are not singled out for this injustice which can be perpetrated under
  394
  the Regulation. These are matters of great moment, and the replies of the Ministers will be helpful to us in understanding and assisting our own people to get what the House intends.
  I should like to raise the position which we have in South Wales with regard to many widows who maintain their own domestic entity in either a bed-sitting room or in two rooms under the same roof as relatives; that is to say, that they maintain their own household in a house the main rent of which is paid for by a married relative. This has been the cause of much complaint against the prying Pauls, against the investigations of those who are chasing around to see if the old lady happens to go into her daughter's rooms to have a cup of tea, this demanding of special bills, coal bills, for instance, this presumption that the old people are always liars when they contend that they have a separate household. So long as there is a difference of between 12s. 6d. and 18s. 6d., the scale to the non-householder as against the householder, so long will you have this prying into the private domestic affairs of our old people. In my experience it is this phase of investigation which has caused most sense of grievance in my own area. I suggest to the Minister of Health—and I challenge contradiction on this point—that the Assistance Board have sent out one of their secret instructions informing area officers that, ho matter what the claim of the old age pensioner is, if she is a widow living under the same roof as a relative, they are to presume that she is not a householder and has not a separate household. In other words, the old people, to start off with, arc presumed to be not only poor but liars as well. Such a presumption in instructions is setting a bad tone to unemployment assistance and supplementary pensions.
  I come to the question of rural discrimination. I am amazed that such a discrimination should be preserved in the fourth Regulation. We have heard from the other side of the Table of the revolution that has been achieved in the domain of agriculture and in the conditions of the people who work in the countryside. In spite of the fact that there has been a wonderful increase in their status and wages, the rural discrimination is maintained in the Regulations, which lay down that the farm- labourer shall get 10 per

  395
  cent. less than the urban worker when he gets the supplementary pension. I know that this is a matter on which the advisory committees in the areas make recommendations, but I challenge the Minister to deny that there are committees in rural areas which have insisted that a 10 per cent, cut is necessary in order to establish the necessary discrimination against the rural people. What was the ostensible and original reason for this difference? It was that rent and food were cheaper in the countryside than in the urban areas. The rent factor, however, is already provided for in the new Regulations, and any arguments which may have existed about rent under the old Regulations do not now apply. With regard to the point about food being cheaper in the countryside, in these days, when prices are controlled and food is rationed, there cannot be such a difference in the cost of living of rural people as compared with that of people in the urban areas. I would ask the Minister, therefore, to reconsider this question. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson) has had an extensive experience of this matter in the very agricultural constituency which he represents. He has on previous occasions submitted examples showing how viciously some of the advisory committees have exercised their power in relation to discrimination.
  I appreciate that the points I have raised are points of interpretation. I ask the Minister to give us such replies as will enable us, when we meet our old age pensioners, to tell them that the Board's new methods under the new Regulations will be more just and humane. Like other Members, I welcome these Regulations, but I do so with mixed feelings. I welcome them for the good things that are in them, but I have regrets for some of the things that ought to have been included and which would have made the Regulations a better picture than they are. I thought that the old policy of "too little too late" had departed for ever from our national life. I am sorry that there is still a tinge and a hangover of it in these Regulations. To tinker with the problem of poverty is a poor way of helping the national morale, and it is not setting the example which we should set if we want to win to our cause the hundred million slaves on the Continent to help us in the conflict in which we are engaged.
  Mr. McLean Watson: My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) said that the points he raised were points of interpretation, and it will be interesting to have the Minister of Health's interpretation of them. My hon. Friend will not be surprised at my interpreting one thing in a different way from that in which he interpreted it. He has referred before to the pledge which was given by the Prime Minister, and it seems that different interpretations can be placed on the words c f that pledge. My hon. Friend has raised the same point to-day and has said that the Regulations and the Bill do not carry out the Prime Minister's pledge. On a previous occasion I interpreted the words as I understood them, but my hon. Friend interprets them in a different way because he still maintains that the Regulations and the Bill do not carry them out. When the Prime Minister said that in the case of an applicant, not being a householder, regard will be had to the constitution and the circumstances of the household, it conveyed to my mind that we were not getting completely rid of the means test. I was not surprised, therefore, to find when the Bill was issued that the remnant was still there. It is only a small remnant, as the Minister has shown, but it is still there, and it has been so hedged about that, in my view, it will have very little effect in the operation of supplementary pensions on hundreds of thousands of people who were denied them under the previous Act.
  I listened with great interest to the speech of the Minister of Labour to-day, and I could not help my mind going back to a previous occasion in the House when we were discussing the question of an increase in old age pensions. The chief spokesman for the Government then had in his hand a certain pamphlet to which he drew attention. It had an attractive cover, and the amount that would be required to dress the individuals depicted on the cover was estimated. The pamphlet contained the Labour party's scheme for old age pensions of £1 a week to an individual and 35s. to a married couple. We were told on that occasion that it could not be done, and at that time we were not in sight of the war. I wonder whether the day will come when we shall get a complete balance sheet of what has happened under the supplementary pensions scheme

  397
  which is to be completed by the Regulations which, I hope, we shall approve to-day. I wonder whether we shall ever get a statement showing separately the total amount that has been spent on supplementary pensions and on administrative expenses. I have stated before on public platforms that I am certain that if the Government of the day had accepted the Labour party's pamphlet, which was so despised then, it would have cost less than the scheme that we are approving to-day. It would have got rid of all this means test inquiry. There would have been none of the inquisition, none of the expense caused to the Assistance Board in investigating the circumstances of the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of old age pensioners. However, that has gone.
  We have had from the Minister of Labour a very sympathetic and interesting speech. We thank him for the additional, I will not say concessions, but explanations which he has given about rent and other things. In supporting the plea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in his very able and interesting speech, I want to appeal to the Minister to reconsider the question of the is. for every additional £25. That is one of the biggest blemishes in the present Measure. To say that working-class savings bring in anything like 10 per cent, or 12 per cent, is absolutely ridiculous. In addition to that, there is the important question of workmen's compensation money. If the money received under workmen's compensation can be invested and regarded as War Savings, and so be disregarded in the investigation of the circumstances of the applicant, that will be a very good concession indeed. I hope the Government have not closed their minds entirely to this question of new money. On a previous occasion we had an interesting discussion on the question of new money, and by now the Government ought to have had time to make up their minds whether this money can be regarded as new money.
  I am pleased to see the Minister of Health here, because there is one other matter I want to raise which is not in the Measure. The Measure applies to unemployed, old age pensioners and widows over 60. What about the widows under 60? Is it not time the Government considered what they will do for them? There
  398
  are many widows under 60 who cannot earn wages and cannot engage in our industrial system. Those widows call for our sympathetic consideration. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that what is provided under the Supplementary Pensions Act or under this Act, the sum of 19s. 6d., or 32s. in the case of a married couple, is not enough. The old age pensioners' organisation has said that it is not enough and is demanding £1 a week for each pensioner, with a cost-of-living bonus on top of that.
  But while it is all right to make further claims for old age pensioners, I should like the Minister of Health to give his attention to the position of widows under 60 who will not be in a position to apply for a supplementary pension. I hope that before long the Government will have the position examined and place widows under 60 who are not in a position to earn wages in a different position from that in which they are at present. There are many widows who have nothing to depend on but their 10s. pension. If anything more is given, it is by the good graces of the public assistance committees. I should like to see all pensioners independent of public assistance committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly made a plea for changing the nature of the Assistance Board, for changing the feeling that has always been associated with the Assistance Board. The public assistance authorities have also incurred a considerable amount of public odium. We do not want any of our pensioners to have to go to public assistance authorities, and I hope that before long something will be done to improve the position of widows under 60. Just as I welcomed the Measure on its Second Reading in the House, so I now give a hearty welcome to the Regulations, and I am pleased to know that by the beginning of June there will be a change in the position of hundreds of thousands of old age pensioners and unemployed in this country.
  Mr. Mainwaring: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) wondered when we should be presented with a clear and complete statement of expenditure incurred by the Assistance Board and, separately, with an account of its administrative expenditure. That suggests to my mind another interesting comparison. I should like a

  399
  statement of the comparative expenses of the Ministry of Labour and of the area offices of the Assistance Board in each area, because unless the position in South Wales differs entirely from that in the country in general, I feel it would be safe to prophesy that the expenses of the Assistance Board have greatly exceeded those of the Ministry of Labour in any area. Because of that I wonder what there really is in the promise in the Explanatory Memorandum that the future will witness a considerable decrease in investigations into household circumstances and so forth. I would attach considerably more value to that promise were it not for the activities now being carried on by the Assistance Board. It is an amazing thing that while the Board are promising a widow or a widower, or it may be an old couple, that in four weeks' time their position will be improved they should over this week-end be taking steps to make their position worse. I wonder why this is being done. This is the only piece of administration in which we are being promised a better future. If the old folk were permitted to remain where they are now for the next four or five weeks, I should have more faith in the promise that the Paul-prying would be dropped at the end of that time, but this sort of thing is going on every day. Numberless assistants are being employed to go round the country to find out where they can filch 6d. or is. from the old people.
  Mention has been made of our difficulties. We are presented with Regulations which we are not deemed to be capable of interpreting Indeed, it would be very dangerous for us to interpret them. The right to interpret is a special prerogative and preserve of the Assistance Board, the Ministry of Health, and, I presume, of a section of the War Office. It would be exceedingly dangerous for a Member of Parliament to venture to express an opinion unless he were supplied with the private interpretation and the secret instructions that are sent forth. I have for some time been endeavouring to present to the responsible Department the position of certain unemployed men who, under a special category, appear before an appeal tribunal. The tribunal consists solely of the chairman, who, nine times out of 10, would be regarded as a learned gentleman; but the learned gentleman does not pro-
  400
  ceed in accordance with the ordinary practice of this country touching the interpretation of an Act of Parliament or a Regulation. He proceeds purely upon the private instruction which he gets from the Assistance Board. Anybody might be expected to give a commonsense interpretation of an expression in an Act of Parliament or a Regulation, but none can know what special interpretation, advice and instruction are issued by the Assistance Board. To my knowledge, men who are capable of and anxious to work are deprived of the opportunities of working because of the private instructions sent out to the chairmen of those tribunals. That is another reason why we should be supplied with copies of those instructions.
  We are up against another point. We are discussing three sets of Regulations, one for the unemployed, one for pensions and one for dependants attached to the Armed Forces. I see the need for a co-ordinated system, because one household may be affected by all three Regulations. I came across one case this weekend of a household affected by all three Regulations at once. All sorts of contradictions and anomalies may arise in the application of these Regulations, and we may be faced very soon with a consolidated and co-ordinated system again, which will abolish much of the anomaly and contradiction involved. I ask the Minister to enlighten me upon one point, and that is the category of "dependant" in these Regulations. The Regulations define, somewhat more narrowly than in the past, that persons under 16 and over 65 are dependants. That is to be the normal category. All sorts of things will happen between those two ages. The person who can make a claim in his own right will not be a dependant. In the existing Regulations, as applied, we find that if a son or daughter within a household commences work at any time, for however short a period, and thereafter due to some ailment, fails to work, he or she cannot normally be a dependant. Is that position to continue? Is that to be the interpretation for that son or daughter?
  Again, a son or daughter may have failed to find employment at any time because of some physical or mental distress and have remained as a dependant within the family. Is that son or daughter to be regarded as a dependant or as a person who can make a claim? These

  401
  definitions will affect quite a large number of people. Take the case of a widower who finds it necessary to retain his daughter as housekeeper. It may be that the daughter has never been in employment, while in some cases she has been. What will be her position in regard to the pension? In the case of unemployment assistance, the trouble will not arise. Allowances for this daughter as housekeeper will be provided, but what will be the position of the daughter acting as housekeeper after the widowed father has become a pensioner? I do not think the Minister of Labour is justified in introducing any sneering smiles into this discussion. Many of us can claim to have far wider and longer experience of this matter than he has. We are seeking to understand exactly where we are being led, and we have a genuine interest in the men and women affected. These matters are not being raised out of any personal regard for the Minister himself or anybody else in this House. I therefore ask the Minister of Health to define exactly how dependants are to be affected under these Regulations.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): It is dear that I could not be expected to give on the spur of the moment and without consideration and consultation an interpretation of many of the detailed points which have been put in this Debate. Such points of that kind as I do not deal with I will cover in another way. I will try now to deal with the broad points which have been put to me by way of question, but, in addition to that, I will see that the record is completely searched and we will send to Members considered answers on the matters they have raised. This will particularly affect the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) and the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring). Let me deal with some of the questions which have been put in order to make the broad issues clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked about the £6 rule and the effect it would have upon the payment of Income Tax. The answer is that, in applying the £6 rule, the amount which is liable to be paid in Income Tax will not be excluded. Hon. Members will remember that it was with this and other questions of a cognate nature in mind that the
  402
  amount was fixed at £6. The House will remember that the first intention was £5. With regard to payment for workmen's compensation, my hon. Friend asked a question which other hon. Members have also put in various ways. The answer is that the Board disregards half the capital sum, but hon. Members who have detailed knowledge of these things know that they do this by the exercise of discretion. They are not obliged to do it by the Act, but it is done under the terms of their discretionary powers under the Act. My information is that a man who commutes is put, by the exercise of those powers, in substantially the same position as the man who does not.
  Mr. Mainwaring: He is being encouraged to go on the binge with the rest.
  Mr. Brown: I would not put it that way, because on the whole I do not think he would do that. My hon. Friend is in a very happy position; he can always dress up his case with his own background and expect a representative answer to be given to him in terms of that background, but no wise Minister would ever make a general answer on those terms. I am not at all sure that his phrase will be happily received in South Wales.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: They enjoy binges there as well as anywhere else.
  Mr. Brown: There are some who do, but there are also many in South Wales who equally enjoy saving, which is the other side of my answer.
  With regard to overtime, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly put a precise point which I want to answer as clearly as I can. The fact is that overtime will be considered in relation to what were the hours normally worked before the war. If before the war it was normal to work overtime, the overtime which is left out of account will be that which is attributable to the war situation and the war effort. With regard to War Savings, the relevant provisions of the Act deliberately provide for the savings of each member of the household to be considered separately, and there is nothing to prevent the husband who receives £600 from the commutation of his compensation from giving £300 to his wife. If therefore they each invest £300 in War Savings, the whole amount will be disregarded. The

  403
  hon. Member for Caerphilly did not expect that, but I think he had better leave the answer as I have given it. He will not complain about the precision of that particular answer. With regard to rural differentiation, I am able to say that the Board, in conjunction with the advisory committee, is now engaged in consideration of that question.
  With regard to the particular cases raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, there is one which I have worked out, so that I can give him my answer. He asked what would be the position of an old age pensioner having a son earning 80s. a week, with rent of 8s. in each of two cases£first, if the mother was the householder, and second, if the son was the householder. This is how it will work out. If the mother is the householder, the scale rate will be 18s. 6d. and the rent addition will be 4s., making 22s. 6d. The son's contribution will be 7s., which reduces the figure to 15s. 6d., so that the supplementary pension would be 5s. 6d. If, on the other hand, the son is the householder, the scale rate is 12s. 6d., rent allowance 4s., total 16s. 6d., which would make the supplementary pension 6s. 6d. So that there is. difference between the two cases. I think that my hon. Friend will find that that is how it will work out. As he was kind enough in one part of his speech to say that I knew how to answer or not to answer, I have tried to do both, and I hope he is pleased.
  With regard to the questions put by the hon. Member for East Rhondda about dependants, an unemployed son or daughter over 16 can apply on his or her own account. An invalid son or daughter will be treated as a dependant if he or she has usually been supported by the applicant. That is the answer to the question put. It is an important question and that is why the word "normally" is used in the definition.
  Mr. Mainwaring: Can the right hon. Gentleman deal with the other question, that of the child who has been in employment but subsequently becomes a permanent invalid?
  Mr. Brown: I had that in mind when I said that I would not care to give an off-hand answer. I will have it looked
  404
  into and see that the hon. Member gets a precise answer. The question of instructions has also been raised, and I can do no more than say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour dealt with that in his last speech, and I think it had better be left there for the moment. There has also been a number of broad and general questions raised, and the first I would like to deal with is this. A number of Members, including the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) have pleaded for a unified social service system. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead has done so many times; other hon. Members have not got so far as that but have desired, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) desired, a reconsideration of certain things. First of all there were the maintenance scales and the revision of the administration of the poor law in relation to these new Regulations, which are, of course, bound to have indirect if not direct effects, and also the question of Service men. I would only say that it is quite clear, since the Board have promised to make an early review, that we shall have to review the whole situation in the light of what happens.
  For my own part—I speak now for my own Departmental responsibility—I am at the moment looking at the possibilities about health insurance. I have been twitted for being rather slow about the sick, but I can only say that there are, of course, two problems. It is a very difficult matter and one which raises the questions how much you can do for a given contribution, and what contribution you must add to get a certain result, and we have to consider not only the immediate effect of anything we may do in the light of such contribution as we may or may not make to get the desired benefit, but what effect that temporary act would have upon the broad general review such as was wanted by my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead. At the moment I am myself looking into the matter in my own Ministry, and I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are busily engaged considering the matter.
  Of the broader issues, there are three. The first is that I detect a very great difference of mood in the minds of hon.

  405
  Members about the actions of the Board in their old capacity and in their new capacity. 1 do not say I share their view, because on the whole, over the whole period of years, I think that hon. Members who have watched very closely would agree that this difficult job has been done with increasing understanding and sympathy for those who are the clients of the Board. I am, however, glad to add my tribute to the Board's officers in this particular case, because having seen in a number of bombed areas the courageous and outstanding work done by them, and the broad interpretations given to the needs of our bombed fellow citizens, I am very glad to find that my own feeling is shared in so many parts of the House.
  With regard to the other major points, there is only one thing I need say. If there is a general review of the whole of the services, those points raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and other hon. Members—such as the position of old age pensioners, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Dunfermline—would be included. It is a very happy thing for me, in winding up this Debate, to find the atmosphere so quiet and tranquil—[Interruption] —my hon. Friends know perfectly well that I have always managed to quieten the atmosphere down—the atmosphere has been quiet and tranquil, yet, in the true sense of the word, critical. By "critical" I do not mean disparaging, but justly appraising the merits. When my hon. Friend said that there was only one reason for the introduction of the original Act, he was stating only one side of the case. There was for 20 years in this country a tremendous demand from all the parties of the Left for a national system and a national standard for the unemployed. I will not go further than that to-day.
  Mr. Leslie: Has the Minister considered the inclusion of non-manual workers on the same basis as in regard to unemployment?
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved
  "That the Draft Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1941, dated 8th April, 1941, made by the Minister of Labour and National Service under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on 10th April, be approved."

  OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS ACT, 1940.
  Resolved,
  "That the Draft Supplementary Pensions (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) Amendment Regulations, 1941, made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction under Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, a copy of which was presented to this House on 10th April, be approved."—[Mr. Ernest Brown.]

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACT. 1939.

  TIMBER (CHARGES) (NO. 3) ORDER.
  The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I beg to move.
  "That the Timber (Charges) (No. 3) Order, 1941, dated 28th March, 1941, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 22nd April, be approved."
  The House will remember that, as a consequence of the war and of the need for importing timber for pit purposes from foreign sources, the House passed the Timber (Charges) (No. 2) Order, which required owners of coal mines, in all districts except South Wales, to make a flat rate contribution of 4d. a ton, to meet the difference in cost between imported pit wood and home-grown pit wood. The scheme has been operated in the manner laid down by the Order, there has been no difficulty, and we have collected the money due from each individual owner. But it has been recognised that the Order is not technically perfect and that there may be a hitch in the collection, because the Order applies to the disposals from "any" mine. Those familiar with the mining industry will, know that mines which are worked separately frequently belong to the same company. There is no difficulty in ascertaining the disposals from a mine which deals with the whole of its output on a common plan, but marry colliery companies think it convenient to pass their small coal for treatment through joint washeries, where it is quite impossible for the buyer to distinguish the origin of his coal or for the seller to distinguish exactly which mine the coal was obtained from before being brought to the washery. Because of the mixing of the coal in these joint washeries, it has been deemed necessary to substitute for the

  407
  words "coal mine" in the original Order the words:
  "coal mine or, in cases where more than one coal mine in a district is in the same ownership, of each group of all such coal mines."
  Each group then becomes responsible for its quota of that which is passed through the processes I have mentioned. That is the only difference that the Order makes. There is a broadening-out of the liability over a group of mines in the same ownership, because it is quite impossible-to separate and distinguish the coal from any particular mine when it is treated in this way. The Order is very simple, and the words are self-explanatory.
  Mr. T. Smith: I have no desire to oppose the Order, because I believe it is absolutely necessary. The technical difficulty which the Minister has referred to is one which has interested the industry. But this gives me the opportunity to ask a question about pit timber. Has every provision been made to see that we get the maximum amount of imported pit wood? The accident rate in the mines has, unfortunately, been increasing, and, while I am not alleging that that is altogether due to the use of home-grown pit timber, it is a fact that certain colliery owners and managers have been complaining that the kind of pit timber at their disposal has been practically useless for supporting the roofs at the coal face. Is my hon. Friend doing what he can to ensure that there is as much imported timber as possible? He knows that imported timber is much stronger than the average home-grown timber. I would like my hon. Friend to tell the House what he has in mind about that.
  Mr. Grenfell: With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I can assure the House that there is' a satisfactory amount of imported timber being stocked, and that there is no likelihood of any deficiency in supply. But, as time goes on, it appears certain that we shall be compelled to rely more and more upon home-grown timber. We are fortunate in having far more suitable timber than we expected. The Forestry Commission haw been at work
  408
  on this problem for many years. Fine forests have come into being, with young trees suitable for pit wood, and we are assured of a substantial supply of pit wood from that source. At the same time, there is no likelihood in the immediate future of any scarcity of the more mature foreign timber. We know that for certain purposes well-seasoned timber is better than unseasoned timber. I can assure my hon. Friend that the industry will not be encouraged to consume the imported timber all at once. The timber will be so mixed that every district will have its fair quota of imported timber, while, at the same time, it takes increasing quantities of home-grown timber.
  Mr. Lawson: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a good deal of timber of the softer kinds now being cut in this country. Can he see to it that there will be no temptation, because of the proximity of some of this timber to certain pits, to use it in preference to the imported timber? Will he also see that the timber arrangements are such that it will not be necessary to use this timber, rather than the imported wood?
  Mr. Grenfell: My Department has taken special measures, and I shall announce very shortly conditions under which it will be impossible to exploit the near supplies of wood. We shall see that the imported timber is used in proportion, in all districts, with the exception of South Wales, where special circumstances exist which are outside this scheme. A proportionate supply of imported timber will be maintained in all other districts.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That the Timber (Charges) (No. 3) Order, 1941, dated 28th March, 1941, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 22nd April, be approved."
  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

CIVIL DEFENCE.
  REGISTRATION (EXEMPTIONS).
  REGISTRATION (EXEMPTIONS).
  PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVILIANS) SCHEME.
  PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVILIANS) SCHEME.
  SHELTERS, LONDON (INSPECTION).
  SHELTERS, LONDON (INSPECTION).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  WOMEN CIVIL SERVANTS (WAR BONUS).
  WOMEN CIVIL SERVANTS (WAR BONUS).
  ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS (TAXATION).
  ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS (TAXATION).
  BILLETING ALLOWANCE.
  BILLETING ALLOWANCE.
  WAR DAMAGE.
  WAR DAMAGE.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (GROUND DEFENCE PERSONNEL, PAY).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (GROUND DEFENCE PERSONNEL, PAY).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS(SCOTLAND).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS(SCOTLAND).
  CONCENTRATION OF PRODUCTION SCHEME.
  CONCENTRATION OF PRODUCTION SCHEME.
  LAND DRAINAGE.
  LAND DRAINAGE.
  ENGINEERING INDUSTRY (WOMEN STOREKEEPERS, PAY).
  ENGINEERING INDUSTRY (WOMEN STOREKEEPERS, PAY).
BRITISH ARMY.
  TRANSFERS (LEAVE ROSTER).
  TRANSFERS (LEAVE ROSTER).
  DEMOBILISATION (GRATUITIES).
  DEMOBILISATION (GRATUITIES).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (ARCHITECTURAL DRAUGHTSMEN).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (ARCHITECTURAL DRAUGHTSMEN).
  STATE INSURANCE.
  STATE INSURANCE.
  FARM DAMAGE.
  FARM DAMAGE.
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
  AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.
  AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.
  REQUISITIONED PROPERTY (REPAIR).
  REQUISITIONED PROPERTY (REPAIR).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  FRUIT PULP.
  FRUIT PULP.
  VEGETABLE PIE (RECIPE).
  VEGETABLE PIE (RECIPE).
  EGG PRICES.
  EGG PRICES.
  CONDEMNED MEAT, SALISBURY.
  CONDEMNED MEAT, SALISBURY.
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (EMPIRE CO-OPERATION).
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (EMPIRE CO-OPERATION).
  FORESTRY AREAS (SURPLUS WOOD, BURNING).
  FORESTRY AREAS (SURPLUS WOOD, BURNING).
  CENTRAL MEDICAL WARCOMMITTEE.
  CENTRAL MEDICAL WARCOMMITTEE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DOCTORS, ROTA).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DOCTORS, ROTA).
  BRITISH RED CROSS SOCIETY (ACCOUNTS).
  BRITISH RED CROSS SOCIETY (ACCOUNTS).
  ARMED FORCES (NURSING SERVICES, PAY).
  ARMED FORCES (NURSING SERVICES, PAY).
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NATIONAL LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; and read 1a.
CHARTERED AND OTHER BODIES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

JUSTICES (SUPPLEMENTAL LIST) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, the Bill of which I move the second Reading is a small but important effort to improve the machinery of the administration of justice. Your Lordships are well aware that one of the duties of the Lord Chancellor is to appoint magistrates and to keep general control over the commissions of the peace. The importance of the matter may be illustrated by reminding your Lordships that there are more than 20,000 justices of the peace in this island. I express the confident view that, on the whole, magistrates discharge their duties in petty sessions admirably and are rendering a great service to the country. It is not always appreciated that over 95 per cent. of the criminal charges which are dealt with come before summary courts. I remember being provided a few years ago at the Home Office with another figure, which is of interest to-day, as to the total number of cases involving trial that are disposed of by courts of summary jurisdiction outside London, amounting to over 500,000 a year. I therefore feel confident that your Lordships will agree with me when I say that it is a great work that is being discharged by our unpaid justices.
The instances which occasionally arise, when criticism is directed to a particular decision, either in Parliament or in the

81
Press, or it may be in the highest Courts, are rare exceptions, and every Lord Chancellor in turn, I am sure, has felt, the value of the services which are being rendered as a whole by the magistracy. These rare instances of criticism should not detract from our view of their general usefulness. There are, however, cases in which strong and justified criticism is directed to persons on the bench, sometimes as Chairmen, sometimes as other members, who, in many cases, in years past have rendered admirable services but who, owing to the failure of powers, which is bound in the end to overtake us with increasing age, are no longer well qualified to try cases Successive Lord Chancellors have had this matter brought to their attention, and I have no doubt this experience has been brought to the attention of some of your Lordships also. The Lord-Lieutenants have communicated with me about it, and it is an extremely anxious and difficult business to know how to deal with it.
One of my predecessors, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, when he was Lord Chancellor, sent a circular round to all the benches, and urged that in all cases where a justice of the peace felt himself prevented by ill-health or increasing age, or other incapacity, from continuing to carry on his work in court, he should apply to be put on a supplemental list, with the result that, while the justice would no longer sit to hear cases in court, he would retain his position as a justice of the peace and would be available to discharge administrative duties which fall to that office and which can be very usefully discharged by a public-spirited justice who is not doing other work. Lord Hailsham's suggestion was acted on in many cases with the most admirable results. Sometimes there was a willing acquiescence on the part of the individual to take the course proposed. In other cases it has only been after a good deal of correspondence and even pressure that a justice has taken the course urged upon him, and it is a very invidious business to address yourself to a man who, for years and years, has rendered most admirable service and try to convince him that he is not as well fitted for it owing to age as he used to be, because I suspect that one of the peculiarities of increasing age is that you tend to think that you are just as good at the job as you ever were.
82
That fact, that some of those at any rate have declined to take this suggestion, honestly believing that it is not reasonably made, is undoubted. Every Lord Chancellor has, I am sorry to say, a large post bag dealing with questions of that sort, and has not a very agreeable duty to discharge. I made an effort of a rather different kind last November when I instituted the rule, which has been in some cases quite misunderstood, that in the appointment of new justices, in the appointment of justices henceforth, the justice should give an undertaking that he would resign his position as justice of the peace at the age of seventy-five unless he was asked to go on after that age. I say that this has been a good deal misunderstood, because I find from some communications that reach me, that no less than three errors are made in respect of what I proposed, not, I hope, in consequence of any want of clearness on my part, though it is human to err. It is said that I have made a regulation that all justices should become compulsorily retired at the age of seventy. There are three mistakes about that. In the first place, the proposal I made has nothing to do with justices who were appointed before November of last year; in the second place, the suggested age is seventy-five and not seventy: and in the third place, provision is made for retaining the services of those who have reached that age but who are able, usefully, to continue to discharge their duties on the bench.
Now, my Lords, my experience in the office which I have now held for nearly a year, convinces me that something more is needed. It is of the highest possible importance, not merely that these summary courts should arrive at the correct conclusion, but that the whole of their proceedings should be conducted in such circumstances as give to persons concerned and the public the confidence that the matter is being competently and well done. We must really do something more. It was suggested to me that I might get rid of the difficulty of justices who hang on when they really ought to retire from the bench by removing their names from the commission. Of course, that is perfectly possible, but I am very unwilling to adopt that hard course. For one thing I think removal of a justice's name from the commission is appropriate mainly in one

83
of two classes of case. It does happen that magistrates who have been appointed to the bench and who are entitled to call themselves justices of the peace, never do any work and never attend and discharge their duties. In such a case, I think the Lord Chancellor is right if, after many years of that, he tells a particular justice that he really must withdraw his name from the commission. The other is a rare class of case and very distressing but it does happen, where a justice has been guilty of some really serious offence or misconduct which manifestly unfits him to discharge judicial duties. The only thing to do then is to remove his name from the commission, and that has to be done now and then.
I am most unwilling to use any harsh machinery in the case of justices who have rendered good service and whose only fault is that, like the rest of us, they are exposed to the ravages of increasing age. What this Bill therefore does is to make the supplemental list, which my noble and learned friend Viscount Hailsham devised, into a statutory list which will continue to contain, in the first place, the names of those justices who wish to be transferred to it, and there is also this provision in Clause 1 (3):
"If the Lord Chancellor is satisfied, with respect to any justice named in a commission of the peace, that it is, by reason of his age or infirmity or other like cause, expedient that he should cease to exercise judicial functions, the Lord Chancellor may direct that the name of that justice shall be entered in the supplemental list kept in connection with that commission of the peace."
I am confident that if this power had existed a good many of these difficult and painful cases could have been disposed of with propriety and with effect, and without throwing any undue burden upon the Lord-Lieutenants or the general body of justices in the county who, I suppose, are just as conscious of the failing powers of their colleagues as anybody else can be. There is also a provision that when the justice is put on this list he ceases to have any power to sit on the bench and take part in dealing with cases.
Those are the contents of the Bill and I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is a measure which ought to be adopted. The question has been raised, and very rightly, as to whether this can really be regarded as a war measure because we are
84
now bound to devote ourselves in the Legislature, mainly at any rate, to war measures. I myself would express the strong view that this Bill is more important in the present conditions of war than ever. There are very large numbers of Defence Regulations dealing with such things as black-out, food control and the like, and I could, if necessary—of course I will not—give illustrations to show that there are some gentlemen of advanced age on the bench who seem to think that black-out offences and ration offences are matters of the smallest possible importance and deal with those guilty of them in the most light-hearted manner. I therefore claim that it is desirable to make this improvement in the administration of justice even in the midst of war.
I would only make one further observation. I realise quite well that the exercise of these new powers which the unfortunate Lord Chancellor has to assume will require much sympathy and much discretion. I am very far from suggesting that advancing years necessarily disqualify everybody for public work, whether judicial work or otherwise. There are plenty of illustrations to the contrary. Lord Campbell, my famous predecessor, became Lord Chancellor at the age of eighty. Both Lord Campbell and I think Lord Halsbury continued to sit on the Woolsack till the age of eighty-two, and these octogenarians are mere chickens compared with some of those who, at an advanced age, have discharged public and judicial duties with complete command over all their powers and faculties. It is natural that men who have done good work for so many years should wish to continue and everybody must sympathise with their feelings, but after all the first thing is to secure that justice is effectively done and is recognised to be well done. It is for that reason and as a matter of public duty and public policy that I move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure that we have all listened with interest to the lucid and, as usual, charming exposition of this little Bill by the noble and learned Viscount, and we all, I am sure, join with him in the tribute he paid in his opening remarks to the vast

85
majority of the justices throughout the country. All of us, I think, know from experience that apart from their work on the bench numbers of them act as friends of the people on hundreds of occasions every year outside the court. Perhaps some of them have rendered more conspicuous public service in that way even than on the bench. But amongst 20,000 justices—the number is surprisingly large—it would be a marvel if there were not some people who had crept into the list and had proved themselves not to be so desirable as others. It is clearly necessary that the kind of power which it is proposed to take in this Bill should belong to the Lord Chancellor's office.
I think the noble and learned Viscount might have gone beyond black-out and food regulation illustrations to find occasions on which magistrates, some few conspicuous exceptions, have exercised their functions in a strange manner. The noble Viscount sitting beside me, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has more than once called the attention of your Lordships to the strange sentences sometimes imposed on people guilty of motoring offences, and I have myself sometimes wished that sentences had been more severe in some cases, or anyhow had been imposed with a greater measure of consistency. The Committee over which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness, presided had some remarkable illustrations brought before them of the strange variation of sentences imposed for the same offence in different parts of the country. This is by way of an aside, but there are amongst the 20,000 justices a few who do dispense justice in a, strange manner and it is no good pretending that they do not.
I just wonder whether the words of subsection (3) cover what the Lord Chancellor in his explanation states to be desirable. I see that the only causes on account of which the Lord Chancellor can place justices on the supplemental list are "age or infirmity, or other like cause." Judging by some of the cases to which he referred, it would manifestly be desirable that certain persons should not actively be exercising judicial functions, though it could scarcely be said that this was so because of age or infirmity or other like cause. It does seem worth while considering whether the limitation of the powers of the Lord Chancellor by those words is
86
not a little narrower than it ought properly to be. The alternative reasons to age and infirmity have to be some "other like cause," whatever that phrase may mean. While we are all conscious of the disability of advancing age, I dare say some of us are tempted to fancy some-limes that we are still doing things as well as we were doing them years ago. It is obviously necessary that the Lord Chancellor should have these powers.
Whilst I am on my feet on this subject, I would ask the Lord Chancellor if he could find time to consider a little more closely the method of appointing magistrates. It has often caused, and it still causes, great dissatisfaction in some places. Well, I have been a Party man myself and everyone of us here has too, but for all that I think it often happens—in fact it is true to say that it constantly happens—that the Advisory Committees seek to divide their favours according to the political predominance of the political Parties in a particular district, so that an entirely suitable person who has not been active in any political Party is often ruled out for that very reason. My noble friend on my right shakes his head, but I know this is correct, otherwise I should not have mentioned it. It docs occur that in some cases entirely estimable persons, who have rendered excellent public service but whose political affinities are almost unknown' to anybody except themselves, are not taken account of because they do not happen to be known as holding Labour, Conservative or Liberal views and are not marked as such. That is not right. There ought to be a rule to secure the disinterested selection of a greater number of people who should properly be justices because they have rendered good public service, but who do not get through under the Advisory Committee system.
I think the Lord Chancellor might well consider the revision of the method of selection. On paper it seems all right, but in fact it is not working out as satisfactorily as it ought to be. We are all anxious that in the different districts where there are men and women of outstanding merit, entirely apart from political considerations, who have real experience in social matters, they should, if they are suitable, be appointed to these offices. These last observations, I agree, would, owing to the rules, be accounted

87
irregular in another place, because the point is not material to the Bill which is before us, but I think it is very appropriate to the subject matter of the Bill.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I know that I can speak on behalf of my noble friends in this part of the House, when I say that we entirely accept this Bill as being an admirable measure and one which is long overdue. The powers of the Lord Chancellor are mysterious, but they did not seem to be adequate to the noble and learned Viscount and to many of his predecessors. I am glad of the opportunity to correct a misapprehension into which my noble friend on my left, Lord Addison, has fallen with regard to the appointment of justices, on recommendations made to you, my Lord Chancellor, by Lord-Lieutenants after consultation with the Advisory Committees. For more than twenty-two years now, I have been advising you and your predecessors, with the help of the Committees, and far from it being the case, as a general rule—and here I speak with some experience not only of my own but of other great counties—that a man who takes little part in politics but who has rendered valuable service otherwise, is excluded under the present system, the exact reverse is true. Certainly, in my own county and in all the counties I know of it is quite the other way. We are so anxious to recommend without political bias, as indeed we are ordered to do under the advice of a Royal Commission under which we work, which was set up by the noble and learned Viscount's predecessor, Lord Loreburn, that it is just the people who are not closely identified with Party politics who do get through the net.
There may be some exceptional cases of which my noble friend has knowledge. If so, I should be very glad if he will tell me of them afterwards. I can assure him, after twenty-two years' experience, that the people who get through the net are those who have rendered admirable service and who have not been very closely identified with any of the political Parties. My noble friend opposite nods his head; I am sure that he will bear me out. I hope it will always be as I have said. The people who can best exercise judicial functions are those who have not been exposed to any risk of having their judgment a little bit biased, after, perhaps,
88
close association with Party politics. I venture to make this clear and, having said that, I cordially support this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I should not like to differ with my noble friend who has just sat down. I do not. I do not doubt what has been said as to provisions in this Bill having a certain value, but I am not really sure that there is any necessity for bringing in the Bill at all at the present time. I regret that the Lord Chancellor has thought it necessary to begin by saying that it is a very small Bill and after that preliminary to say that it is of vital importance, especially in war-time. I should be glad to know what, exactly, the Lord Chancellor thinks will be the result of the Bill. So far as I can see, the suggestion in it seems to contain some of the elements of what I would call a black list. I feel that its effect will be that some of those remarkably good justices who have not suffered from what the Lord Chancellor called the ravages of old age—the conscientious ones—will consider that they have no right to sit on the bench any longer and will send in their resignations. I should say that if this Bill is passed you will find among the 20,000 many who will say: "Sooner than that my name should be put on the black list I think I had better retire gracefully now." The whole administration of justice in this form is one of the best of our great traditions. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor has not said that there is a great demand for this Bill by reason of gross miscarriages of justice, and I am inclined to wonder why it has been necessary to introduce it.
There are a great many things which the Lord Chancellor could himself do, as controlling justices of the peace. I should have thought that when he realised the difficulties of the Lord-Lieutenants who are at the head of the Advisory Committees, he might find some other way, or some supplementary way, of assisting them. If he would select a certain number of magistrates himself, I think that would have a very good effect. I entirely agree with what my noble friend opposite said about non-political magistrates. Those are the people, as he knows, of whom we try to get hold at once; but I have never felt that the composition of the Advisory Committees really gave altogether satisfactory results. As we know, these Committees are divided on

89
political lines, and in those counties where there has been a political change, or perhaps where there is an overwhelming preponderance of one political Party, the Advisory Committee changes, but the discussion goes on. The discussions in these Committees are, as we well know, of a most amicable character, but naturally the element comes in of giving one thing on one side and one on another, and that sort of thing cannot be claimed to be altogether for the benefit of the justice that we seek to dispense by means of these people. I suggest, therefore, that the Lord Chancellor should have a much wider discretion in making selections himself.
There is another point with regard to the appointment of magistrates which I should like to mention. The idea is prevalent that the letters "J.P." confer a social distinction on those who are able to use them. We know perfectly well that the Lord-Lieutenants receive letters from all sorts of people, and in a great many cases the political services of those people are enumerated; they expect to receive a reward by being able to place the magic letters "J.P." after their names. I see no way of getting over that conception of the matter, and I should like to do away with the letters altogether. It is difficult to get young men to serve. They move about a great deal and they are very busy, so that the dispensing of justice falls on men of maturer years. If you look into the whole history of the matter, I think you will find that the magistrates have carried on remarkably well and that the justice which has been dispensed by them has been of the highest description.
I repeat what I said at the beginning: I regret that this Bill has been introduced. There is one technical point which I should like to mention and with which no doubt the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will be able to deal. It seems to me that he has forgotten that there are women justices. In subsection (4) (b) of Clause 1 we find the words:
"a court consisting of any justice or justices of the peace sitting in his or their capacity as such."
I do not knew whether it should be "his, her or their," or whether "his" is held to comprise both "his" and "her." Naturally I am not offering any opposition to this Bill, but I think it is unnecessary, especially at this time.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, as a member of the Advisory Committee in London, I should like to say a few words about this Bill. In the first place, there has always been a good deal of comment in this House on the age of judicial authorities, and I well remember a very interesting discussion which took place on a Bill which sought to limit the age of certain Judges who would sit on the Privy Council. Examples of extreme age were brought forward, and finally I believe that the age was fixed at severity for those who did not come from this country. As the noble and learned Lord Chancellor rightly points out, it is not possible to tell anything at all about a man's judicial capacity by his age. He instanced the case of Lord Campbell, and the later case of Lord Halsbury. I well remember as a boy the reverence in which one of the Vice-Chancellors, Vice-Chancellor Bacon, was held. He was eighty-three years old, and did not seem to pay very much attention to what was going on, but he really did pay attention to it, and his decisions were reversed much less frequently than those of anyone else. I remember a little story in this connection which may amuse your Lordships. A colleague of his was going into court when an egg was thrown at him, and someone remarked, "That must have been meant for his colleague, Bacon."
With regard to this Bill, we have really followed out this practice in London. In 1922, under the guidance of Sir William Collins, our Vice-Lieutenant, a committee was set up to examine this question, and it was then decided to make two lists, of effective and non-effective justices respectively. After a certain time the matter was considered again. It was then decided that it was somewhat derogatory to have two lists, and so everyone was put on one list. The only difference was that in the case of those regarded as non-effective the name of the petty sessional division was omitted. I venture to recommend that course to the Lord Chancellor. Most effective justices belong to a petty sessional division and, if there is only one list, there is nothing derogatory at all about it. Those justices who are not able, on account of age or infirmity, to go to the ordinary petty sessional divisions can do a great deal of useful work in signing pension papers, looking after lunatics and doing the

91
various other things which justices have to do. The result of these circulars from our Lord-Lieutenant, Lord Crewe, who I am sorry to see is not in his place to-day, was that a great many justices resigned when their attention was called to it. That was a very good thing, because in London we are not supposed to appoint new justices except for death vacancies, and this gave room for younger men to be appointed to the petty sessional divisions.
I was very glad to hear the noble and learned Lord Chancellor say that his preliminary statement had been misunderstood, because in the first instance one would gather from the Press that every justice at the age of seventy-five—an age which I am approaching myself—was going to be removed at once from the bench. I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount has dispelled that illusion. My noble friend Lord Londonderry suggested that the Lord Chancellor should himself select. I do hope that he will not do so. I remember very well an instance when a former Lord Chancellor recommended someone, I am afraid owing to political pressure, and this man appeared a few weeks afterwards on the charge of selling a motor car for which he was paying by instalments. The man's name had never come before the Advisory Committee, and it was gently hinted to the Lord Chancellor concerned that it would have been better had the name come before the Advisory Committee, which would then have found out all about the man in question. I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend, but I know of this instance as a fact.
As regards those who never attend, that is a rather delicate question in this House. There are many of your Lordships who never attend this House; I have seen some take their seats who thereafter never come here. One does not get any notice when one is elevated to this great assembly, but when you are made a magistrate you are asked to give a pledge that you will attend. I am sure that this is quite out of order, but I cannot help thinking it would be a good thing if, in the case of your Lordships' House, some notice were sent round to members because it might lead some of them to make a casual appearance instead of leaving the work to be done by the select few I see around me to-day—some of them asleep!
92
This Bill is quite a good Bill. I hope we have got rid of the idea of a black list. I come to Lord Addison's remarks about politics. There is no place in London where politics are more keenly fought out than here, but we have now got a method which is rather good and that is, in the nomination of new justices of the peace, we send up the names of some who are Independents. That does give a loophole to get people appointed who are not so closely associated with politics as some of those who are eager and foremost in the fray. The initials "J.P." are extremely valued. Many men are as proud of being justices of the peace as they would be if they belonged to your Lordships' House; but I think it is rather a pity that some other means have not been devised of rewarding political services, especially in the County of London, where, except for the licensing part of the work, there is very little ordinary petty sessional work to be done. It would be much better if some other system could be devised of rewarding people who have done good political or good local government work instead of making them justices of the peace. I am sure it hampers very much the Advisory Committee, who feel they have to give somebody something because of his political activities. However, as the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, said, that is really outside the Bill. We have had this practice in London for a good many years, which works extremely well, of issuing a notice calling the attention of justices who cannot attend. Such a notice always produces a good effect. This is a necessary and good Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as my name has been mentioned by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, I should like to express my warm welcome to the Bill and also to the observations with which my noble friend introduced it, particularly his commendation of the valuable work which the unpaid justices are doing. I do not think that is sufficiently appreciated in the country, and I am very glad to have the Lord Chancellor's commendation of it. I started the supplemental list, and in the vast majority of cases the supplemental list does work. A vast number of men who become incapacitated for their judicial work do accept this invitation to be transferred to the supplemental list, which does not involve any stigma upon them.

93
It does not involve ceasing to be justices. It does involve their not being summoned to sit at petty sessions.
My noble friend Lord Londonderry expressed a fear that this would become a black list. The Lord Chancellor has taken great pains to prevent that in his definition in subsection (3) of Clause 1, to which Lord Addison called attention. He limits the power to remove justices to the supplemental list to cases where the justice is prevented from exercising his judicial functions by reason of age, infirmity, or other like cause. That is a very wise limitation, because there are other powers, which the Lord Chancellor has in reserve and which, in extreme cases, he can exercise, for removing a man who has been guilty of misconduct. It would be a great pity to include in the supplemental list any person who had to be removed from any other cause except that of failing powers. I resist the temptation to follow ray noble friends in their irrelevant discussion on the methods of appointment, although I have some views on and some experience of that matter, but I should like to welcome and endorse the Lord Chancellor's Bill and his observations in introducing it.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, will your Lordships allow me to add a few words on this question, which is one with which I have personally some acquaintance? It has been said by the Lord Chancellor that there are some 20,000 justices of the peace in this country. That is an estimate. I would add another estimate which your Lordships should bear in mind, and it is that, of that number, only some 8,000 regularly attend to the business of either petty sessions or Quarter Sessions, so that there are a very large number of justices—certainly half the total number, if not more—who do not attend these two important courts. That leads me to say this, that I hope very much that the name suggested for the supplemental list by my noble friend Lord Londonderry will not be accepted in the circles which this matter concerns. The term "black list" would seem to be a hopelessly inaccurate one to apply to those justices who cease to attend, because they are on the supplemental list, because after all, I hope my noble friend does not take the view that there is anything discreditable in either old age or
94
infirmity. That can be the only possible reason for transfer. There is no stigma to be attached to the fact that, by reason of old age or infirmity or some kindred cause, a man is no longer thought fit to sit at petty sessions or Quarter Sessions.
It seems to me there is great weight to be attached to the Lord Chancellor's observations as to the administration of justice in these important courts. They are important courts; they go back to the year 1375. They arc courts where two or more justices must sit, and they administer justice in an enormous number of cases, as the noble Lord has told us. But it is not sufficient to say that justice is almost always—not quite always but almost always—administered in a satisfactory way. There arc cases, as I know very well from complaints that came before me when I was occupying the Woolsack, where some of the justices suffered from one of the most obvious infirmities of old age—namely, that they are deaf—and the sort of complaint that came to the Lord Chancellor's office was that somebody had been convicted of some offence by a bench consisting of, or at any rate containing, old gentlemen who were unable to hear what the witnesses were saying.
I imagine that in a great number of cases that was exaggerated. They were hard of hearing; they showed it in the usual way; and they had to be assisted by the clerk to know exactly what a witness, perhaps in some dialect, was saying in the box; but that sort of thing saps the confidence of those whose fortune it is to be brought before such a bench. They do not feel that they have been properly tried, because they do not feel that they or their witnesses have been properly heard. That is the sort of example that I think makes it necessary, or at any rate most desirable, in the interests of the country, that justices of that kind should no longer attend at courts which require two or more justices to be present.
I would add this point, that it is a complete mistake to suppose that the duties and the privileges of justices come to an end because they no longer attend petty sessions or Quarter Sessions. Those are courts where there must be two or more justices, but there are a great number of functions which can be performed, and which are performed, by single justices, duties and functions which are not to be

95
taken away from them by the provisions of this Bill if it becomes law. In those circumstances, I think there is a very strong case for such a measure, and, having had to do my best in administering the powers of the Lord Chancellor in this respect—only one of the many onerous duties that fall to the Lord Chancellor—I would make this observation: I cannot imagine that anybody who puts himself in the position of a Lord Chancellor would think it right and fair that, if there comes before him the case of an old gentleman perhaps over eighty, perhaps over ninety, and perhaps nearly approaching 100, who has become subject to some natural disability and who yet declines to resign, the Lord Chancellor should in that case have no opportunity except to remove this distinguished public servant after a long career of properly performing his duties from the commission of the peace as if he were a malefactor or some person who had committed some disgraceful offence. That is a horrible position for the Lord Chancellor.
I have taken the extreme cases, but supposing there is a much more moderate case. One may become deaf at under seventy years of age, and one may consider that one is perfectly able to continue to perform judicial duties. While for the reason I have given that is not so, yet with many complaints coming that a particular justice is "as deaf as a post" and ought no longer to sit in cases which are of great importance to the people who come before him, that justice declines to go. What is the Lord Chancellor to do? I think it is wrong to prevent the Lord Chancellor having the power of suggesting that magistrates should be put on a list in which they will continue to be justices of the peace. They will continue to be J.Ps., and to have all the honourable distinction in their county or their borough of that position, and yet will not be able any longer, to some extent, to sap the confidence in the administration of justice in the district where they are justices.
Like my noble friend Lord Hailsham, I will not trespass upon the difficult question of the appointment of justices, except to say that for my part, during the whole time I was Lord Chancellor, I never heard the smallest suggestion that independent people with any claims at all had any difficulty
96
in being made justices of the peace, and I can assure the noble Lord that not one single justice of the peace in my time was appointed for any political reason, nor was he refused or not appointed, so far as I knew, because he was an independent person. On the subject matter of this Bill I will only say that I fully support what has been said by my predecessors in office, and I hope your Lordships will approve it unanimously.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I would like to say one or two words upon this subject, though I naturally hesitate to do so in the presence of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the ex-Lord Chancellors who have already spoken; but my experience as a common magistrate for over thirty years both in London and in the country, has enabled me to come to some conclusions, and it may interest your Lordships to hear of the experience of an ordinary justice. What the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down has said, is really more than half the crux of the whole matter. It is deafness that is the chief disability. Deafness is the great trouble on the bench, and it has seemed to me that the man who gets deaf is the person who is most unaware of his disability. He sits on the bench, very often as Chairman, and, instead of being aware of the real explanation, that he himself is deaf, he thinks the witness is dumb, and you hear him saying: "Speak up; come up here; why don't you speak louder?" Naturally that upsets a witness, and it also upsets the opinion which is felt by the lookers on of the way in which justice is administered. Of course you may have a man at the age of sixty who is deaf, and another man at the age of eighty who is not deaf; if there could be some system by which an independent agent could inform the Lord Chancellor who was deaf and who was not, I think we might make some improvement.
The noble Marquess made one remark with which I cordially agree, and that was in reference to circulars. Two or three years ago we had a circular which came to the bench of which I had become Chairman in succession to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, asking us to try and get people to go on to the supplemental list. I passed the circular round to all the forty-eight magistrates of my bench in London, but the only person who resigned was the

97
best magistrate on the bench. This year we sent round a circular from our own court, to try and reduce the number of notices that are sent cut to men who never attend at all. I need hardly say that very few of the magistrates come to the court. We sent out a circular and three of them responded and said that they did not wish to have any more notices. Circularising is not much use. I feel certain that this Bill is a proper one, and that it will do good both in London and in the country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I may perhaps be allowed to say a few words in reply. We have had an interesting debate, and I am not without hope that the searchlight which has been turned upon this part of the Lord Chancellor's duties may have earned for me and my successors an increasing measure of sympathy, for undoubtedly this is a most difficult duty, and one which has to be quite fearlessly performed.
I must say one word on what my noble friend Lord Addison said was an entirely irrelevant matter. I should like to state what is the actual practice. As your Lordships know, the Commission which was set up in 1908 or 1909 and which recommended the system of Advisory Committees was largely due to the complaint, whether ill or well founded, that there was a wholly undue proportion of magistrates who were of one particular political complexion. I served on that Commission as a member, and I remember the evidence and the arguments very well. Unquestionably the change which was introduced as a result of the recommendations of that Commission was a most valuable change. The Lord-Lieutenant in his county is assisted in sending up recommendations for new appointments by an Advisory Committee, which the Lord Chancellor appoints, and there is a well understood convention as to the way in which these recommendations should be made. The presence of the Lord-Lieutenant in itself secures of course very effectively the cutting out of many recommendations which might be improper.
It certainly is not the case, I can assure my noble friend Lord Addison, that those who may be called non-political candidates are at a disadvantage. I have frequent occasion to look at some list from
98
one county or another, and I find that the Lord-Lieutenant often indicates those whom he regards as being non-political candidates. Such a mark against one's name is a good mark, because it suggests that the name is that of a candidate who is likely to be acceptable all round. It is quite true, and I think it is inevitable, that there are also names put forward of people largely because of their services in the political field; but the Advisory Committee is so constituted as to secure that there shall not be an undue representation of one political point of view against another; and I really think the system docs what can be done to bring up proper recommendations to the Lord Chancellor.
That does not end the matter, because the Lord Chancellor has the duty himself of making such investigations as he can. My own practice is that if I get a direct communication suggesting the name of A or B as a possible justice of the peace I reply, or somebody replies for me, that that is not the system under which we work. There are exceptional cases in which one replies that the name will be sent for the consideration of the Lord-Lieutenant and the Advisory Committee. My view is that we really have got a system which is a great improvement on what went on before, and I do not see at the moment how it is going to be improved. My noble friend Lord Addison said there was dissatisfaction. Let us be frank about this. A good many people would like to be made J.P. Some of them perhaps are well qualified to be J.Ps., but some are not. It is quite natural that a man should feel disappointed if his name is not put forward, but I am bound to say that such information as I have and such letters as I receive rather go to show that the disappointment is more extreme in the case of a man whom you may call a political candidate than a man who is a non-political candidate. It is a difficulty we have to put up with, and it is to be got over by good feeling and good nature and tact and reasonable firmness.
As for the Bill itself, I would respectfully join in asking the noble Marquess not to put the rubber stamp of "Black List" on this supplemental list. It has never been so regarded since my noble and learned friend Viscount Hailsham started it. It is not a dishonourable

99
operation that a man should retire from the field—rude donatus—when he can no longer actively perform his judicial duties. A great number of gentlemen, and ladies too, have accepted the fate that advancing years do not make it appropriate that they should endeavour to listen to evidence which they cannot hear. As regards the point of gender the Interpretation Act provides that in any Act of Parliament where use is made of the masculine gender it is to be assumed in all proper cases that it also covers the feminine. The draftsman would naturally be extremely distressed if I were to disregard that rule.
I think that what I have said will satisfy your Lordships as to the need for this Bill, but I have provided myself with a certain number of instances. I do not wish to point to any particular place, or still less to give any particular name, but I will give two or three examples of the kind of difficulty with which I am actually faced. There is the case of a magistrate—perhaps I had better not give his actual age, but it is a very advanced age—about whom complaint was made largely on the ground of deafness. Complaints about him were not only received from private individuals but from various public authorities, as well as from his fellow magistrates. This gentleman did not agree with the suggestion that he should retire, and though I think he has ultimately been good enough to accept the suggestion, it has only been after long and most trying correspondence. Then there is a case of another justice who in the past has done excellent work but is now over ninety
100
years of age. He sat not only in the adult but in the juvenile court, and his deafness was a real handicap to his doing the work which I am sure he wished to do in the public interest. I know of a case in which three members of the bench, who owing to advanced years were suffering from incapacity in one way or another, willingly agreed that they should be put on the supplemental list, but it then appeared that there was another member of the bench who was even older and even deafer, who would not move. Thereupon these gentlemen not unnaturally said they really did not see why they should be removed, when there was somebody else who more obviously needed the same transfer. Well, all that is very undignified, and it is very discouraging to the reputation of local justice. I admit also that it is very unpleasant to the Lord Chancellor that he has to be the person to deal with this.
I hope I have satisfied the House that the situation must be dealt with, and in these circumstances I say again, with great respect to my noble friend the noble Marquess, that this is a small Bill, but none the less I think that to correct small defects in the machinery of justice is quite an important matter. I feel, moreover, that it was never more important than now to make the whole mass of the people of the country feel thoroughly satisfied, so far as may be, with the way in which those in authority are discharging their duties.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Great Western Railway (Superannuation Fund),

Southern Railway (Superannuation Fund).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petitions for the following Bills:

Ebbw Vale Urban District Council,

East Worcestershire Water,

ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bills.

EBBW VALE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day), and read 1a.
EAST WORCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day); read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Message from the Commons for leave for the Viscount Trenchard to attend to be examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee on Air Services of the Select Committee appointed by that House on National Expenditure. Leave given to his Lordship to attend, if he think fit; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the Borough of Boston:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1941.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the India and Burma Orders Committee.