Sitting of 12 March 1941

Preamble
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence through indisposition of Mr. SPEAKER from this Day's Sitting. Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  NEUTRAL COUNTRIES (ITALIAN TROOPS).
  Sir Irving Alberyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he receives regular reports from our representatives in neutral countries upon the measures taken to control the frontiers, and ensure that no Italian troops pass into neutral territory?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): From information received, I have no reason to doubt that any Italian troops who might pass into neutral countries would be dealt with in accordance with international law.
  Sir I. Albery: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to the effect that Italian troops are passing into neutral territory?

  CHINA.

    BRITISH SHIPPING (CANTON).
    Mr. Hannahasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the free use of Canton is still not permitted to British shipping and that
    1256
    repeated attempts since the spring of 1939 to re-open the waterway have been frustrated by Janaese obstruction on various pretexts; that British ships can only be run at a loss owing to the high pilotage tariff fixed by the Japanese; and whether he will discuss with the Board of Trade the possibility of imposing retaliatory measures on Japanese shipping in British ports?
    Mr. Butler: The shipping situation at Canton is governed by an agreement with the Japanese which permits weekly visits by British ships subject to certain conditions. Various offers for the re-opening of the river by stages have been made by the Japanese, but the conditions attached to them have rendered them valueless to the British interests concerned. Negotiations have been in progress for some time but without result, and representations have been made to the Japanese Government. His Majesty's Government have under constant review such measures as it may be possible to take to remedy the existing situation, and a report on the latest position has been called for.

    TRADE CONDITIONS, SHANGHAI.
    Mr. Hannahasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will call for a report from our Consular officers on conditions under which trade is done at Shanghai, with special reference to the allegations of a widespread system of illicit commissions and bribery exacted by Japanese officials as the price of permitting goods to pass?
    Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have been kept fully informed about trade conditions in Shanghai. The position was explained in the reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Wirral (Captain Graham) on 29th January. As regards the allegation of a widespread system of illicit commissions and bribery, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on the same subject on 26th February.
    Mr. Hannah: Is not the whole position in Shanghai extremely unsatisfactory?

    ANTI-BRITISH COMMITTEE, PEKING.
    Mr. Hannahasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a seven-point programme prepared by the Peking Anti-British Association operating in the four

    1257
    provinces of Northern China; of what this programme consists; and whether the association has been started by, or supported and encouraged by, the Japanese authorities in the occupied area, either directly or indirectly?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. There has recently been some revival of agitation by the Anti-British Committee in Peking. The programme of the committee includes such activities as warning Chinese landlords to give notice to British tenants, investigating British goods and trade, bringing pressure to bear on those in British employment to leave and an intensification of anti-British propaganda generally. There is no proof that the movement receives the direct support of the Japanese authorities, but anti-British speeches have been made over the Peking central broadcasting station, which is Japanese-controlled. The movement does not appear to have assumed any degree of importance, but further developments will, of course, be closely watched.

  PALESTINE.

    GERMAN INTERNEES.
    Mr. Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress is being made in the exchange of internees in Germany and Palestine; and, in particular, whether he will consider enlisting the good offices of the United States of America Government in the matter?
    Mr. Butler: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given yesterday on this subject.
    Mr. Wedgwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman send me a copy?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

    CITRUS INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make a statement regarding the Palestine citrus industry?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): His Majesty's Government recognise the need of the Palestine citrus industry for assistance in the situation caused by the loss of its normal export markets during the present season and have approved in
    1258
    principle proposals designed both to maintain employment and to preserve in being a reasonable proportion of the matured and fully efficient groves. At the same time encouragement is being given to other lines of agricultural production, particularly the local production of foodstuffs. Details are being worked out with the High Commissioner for Palestine and when these are completed an announcement will be made.

  FRENCH BROADCASTS.
  Mr. Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to attacks on this country by the French official wireless, apropos of Joan of Arc, and to the reported fitting out of German raiders in Japanese ports; and whether he will consider some more effective answer than protests to such hostile actions?
  Mr. Butler: As the right hon. Gentleman may be aware, all broadcasts from France are subject to direct or indirect German control. It is one of the principal functions of British broadcasts to refute such misstatements as may be made. As for the action which should be taken if it is proved that German raiders are assisted by non-belligerent Powers, this is a defence matter which it would obviously not be in the public interest to discuss.
  Mr. Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the policy of appeasement has failed, and that we must make these countries as afraid of us as they are of the Germans?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    COMMISSIONS (SERGEANT-PILOTS).
    Sir I. Alberyasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider reducing the number of commissions given to sergeant-pilots when first completing their training, and increase the percentage at present made available for promoting sergeants already on active service?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): Under the present system all suitable sergeant-pilots who are recommended for commissioning after joining operational squadrons do in fact receive commissions. I do not think,

    1259
    therefore, that the arrangements can be varied with advantage. They already ensure that conduct and efficiency on active service are taken fully into account.
    Sir I. Albery: Am I to understand that only a certain percentage of sergeant-pilots can be recommended for commissions?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, but my answer conveys a more accurate impression of the situation than the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has just made.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is a considerable number of sergeant-pilots with long service and pre-war experience who are not receiving promotion, while other new officers with much less experience are put over their heads?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Whether or not a sergeant is suitable for promotion is a matter which we must leave to the judgment of the commanding officer. There is ample room for promotion for sergeants who have the necessary qualifications.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA (AFRICANMINE WORKERS).
  Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any arrangement has yet been made, or is about to be made, for consultation between the managements of the mines and representatives of the Government, together with representatives of the Northern Rhodesia Mine Workers' Union, with regard to the extension of opportunities to African workers to advance to positions not now open to them?
  Mr. George Hall: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, it was indicated in the Statement by the Government of Northern Rhodesia on the recommendations of the Commission, that Government hoped to initiate discussions on this question. My Noble Friend is not aware whether arrangements have yet been made for the opening of the discussions, but inquiry is being made of the Governor.
  Mr. Harvey: In view of the great importance of this to the future of Africans, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the Government of Northern Rhodesia are requested not to delay these negotiations?
  Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Will the Government throw the whole of their weight against colour discrimination and the practice of the colour bar in this area?
  Mr. Hall: I think it is necessary to make it quite clear that the Colonial Office and the Government do not stand for the colour bar either in this country or in any of the Colonies.
  Mr. Harveyasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government has approved the recommendation of the Commission to inquire into the disturbances in the Northern Rhodesian copperbelt that shade trees should be planted in the mining compounds and that facilities should be afforded to the African worker for gardening in his leisure hours; and what steps are being taken to implement these recommendations?
  Mr. Hall: My Noble Friend is not in possession of the views of the Governor on this particular recommendation. His views are being sought, and further consideration will be given to the matter when they are received.
  Mr. Maxton: Do I understand that white miners live in compounds?
  Mr. Hall: No, I do not think so, but, to make quite sure, perhaps the hon. Member will put a Question down.

  WEST AFRICAN YOUTH LEAGUE.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the office of the West African Youth League in Freetown, Sierra Leone, was raided last autumn by Government authorities; whether he will state the ground for the raid; and whether the documents seized have now been returned to the owners?
  Mr. George Hall: The only occasion on which the office of the West African Youth League was searched by the police during 1940 was on 12th June. This was on a warrant issued under Regulation 101 (2) of the Sierra Leone Defence Regulations, No. 11 of 1940, which provides for the entry and search of premises where there is reasonable ground to suspect that a war offence has

  1261
  been or is being committed. The Acting Governor reports that the search was properly authorised and executed, and that nothing was removed from the premises by any officer or member of the police force in the course of the search.
  Mr. Sorensen: Was it found, as a result of the search, that the suspicions were justified?
  Mr. Hall: I think my hon. Friend may assume that it was so, in so far as no documents were found.
  Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that the suspicions were not justified?
  Mr. Hall: I think my hon. Friend can take it that that is so.
  Mr. Wedgwood: What were the suspicions? Were they thought to be Communists or Fascists?
  Mr. Hall: I could not say without notice.
  Mr. de Rothschild: What was the result of the investigation?
  Mr. Hall: I think it can be assumed that the police were satisfied that their suspicion was unfounded.

  COLONIES (GERMAN INTERNEES).
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give any information as to the number of interned refugees from Nazi oppression who are in the Colonies; whether discrimination is made between them and Nazi sympathisers; whether they have the right of application for release similar to that established in this country; and whether he is satisfied with the conditions and circumstances of internment?
  Mr. George Hall: The approximate number of German nationals at present interned in the Colonies who claim to possess anti-Nazi sympathies, so far as it can be ascertained from the information available in the Colonial Office, is 340. With regard to the question of discrimination betwen anti-Nazi refugees and Nazi sympathisers, Colonial Governments are aware of the policy adopted in the United Kingdom, and so far as is practic-
  1262
  able such discrimination is made. Internees can appeal against their internment to the Government, but some Colonial Governments have not felt able, in view of the special circumstances of the territory, to adopt a policy of release similar to that adopted in the United Kingdom. With regard to the last part of the Question, my Noble Friend is satisfied that, so far as conditions of internment are concerned, due care is taken to mitigate the hardships involved.
  Mr. Sorensen: Have any, in fact, been released from internment? Will my hon. Friend take particular note of the conditions of internees in Cyprus? Will he look into the whole question and see that at least a fair proportion of those who have been interned are able to apply for their release in the same way as internees in this country?
  Mr. Hall: They can apply for their cases to be considered by Advisory Committees, and a number have been released on such applications.
  Mr. Wedgwood: My hon. Friend said in his reply that they could not be released because the conditions were not the same as in this country. I should like to know whether they are having the same treatment as internees in this country?
  Mr. Hall: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend has not quite understood the reply. I said that internees can appeal against their internment to the Government, but some Colonial Governments have not felt able, in view of the special circumstances of the territory, to adopt a policy of release similar to that adopted in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Wedgwood: Can my hon. Friend say who these Governments are?
  Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir, if my right hon. Friend will put a Question down.
  Mr. Sorensen: Will my hon. Friend look into the conditions of internees in Cyprus?
  Mr. Hall indicated assent.

  GOLD COAST (RE-HOUSING, ACCRA)
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware, that after the destruction by earthquake in 1939 of large numbers of

  1263
  houses in Accra, Gold Coast Colony, the Gold Coast Government compelled the native chiefs of Accra to sign an indenture conveying their lands to it as security for the erection of new houses, street-works, etc., instead of effecting these works by the town council secured by loans upon the municipal revenues; and what steps have been taken to guarantee the return to the respective chiefs of their lands compulsorily taken from them?
  Mr. George Hall: It is not the case that the chiefs concerned were compelled to convey lands to the Gold Coast Government as security for the erection of buildings, etc. The cost of the Accra rehousing scheme was borne by Government, but the only suitable land was the property of the Ga Chiefdoms, whose representatives agreed to its conveyance to Government for the purposes of this scheme on conditions which were embodied in a formal indenture. The resources of the Accra Town Council even in normal conditions are only sufficient to meet their recurrent expenditure. The financing of the rehousing scheme by loans secured upon the municipal revenues would not therefore, have been possible.
  Mr. Adams: Is it not a fact that the chiefs in question were advised that unless they voluntarily handed over their land it would be taken from them compulsorily under the regulations? Would the Minister be good enough to answer my Question as to whether this land is to be returned to the chiefs?
  Mr. Hall: From the information we have received the land was transferred voluntarily under an agreement that the land should be used for this purpose.
  Mr. Adams: Do I understand that they handed over this land voluntarily, free of charge?
  Mr. Hall: I am not sure as to the cost, but it was agreed between the chiefs and the Government that the land should be used for this purpose.
  Mr. McGovern: Will the hon. Gentle-can encourage landlords in this country to hand over land for housing purposes free?

  JAMAICA (CONSTITUTION).
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies
  1264
  whether, in view of the recent discussions with the Governor of Jamaica, he is now able to make a statement on the Constitution of Jamaica?
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that considerable unrest exists in Jamaica owing to the fear that a new constitution is to be formulated for the island upon the model of the new Trinidad Constitution and that representative meetings of citizens have demanded a constitution which will gradually lead to, and automatically introduce at the end of a specified period, full self-government within the framework of the British Commonwealth and that no Constitution be granted without previous popular vote of the country; and whether steps are being taken upon these lines?
  Mr. George Hall: I am now prepared to make a statement on the Constitution of Jamaica. As the statement is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friends' permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am also placing in the Library of the House copies of my Noble Friend's despatch to the Governor of Jamaica setting out the proposals in full. The proposals will be placed before the Legislative Council for discussion.
  Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the great importance of this constitutional development in our Colonial Empire, could the statement be read at the end of Questions?
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hall: I am in the hands of Mr. Deputy-Speaker and the House. The statement is rather long, but if it is the desire of the House, I will read it.
  Mr. Riley: Will the proposed Constitution be submitted to the House for consideration before it is put into operation?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the statement is to be read at the end of Questions, we had better have further Supplementary Questions then.
  Mr. Wedgwood: In view of the great importance of this matter, cannot we have an opportunity of debating it?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not arise now, as the statement will be read at the end of Questions.
  All the end of Questions—
  Mr. George Hall: To meet the desire of the House, I will now read the answer to Questions 17 and 18 regarding constitutional changes in Jamaica. In recent years, there has been in Jamaica a demand for a reform of the Constitution to enable the people to take a greater part in the business of Government. The West India Royal Commission heard a good deal of evidence on constitutional questions, and recommended that the object of policy should be the introduction of universal adult suffrage in the West Indies, though they were not able to generalise as to the speed at which the change should be carried out. In Jamaica, there is a Legislative Council consisting of the Governor as President, five ex-officio members, nominated members not exceeding 10, and 14 elected members. Property qualifications are required both for membership of the Council and for the right to vote.
  Proposals for reform based on the recommendations of the West India Royal Commission have been discussed with the Governor of Jamaica, who was recently in this country, and, as a result, the following changes are recommended:—

  (1) Universal adult suffrage.

  (2) An enlarged Legislative. Council to comprise approximately double the present number of elected members, with nominated members, and three(instead of five) ex-officio members, the total number to be not less than 40.

  Two difficulties in carrying out these changes are the absence of trustworthy statistics of population and the standard of local government which has resulted in unsatisfactory social services. The Governor is, therefore, being requested to consider the carrying-out of a census as early as possible and to reorganise local government. Until this is done, and elections are held on the new franchise, the reconstitution of the Legislative Council proposed above cannot take place.
  There are, however, changes that can be made forthwith:—Official representation in the Legislative Council to be confined to the Colonial Secretary, the Treasurer and the Attorney-General. Resulting vacancies to be filled by nominations, in which care is taken to ensure that all important sections and interests
  1266
  of the community receive adequate representation. Concurrently with the reduction of the official representation, the Governor's powers to be in some degree enlarged, but the special powers of veto at present held by the elected members to be retained. The Governor's overriding powers would be sufficient to carry any measure considered expedient in the interests of public order, public faith, or good government. If these changes are accepted by the Legislative Council of Jamaica, it is proposed that the Governor should withdraw from the Presidency of the Council and be replaced by a Speaker, who would be appointed by the Governor in the first instance and later be elected by the Council, subject to presentation to the Governor for approval. These proposals are being placed before the Legislative Council for discussion.
  Mr. Creech Jones: May I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State on this very big constitutional change, and express the hope that the confidence that the Government have placed in the people of Jamaica will be justified by events?
  Mr. Sorensen: Will my hon. Friend make clear what is the basis of the franchise? Will it be literacy?
  Mr. Hall: It will be adult universal suffrage.
  Mr. Riley: Will the property qualification for members of the Council be retained?
  Mr. Hall: It is intended that that should be abolished.
  Mr. David Adams: May I say that this great change will give the greatest satisfaction in Jamaica and in the Colonial Empire generally?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that this is an occasion for debating the statement that the hon. Gentleman has made.

  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (STAFF).
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Transport how many of those employed by his Ministry and in receipt of salaries

  1267
  of £600 a year and over have had previous experience in industrial transport management?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Montague): Thirteen officers employed in the Ministry of Transport with salaries of £600 a year and over have had direct experience in industrial transport management. There are a further 15 officers with such salaries who have served in the offices or on the accounting or engineering staffs of transport undertakings.

  TRANSPORT.

    TRAFFIC FACILITIES (APPEAL TO HOUSEWIVES).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Transport whether the appeal to housewives of the country to finish with transport by 4 o'clock in order to leave omnibuses, tramcars and trains free for war workers has proved successful or whether further steps will be required?
    Mr. Montague: It is too early yet to judge the full effect of the appeal, but I understand that it has already had a good response.
    Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that there are bitter complaints by workers in munition factories on Tyneside about the facilities for going to and from their work between five and six?
    Mr. Montague: I am not aware of that, but the response may differ in various parts of the country. We have had many reports from our representative to the other effect.

    EUSTON STATION (SAFETY MEASURES).
    Sir John Graham Kerrasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make further inquiry into the series of accidents to persons following the prescribed route to platforms 14 and 15 at Euston Station during periods of blackout, including one or more seamen proceeding to join their ships on the Clyde, a distinguished professor of the Royal Technical College, Glasgow, and a high Civil Service official; and, as these accidents show the inadequacy of whitening the edge of the platform as a safeguard at this particular danger-spot, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. Montague: Following an inspection of the conditions at the places in question on platforms 13, 14 and 15 at Euston Station, it has been decided to place movable barriers there. I hope that these will prove effective in preventing any more accidents at these points.
    Mr. Robert Gibson: Will ray hon. Friend keep in mind that this danger is acute where the platform is under a roof?
    Mr. Montague: Many Members know the difficulty of the change-over at Euston Station, and we hope that this measure will prevent accidents in future.

    MOTOR-CAR PRICES.
    Mr. Leachasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the exorbitant prices for new and second-hand motor-cars now being demanded by dealers, many of whom are speculating in these goods because of the high profit now possible; and, as most of the purchasers are people who require motor-cars for occupational purposes, and cannot afford the high prices demanded, will he consider instituting price control of motor vehicles?
    Mr. Montague: I am aware that in some cases excessive prices have been charged by dealers both for new and second-hand motor-cars, although some new cars have been sold at manufacturers' list prices. Control of the prices of the few new cars available would have little practical effect, while control of prices of second-hand cars present serious difficulties—both on account of widely differing conditions of car-worthiness and on administrative grounds. My right hon. Friend is therefore not satisfied that price control is justified, but he will always be ready to look into any established instances in which excessive prices are demanded and to take such action as is possible and appears to be warranted.
    Mr. Leach: Will my hon. Friend go further into this matter and, if he discovers that profiteering is wholesale and almost universal, take some measures to deal with it?
    Mr. Montague: Certainly, Sir.
    Mr. Sorensen: Cannot a pre-war standard of prices be established for second-hand cars?
    Mr. Montague: That is a difficulty which I pointed out in my answer—the difference in the conditions of the cars when sold. We will look into the question very closely.
    Mr. McGhee: Is it not true that the motor trade has had a standard of prices for second-hand cars for years?

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (CHARGES, LONDON).
  Sir Stanley Reedasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the increase in hire charges by certain London electrical companies on the ground of the higher cost of materials, maintenance, etc.; and whether he has satisfied himself that these charges are justified?
  Mr. Montague: I am making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

    BROADCASTING POLICY (POLITICAL OPINIONS).
    Mr. McGovernasked the Minister of Information whether he will set up a committee to inquire into the policy adopted by the British Broadcasting Corporation of refusing to allow persons having pacifist views to broadcast?
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): No, Sir.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing anxiety among a large number of people in this country at the exclusion of people from the microphone—that on account of their pacifist views they are not allowed to broadcast music and literature? Is he aware that there is this growing anxiety among people, many of whom support this war and think it is a great contradiction that we should be pretending to fight for liberty and at the same time adopting Nazi methods at the B.B.C.?
    Mr. Cooper: I am replying later to a Question by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) on the whole subject, and perhaps the hon. Member will wait for that Question to be reached.
    Mr. Liddall: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that 90 per cent. of our people do not want to listen to pacifists?
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Information whether he has come to a decision as to the policy to be followed in future by the British Broadcasting Corporation in connection with the non-employment of artistes holding certain political or religious opinions?
    Mr. Cooper: It has been the policy of the B.B.C. not to invite to the microphone persons who have taken part in public agitation against the national war effort. I see no reason why the Governors should be asked to revise this policy.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider again whether this principle ought to apply to artistes who are not expressing opinions in any way whatever, and if he does not feel able to ask the B.B.C. to reconsider the principle, will he at least ask them to reconsider the cases connected with the People's Convention, where their decision served no useful purpose and simply gave advertisement to a current of opinion which commands no national support or even respect?
    Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir. I think some confusion arose over the People's Convention Many of those who attended it did so without any reprehensible motive. I have asked the Governors of the B.B.C. to reconsider those cases, and they have consented to do so. On the general question, I would say that in my opinion it is not the business of the B.B.C. to ascertain what are the private opinions of artistes, but when artistes, apart from their artistic activities, take an active part in public agitations, then they must expect not to be given the great privilege, for it is a privilege and not a right, of being employed by the B.B.C.
    Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that there is no discrimination so far as religious opinions are concerned?
    Mr. Cooper: That is so.
    Mr. Maxton: Have we not a right to expect from the B.B.C, a publicly-owned corporation, the same kind of freedom for its employés as is granted by a privately-owned newspaper?
    Mr. Cooper: That is an entirely different matter.
    Mr. Maxton: I hope so.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Does the right hon. Gentleman confirm the view expressed by the Lord Privy Seal yesterday that there should be no discrimination and the statement that that was the attitude of the Government?
    Mr. Cooper: My right hon. Friend was speaking about the right of free speech. Certainly there should be no discrimination against people expressing views which may not be popular. Everybody has the right of free speech, but not everybody has a right to expect the privilege of exercising free speech through the B.B.C.

    B.B.C. (BOARD OF GOVERNORS).
    Mr. Vernon Bartlettasked the Minister of Information whether, in order to assure that the British Broadcasting Corporation should benefit from the advice of a thoroughly representative Board of Governors, he will consider reinstating the five Governors who were dismissed on the outbreak of the war?
    Mr. Lindsayasked the Minister of Information how many full-time Governors are now attached to the British Broadcasting Corporation; and whether, in view of the importance of preserving its representative character even in war-time, he will revert to the practice advised by its charter and re-appoint two or three additional men and women of wide public experience to strengthen the present composition of the governing body?
    Mr. Cooper: There are at present two Governors of the B.B.C. The appointment has never been a full-time one. The reasons for reducing the number on the outbreak of war were stated by the late Prime Minister on 22nd September, 1939, and re-affirmed by the Lord Privy Seal on 28th May, 1940. There appears to be no reason for a departure from this policy.
    Mr. Bartlett: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this "rump" Board of Governors does, in fact, wield considerable influence upon the policy of the B.B.C, and could he not see either that
    1272
    the Board of Governors is abolished altogether or so reorganised that it does represent public opinion?
    Mr. Cooper: I am quite prepared to consider the possibility of reorganising or increasing the Board of Governors. The reasons given by the Lord Privy Seal in May last were, I think, the same as those given by the late Prime Minister, primarily that in order to expedite the despatch of business it was thought better to have a small rather than a large number on the Board; and the hon. Member will recollect that members of the Board of Governors of their own volition resigned; but, as I have said, I am prepared to consider the question.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that the reasons given.previously have now ceased to hold good, while there are the strongest reasons of public policy why the Board of Governors should be more fully representative?
    Mr. Lindsay: Is it not true that one of the main reasons for reducing the numbers was the difficulty of the Board meeting, but meetings are now being held all over the country, and is it not important to fortify the Board of Governors, in view of the many important decisions which will have to be made in the coming year?
    Mr. Cooper: I have already informed my hon. Friend that I am looking into this matter.
    Sir I. Albery: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that advisory committees on which this House was represented have also ceased to function?
    Colonel Arthur Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that foreign countries find great difficulty in differentiating between the responsibility of the B.B.C. and the responsibility of the Government, and will he reconsider his decision not to take over responsibility himself?
    Mr. Cooper: I think the hon. and gallant Member is aware that the Government have recently appointed two official advisers to the B.B.C, one for home and one for foreign affairs, which will, no doubt, increase the control exercised by the Government. The Government's policy has been to maintain the independence of the B.B.C, and I think that decision has general approval.

    AIR MAILS, GREAT BRITAIN-UNITED STATES.
    Mr. Bartlettasked the Minister of Information whether his attention has been drawn to delays in the transmission of letters by air mail between the United States of America and this country; and how far the delays are due to the censorship of those letters in Bermuda?
    Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the delays in the transmission of letters by air mail between the United States of America and this country. These delays are due to the irregular working of the air service operated by the Pan-American Airways between Lisbon and New York, which in turn is due to adverse weather conditions. No part of the delay is due to censorship of letters in Bermuda. The censorship authorities in Bermuda do not remove, or deal with, any mail between this country and the United States. That mail is entirely censored in London, and the delay due to this cause rarely exceeds 24 hours.

    OMNIBUS SERVICES (PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that omnibus companies are refusing to supply to compilers of periodical publications of information of local interest particulars regarding times of omnibus services; and whether he will take steps to ensure that these particulars arc made available speedily and without restriction in the public interest?
    Mr. Cooper: My attention had not previously been drawn to this matter. If the hon, and learned Member will kindly give me detailed information, I will gladly make investigations with the other Departments concerned.
    Mr. Gibson: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department not got information with regard to a particular case in my own constituency?
    Mr. Cooper: No, Sir. I should be glad to receive it and will then look into it.

    POSTAL CENSORSHIP.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Postmaster-General whether he has examined into the reason for the delay of a letter posted in Belfast on 30th January and delivered in London on 3rd March, the envelope of which has been sent to him
    1274
    by the hon. Member for West Fife; and whether he will take steps to ensure that censorship operations shall not hold up correspondence for such a length of time?
    Mr. Cooper: I have been asked to reply. I have not yet been able to establish the reasons for the delay, but I can assure the hon. Member that all steps are being taken to avoid such delays in future.

  POST OFFICE.

    LETTERS (DELIVERY).
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Postmaster-General whether he has taken any action respecting the inaccurate statement in Post Office advertisements that the noon post will get letters delivered first thing next morning in England and Wales?
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am not aware that the statements referred to are substantially inaccurate, although in prevailing circumstances and in view of the great number of letters handled there will always be individual cases of failure to secure due course connections. If the hon. Member will let me have the covers of any letters which have been posted in London before noon and have failed to secure delivery in England or Wales first thing next morning, I will have inquiry made.
    Mr. Sorensen: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, is he not aware that one advertisement of the Post Office states quite definitely that letters posted before noon will get to any part of England or Wales the next morning, and that that is not always the case? Would it not be better to be a little more strict in the wording of the advertisement?
    Mr. Morrison: I think the public generally recognise that in the prevailing circumstances there are occasions when there is interruption of transport. The statement itself is substantially accurate, and my answer is founded on a careful check.

    WAR WEAPONS WEEK, BRIGHTON AND HOVE (PAMPHLETS).
    Sir Cooper Rawsonasked the Postmaster-General whether he will give permission for the postmen of Brighton and Hove, when delivering letters, to distribute, over a period of two or three days, a joint pamphlet from the Mayors of Brighton and Hove urging the inhabitants

    1275
    to support the war weapons week, in view of the fact that the postmen are anxious to co-operate, without any extra cost to the State, and thus contribute to the successful results of the campaign?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: Much as I sympathise with the object of this appeal and appreciate the public spirit of the local postmen at Brighton and Hove, I regret that I am prevented by Statute from meeting the hon. Member's request. I am not empowered to accord free postage to anyone.
    Sir C. Rawson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether it is not a fact that any legislation can be got through in this country within 24 hours? [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] After all, we want the money.
    Mr. Morrison: I feel that the House is in general agreed that we ought to confine legislation to essential matters, in present circumstances.

    CABLES AND PARCELS (TROOPS, MIDDLE EAST).
    Colonel Arthur Evansasked the Postmaster-General whether, in gratitude for the magnificent achievements of the troops in the Middle East, he will arrange further concessions for the sending of cables and parcels; whether, in this connection, he will consider granting free postage on parcels, as in the last war, and cheaper air mail; and whether, as the spasmodic delivery of mails and lack of news of their families, due to bad communications, are causing unnecessary worry to the men, he will investigate the whole circumstances to see whether something can be done to expedite and improve delivery?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The possibility of improving communications with the troops in the Middle East and, in particular, of introducing a cheaper air mail service, is being actively considered by my own Department and the other Departments concerned, and I hope to be able to make a statement shortly. My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension in supposing that in the last war parcels for the troops were accepted free of postage. The rates for parcels are, in fact, lower in this war than in the last.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SEA AND SHORE SERVICE (INTERCHANGE).
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the long periods of time spent at sea by various naval ranks and grades, he is satisfied that proper arrangements exist for interchange with depot and other shore personnel in suitable cases?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): Yes, Sir. There is an adequate organisation for ensuring that all ratings are given a fair share of sea and shore service, so far as the needs of the Service permit. It will be realised that many men are, by age or disability, employable on shore service only.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Will the hon. Baronet keep in mind that some hon. Members representing maritime constituencies have received complaints that this organisation is not working effectively, and will he do what he can to ensure that there is more effective organisation?
    Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir. I shall be glad to look into the matter.
    Mr. R. Gibson: Is the Minister investigating the complaints which I sent to his Department, referring particularly to the position of old men who joined up at the beginning of the war?
    Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir, although that is rather a different question.

    WOMEN'S ROYAL NAVAL SERVICE (ALIENS).
    Mr. Wedgwoodasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as anti-Nazi women aliens of German-Jewish origin are now being admitted on like terms with British to the ranks of the Auxiliary Territorial Service and the air-raid precautions Services, he will now permit approved cases to enter the Women's Royal Naval Service?
    Sir V. Warrender: So long as there continues to be a satisfactory number of British recruits for the W.R.N.S. my right hon. Friend feels bound to give preference to women of British nationality. The Admiralty, however, in specific cases, would not debar women with specially suitable qualifications on account of nationality. This question is being kept tinder review in the light of the recruiting position.
    Mr. Wedgwood: Am I to understand from the Minister's answer that there is a bar against these women in the Navy which does not exist in the other Forces of the Crown, and, if so, why?
    Sir V. Warrender: No, Sir. I have said that there is no definite bar against them, providing they have special qualifications, but in view of the fact that we have no difficulty whatever in obtaining recruits for this Service, my right hon. Friend thinks that it is better to give preference to British women.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the extreme urgency of the need to increase the benefits payable under the National Health Insurance, in particular, sickness, maternity and disablement benefits; by what amounts it is intended to increase the benefits; and whether he can make a statement on the matter, in view of the urgency?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health are aware of the importance of this issue, and hope to be able to make a statement shortly.
  Dr. Edith Summerskill: Why does it take such a long time to decide that 8s. a week is not enough to keep a sick person?
  Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Lady would find, if she went into the matter fully, that it is a little more difficult than that, and it is not sufficient merely to say that 8s. is enough or is not enough.
  Sir Francis Fremantle: Does the Minister recognise the extreme urgency of reducing financial commitments at the present time?
  Hon. Members: Shame.
  Mr. Thorne: Does the Minister remember what I said to her last week?
  Miss Horsbrugh: I remember what the hon. Member said last week, and my reply, which was that there was no difficulty in gingering up my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that women suffered from economy cuts which did not apply to men; should those cuts not be restored to them in the present circumstances?
  Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Member will be aware that many people would like to have a statement made and to know what is to happen, but he will realise that, even if legislation were introduced immediately, no change could be made at once.
  Mr. Buchanan: Yes, but the Minister will be missing the next half year.

  VAGRANTS (STATISTICS).
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Health the number of vagrants in casual wards for the last recorded date?
  Miss Horsbrugh: The number of casuals in receipt of relief in casual wards in England and Wales on the night of the last Friday in December was 3,488. The returns from five authorities for the last Friday in January are still outstanding, but, taking the December figures for the five authorities, the total for January is 3,199.
  Mr. Lipson: Will the Minister consult with the Minister of Labour with a view to finding out what can be done to get these vagrants to assist the national war effort?
  Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the number of vagrants is greatly reduced from pre-war times, when, instead of being from 3,000 to 4,000, it was between 7,000 and 11,000.

  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Pensions what additions to meet the increased cost of living have been made since the war to disability pensions given to men who served in the last war?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): The rates of pension laid down in the Royal Warrant of 1919 and corresponding instruments for the Navy and Air Force were based on a cost-of-living figure of 215. The cost of living has not yet

  1279
  approached that figure since the present war began, and consequently there has been no increase in the rates. The hon. Member may, however, rest assured that steps will be taken to revise the rates in accordance with the Royal Warrant, if and when the cost of living justifies it.
  Mr. Lipson: In view of the fact that the value of £1 before the war was only about 15s., is there not a case for an immediate increase in disability pensions, and will the Minister not see that action in that direction is taken at once?
  Mr. Paling: The rates were fixed after full consideration.
  Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an answer of that kind bears no true relationship to the facts of life, and will he give the matter more consideration?

  MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME (HILLINGDON).
  Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give any reason why no milk has been delivered to the 1,000 children attending the Oak Farm School, Hillingdon, Middlesex; whether the Board have had any difficulties with the teachers about the matter; and what action he is taking to see that the children get their supply of milk?
  The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): The breakdown is due to the dairymen refusing to supply milk to this school in small bottles containing one-third of a pint. I understand that the teachers are not prepared to accept responsibility for distributing milk supplied in bulk, and, in view of the difficulties and risks of infection involved, I should not feel justified, on the information before me, in asking them to do so. Moreover, Section 85 of the Education Act, 1921, provides that the participation of teachers in this work is entirely voluntary. These and other difficulties affecting the scheme are engaging my earnest attention with a view to finding an immediate remedy.
  Mr. Messer: Is the Minister aware that there is no evidence that the bottles which were used had been broken or destroyed? In view of that fact, can he account for
  1280
  the statement which he has made that the bottles are not available?
  Mr. Ramsbotham: The information I have is that there is great difficulty in getting these bottles, and particularly the stoppers.

  COAL (DISTRIBUTION).
  Mr. Gordon Macdonaldasked the Secretary for Mines what action has been taken to reorganise the wholesale and retail distribution of coal, in order to release as many men as possible for other work of national importance?
  The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): As a result of the operation of the various district schemes established under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, considerable progress had been made before the war with the simplification of the wholesale distribution of coal. More recently, the urgent need to ease the heavy burden now falling upon the railways has led my right hon. and gallant Friend, the Minister of Transport and myself to give constant attention to the movement of more coal in full trainloads and, in so far as present abnormal conditions permit, to the avoidance of unnecessarily long hauls. We are very hopeful that, with the assistance of the colliery owners and of the distributive trade, acting through the House Coal Distribution (Emergency) Scheme, we may be able to achieve substantial further progress along both lines. Economy in the labour employed in the retail distribution of coal was another of the objects for which the House Coal Scheme was established last autumn. The progressive loss of men engaged in this work has now, however, attained proportions that are causing me much anxiety, and I am considering with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service how this essential national service can be safeguarded.
  Mr. Logan: In regard to the deputation which approached the Minister from Liverpool last week, can he say whether the special arrangement will be applied to the City of Liverpool?
  Mr. Grenfell: I do not think that the deputation from Liverpool had regard to this question at all.
  Mr. Logan: It was on a question of coal.
  Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir, certainly, but not this question of coal. There are many other aspects to this question of coal.
  Sir Joseph Lamb: Is it possible to consider whether canals can be used for the carrying of coal?
  Mr. Grenfell: Canals are being used for the carrying of coal. This is a very old question indeed. It is probable that, if action had been taken a long time ago in this direction, more coal could now be carried on the canals. It is not now possible to provide much extra facilities for the transportation of coal by inland waterways.
  Mr. Burke: Does the Minister realise that there are dangers in reducing the number of mineworkers, because mills in Burnley on Government work have had to close down this week, owing to coal shortage?
  Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir. I am meeting the Minister of Labour, and we are going very closely into the question of retaining men for work of national importance in the mines.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Minister 'of Agriculture how many days' meat ration for the country is represented by the animals slaughtered since the start of the war for actual or potential infection by foot-and-mouth disease; and whether, if slaughter is still insisted on in the case of infected animals, it can, in the interests of food, be restricted in the case of those animals which are not actually diseased?
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The total number of animals slaughtered on account of foot-and-mouth disease since the outbreak of war represents less than one day's meat ration for the whole of the country. The majority of the carcases were salvaged for human consumption. The number of carcases actually destroyed represents so small a quantity as not to be calculable in terms of a day's meat ration.

  SHIPPING CONTROL.
  Mr. Liddallasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the unfavourable criticism contained in the annual
  1282
  report of the Chamber of Shipping, upon the shipping control and building policy as at present exercised by five Ministers; and whether he will make better arrangements in this respect?
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the passage in the report dealing with the inspection of ships by officers of several Departments. It is obviously difficult to combine different technical functions in the same inspector, but the Minister of Shipping has informed the Chamber that he will be glad to discuss with them any practicable proposals which they can make to this end. He is also in communication with the other Departments concerned upon the matter.

  DISABLED SOLDIERS' ALLOWANCES.
  Mr. Tinkerasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the Government's decision not to grant the same rights to the soldier who returns wounded and marries afterwards as to the married soldier, and of the considerable feeling in the country on this matter, he will give time for discussion of the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Leigh and others relating to the allowances of these soldiers?
  [That this House considers that the soldier who gels disabled on active service and marries after such disablement should receive the same grant and the same rights of allowance as are now given to the married soldier.]
  Mr. Attlee: In view of the pressure on Parliamentary time, I fear I do not see any prospect of a discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member and others.
  Mr. Tinker: As this is a matter of great importance, if I renew the Question after Budget-time, can I expect an assurance that there will be time for discussion of the Motion?
  Mr. Attlee: Perhaps the hon. Member will raise the question after Budget-time.

  NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER.
  Dr. Littleasked the Prime Minister whether, on the National Day of Prayer, he will have a Government Order issued

  1283
  that, as far as practicable, work will cease, and all places of entertainment be closed on the appointed day?
  Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. The value of the response to His Majesty's call will depend on its being spontaneous, and I do not doubt that the response to that call will be nation-wide.
  Dr. Little: As 23rd March has been set apart by His Majesty the King as a Day of Prayer, Intercession and Thanksgiving, should it not be made clear that every hindrance should be taken out of the way, so that all the people in the United Kingdom may be free to respond to the call of His Majesty on the appointed day?
  Mr. Attlee: I should like to see that Question on the Paper.

  EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
  Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Prime Minister whether he will provide time to discuss the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough East, and others, relating to the Excess Profits Tax?
  [That, whilst acknowledging the principle of limiting profits during war-time, this House recognises the grave handicap to efficient and economical production of essential war materials resulting from the imposition of 100 per cent. excess profits lax, and is of the opinion that 85 per cent. is the maximum that can be imposed without inflicting serious hardship in many cases and extravagance in others; and is further of the opinion that by the reduction of the excess profits tax from 100 per cent. to 85 per cent. there would be an immense saving in the cost of production, an acceleration of output and an increased revenue to the Exchequer, and therefore recommends that the Government give the most serious consideration to this problem without delay.]
  Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. There will be full opportunity for discussion in the Budget Debates.
  Mr. Edwards: Does the Minister not realise that this Motion is concerned to increase the output of all materials and also to increase the revenue of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Is it not important that the House should have an
  1284
  opportunity of discussing this matter before the Chancellor makes his Budget proposals?
  Mr. Attlee: I think that the discussion on the Budget proposals will give the opportunity which the hon. Member desires.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

    WAR PRODUCTION (SMALL FIRMS).
    Mr. Cocksasked the Minister of Supply what steps he is taking to enable a greater number of small firms to take part in war production as recommended by the Select Committee on National Expenditure; and whether he will make arrangements to enable them to obtain the necessary credit facilities from the banks?
    Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that small engineering shops in Scotland that were busily engaged on munitions during the last war have not yet been given an opportunity of contributing by their work to the present war effort; and whether, with a view to spreading such engineering work, he will take steps to promote a policy of decentralisation in respect of such work?
    The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): The Ministry's area officers are constantly helping to arrange sub-contracts of all kinds for the smaller firms, and group schemes are employed in suitable cases. Arrangements have been made in co-operation with the banks whereby manufacturers can, where necessary, obtain from their banks the necessary resources to carry out their contracts. The Ministry of Supply provide additional plant in suitable eases.
    Mr. Gibson: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take some further steps than those which are dependent upon the action of banks, in order to bring into production the engineering shops in Scotland and give a greater impetus to the war effort such as was given in the last war?
    Sir A. Duncan: I did not say it was dependent upon the action of banks, but upon the action of our own Ministry of Supply area officers.

    BARBED WIRE CONTRACT.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Supply the total value of the contracts awarded to a company manufacturing barbed wire, of which he has been informed, together with the contract price per coil; whether this company sub-let the contract to another company of wire manufacturers; and whether the sub-contractors demanded, and obtained, from his Department a guarantee that payment would be forthcoming?
    Sir A. Duncan: It would be contrary to established practice to disclose the information asked for in the first part of the Question. As regards the second and third parts of the Question, no portion of the contract let to the firm which the hon. Member has in mind has been sublet. The firm purchases the wire required, and the Department, at the request of the suppliers, has given an assurance as to payment for wire supplied for the purpose of the contract.
    Mr. Barnes: Can the Minister say whether this was a very large contract; if so, why was not the contract given direct to the producing firm, and also is an inquiry taking place with regard to this contract by his Department?
    Sir A. Duncan: I am afraid I cannot add to the answer.

    SCIENTISTS (NATIONALITY).
    Dr. A. V. Hillasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that men with good scientific qualifications urgently needed for certain special work, whose names have been sent to him, have been rejected solely on the ground that, although British-born, they are not of British descent and whether, in view of the serious shortage of such men, he will arrange that in making appointments loyalty and ability should be considered rather than ancestry?
    Sir A. Duncan: It was recently decided to relax the general rule previously applied in the Ministry of Supply that candidates for employment should be British-born and born of British-born parents. I may add that numerous exceptions had already been made in the application of the general rule.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES' RAILINGS AND SCRAP METAL.
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Minister of Supply why local authorities are being asked to hand over to metal merchants, free of any charge, railings from their parks and open spaces, and scrap metal, which is then to be bought by the Government from the merchants at an agreed price, which enables the merchants to make a considerable profit; and what protests he has received from local authorities against this practice?
    Sir A. Duncan: Local authorities are encouraged to dispose of railings through the ordinary channels of trade Any local authority which is satisfied that the merchants are not offering a reasonable price for the railings, having regard to the services rendered by the merchant, may apply direct to the Director of Scrap Supplies of the Iron and Steel Control. The advantages of the scheme are generally recognised by local authorities, and there has been very little complaint.
    Mr. McEntee: Is it not a fact that the Minister's Department is asking local authorities to give this material free of charge while merchants are charging a price to the Government? In view of the fact that a great number of local authorities have railway sidings of their own, put the metal on the sidings and send it to the merchants, who pick it up, why is not the metal sent by the local authorities on their own sidings to the place where it is to be used, and thus save this middleman's profit?
    Sir A. Duncan: The matter is not so simple as that. There are great varieties in the content of these railings, and it is quite a technical matter to decide to which places they are to go. There is no objection at all to the local authorities entering into direct contact with the Iron and Steel Control for a direct arrangement for purchase.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister take steps to induce local authorities which are not sending in their railings to do so at the earliest possible moment?
    Sir A. Duncan: We are quite satisfied that the railings are coming in at the necessary rate.
    Mr. McEntee: Will the Minister give a direction to the local authorities—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker rose—
    Mr. McEntee: Why am I not permitted to ask a second Supplementary Question?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member was only repeating a previous Supplementary Question. There are about 30 Questions yet to be answered.

    STEEL (IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES).
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Supply what percentage of the total steel used in Great Britain is now being imported from the United States of America?
    Sir A. Duncan: It would not be in the public interest to disclose the information for which the hon. Member asks.
    Mr. Stokes: On the assumption that the amount imported is a small minority of the whole, would it not be to the general advantage to maintain the price of home-produced steel at a proper level and give a direct subsidy from the Government?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not arise.

    IRON ORE, NORTHERN IRELAND.
    Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Supply what was the percentage of iron in the samples of iron ore taken in County Down; and whether he will explore still further in that region with the object of taking additional samples for testing?
    Sir A. Duncan: The samples taken from this field showed great variations. The excavations are at present waterlogged, but I am prepared to consider further sampling when conditions become favourable.
    Dr. Little: How many samples of iron ore were taken, and was the percentage arrived at the average of the analyses of these samples?
    Sir A. Duncan: Quite a number of samples were taken. These veins are very small, and one must consider much more than the actual content of a particular sample. The accessibility in quantity of the ore is a matter of vital importance.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MEAT (PRICES).
    Mr. Sloanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that casserole steak is beings old in shops in the West of Scotland at a price of 2s., whilst the makers, Messrs.Hendry Brothers, London, state that the maximum selling price should be 1s. 6d.;
    1288
    and what action he intends taking to prevent such gross profiteering?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): I understand the "Casserole Steak" referred to is imported from Eire. The price at which this and other imported canned meats should be sold first hand in this country have been agreed with the importers, who have undertaken to bring to the notice of the trade appropriate retail prices. These steps have apparently not been sufficient to ensure that these retail prices are not exceeded, and my Noble Friend is now examining the position further.
    Mr. Sloan: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the firms recently controlled by his Noble Friend, the Minister of Food, are the chief sinners in this respect?

    MILK.
    Mr. Manderasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the position of the Government concerning proposals in regard to the distributive trade in milk put forward recently by the Perry Committee in their report?
    Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend expects to be able to make a statement on this subject next week.

    OATS.
    Mr. Snaddenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (1) whether he is aware that Direction C18/DI, prohibiting merchants from selling oats to persons other than oatmeal millers except where such oats are refused by them, was issued only to a certain number of authorised merchants leaving others a free hand; that this has caused much resentment; and will he take steps to remove this injustice;
    (2) whether he is aware that his Department have issued a Direction C18/DI, dated 18th February, 1941, to certain authorised merchants, prohibiting the sale by them to persons other than oatmeal millers of all oats purchased after 18th February, 1941, except, where such oats have been refused by oatmeal millers; that all oats includes seed oats; and that this Order will have the effect of preventing farmers from securing vital supplies of seed for the greatly-increased acreage now

    1289
    about to be sown; and whether he will take steps to have seed oats excluded from this Direction?
    Major Lloyd George: New Directions, dated 6th March, were issued to all approved buyers of oats in Scotland, the object of which is to secure an increase in the quantity of oats offered to oatmeal millers. The sale of oats for distribution or use as seed in Scotland is specifically permitted under these new Directions.

    MONITRIE FARINA FACTORY.
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the reasons why the proposal to restart the Monitrie farina factory was not proceeded with?
    Major Lloyd George: No decision has been taken not to restart the Monitrie factory. The question is now under examination in the light of the present starch supply position.
    Mr. White: Having regard to the time during which this matter has been under consideration, and the possibility of a growing shortage of starch, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that action is taken to deal with the matter?
    Major Lloyd George: There will be no undue delay, and the question of starch supplies is very much as it was.

    FISH (PRICES).
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the reasons for the continued delay in controlling fish prices, which are much too high and beyond the purchasing power of the majority of the people; and, having regard to the shortage of rationed foods, will he fix maximum fish prices forthwith?
    Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend will be aware that, as I said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) on 26th February, the control of fish distribution and prices presents special difficulties partly owing to the perishable nature of the commodity and partly owing to the nature of the trade. While I entirely agree with the views expressed in the last part of the Question, I cannot, at present, add anything to the reply which I gave on 26th ultimo.
    Mr. Robertson: Is it not a fact that a similar problem had to be faced during the last war, and that the Maximum Prices Order then introduced solved the problem, with the result that there was a fair and square distribution of this essential food, and does my hon. and gallant Friend not realise that the Government policy is being defeated by the failure of the Department to control the price of fish?
    Major Lloyd George: I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. Friend about the success of the policy of control in the last war. I say again that it is a most difficult problem to define maximum prices. As I pointed out in a reply I made a week or so ago, my Noble Friend considers that prices are far too high.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the difficulties of controlling the prices of fish vary greatly in the different classes of fish, and will he therefore do as much good as he can by fixing maximum prices in the case of those fish which can easily be controlled in regard to price?
    Major Lloyd George: That is one of the difficulties before us at the present time. There are over 40 different kinds of fish, and we are contemplating controlling those more easily dealt with.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that fish ranges from 2s. 6d. to 5s. a 1b. in Glasgow, and that the Minister has asked the merchants themselves to fix a price; and is it not ridiculous that no action should be taken while the fish is mounting in price and people are discontented at the way in which the Ministry of Food is acting?
    Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend considers the price of fish far too high, but this is the most difficult problem of all and fixing a maximum price is not a solution of this problem. My hon. Friend knows that fish are in short supply at the moment, and the fixing of a maximum price alone could not ensure equitable distribution.

    CHEESE.
    Mr. Priceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps are being taken to secure that, in cases where a large increase in population has taken place in a certain area, and

    1291
    where there is in that area a large industrial and mining population for whom cheese is a vital necessity, an increased supply of cheese is available as far as the quantities in the country permit?
    Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 26th February to the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd), in which I announced that my Noble Friend is reviewing the operation of the present system of distributing cheese with a view to its improvement. In that review the points made by my hon. Friend are being taken into account.
    Mr. Priceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, when there is a surplus of milk for manufacture into milk products, he will give first preference to manufacture of cheese rather than dried and powder-milk products?
    Major Lloyd George: My Noble Friend has already arranged that first preference shall be given to the making of cheese rather than of other products in the utilisation of the surplus milk available for manufacture

    MEAT (COLD STORAGE).
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the request by his Department to producers to market their livestock earlier owing to the shortage of feeding-stuffs, he is arranging for a material quantity of this to be placed in cold storage for later use?
    Major Lloyd George: In so far as additional supplies of home-produced meat become available, they enable the Ministry to reduce the releases of imported meat from cold stores.

  UNITED STATES LEASE-LEND BILL.
  Mr. Lees-Smithasked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information about the Lease and Lend Bill?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The Lease-Lend Bill became law yesterday, when it received the signature of the President. I am sure the House would wish me to express on their behalf, and
  1292
  on behalf of the nation, our deep a no respectful appreciation of this monument of generous and far-seeing statesmanship.
  The most powerful democracy have, in effect, declared in solemn Statute that they will devote their overwhelming industrial and financial strength to ensuring the defeat of Nazism in order that nations, great and small, may live in security, tolerance and freedom. By so doing, the Government and people of the United States have in fact written a new Magna Carta, which not only has regard to the rights and laws upon which a healthy and advancing civilisation can alone be erected, but also proclaims by precept and example the duty of free men and free nations, wherever they may be, to share the responsibility and burden of enforcing them.
  In the name of His Majesty's Government and speaking, I am sure, for Parliament and for the whole country, and indeed, in the name of all freedom-loving peoples, I offer to the United States our gratitude for her inspiring act of faith.
  Mr. Granville: May I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the great importance of this statement whether he would consider making a broadcast to the United States of America in similar terms and on a wavelength which could be heard by the people of this country as well?
  The Prime Minister: That is a matter in which a decision would have to be taken at the appropriate moment.

  NEW MEMBER MAKES AFFIRMATION.
  Adam Storey McKinlay, Esquire, for the County of Dumbarton.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DETERMINATION OF NEEDS [MONEY].
  Resolution reported:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to abolish the requirement that in determining the need and assessing the needs of applicants for unemployment assistance or supplementary pensions the resources of all members of their households must be taken into account, to make further provision for the determination of need and the assessment of needs in the case of such applicants and in connection with financial assistance to blind persons and to provide for the winding-up of the Unemployment Assistance Fund (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') it is expedient to authorize—
  I. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any amounts by which the sums required for the payment of allowances under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, and of supplementary pensions under the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, are increased—

  (a) by reason of any provisions of the said Act altering the statutory requirements as to the determination of the need and the assessment of the needs of applicants who are members of households; and

  (b) by reason of any provisions of the said Act requiring that in computing there sources of any person whose resources are taken into account in determining the need or assessing the needs of applicants for such allowances and supplementary pensions as aforesaid, any money and investments treated as capital assets of that person up to the amount of his war savings, but not exceeding three hundred and seventy-five pounds, shall be disregarded. together with the income there from in addition to any money and investments which would be otherwise disregarded;

  and of such sums as may be necessary to defray the expenses of the Assistance Beard. including the amount of the allowances issued under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1034; and
  II. the payment into the Exchequer of ail sums received by the Assistance Board."
  Resolution agreed to.

  DETERMINATION OF NEEDS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the chair.]

  DETERMINATION OF NEEDS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Repeal of requirements as to resources of household.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. A. Bevan: As I understand that it is not proposed to move
    1308
    the Amendments on the Order Paper, may I ask whether the Chancellor will take this opportunity of indicating whether he has any concession to make; and will it be convenient to the Committee, with your permission. Sir Dennis, to have a general discussion on the Chancellor's statement and on the general principles of the Clause?
    The Chairman: I have no objection to the Chancellor of the Exchequer making a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan: Would it not suit the convenience of the Committee if we had a statement from the Chancellor, on Clause 1 as to the changes, if any, which are to be made in the Bill? That might clarify the discussion, and ease the position later. I am certain that Clause 1 is the appropriate: occasion for the Chancellor to make any such statement.
    The Chairman: I said that I had no objection to the course proposed by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) As to further proceedings of the kind that the hon. Member referred to, I think we must wait and see how things go.
    Mr. Buchanan: I thank you for your answer, Sir Dennis, which is a very tolerant one. I was going to ask the Chancellor if, subject to your Ruling, he could make some statement on the Bill in general.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I should be very glad to give an indication on two matters of some importance which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I have considered, with a view to meeting some of the points which have been put by my hon. Friends opposite. Of course, matters in the Bill generally were the subject o' very close and careful examination by my right hon. Friend and myself and we gave a great deal of time and attention to them. In view of the representations that have been made, and in order that Parliament may properly exercise its functions—because I recognise that it is not simply a matter for the determination of Ministers—my right hon. Friend and I have given reconsideration to two matters of some

    1309
    importance, involving further concessions to people who will benefit under the Bill.
    The first is this: My hon. Friends will remember that in the White Paper it was stated that the Board, in applying Rule 2, proposed to assess at 7s. a week the benefit accruing to the applicant through the presence in his household of an adult earning normal wages. This matter has been the subject of discussion between my hon. Friends opposite and myself, and I think it was generally understood that the intention had been to regard 50s. or over as normal wages. In view of representations which have been made by my hon. Friends, it is now proposed to raise this figure to 55s., that is to say, that any person earning less than 55s. a week will be assumed to contribute less than 7s. a week, and this will have certain consequential effects.
    The second matter is one to which my hon. Friends opposite attach considerable importance. It will be recalled that under Rule 3 an applicant living in a household with his father or mother, son or daughter would not be regarded as requiring to contribute towards the cost of his board and lodging, if the income of the father and mother, or son and daughter, exceeded the prescribed amount. In the White Paper it was suggested that the prescribed amount should be £5 a week, subject to an addition, where there were two or more dependants exclusive of the applicant. My hon. Friends opposite made certain representations about that figure of £5 a week, and we now propose to raise the amount from £5 to £6 a week, This, of course. will make a considerable difference in the administration of the scheme. Those are two proposals which I hope will commend themselves to the Committee and will be regarded by my hon. Friends opposite as an earnest of the desire of the Government to meet the representations which they have made. Undoubtedly they will confer considerable additional advantages on the people who are to benefit.
    Mr. Buchanan: The concessions inst announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are important, and I do not propose to labour the question further than to say that I think the increase from £5 to £6 a week is the more important of the two. I wish to ask, however, whether the right hon. Gentleman will not again
    1310
    look into the question of the minimum wage in respect of which contribution is to be taken into account. Under the procedure at present proposed, the £1 a week figure still stands in this connection. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience, will say that when concessions are made there are always demands for further concessions, but I do think that he ought to go into this matter of the lower-level incomes once again. He is making concessions which to some extent improve matters for those who are, comparatively speaking, in the better positions, but which leave untouched the hardest cases of all, namely, those of the very poor, such as the old age pensioners who are at the £1-a-week level. As between the £2 15s. a week income and the £1 a week income the gap is a very large one, and even at this late hour, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider increasing in the Regulations the minimum of £1 which seems to be the most serious blot on the Bill.
    The Bill, in my view, represents a considerable general improvement, but I think the £1-a-week provision remains a blot upon it, affecting the poorest of the people concerned. I thought that one result of the Bill would be the avoidance of unnecessary expense in investigation, and I understood from the right hon. Gentleman's earlier statement that it was hoped to mitigate the investigation procedure. But as long as you have that abnormally low level, you will still require a large amount of investigation, particularly where female employment abounds, because it is notorious that the wages paid to women are much lower than men's wages. I therefore urge the Chancellor to reconsider the minimum standard.
    Mr. Bevan: It is clear that we have already passed a very important stage of this Bill. I agree that the concessions announced by the right hon. Gentleman are of substantial importance and will enable a large number of people to benefit who might otherwise be excluded. For those reasons we welcome the concessions, but it must now be clear that the substance of the Bill will lie in the Regulations which are to be issued under it, and the most useful Debate that can take place will be one directed to improving the Regulations themselves and also the Rules to be issued under the Regulations

    1311
    I suggest respectfully to the Minister of Labour that our experience has gone to show that Rules which are concealed from us are often more important than the Regulations and that the Regulations seem to be more important than the Bill. The Committee will, I am sure, have noticed this peculiarity, that within the language and the framework of the Bill, without making any alteration in the terms of the Bill itself, it has already been found possible to raise the £5 a week to £6 a. week and the 50s. a week to 55s. a week.
    My hon. Friends will, I am certain, tell the Chancellor and the Minister of Labour that much of what we do here on these questions is often rendered nugatory by what the Board does. A distinction is made in this Bill between a person who is a householder and one who is not. Many of us regard the distinction as artificial. Who is or who is not the house holder often depends in working-class circles on conditions and factors wholly irrelevant to our legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) pointed out in the Second Reading Debate, in South Wales a son may become the householder for reasons arising out of his relationship with his employer. It is important that the Regulations or Rules should lay down some objective and easily discernible test of who is the householder or who is not. It is undesirable, because it is repugnant to all the instincts of our people, that an officer of the Board should be allowed, in determining the position of a person who is living in a household with other relatives, to pry too closely into the circumstances of family life.
    The Chairman: I am trying my best to help the hon. Member, but the Motion to report Progress is not a proper occasion on which to discuss Regulations to be made under this Bill. There are two courses, I think, open to hon. Members with regard to what has arisen or is expected to arise under the Regulations. One is that they may find it practicable to deal with these various questions on the particular Clauses or Schedules on which they arise in the Committee. That, I appreciate, might cause some hon. Members some difficulties, and in that case T think the proper opportunity for discuss-
    1312
    ing these Regulations would be after the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, on the Third Reading of the Bill. Obviously, it is quite impossible to have a general Debate upon the intended Regulations upon this Motion.
    Mr. Lawson: May I draw your attention to the fact that, while it is true that we cannot discuss the Regulations, you have an unusual situation in this case as distinct from other Bills of this nature in that you have had a White Paper which has practically laid down the principles of the Regulations, and in some cases actually stated the amounts? Therefore, as this has been discussed on Second Reading and has been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, would it not be just as well, in view of that fact, to discuss this matter rather more widely on this occasion than we have been enabled to do on previous Bills of this kind?
    The Chairman: I think that that is perfectly true. I have already had the White Paper before me, but we have to keep within certain limits. I have allowed a good deal of latitude on the whole, but we must keep within the forms of procedure, otherwise we shall get into all sorts of quagmires, which only lead us in future to greater difficulty. We certainly cannot discuss a White Paper of this kind in the way that hon. Members wish to discuss it on the Committee stage of the Bill at all. Points arising on such a matter have on occasions been discussed on the Committee stage, if and so far as they are legitimate subjects for discussion, on the Question of the Clause or Schedule standing part of the Bill, or, as I have indicated, they can be more generally debated as one subject on the Third Reading. The question of the White Paper having been issued in this case cannot alter the procedure in Committee. If hon. Members wish to discuss the White Paper generally as a special matter on this occasion they are wishing to do something which is not permissible. I am afraid that I cannot allow it.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not wish in any way to disagree with your Ruling, Sir Dennis, on principle. There is a number of Amendments on the Paper, and Members of the Committee desire to know whether they should move those Amendments or not.
    The Chairman: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber a few minutes ago.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I have been here all 'the time.
    The Chairman: I have already given the Committee to understand that on the Motion to report Progress I will allow hon. Members to discuss matters in regard to the proposed Amendments and the new concessions proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be made on behalf of the Government. I think there can be no difficulty about that, but I cannot allow a general discussion on the White Paper.
    Mr. Barnes: We are still not clear as to the purpose that the Motion to report Progress is to serve. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has mentioned several concessions which are very acceptable. Are we to be able to raise other points covered by Amendments at this stage, or do you prefer us to leave these matters until we reach the Amendments on the Bill?
    The Chairman: It is not an unusual thing to have a discussion of this kind upon the intentions of the Government when provisional arrangements have been made by the Government with hon. Members who have criticised the Bill with regard to certain provisions of the Bill. Therefore, I think hon. Members ought to have no difficulty in realising how far or how short a distance they can go in this Debate. It must be purely a question of the Chancellor's statement and making any counter-statement which is strictly relevant to the Chancellor's statement. I think that is what it comes to, but what I am anxious to do at the present moment, when the request has definitely been made to me in these terms that we might have a Debate on the Regulations to be laid, is to make it clear that such a Debate cannot possibly take place now.
    Mr. Bevan: I think it is all my fault, because, with all my experience, I ought to have known that, if I had continually referred to Amendments and not Regulations, I should have been able to say the same things in perfect order. As I understand it, we are now having a discussion on the Motion to report Progress on the Chancellor's statement and on a number of Amendments which I understand are
    1314
    not to be moved, and you will be able to put the Clause properly afterwards without any discussion at all. This will enable Ministers to go away who might have been brought here under false pretences.
    The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will not misunderstand what I have said. I think he is stretching my Ruling unduly. I must ask him to note that I did state most definitely that a Debate on the intended or proposed Regulations to be laid under this Bill, if and when it becomes an Act, cannot be discussed on the Committee stage.
    Mr. Bevan: I think you are now making it frightfully difficult. In my respectful submission, it will be quite impossible for us to discuss either the Bill or the Chancellor's statement unless we discuss the Regulations, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have made a statement other than that about the Regulations. I think the point has not been grasped. After what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said to the Committee that the Regulations will themselves contain certain things, how, therefore, can we discuss them?
    The Chairman: I am sorry if I have not made clear the procedure of the House and the Rules in regard thereto, which, as I have already said, we must keep when it comes to such questions as this, otherwise we shall be getting the whole procedure of the House into considerable muddle. Apparently, the whole of the hon. Member's difficulty is that he wants to do something on the Committee stage which is not proper to be done on the Committee stage, and I cannot allow that.
    Mr. Graham White: I welcome the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think it is a great help to the Bill and will no doubt affect its progress.
    Mr. Bevan rose—
    The Chairman: It is certainly not considered in Order that two hon. Members should speak at once, still less three or more. I think we are getting a little adrift here. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) was, I gather, proceeding to make a speech on the Motion to report Progress, but the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was in possession of the Floor of the Committee on a

    1315
    point of Order when I interrupted him. I am not sure whether my interruption has been sufficient to end what he desired to say.
    Mr. Bevan: I really am in a. difficulty, which the whole Committee shares, and I hope that we shall be able to come to some arrangement. It has happened on many occasions that we have agreed to have a discussion of a general nature on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," a guarantee being given to the Chair that if we did this, the other Clauses which might give rise to similar discussion should be put automatically from the Chair and a vote taken, if necesary, without a discussion. [Interruption.]
    The Chairman: Hon. Members must address the Chair and not carry on their own conversation with one another.
    Mr. Bevan: If that is not understood, the Motion to report Progress, instead of widening the discussion, limits it, and I respectfully submit that it would be just as well that the Motion to report Progress should now be withdrawn, so that we could go on with a discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Chairman: I think the hon. Member may be right, but I am afraid that that still does not get him as far as he wants to go. Even a most general discussion on the Question ''That the Clause stand part of the Bill," would not permit what I understand he wants, which is a general and full discussion on Regulations to be made under a Bill which has not yet even got to its Third Reading stage. This is not the proper time for a discussion of these Regulations. If the Motion to report Progress were withdrawn, I agree that that would probably be the best thing to do, so that the Committee could deal with the Bill Clause by Clause. I do not want hon. Members to be afraid that I will stifle proper discussion in any way on the Bill, but they must remember that it would be quite out of Order and, indeed, not reasonable to discuss Regulations made, or rather intended to be made, under a Bill which is not yet anywhere near the end of its passage through the House.
    Mr. Buchanan: The Chancellor has discussed Regulations by announcing—
    The Chairman: I think the hon. Member will find that the putting of points of that sort will not be stopped. But that is quite another thing from discussing Regulations as a whole, which I cannot allow. I will allow Debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," to the greatest possible extent that I can. In such discussions hon. Members can take note of and be concerned with any statement which has been made by the Government as to what is intended to be done by the Regulations, which is, as I have said, a different thing from discussing the Regulations as a whole.
    Mr. Buchanan: I was about to say that the Chancellor had discussed Regulations within limits, by announcing two concessions, not in the Bill, on these Regulations. Surely other Members are entitled to ask that the Chancellor ought to make some other concession on the Regulations. Surely that is not out of Order. With all due deference to you, Sir Dennis, you arc saying that we cannot discuss the Regulations, yet the Chancellor has already discussed them in part by announcing two concessions on the White Paper, and all I ask is, At what point does a Member stop? I asked for a concession on the minimum wage, and some other Member may ask for a concession on some other part, and if we take this matter on the Motion to report Progress or on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," it does not ease the dilemma. For the sake of clarity, it is not an unfair proposition, and indeed would facilitate discussion, if you allowed other Members to raise points that they consider important on the concessions under the Regulations.
    The Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member is doing what I expressed the hope Members would not do. All those questions which he asked just now as indicating what he or any other Member wished to say I would not interrupt or stop, but if hon. Members ask for a general Debate on the Regulations to be made under the Bill, I cannot agree. The statement made by the Chancellor in these circumstances is one which can be replied to or criticised by other Members. If

    1317
    only hon. Members will proceed in the ordinary way, I think they will find that the matter is not so difficult as they suspect.
    Mr. Bevan: The Chair is placed in a difficulty.
    The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to remember that these difficulties do not arise as a result of the conduct of the Chair; they arise through the procedure of the House, and I hope he will not speak of the matter in such a way as to reflect on the conduct of the Chair.
    Mr. Bevan: I made no reflection of any sort on the Chair, and I have no intention of doing so, but these difficulties are implicit in the situation, and we cannot understand what the Bill means unless we are told what the Government intend by the Regulations.
    The Chairman: I again say that I do not really see the difficulty. I have already stated that I am prepared to allow, within reason, as much elasticity as T can on the Debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" If I may make a suggestion and give a little advice to the Committee, it is that if the Motion to report Progress is withdrawn and the Committee stage proceeded with in the ordinary way, and time is not taken up by lengthy arguments on subjects and questions of Order on or in fear of something which may never happen, we shall probably get on more speedily.
    Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to withdraw my Motion to report Progress?
    Mr. Mainwaring: May I ask for an explanation? The Chancellor has been good enough to say that the limit of 50s. will be raised to 55s. That will affect adult sons within the family. But the adult may be a boarder, or a lodger, in which case the amount of wages he earns will not be deemed to affect the profit accruing to the householder. What amount of profit is to be assumed in the case of a boarder paying 25s. per week? I should like to know whether this will apply to boarders or whether it will be confined to sons.
    The Chairman: I would point out that all these matters can be discussed much more properly when we reach the Clause or Schedule in the Bill dealing with the making of Regulations to which the hon. Member has referred.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"
    Mr. Bevan: The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) emphasises what I am about to say. It is very important that, in order to give the benefits which I am sure the Government intend to give, the Regulations should be drawn up in accordance with the intentions of the Bill. If hon. Members will look at Clause I, they will see that it is intended, in general terms, to repeal the former legislation, and that the provision that
    "the resources of the applicant taken into account shall include the resources of all members of the household of which he is a member,"
    is to cease to have effect. Therefore, it is the general intention of the Bill that the substantial hardships of the household means test shall be rectified. Whether that is so will depend entirely upon whether there is a sensible definition of the household, the resources of which are still to be taken into account; it will depend upon the definition of "household" which the Government are to give subsequently. Thus, it is of paramount importance that we should have a definition of "household" that will not inflict hardship. It ought to be possible for the Board to define a household by means of objective data and not by reason of the subjective relationships of the people living in the household. On more than one occasion it has happened that benefits intended by Parliament have been withheld from the applicant by reason of the officer declaring that if the father and mother have a meal of food with a son or daughter on Sunday afternoon, they must be held to be living in common, with the result that the resources of the son or daughter have been taken into account. If that sort of definition is still to be retained, there will be very great difficulties.
    Hon. Members will see that many of these benefits turn upon whether a person

    1319
    is or is not a householder. What is a householder for all practical purposes? He or she is a person who is held by the law to be responsible for the rent of the house. Therefore, the rent book or the shop book, or any factor which determines the relationship of the householder to the outside world, should determine the definition of the household, which ought not to be determined by the relationship between people living in the house. I hope that when the Government consider this matter, they will see that the Unemployment Assistance Board give effect to the intention of Parliament, which is in all circumstances to consider a bona fide householder and not merely a person who happens by accident to be living with someone else in a house.
    I do not propose to make any other point now. I am satisfied we shall not know what are the benefits of the Bill until we see it administered. Some of my hon. Friends have taken one view about the Bill, and I have taken another view. More than once it has been our experience that Parliament's intention has been stultified by administrative malpractices, and in a few months' time we may be faced with an administration of the Bill that will wholly falsify the intentions of Parliament. Indeed, even now under the Board there exists great differences between one part of the country and another. The definitions of "household" and of "dependent members" vary from one part of the country to another. It is these things that cause bitterness and hardship. I hope that our worst fears will not be realised, and that on this occasion the Unemployment Assistance Board will have more regard to the intentions of Parliament, and not try by administrative methods to minimise the intentions of Parliament.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I want to say at the outset that I, and those with whom I am associated, very much appreciate the concessions that have been announced, but I want to ask one or two questions about those concessions, and also to obtain an assurance from the Minister with regard to the administration of this Clause and of the concessions that have been announced. In the first place, I think the Committee are entitled to have more assurances concerning the way in which the provision relating to "normal wage"
    1320
    is to be administered. This has been administered by the Board in different ways, and, therefore, I think we ought to have some assurance concerning the matter. The next point to which I want to refer relates to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). The Committee will remember that when the Bill was before the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), who was then Minister of Health, adopted a more generous attitude than we had previously experienced with regard to legislation of this character. Hon. Members on this side were satisfied with the assurances given at that time, but, unfortunately, those assurances were not implemented in the administration of the provision. I want to give the Committee the benefit of a letter which I received from the Minister of Health concerning the friction created unnecessarily through the Board, in its administration, not carrying out the intentions of Parliament. The letter, referring to a resolution that had been sent to the Minister by a large number of trades councils, stated:
    "I feel that the resolution implies that the Assistance Board's officers are treating every applicant for supplementary pension who lives in the same house as a married son or other married relative, as a member of that relative's household. This is not so, and I am sure you will agree that the question whether two or more persons are living as members of the same household is one which must obviously be decided on the facts of each case. It is equally obvious that every pensioner living with relatives does not make his arrangements with those relatives on a standard pattern, either of the kind mentioned or some other kind. If the pensioner can show, as the resolution suggests, that he has rented unfurnished accommodation for which he pays an agreed and reasonable rent, and makes his own provisions for food, fuel and other necessities, the officer will normally treat him as maintaining a separate establishment:."
    I only wish that the words contained in that letter had been carried out by the Board's officers. Had that letter been carried out strictly in accordance with the spirit and intentions of Parliament, I am convinced that we would not have had the friction throughout the country since the Bill became an Act
    Mr. Silverman: What is the date of that letter?
    Mr. Smith: Unfortunately this is only a copy of the letter, but the secretary of the organisation has the original. If

    1321
    the hon. Member would like to see the copy, I will show it to him. The letter;s addressed from the Ministry of Health and is signed by the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald). So far as this Bill is concerned, I am asking for an assurance from the Minister that the intention of Parliament and this letter will be implemented in administration.
    Mr. Silverman: I want to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and the hon; Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) in regard to the interpretation given administratively to the conception of a separate household. Nothing in this legislation has caused more bitterness in a large number of working-class homes than this definition. It has been administered in this way: It may sound almost unbelievable, but there are countless instances of it, and nearly all my hon. Friends could, I am sure, produce countless similar examples. Let us take the case of two separate houses, both of which are occupied by a family and an old age pensioner who lives in a rented room. It makes all the difference in the world to the decision reached by the pensions officer, whether or not the old age pensioner is related to the household. I submit that that must be wrong, and that there must be an objective test of what is a household. Make any investigation which appears to be reasonable, but, having made it, apply it impartially as between one house and another.
    There have been thousands of cases where an old man or an old woman has said to himself or herself: "It is much better that I should live with relatives than with strangers. I want to pay my own way, and I do not wish to be a burden on anyone; I never have been and I do not want to be now. I am in the last years of my life, and I am no longer able to earn my living, but I have some means from my old age pension and supplementation out of which I wish to maintain myself. I am prepared to pay a reasonable rent for my room, and I am prepared to buy or to use furniture which I already possess. I am prepared to buy my own food, and I would very much sooner do all this in a house whose other occupants are my blood-relations than in a stranger's house." If all these condi-
    1322
    tions are satisfied, and if the Board will accept them as establishing a separate household where there is no relationship between the old age pensioner and the household, there is no reason in the world why exactly the same state of affairs should not be allowed where there is a relationship.
    I know of one case where an old lady was living in an old people's hostel. She was living in common with other people and was granted—and I think was rightly granted—a supplemental pension. She lived there more or less happily and comfortably, but there came a time when she suffered a paralytic stroke, as a result of which she became too great a burden for the hostel to carry. This old lady had relatives, who said, "We will willingly and lovingly accept that burden and discharge it. Come and live with us" All that happened was that this old lady went from the hostel to this home. She had a room, made her own contributions, and used her own furniture; but, whereas when she was in the hostel she received a supplemental pension, when her daughter took her into her home, and nothing else had changed, the Board determined that there was no longer a separate household, and her supplemental pension was withdrawn. The burden upon the old lady and her relatives was increased to the extent of the supplemental pension just because she went as an invalid from the hostel to her daughter's house. That kind of case can be multiplied innumerably, and I need not tell the Minister of Labour what bitterness such cases cause and how unfair and unjust they are. However, I do not wish to labour the point, because I think it is quite clear to all.
    I now wish to refer to the letter read by the hon. Member for Stoke. I had heard of this letter before when I went in my constituency with a deputation to the officials charged with the administration of supplemental pensions in that area. We brought forward between 50 and 60 cases where we stated that a separate establishment ought to have been accepted. I asked the officials how they proceeded on the matter and upon what conditions they decided whether a household was a separate household or not. They gave me a definition which appalled me. Bumbledom is certainly not yet dead in

    1323
    this matter. 1 tried to examine the question for myself. I was told that if an old man lived in a separate room with his own furniture, bought his own food and cooked it, and ate it in solitude at his own table, but joined the family occasionally at their meals, and sat in the kitchen to listen to the wireless, that would prevent his room from being regarded as separate, and he would lose his supplemental pension. I said, "That is nonsense," and I was told, "It may be nonsense, but here is a document issued to us from the Board which we are applying in this case, and we think it is a fair application of the instructions given" I asked to see the instructions, but I was not allowed to do so. Time after time we have asked to be allowed to see the Rules made under the Regulations upon which these determinations are made, and we are always refused. I had heard of my hon. Friend's letter at that time. I had no copy of it, but I had seen it summarised in Supplementary Questions in the House of Commons. I produced these extracts, and the officials told me that they had never heard of it, and that it was quite contrary to the instructions they had received, in spite of the fact that it bore the signature of the Minister of Health. This matter is a very grave one. It is really anti-social to produce a situation in which an advantage is given when natural family relationships are broken up, and when old people are told that if they live with strangers, they will be given another 15s. a week, but that if they stop at home and live with their own people, they will be deprived of it. All that my hon. Friends are asking is that, if you must maintain this vicious principle of applying the household means test to old age pensioners, you should endeavour to apply it as humanely as possible and not entirely unreasonably, as it has been applied in the past.
    Mr. Gallacher: I apologise for the fact that I was not present when my Amendment—to leave out "all," in page 1, line 10—was called, because I am of the opinion that this word "all" is the operative word in the Clause. Some hon. Members have told me that that is a mistake and that, if my Amendment had been carried, it would have made the position worse, but they are labouring
    1324
    under a delusion, because the Clause says that in future not all the resources of the family will be taken into account. If there are three members of the household, not all the resources will be taken into account; only the resources of one of them may be taken into account. That is what it means. If the word "all" was taken out of it, no member of the household could be brought in as far as his income is concerned, but so long as they put it that not all the resources shall be taken into account, it leaves them free to take some into account, and that is what is happening. [Interruption.] Yes, I am absolutey clear about that. Hon. Members seem to have an idea that the repeal means that in future none of the resources will be taken into account. What they are repealing is the decision that all resources shall be taken into account. Anomalies will arise under this. You can have a situation where the member of the family who is actually in the worst position from the point of view of contributing is the member of the family who will have to contribute. An old friend of mine who has always advocated the repeal of the means test was very happy at the Prime Minister's statement. He thought something was going to happen. 1 met him shortly after the Bill was introduced, and he said he saw, after all his expectations, that he was going to get nothing. "I am getting sour," he said. There are many old people like that.
    The question has been raised as to what constitutes a separate home. I have advised all the old folk to take a room from the family and live separately in order to qualify. If an elderly man or woman lives in a single apartment house on one side of the street and a married daughter is living across the street and comes across to prepare food when the elderly person takes ill, does that interfere with the right to a supplementary pension? No; it is a separate household. But if the elderly person has taken a room in the house of a daughter or married son and happens to be ill for a day or two and the daughter makes some food, it is treated as a common habitation, and the pensioner is denied his supplemental pension. I know many cases which have gone before the Board, and there has been no question at all of the fact that it was a separate household until the ques-

    1325
    tion was put, "What happens if there is anything wrong and the elderly person is unable to cook and the daughter says she goes in and tides them over?" It has been declared a common habitation, and the supplementary pension has been refused.
    How is this question of the household going to work out? I know many cases where the old age pensioner lives with a married daughter, but the house is in the name of the son-in-law. The factor will not allow it to be in the name of the woman, because, if there is any difficulty about getting the rent, he can sue for it and collect it from the man's wages. There are others who do not mind the rent book being in the name of the wife. I have been advising those who have old age pensioners living with them to get the rent book transferred from the name of the son to the daughter-in-law or from the daughter to the son-in-law. There is this position in many places, that is one tenement there may be a son-in-law with a rent book in his name and the pensioner will be qualified to a supplement; next door, where the son has the book in his name, the pensioner is disqualified. In that case it is impossible for the son to get the book transferred to his wife's name because the factor demands the name of the husband so that he can sue for the rent. All kinds of anomalies can exist in one tenement or in one street in connection with the question of the supplement. I cannot understand why the Minister of Labour, who has had considerable association with working-class folk and life, can allow himself to be used for the furtherance of Clause I and the household means test.
    Mr. Lawson: The Minister of Labour has been one of the influences which has improved the situation by getting Clause I put into the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is not doing his case very much good.
    Mr. Gallacher: If I were in the position of the hon. Gentleman, I expect I should have his peculiar ideas too, but I have not reached his state of exaltation, so that I cannot be expected to hold his views. All sorts of people have been responsible for Clause I, and the improvements in it arc due to the fact that they were fighting in the country and in the House against the household means test. The
    1326
    first old age pensions scheme was put forward by Thomas Paine 150 years ago, and he was outlawed from this country. It took 150 years of agitation and fighting to get 5s. a week about the year 1912. The Prime Minister was standing as a candidate for Dundee when the first 5s. was promised. The fact that some concession has been made in the main principle does not mean that we should cease fighting or that the Minister of Labour should cease fighting for the abolition of the means test altogether. I demand its total abolition. The Lord Chancellor has £10,000 a year, and whether he is in office a year or two years, he gets a pension of £5,000 when he retires. Is any question asked him as to who is in his household or about his dependants and how much they are bringing in? I do not know what the Lord Chancellor's bank balance is or what his family is. He may have sons with £2,000 or £3,000 a year but no questions will be asked. It is the same with all pensions of that character.
    Questions are asked only when it comes to the men and women who have given 50 years of service in industry and in the home. No people have a greater claim to the consideration of the country than old age pensioners. I heard the Minister of Labour talking over the radio one night. I wish he could hear me talking over the radio, but there is not much hope of that, at least not while it is Goebbelised. The Minister of Labour paid tribute to all those who were giving service at this period. Did he mention any of the higher-ups who are drawing big pensions, bankers, or any of these people? He would not dare to mention them as giving service. They give no service, but from the point of view of service no section of the community more deserves consideration than the old folks with 50 or 60 years service in the mines, fields, industry or the home. Yet the Minister of Labour says that to these people the question must be put, "What is the income of the household? Are you living with your daughter or son, and how much are they bringing in?" Is that the position of the Minister of Labour with his past record of opposition to the household means test? I ask him to support those who are demanding justice for the old folks and the end of this crime against them of the household means test.
    Mr. Mainwaring: I should like to emphasise the plea we are making for the definition of the household. There is no gainsaying the fact that what is justly regarded as evidence on this point is extremely unsatisfactory. South Wales, because of the economic depression in which it has been involved for such a long period, would provide proportionately a much higher percentage of its pensioners living in divided households than any other part of the country. The practice of dividing a house between two families is of long standing. It came into being in South Wales during the great economic depression, when pensions such as we are discussing were not available, when unemployment allowances and benefits were not on present-day scales, and the extreme hardships through which people were passing compelled fathers and sons with families to share houses. A very large percentage indeed of pensioners in the mining valleys of South Wales now occupy part of a house and not a whole one.
    Then there is this difficulty, that it is of no avail that the Department concerned send word that they have no desire other than to recognise them as separate households, because the practice does not correspond with that declaration. I have represented pensioners at tribunals and can speak from personal knowledge. I found to my astonishment that the tribunals are acting upon instructions which prevent them recognising any person or persons renting separate rooms as constituting a separate household. I recollect a case in the Rhondda Valley which came before a tribunal. It concerned a widow who had been living separately in her room for many years. She presented her rent book, showing she had been paying separately for her apartment; she produced her shopping book and her coal bill, and assured the tribunal that the furniture and utensils she was using were her own. Then the chairman, among other exceedingly foolish questions, wanted to know whether she shared the wireless or had a set of her own. Her case was turned down on the ground that she was not a person living apart from the others in the house.
    I do not want it to be assumed that that is only one case. There are scores of such cases in the Rhondda Valley and hundreds in the mining valleys. In another
    1328
    case before the same tribunal the applicant was a woman who had recently been widowed. For some years she and her husband had shared the house with a married daughter and her husband. While the aged husband was alive they were regarded as a separate household, but the moment she became a widow they insisted on regarding her as constituting something other than a separate household. Such absurdities can be multiplied over and over again, and the position is indeed tragic.
    Let me mention another case. When the present Act and its Regulations were under discussion here a statement was made in this House respecting the large body of pensioners who at that time were getting a grant from public assistance committees in addition to the pension. A promise was made that the income of such persons would not be reduced below the point to which it had been brought by the public assistance committees and that has been operative ever since. The public assistance committee in the County of Glamorgan, as everywhere else, had accepted definite evidence about the separate household in these cases, but the assistance officers of the area boards throughout the country now refuse to accept that evidence, and so we have this position—one large body of pensioners who had previously received assistance from the public assistance committees with their incomes kept at the same level as before, and an equally large body of pensioners who—all honour to them—had been too independent to go to the public assistance committees, not put in the same category as the others by the assistance officers of the area board. The absurdities are so grave that it is a scandal that the administration should be carried on in this way.
    It would be well if we could get from the Minister a statement that he will endeavour to secure that such a definition of "household" and "householder" shall be applied in future as will remove these anomalies, and that instructions will be issued that the so-called legal luminaries of this country, who alone are deemed capable of acting as chairmen of tribunals, shall recognise that evidence of the existence of a separate household. If I were asked to name the greatest of all evils under the present administration, I should say it was the failure to recognise the

    1329
    widow living in her separate room as being a separate householder, if her son or her daughter with their family are residing in the other part of the house.
    What does the Minister or anybody else—I am not saying this specially to the Minister, because I know he would be the last man in the world to endorse it—say to a case like this: A young wife has to go to hospital for examination over some internal trouble. During her absence from home her mother-in-law dares to enter the precincts of her daughter-in-law's separate apartment to prepare a comforting cup of tea against the time when she returns from hospital. At that moment the investigating officer calls at the house. He discovers the mother-in-law, an applicant for a supplementary pension, in the room of the daughter-in-law preparing the cup of tea, and finds that that is all the evidence required to prove that the old mother is sharing the resources of her daughter-in-law. On that evidence a supplementary pension is refused. When T protested against this the area officer and the chairman of the tribunal said, "But, Mr. Mainwaring, is it not reasonable to assume that they do in fact share the resources of the house? Are you asking us to assume that if you resided with your parents in similar circumstances, you would not permit them to share your resources? "That is the basis of the administration of the law at the present time. To avoid these complications and injustices in the future, I beg all the Ministers responsible to do their utmost to remove this travesty of justice from the Act of Parliament.
    Mr. McGovern: After listening to or reading all the Debates upon this Measure, I feel that it would be idle to deny that it is one which does confer a great benefit on a large number of people, but very often it is in the administration of an Act that things go wrong. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Stanley), when he was Minister of Labour, was assured by his officials that Regulations which he had introduced would put£3,500,000 into the pockets of the unemployed, but those Regulations were denounced from all parts of the House, and a storm broke out throughout the country, and he was compelled to alter them. There are people who are responsible for the administration of Acts
    1330
    and Regulations who fail to interpret what is in the minds of those who have drawn up the Act and those in this House who have taken part in the discussions upon it.
    It is important that some reply should be given to the points which have been raised during the Debate and some guidance and advice should be offered. I quite follow the intention of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), but, on reading the Bill, I was bound, in logic, to see that if what he suggested were left out it would mean that the Bill would apply, as it does to-day, to all, and that no person would get additional benefit to the extent that is now proposed. I know his intention is that the means test should apply to no person, but the logic of his proposal is that it would apply as it does to-day, and that no person would get the benefit of the Bill when it comes into operation. I remember that it was suggested that the hon. Member should be allowed to broadcast from the B.B.C. I hope he would not broadcast a statement such as he has made in the Debate, because it would have a deadly effect on the people of the country. However, I recognise that there is as much danger of his broadcasting from the B.B.C. as there is of my broadcasting from Moscow.
    In relation to the Bill, I remember that, in the old Poor Law work on the parish council, we had a regulation relating to old persons living with other members of the family. The regulation was often interpreted against us, so after a full-dress debate on the matter it was admitted that what we were doing was legally wrong, but we justified it on the ground of expense. Very often the regulation was taken to mean that if a married daughter lived in the house with an aged person, although the son-in-law was really the tenant, he was dropped, and she, because she was married, was taken as the un-earning wife of the husband. It was laid down as the law in respect of these persons. I would ask the Minister specially to see in the instructions that are sent out that account should be taken only of the person who is really the householder and that, where the daughter of an aged couple is being considered, and if she is a married woman and the wife of the householder, the old people shall not be deemed to reside with the daughter, but

    1331
    with the son-in-law, and that they will therefore get the benefit of this Measure. I ask him for an assurance on the point. These matters are operated to-day as they were under the old Poor Law system. Many officials went over from the Poor Law organisation, and they have carried with them the Poor Law mind, which was as niggardly in operation as it is possible to be with human beings.
    There has been general antagonism on the question of the household. I remember that, in cases where investigation of the most complete character had taken place, you had almost to produce the pots in order to satisfy the investigator that meals were being cooked separately. As a result of bombing and the destruction of a large number of houses, there will be many people compelled to live with friends, but they will be separate households, in effect. We do not want to see people who have been bombed out of their homes by what Hitler has done being subjected to the further imposition of being deemed by officials of this kind to be part of a household. Members of the Labour party have given a very complete picture of the case, and I would now only ask for an assurance that this kind of inquisition about the one pot and the one table shall stop, and that the law shall be interpreted in a reasonable and not a niggardly fashion.
    Here is a typical case which has come to my notice this morning. On this bench, I opened a letter, dated 10th March, from my area. It says:
    "Dear Sir, The supplementary pension granted to my mother of 2s. 6d. a week through your kind intervention has now been reduced to is. a week, due to an increase of 2s. per week to me, owing to cost of living going up"
    This young lady receives 2s. a week because of the increase in the cost of living, and so they take is. 6d. off the old mother.
    "I am writing to ask your advice once again on this matter, as I feel the injustice of it is cruel to the extreme. The£is now 12s. 6d. purchasing power, so I fail to see the reason for this act. My mother called at Sunnybank Street"—
    where the Board's offices are—
    "to ask for an explanation, and was told that she would not have such high coal bills, or gas and light bills, to pay. I ask you to remember that this is the month of March and my mother is in her 76th year. Is it possible to have her sit without a fire to save the bills?"
    1332
    That shows the state of mind of the official who says, at a time when snow is lying on the ground in various parts of Scotland and there are cold and piercing winds, that the reduction of is. 6d. was justified because the woman would not require high coal bills. That letter came into my hands. It is not one that was concocted, and it can be given to the Minister, if he so desires. I shall have to take the case up, at any rate with the local officials, because the type of mind in that official has to be eliminated from the operation of these Acts. They have to remember that it is not a niggardly Poor Law which is operating to-day towards these old people. All kinds of changes have been made, including changes in the name applied to people receiving relief, with the intention of humanising the administration. I know that the Minister of Labour intends to humanise the operation of this Measure. I hope that action will be taken on the points that have been raised today. I hope that the Regulations relating to son-in-law and daughter-in-law will not be operated as in the past, but that instructions will be given to operate them decently and generously.
    Mr. Dobbie: In conjunction with other hon. Members who have spoken about the application of the Bill and its good effect on the lives of those who may be drawing pensions or unemployment assistance, I wish to join in the need of praise that has been given to the Bill in that respect. In many cases, however, pensioners and their friends in receipt of unemployment assistance are doomed to some disillusionment. I would ask the Minister to give guidance in his reply as to the fate of certain people who, after having had supplementary pensions, have to meet a situation to which I have not, up to the moment, heard any reference in this Debate. I wish that the Minister of Pensions could have been here to-day, because in the country just now there are many thousands of soldiers' wives who are living either with their parents or their parents-in-law, and in many of those instances the parents are in receipt of pensions. When soldiers' wives have made application for help to the Military Assistance Allowance Committee because of their financial position, the application of the means test has caused the rejection of over 100.000 applications. The Minister

    1333
    of Pensions the other day challenged the accuracy of my statement when I made it in the House. Either my statement was wrong; or the Minister was not up to date with the figures in his own Department, because my statement is based on the statement made to the Committee by the permanent officials when we met to discuss applications from soldiers' dependants.
    On 4th February over 100,000 applications were rejected owing to the application of the means test. By 18th February the 100,000 rejections had risen to 104,000. Not all of those were applications by soldiers' wives who were living with their parents, but many of them were, and the number of soldiers' wives who, through circumstances which have been stated in the House, are compelled to live with their parents and parents-in-law increases as time goes on. I was wondering whether the Minister in his reply could say whether, when applications for assistance are made to the Ministry of Pensions Committee by those in receipt of unemployment assistance, whose daughters are staying with them while their husbands are in the Army, the increased pensions or unemployment assistance that is given to the parents is to be taken into consideration, as it is at the moment by the Pensions Committee. If this Bill does not cover cases like that, I would like from the Minister an assurance that the necessary steps will be taken so that the increased pension that may be given to the aged people will not reflect adversely on the wives of the worst-paid artisans in Great Britain—the soldiers.
    There is no doubt that the soldiers are the worst paid of our artisans. A soldier in receipt of efficiency pay is as much an artisan as any high-skilled worker in the country, and he is the worst-paid artisan. I hope that the Minister will give such an assurance as will make it quite certain that in future applications the benefit for the old age pensioner shall not be used adversely against the wife of the soldier when she is making the application.
    Mr. Pearson: I do not wish to detain the Committee for any great length of time, but I wish to say that Clause 1 of this Bill, inasmuch as it repeals so much of the provisions of the 1934 Act which require that the aggrega-
    1334
    tion of the household's resources should be taken into account, is quite a step forward. At the same time, there does not appear in the Bill any indication of any relaxation of the interpretation of "household" As has already been said, this is a matter of deep grievance and great difficulty to the members of a household. In most districts what we are up against is that, generally speaking, there are no self-contained flats. People live in apartments in their own relations' houses. If those houses were divided up into self-contained flats, the difficulty would not arise.
    There is many a slip between the cup and the lip, and I am afraid that in the previous legislation, when the matter has been placed in the hands of the Board to give its instructions to the officials, there has been a tightening of the interpretation of "household" I cannot see why evidence of a separate household account is not sufficient evidence to enable one to come to the conclusion that people are living in separate households. We have many cases from time to time where a woman has gone to live with her son-in-law and the public assistance committee have recognised that that woman was living separately in a separate household. In fact, as regards the unemployed son-in-law, the Unemployment Assistance Board have recognised him as living in a separate household, but when it came to the transfer of the old lady to a supplementary old age pension they were not then prepared to recognise that she was living in a separate household. But for Section 13 of the Supplementary Old Age Pensions Act, that old age pensioner would have received a reduction. It is unfortunate. I do not think it is a true interpretation of the wishes of Parliament that people should be so penalised, and I would appeal to the Minister to see that when instructions go from the Assistance Board there shall be such a relaxation of the interpretation of the household as will put these cases once and for all in the proper categories so that they can be termed separate households.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I think that the main points which have been raised can be summarised very shortly. The first point centres entirely around the question of how the household shall be interpreted. On behalf

    1335
    of the Government, I can say that we regard the main principles of the letter which was read by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) as the basis of the Regulations, but in saying that, I want to be careful that in tying myself to a letter of that character, I am not doing some injustice to somebody else. I find that this problem of administration is extremely difficult, but the main principle of that letter would be the basis of the Regulations, and on the interpretation of the household I do not think I need make any further comment, because nearly all the points that have been made on the interpretation of the Act, if I may say so with respect, deal with the past and not with the future.
    Mr. Silverman: For myself, I would entirely agree; if in future the definition of a separate household is to be proceeded with on the basis of my hon. Friend's letter, I think we should all be satisfied, and certainly I should be; but that would require, we are informed, a drastic amendment and alteration of the Rules of administration now in force. Do we understand my right hon. Friend to promise that there will be such a redrafting, and may we see the Rule when it is redrafted?
    Mr. Bevin: It is obvious that when this Bill is passed new Regulations will have to be redrafted, and if new Regulations are drafted, new Rules will have to be applied to administer them. The point about whether the House can see the Rules is a matter on which I cannot give a definite answer at the moment. It is a matter which will have to receive consideration, because it would not be limited only to this particular Rule or problem, and therefore, with my great inexperience of Parliamentary procedure, I cannot give a definite answer at the moment. But I think that clears the undertaking I have been asked for on the question of the household.
    The next thing I have been asked concerns the question of the son and daughter. Whatever may have been the difficulties in the past, this Bill meets them and, I think, makes the position quite clear. The trouble which the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has complained of in the past, and the problem revealed in the letter he has read, cannot arise under the new Bill. It will
    1336
    be removed, because provision is made for a definite calculation as to the taking into account of a contribution made by a daughter or a son. If the wages of the contributing son or daughter rise by war bonus or for any other reason, the position will not be affected except in so far as the amount of lodging money may be increased. I think the Bill makes that quite clear.
    Mr. McGovern: The point that is important to me is that similar statements were made in regard to the Poor Law provisions, but officials went outside those statements, and I am asking the Minister to give a guarantee that they will not go outside these provisions.
    Mr. Bevin: I can give a guarantee—and I know I am speaking for the full Cabinet in so doing—that no officers will be able to go outside the Rules. There is a complaint that there is a lack of uniformity in administration. We will note that point, and I can only say that the object of the administration will not be to make people cunning. It is admitted by the Board that in the supplementary old age pensions claims an overwhelming majority of people making claims have put in every bit of savings they had and have been absolutely honest in their returns. If there have been difficulties—and I think probably there has been some exaggeration about that—it is no doubt because, even in the best regulated society, you cannot always control what every official will do. I am speaking as an old general secretary; I had to accept responsibility for every branch secretary, and sometimes I used to feel sore at the actions they took. I have no doubt that sometimes they became sore at some of the things I did, but in the best regulated organisations you do meet with difficulties. The underlying principle, however, is to encourage people to reveal what it is necessary to reveal and no more, and then not to take advantage of the people who tell the truth. That is the basis upon which we want to administer this legislation.
    Mr. Buchanan: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not do anything to discourage good administrators, because he has some good administrators.
    Mr. Bevin: In regard to the other point, put by the hon. Member for Rotherham

    1337
    (Mr. Dobbie), we are conscious that in bringing in a big change of this character other forms of social service are bound to be affected, including those connected with soldiers' dependants. While we have not yet come to any conclusion, I can assure the Committee that as soon as this Bill is through an examination will be made of how far it impinges upon other forms of social service, and the Committee may rest assured that whatever adjustments are necessary will be made. There is no intention, under this Bill, of worsening the conditions of the recipients of any other form of social service as a consequence of such adjustments.
    Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman again look at the point about the £1 lower limit?
    Mr. Bevin: The hon. Member raised that point before, and it has been looked into. In carrying out this change, we have tried to treat people with equity as far as we can. Under the old Regulations, if a person received£1, a certain amount was deducted. We felt that we were meeting the situation if we excluded the £1 and said that deductions would be made only above that figure. The operation of the previous arrangement had excluded the basic unemployment pay, which at that time stood at 17s., and in making the change we were influenced by the fact that unemployment pay had now been increased to£1, and so it is at that figure that the limit has been fixed. We feel that even a young person who is unemployed, who is at home and who is receiving£1 should not be entirely relieved of every obligation. The second point is, since the hon. Member for Rotherham has raised the question of the soldier's dependants, that when we come to examine this£1 limit it will, I understand, have rather wider repercussions than appears on the surface. I therefore very much regret that we cannot meet that particular point. For the rest, I think the Government are trying to meet criticism as far as they can.
    Mr. Bevan: We know what the Regulations are. But the Rules are an entirely different matter. [Interruption.] I know what the right hon. Gentleman said. We are not asking for the Rules, or the instructions, to be brought before the House; but is it possible for Members of
    1338
    Parliament to be furnished with copies of the instructions which are sent out?
    Mr. Bevin: In my short statement I said that we would consider that. This is another of the cases arising out of this Bill where I find that you cannot give a definite answer, because the matter is not limited to this Bill. There is also bound up with this matter the question of communications to local authorities, instructions and other things. The matter would have to be examined. But I do not rule out the possibility of being able to meet the Committee in some way. I think it would make for better administration if the Rules were known, rather than allowing anyone to act in secret. I think I speak for the whole Board when I say that we have no desire for such secrecy, and I am impressed with the desire that has been shown for uniformity of treatment in this matter.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions as to regulations for determining need and assessing needs of applicants who are members of households.)
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, after "made," to insert:
    "they shall be submitted to a Select Committee of the House of Commons for examination and report and if such report be agreed to by the House of Commons then."
    I was struck by a phrase used by the Chancellor this morning, when announcing a concession. He said, "In order that Parliament may exercise its functions" That is the purpose of this Amendment. The publication of the White Paper along with the Bill was a big step in the right direction, which has been generally appreciated, and particularly so on this side. We have to consider this Amendment against the background that the Regulations and the Rules are a legacy from one of the darkest days in the history of modern Parliaments. In order that Parliament may be allowed to function as it should, we contend that the machinery suggested in the Amendment should operate. As the Bill has had its Second Reading, we do not propose that the Regulations should be cut out altogether, but we seek to make the Legislature the supreme authority in this country. Parliament has not been the supreme authority in the past when dealing with regulations of this kind. This Amendment would

    1339
    enable the elected representatives of the people to examine the proposed Regulations, and to report upon them to Parliament. The Regulations, according to the Bill, are to be framed by the Assistance Board, and then submitted to Parliament. They cannot be rejected by Parliament; they can be amended, but, in practice, they are accepted. Is that considered satisfactory? In addition to the Regulations, the rules and instructions should be submitted to a Select Committee of this House.
    Eighteen months ago scores of regulations went through this House in a few minutes. It was the desire of the whole House to be well prepared, and therefore, the regulations were allowed to go through, because of their urgency, without a word of comment. That is not the position in regard to these Regulations. Various interpretations have been put upon such regulations in the past. For example, I once found, on putting a question to the Minister of Labour, that payments made by the Unemployment Assistance Board to applicants varied in different administrative areas, to the extent of shillings per week. A procedure that allows such various interpretations of regulations cannot be considered satisfactory. The elected representatives of the people in Parliament should be armed with a Select Committee's report, so that it might be known what that Committee intended; and then people would not have to depend on what some officer desired. I have read the reports of all the Select Committees which have been set up during the past few years, and my experience is that more detailed examination of facts than has been given by those Committees could not be desired. Their conclusions have been as clear as conclusions possibly could be. If such a procedure were agreed to, and hon. Members from all parts of the House were elected to the Committee because of their special knowledge of this problem, the Committee would be able to present a report to the House, upon which the Minister, if he thought certain changes necessary, could make those changes before the Regulations were passed by this House; and then every Member could go into the country armed with the Committee's report, and face the administrators with proof of what the Legislature desired.
    1340
    Such a Committee would bring about a more democratic working of the Regulations. At present, the Board make the Regulations. When the Regulations come before the House there is controversy over them, but in the end they are accepted. Such controversy is bound to find expression outside. I contend that this procedure would eliminate a good deal of that controversy. At present, the Regulations are drawn in such a way that the elected representatives of the people are not, in reality, the final authority. The power to reject regulations has proved illusory. We want to democratise the procedure, in order to prevent that. Hon. Members will recall the Emergency Powers Regulations that were introduced here about 12 months ago. Because of the indignation that they aroused, the then Home Secretary, much to his credit, withdrew them. He said, "Let a number of us gather around a table" Representatives of all parties discussed the regulations for days, with representatives of the Home Office. As a result agreement was reached, and the regulations, in their amended form, went through without any discussion at all.
    That was a good step taken by the then Home Secretary, and we want to make that the normal procedure under this Bill, and it is for that reason that we propose this Amendment. At present the initiative is left with the Board all the time. As I understand the Bill, if changes are proposed, the initiative will come from the Board, and we contend that that is not satisfactory but that it should come from the Minister, and then any changes suggested in the Regulations should be submitted to a Select Committee of this kind in order that the House and the Minister should have the benefit of the full experience of the hon. Members sitting upon such a committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), when Minister of Health, speaking in this House, on 1st March, 1940, said:
    "The fundamental point of administration raised by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) was that as people reach three score years and ten it is a matter of general knowledge that their circumstances and, indeed their bodily constitutions change … and for that reason it is necessary that the administration should take account of these special circumstances. I can give the assurance in the fullest sense that I have that in mind. … The personal requirements of the members of

    1341
    the families must be taken into account. … They must be dealt with specially by the Board l)y a special technique and by a special degree: of sympathy—and it will be my object to administer the regulations along those lines."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1940; col. 2475, Vol. 357.]
    The Committee on this occasion wants to make sure that the spirit and intention of this kind of words will find expression in the administration of the Regulations and the Rules, and, therefore, we say that in order to make sure of that, the Regulations and Rules should be submitted to a Select Committee of this House, so that Parliament would be the supreme authority in these matters.
    Mr. Graham White: If Parliament is prepared to tolerate that these Regulations should be drafted and made by a body which is independent of Parliament, and on their initiative only and not on the initiative of any Minister, whoever sits upon that bench, it is perhaps rather a small thing to be talking about the arrangement for a review of regulations made by such a body. We all know the origin of the Unemployment Assistance Board and the political motives which were in the minds of Members when it was set up. It was set up in order to take the question out of politics. It did not take it very far. As somebody said, it only took it from Whitehall to Trafalgar Square. It is well worth remembering that the first set of Regulations the Board made on its own initiative were rejected summarily by public opinion and by this House. I do not attach the greatest amount of importance to this Amendment for that reason. It is no good straining at the gnat if you are prepared to swallow the camel, but I think the Amendment is on the right lines, and, if my hon. Friend forces it to a Division, I shall support it and recommend my hon. Friends to do the same.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: I rise to support this Amendment, because I am led to believe that as an alternative to the present method it would be extremely advantageous. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has complained, as others have complained earlier, of the lack of uniformity that exists in the administration of the Regulations that are issued from time to time. The Amendment certainly gives this House, through a Committee of its own representatives, an opportunity not only to examine and re-
    1342
    port to the House upon the nature and the content of these Regulations, but also to scrutinise instructions that are issued from time to time and which become absolutely secret within the different area and divisional offices that exist under the Unemployment Assistance Board. There-is not a shadow of doubt as to secret instructions, unless area officers have gone out of their way deliberately to mislead me.
    I will give one example. I remember noting in my constituency the beginnings of the administration of the last Act dealing with supplementary pensions to old age pensioners, and I was amazed at the administration and the conditions that apparently governed decisions. In a part of my constituency there are two area officers. I allowed things to go on for several weeks before I approached the area officer. The first thing that I put to him was, "Tell me upon what principles you decide the question of dependency of an old age pensioner," and I gave him a concrete case. It was that of a person who had been in receipt of a pension for about nine or ten months. He had had a housekeeper living with him since the death of his wife 23 years previously. She had assisted in bringing up the children, all of whom had left home. Having been compelled to give up his work, he received his pension at 65. It was not enough to support both the housekeeper and himself, and he had to have recourse to public assistance. To my amazement, I was told that so far as dependency was concerned, it meant dependency actually at the time the Act became operative. The fact that this old age pensioner had worked for over 20 years and had supported his housekeeper who had helped to bring up his children was completely ignored. I said, "That is amazing. There is nothing in the Act of Parliament that suggests that that is the definition of dependency." The official replied quite haughtily, no doubt thinking that he had got me. He told me that the instruction had been issued by my personal friend, who happens to be the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, but if such an instruction was issued, it cuts absolutely across the whole spirit of that Act and everything that was said by every spokesman representing the Government at that time. If that instruction was issued, I say it was

    1343
    a piece of malicious, sharp practice and an attempt at undoing what this House intended should be done within the limits of an Act of Parliament as understood and interpreted by the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. I remember the spirit she tried to put in the Bill when it was under discussion, and when instructions of that kind are given against the whole spirit of the Bill, and in such a way that there is nothing in the Bill to justify a Regulation of that kind, I am of the opinion that this House should control, far more than it does control at the moment, the question of these Regulations.
    In my constituency there are two area offices, and I must confess that the standard of administration in these offices could hardly be more different if one was in my constituency and the other in the Shetland Islands. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill with the Minister of Labour to have regard to that temperament which plays a great deal in the administration of an Act of Parliament such as we are discussing to-day. There are many exceptions, I know, but if you have an incompetent area officer who is overwhelmed by fear and is full of inhibitions, you cannot get the standard of administration which is expected. I am strongly of the opinion that with closer and constant supervision on the part of a Select Committee of this House a great deal of that and the misunderstanding and resentment which has been caused would be eliminated.
    Mr. McLean Watson: This is an Amendment which ought to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I am certain that if he and his right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary were looking after the interests of the nation, they would accept this Amendment for a Select Committee. The Select Committee need not be set up yet awhile—say, for two months—and it could be told that it need not hurry over the job on hand. It could talk about the thing quite leisurely, and it would not suffer, but the people who would suffer are the hundreds of thousands who would benefit under this particular Bill. Despite the fact that my hon. Friend has the support of the Liberal party, I am not supporting this Amendment, although that is not to say that I agree with the procedure
    1344
    we have in this House with regard to Regulations. I do not agree with the House either having to accept or reject Regulations but, faced as I am to-day with the proposition which affects this Bill, I am not voting for this Amendment.
    I want this Bill to be put on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment, and so far as the Regulations are concerned, I am prepared to risk administration by those who have been administering the Assistance Board's affairs up to now. I know there have been charges of maladministration, but these are matters which can be handled by the heads of the Department. There is no reason why Regulations, which have been interpreted in a certain way and the certain amount of latitude which has been given to officers to interpret them in any way they like, should go on. I think there ought to be more uniformity in the administration of these Regulations than there has been up to now. On the Second Reading of this Bill I said that we claimed the right to put down certain Amendments, but much of that need has been removed by the Chancellor's opening statement to-day. He indicated a certain relaxation, and the only thing that concerns me is to get this Measure passed at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Is my hon. Friend not aware that after the passing of this Bill one month will pass before Regulations are placed on the Table? In that time we think that the procedure we have suggested would work itself out nicely.
    Mr. Watson: My hon. Friend is proposing that the Draft Regulations should be submitted to a Select Committee. I believe that we shall have the Regulations in less than a month, but even supposing it is a month, it is proposed that a Select Committee should consider these Draft Regulations. I am not prepared to support a proposal which will hand over to a Select Committee a matter of this kind, on which they may sit for weeks. My hon. Friend has his opinion about that, and I am expressing mine. I want to see the Chancellor shelling out money to these old age pensioners as soon as possible.
    Mr. Pritt: The particular objection to this Amendment which has fallen from my hon. Friend is the sort of thing one generally expects

    1345
    from Tory Members of this House, and, therefore, I can understand his being shocked to learn that the Liberals are supporting it. We are always told by the Tories, "It is all very well to talk, but the time for this is not opportune, at the moment." Here we have my hon. Friend so anxious to oppose this Amendment without really looking at the merits of it as an Amendment that he is even prepared to assume that the Government would obstruct and delay the proceedings of the Select Committee. I am sure the Government do not want any tribute from me, but I am equally sure that as far as they want to go in this Bill, they want to go expeditiously. If this Amendment commends itself to the Committee on its merit, I do not see any reason why the Select Committee should not operate without any delay. It is very much better to have good Regulations a fortnight late, than to have bad Regulations for a fang time.
    I should like to say a few words on the merits of the Amendment. It has been pointed out that this type of legislation is being passed to take the dole out of politics. I think that the many horrors, abuses, cruelties, injustices, resentments and inconsistencies that have marked this tragic error in the administration of the social services of this country during the last few years contain one very good lesson. They show us that control by Parliament is a very good thing. Therefore, any Amendment, even though it be a little exceptional or anomalous, which tends to increase the control of Parliament over an important part of the social services, has my support. There is great resentment in the country against Departmental legislation as such, and a great deal of that resentment is perhaps rather ill-informed, for we simply could not, at any time during the last 20 years, have got through our business without having a great deal of Departmental legislation in the form of regulations, rules, and so forth. Still, the more control Parliament can keep over those rules and regulations, the better.
    I think nearly everybody agrees, and certainly the purists who want to see a full measure of Parliamentary control assert with great vigour, that the method of bringing forward Regulations which the House can only reject or accept is bad, on
    1346
    the whole, although it may not be easy to think out a better method for general use. The fact that hon. Members cannot amend the Regulations means in practice that the Regulations that come before the House do not get any real Parliamentary check. There have been some remarkable exceptions, as, for instance, Regulation 18B, and other Regulations of the summer of last year. However, in general, the check is bad, insufficient and clumsy. Therefore, in this case, which is a very important one, the suggestion is made that, as an additional check, the Regulations should go before a Select Committee, that that Committee should examine them and report on them, and that then they should come before the House in the report of the Select Committee. The proposal seems to me to have a great many merits and to fall nicely between the impossibility of putting the Regulations in the Bill and the unsatisfactory procedure of not having any real Parliamentary control over them. If the Amendment is taken to a Division, I shall support it.
    Sir K. Wood: The Government have given a good deal of consideration to the best way of improving the old position concerning Regulations. We felt, in the first place, that it was unsatisfactory that a Bill should be presented to the House without hon. Members being aware of what the Regulations were to be, because in this Bill, and in a number of other Bills dealing with this subject, it is the Regulations that really matter. Consequently, we decided to make a considerable change, and that change had two objects. The first object was that at the time the Bill was presented the draft Regulations should be presented, and that in those draft Regulations there should be inserted what it was then the intention of the Government to put into the Regulations. The advantage of that method, as we have seen to-day, was that the House would not consider the matter without a knowledge of what was to happen. By this means, and after my statement concerning concessions, hon. Members have had a pretty clear picture of the whole thing. The second object, which has also been achieved, was that this method would give hon. Members an opportunity of bringing informed criticism to bear and making known to the Government their wishes concerning the Regulations. There-

    1347
    fore, in the first place, every hon. Member, in discussing the Bill, has known the whole of the story, and secondly, as we have seen, the fact that hon. Members have known this has enabled them to present their views and achieve a very considerable alteration of the original Regulations.
    The question of Regulations, and the fact that the House must either accept or reject them, has been examined by at any rate one important committee. It is not accurate to say that the fact that the House is not able to amend Regulations in any way means that the House has no control over them. I could give a number of instances to show that this is not so. I can recall one instance in connection with this subject where pressure was so considerable and strong that the Government had to take the course of entirely withdrawing the Regulations because of the opposition expressed in the House. Hon. Members may say, "Let us have some system by which Amendments can be moved to Regulations" If hon. Members will look at the Report of Lord Donoughmore's Committee, which went into this matter with a great deal of care, I think they will come to the conclusion that the only way in which one could secure Amendments to Regulations would be to present the Regulations as a Schedule to the Bill. This would mean that there would be a Second Reading of the Bill and that then there would follow the Committee stage, with the Regulations attached, and so on; and in a very large number of cases, of course, this would mean undue delay and an unnecessary waste of Parliamentary time. We thought that by the present arrangement we should be able to get the Regulations through quickly, but that at the same time we should give the House, as we have done, an opportunity of bringing to bear upon the Government certain influences.
    I come now to the present proposal, which was not for a moment contemplated by Lord Donoughmore's Committee. Let us put on one side the arguments that have been made concerning interpretation and secrecy. The mere fact that a Select Committee examined the Regulations would make no difference concerning interpretation, which would
    1348
    still rest with the House or with the courts, as the case might be. As to secrecy, the appointment of a Select Committee would make no difference. If the Government decided that the Rules or Regulations should be available to Parliament, it would make no difference whether a Select Committee had dealt with the matter. Moreover, the Select Committee would be examining draft Regulations which obviously would not be in their final form. The main objection from a constitutional point of view to having a Select Committee is that, while it is true that the House is the supreme authority, there is the constitutional position of the Government as far as finance is concerned. That is the main reason; it would not be in keep-in? with our Parliamentary practice. When the Government have taken the responsibility for presenting Regulations which, in the main, affect finance, it would not be in keeping with the constitutional position of the House, which has worked fairly and well, that a Select Committee should examine the proposals with a view to reporting to the House. In such a case the proper course would be for the Government to take responsibility for the financial proposals.
    Consequently, if we pin ourselves to this suggestion, a' considerable delay will be involved without, as far as I can see, achieving very much. If this procedure is put into operation, the Select Committee would have to sit and then report to the House. The Select Committee's Report would then have to be considered by the House, and after that we should have to come to the original stages of this Bill. After all that had taken place, the Regulations would have to be considered. Therefore while I appreciate the argument put forward I think, in view of the constitutional position, it is better to preserve the interests of Parliament and those in particular of the people who are to benefit from these provisions. I do not see any advantage in interposing extra machinery of this character which really does not take the matter any further. On the whole, while I appreciate the attitude and point of view of my hon. Friend, I think, in the interests of the people who are to benefit, and in view of the fact that when Parliament wishes to be supreme it can always be so, it is better to adopt the procedure suggested.
    Mr. E. Smith: I am satisfied that we have the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on record, and in view of what he has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Treatment of war savings.)
    Mr. Tinker: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 33 to 41.
    In moving this Amendment, I should like, with permission, to refer to the other Amendments standing on the Order Paper in my name. I wish to draw attention to the anomalous position which exists in regard to savings and War Savings. In doing so, I recognise that the pledge given by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer is being carried out. It is to what that pledge covers and what it omits that I wish to refer. One thing I have found in public life is that whatever assembly I have had to deal with, I have been able to satisfy it with common-sense argument, and I hope that I shall be able to carry the Committee with me in this case. No one can defend the present position in regard to war savings and savings generally. The late Chancellor stated that he was prepared to consider the question of war savings and make some allowance for them; but if we had stuck strictly to "new money" my argument would probably not have been so strong as it is to-day.
    Anyone who reads this Bill, and compares it with the last, will recognise that we are not dealing altogether with "new money" The concessions given in this Bill have allowed certain moneys, which have been re-invested in the interval, to be excluded from the penalties which attach to other savings. Some people, who have been quick enough to discern the chance, have withdrawn their money from certain investments and re-invested it in war savings, as a result of which they have derived some benefit. Other people, who have asked Members of Parliament what they should do with their money and have been advised not to shift it until Parliament gave directions, have, in comparison, been put at a disadvantage. Following alterations in the new Bill, they have found themselves left behind because they have not re-invested their money and obtained the resulting benefits. I ask
    1350
    the Committee to sweep away all these anomalies so that those people who have saved money by their thrift and sacrifice shall not be penalised. It is not fair that, because the money is not invested in Government securities, they should have to suffer deductions far in excess of any interest they may be receiving. The deductions amount to is. in every £25, which is a severe penalty on thrift.
    Here I must say that I very much regret what the Chancellor said to-day in regard to war savings. I do not think it is very good for the country. The Chancellor's argument is that, by holding out a bait to buy war savings, people have been induced to come forward with their savings. I am sure that that is not a fair reflection of the attitude of the people of this country. In St. Helens we set out to reach£750,000 by war savings, and the people have responded to the call because they are patriots.
    Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member will forgive me, but in this case trade union representatives approached me and made these representations.
    Mr. Tinker: It may have been an argument used to these people for the purpose of inducing them to invest their money because they could get some return, but people have come forward without any inducement at all, and the facts that I mention prove it. A bank manager told me that an amazing number of very old notes have been brought in. People have been so stirred by the appeals for war savings that they have brought forward notes which they had hoarded up for a very long time, and in many cases have given them. It does not reflect well on the country's attitude to say we have had to persuade people to invest their money. It is wrong to use that as an argument. The question of war savings ought not to arise. It ought to be savings anywhere, and these people should be given the benefit. This so-called "new money" which may come in afterwards from people who are working now may benefit them, but will anyone try to defend the position in regard to old people? It is impossible for them to save money to reinvest for the future. It must be money that they have already saved. If you limit it to new savings, you are giving to only one class, who may be, for the moment, in the fortunate

    1351
    position of getting fairly high wages through munition work. But for the old people there is no chance of any further accumulation and they can only lend what they have already saved.
    That is why I press on the Committee the unfairness of what we are trying to do at present. It is unfortunate that the two things go together. If they could have been divided up, I cannot imagine the House of Commons attempting to deprive these people of their savings. In the last Measure that we passed we agreed that certain things should be excluded from the ascertainment when the supplementary pension was being paid. One argument was with regard to the first 7s. 6d. of superannuation. Superannuation benefits are acquired only by having your money in some particular thing, and later on in life you get the benefit of it. Others may not have done that. They may have saved their money in the bank or invested it elsewhere. Assume that the 7s. 6d. represents £200 savings. One man gets the benefit of that, while the other man who has saved it somewhere else is to get nothing. These are the anomalies that I want to impress on the Committee. None of us could face an audience of old age pensioners and defend the position. I should like to take the Chancellor of the Exchequer to such a meeting and let him state his case on the point. It is an impossible position. I do not expect to-day to succeed in getting what I want, but the question will be followed up stage by stage. I have noticed that, when arguments are used here, a good case leaves some impression. Our arguments are remembered and the Government say, "We are weak on that point. We must do something about it in the future." In the last Debate on this subject the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) used a good argument when dealing with this point. He referred to the pledge about war savings, and said:
    "The effect of it is that the only people who can really save at the present time are those, who, if they are not better off, are at any rate no worse off as a result of the war. A great number of people are definitely worse off, and to put out, at a time like this, as a kind of bribe to those who are better off, that if they will come with their savings, to help their fellow countrymen in their time of need they will ultimately get an unfair advantage over others, totally misjudges the character of
    1352
    the people of this country. Very often. I think, our working men and women are misjudged. They are not always credited with intelligence, and certainly not always credited with patriotism. It is my considered opinion that if that pledge had never been given, there would have been possibly more savings made than has been the case"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1941; col. 1585, Vol. 368.]
    I agree with that, and, because I see the anomalies and injustices to the aged people, I am pledged to bring this matter forward in the hope that what I have said will make some impression on the Government. When this matter is reviewed I hope that some regard will be given to the aged people who, although bringing up a family, have been able to put by a few shillings, and that they will not be penalised by having the income of their savings taken into account.
    The Chairman: I understand that my right hon. and gallant Friend who preceded me in the Chair agreed that hon. Members should discuss this and certain subsequent Amendments at the same time. I think that the hon. Gentleman has gone so far as to discuss the Clause generally, and I would only express the hope that if a wide discussion takes place on the Amendment it should not be repeated on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I want to support the Amendment. I do not want the Chancellor to be too closely tied by the pledge given by his predecessor or to be satisfied with, the defence that he has carried it out. That would be a good defence, but I want the right hon. Gentleman to see our point of view on this issue. We are dealing with a very small section of pensioners. Not many of them have been fortunate enough to save £375 and they have not always invested any of it in war stock. Most of them have invested in co-operative societies, others in building societies and similar organisations. The Chancellor says that if they leave it there, they will be penalised; that if they withdraw it and invest it in war stock they will not be penalised, but that they must have done it before now. At the time of the dispute as to what the pledge meant, we advised our people to leave their money where it was for the time being and told them that when the pledge was made clear we should know what to advise them to do.
    Some of these people would to-day

    1353
    be prepared to invest some of their money in war savings, but I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that though they have put their money into co-operative societies or building societies it does get into war savings indirectly, because those societies have done their best to assist the financial needs of the nation. I do not want this matter to be dealt with in a niggling spirit. By doing so we should be penalising a fine type of person, the person who on fairly small earnings has made struggle to save for a rainy day. I feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a big mistake in tying himself up to a pledge which ought never to have been given by his predecessor. I appeal to the Chancellor to view this matter, as I know he will, purely as one of commonsense. Here we have a number of people with savings; some have invested them in war loans and others in certain societies; but I ask him to realise that all that money goes into the war effort directly or indirectly.
    Mr. Woodburn: I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give further consideration to this question of savings other than war savings. I recognise that the pledge was given originally with a view to inducing people to start to save from that point only, but there is no question about the fact that the old people misunderstood. I think the Government have made a handsome gesture in giving permission in respect of money which was transferred up to August, but undoubtedly that creates a great number of anomalies. I should like to direct attention to another pledge which was given when the original Bill was under discussion. At that time I moved an Amendment with regard to the capital savings of old age pensioners and suggested that £25 was too low a limit of exemption because it meant that if a person had £100 he lost 3s. a week, which is altogether too great a penalty and caused a great deal of hardship. I moved an Amendment that the £25 should be raised to £100. Reviewing the position, I feel that it would have been much better to fix the same sum as is fixed in the provident societies, a few hundreds; but that is a matter for consideration. I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he is probably not aware of it, that the then Minister of Health rejected
    1354
    the Amendment, not because he was against it, but on the ground that it would have to apply to the unemployed as well. He said:
    "I think that on the question of thrift and capital savings it is common knowledge that the rules for the treatment of capital in the cases of persons affected by a means test have been under discussion by the National Joint Advisory Council, representatives of the Trades Union Congress General Council and the Government. They are actually discussing whether some general concession should be made on this point at the present time. Any general concession would be applicable in this case as well as others and I hope it may be possible to come to some agreement between the two sides."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1940; con. 127, vol. 358.]
    I do not expect the Chancellor to be able to tell us offhand what has happened to the discussions, but that was over a year ago. We might have expected that by this time the discussions would be finished and some degree of agreement reached as to what proportion of capital should be exempted, and that it would be a much greater sum than£25. How a person has saved makes all the difference. If he puts his money into an insurance company and draws a capital sum he can invest it in war savings and, I take it, he is exempted, but if he happens to have saved£200 in a co-operative society it would not be exempted. All kinds of anomalies are bound to arise. I have mentioned this other pledge, which seems to have been forgotten, and I hope the Government will take into account what are not technically war savings, and raise the general limit about£25, not making a reduction of is, for every£25 after the first£25.
    Mr. Barnes: There are certain views which I should like to submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject of war savings. I had intended to raise more or less the same points on the Schedule, but if I make my contribution now, I can probably avoid moving my Amendment to the Schedule later. I want to make it clear that I do not think the Chancellor has in any way misled the Committee about disregarding the£375 I feel perfectly clear about the position; I think the original pledge was one of those political statements by a Minister who desires to placate a certain amount of opposition, and probably remove some anomalies, without being clear as to the further series of anomalies that will be created in the course of time. I consider

    1355
    that the Chancellor has made a reasonable effort to minimise the difficulties that arose because of the confusion of a few months ago. As to the disturbance of the investment market for small savings, I believe that these adjustments meet that difficulty. In view of the publicity that the matter has received, no one can really claim now to have a grievance in regard to the matter. That affects the date problem, but it does not in any way lessen the inequity of this proposal, as it works out.
    The Chancellor should appreciate that large sections of the community are familiar with certain forms of investment, which are convenient because they meet their financial circumstances and behind which lie much tradition, custom and habit. These investments represent considerable financial strength to the Treasury at a time like this. Is it good that the State should enter into competition and should discriminate unfairly among the citizens, according to their forms of investment? Take, for instance, investments in such organisations as cooperative societies and building societies, and other investments of wage-earners of this country which operate upon a more or less fixed rate of interest. They are the same as some Government investments, while, in the general field of commerce and speculative investments, the rates of interest and dividends fluctuate and are, on the average, rather higher than those to which I have referred. You do not usually find the wage-earners investing their money in speculative enterprises.
    I ask the Committee to realise that, when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer gave this pledge about "new money," there was a legitimate desire to influence a large number of wage-earners to make their contributions to the financial effort of the State. There was the Keynes Plan, which recognised certain groups of workers whose financial position would considerably improve under war conditions, and this proposal of attracting the savings of a large group of workers, who were likely to be better placed financially by the war, and diverting their savings by direct investment to the State, was not a proposal which anyone could criticise. But if the Committee investigates the lone-term effect of that pledge it will be found
    1356
    that we gradually approach what will eventually be an unworkable situation in our political system. The State and the Government should not discriminate between the citizens of this country. In the course of time we shall find two citizens each equally thrifty—because this is for the purpose of encouraging thrift, or rather not penalising thrift—and who have made equal provision, one gaining an advantage because his investment is a State investment, and the other being penalised because he has chosen a purely democratic social form of investment. I say it is wrong in principle that the State should enter into a limited field of discrimination in regard to investment. That is my general case. I am not quarrelling with the Chancellor, but I am making an appeal to him that, as soon as it is conveniently possible, these anomalies should receive the attention of the Government.
    By this pledge we introduce a further complication into this field of social insurance or assistance. We now have investors who will have income derived from a certain form of investment disregarded. We have had in the past arrangements whereby benefits to which workmen have subscribed in their trade unions and which represent grants over a certain period up to a figure of, I think, 7s. 6d. are disregarded. But there is the wage-earner who is not covered by trade union benefits, and who has not been able, at a particular period, to accumulate savings and divert them into war savings, but who has made provisions which have accumulated up to, say, £200 of share capital. That is the limit which anyone is allowed to accumulate in law, and it represents, probably, a weekly sum of 5s., 6s. or 7s. a week in the form of income through interest. On the basis of the test which is applied to war savings or that which is applied to provisions made to a trade union, that person conforms in every respect to the standard which has been laid down by Parliament. Yet that persons is discriminated against and is being penalised. If the Chancellor demands a period in which the pledge must be honoured, I would urge that the Government should give immediate consideration to trying to round off that group of investments, incomes or advantage derived from thrift provisions. Now we have considered

    1357
    all these things, but all cases are not equitably dealt with and I sincerely trust that some addition will be made to this Bill by future legislation in order to bring in the persons who, by this scheme, are at present left outside.
    Mr. Silverman: There has been a concensus of agreement among those who have so far spoken on this matter that the arrangement proposed in the Bill is a complete fulfilment of the pledges given. But I have to say with regret that I cannot share that view. I am satisfied, of course, that the specific pledge about war savings has been met, but—I am not prepared with a battery of quotations to support my view: I am speaking entirely from recollection—I have the clearest possible recollection that the pledge originally went beyond that. In order to remind the Committee of what I thought to be the full pledge, may I recall the circumstances in which it was given? For a long time before the war there had been a nation-wide agitation for an improvement of the position of old age pensioners. A vast number of petitions were presented to the House by hon. Members, not only on this side, and the pressure upon the Government was very great indeed.
    Ultimately, after the war had begun, the Government—whether yielding to that pressure or acting out of the goodness of their own hearts—introduced a Supplementary Pensions Bill, and it was in that Bill that for the first time the principle of the household means test was applied. That aroused very bitter opposition indeed. It was felt that it was a retrograde step in the sense that this kind of test had never before been introduced in any kind of pensions legislation. In that atmosphere there arose the question of thrift and it was said very powerfully—and, I should have thought, irresistibly—that the State ought not to differentiate by legislation between people who had been thrifty and people who had not been thrifty to the disadvantage of those who had taken some thought for the morrow. We said it was quite wrong that because a man, in very difficult circumstances and through a long and difficult life by no means well rewarded, had been able to set something aside, it should be used against him when it came to looking after him in his old age. It was in that atmosphere, in the course of a general
    1358
    discussion on whether people ought to be penalised because they had been thrifty, that this special point about war savings arose.
    It was then that some Members of the House pointed out that, apart from the general question of the penalisation of thrift, they had been invited to go about the country and prevail upon people to contribute to national funds, but at the same time they had to tell them that if they did so they would be penalised in their old age. So it was that the specific pledge that war savings were not to be affected was given. But outside that specific pledge I feel certain that statements were made by the Ministers in charge that the whole question of this penalisation of thrift would be reviewed. It must be remembered that the agitation was not about the position of old age pensioners in future, but about how existing old age pensioners might have their position improved. One thing which is perfectly clear, and beyond controversy, is that, except in one very limited respect, existing old age pensioners will not benefit in the least from the concession which has been made. All that can be said for it is that, provided that money is now saved and invested in certain ways, that money will not be used in future as a weapon with which to reduce the old age pensioners' standard of living. There is no benefit to the existing old age pensioner. If any existing old age pensioner were in a position to benefit from the proposal, he would not have been entitled to a supplementary pension at all. The man or woman who is so well off that he can devote some portion of his income to savings, can never make out a case for a supplementary pension. This concession postulates also that in future the household means test will still be with us—if not, why do you need these exemptions? What we are concerned with at this moment is the fortunes of the old people now.
    After the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), no one can suppose that this artificial distinction which we are drawing can last long. The time must come, in seven years, 10 years, or 20 years, when some administration will have to say, "This is absurd; here are two people, living in houses side by side; one has his money invested in one thing, the other in

    1359
    another thing. In one case it is taken into account, and in the other case it is not" I do not suppose that anyone, on that side or on this side, on the back benches or on a Front Bench, fails to agree that some day that distinction will have to go. Then, let it go now. Seven years or 10 years is a very long period in the life of a person aged 65 or 75. Whatever advantage we are able to obtain through the nation's struggles in these days, whatever kind of new world order, whatever kind of sanity and communal morals we are able to create, these people whom we are now considering will not be alive to benefit from it. I hope that the argument I am putting forward is a reasonable one, and that we shall get an answer to it. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that if you have a principle here, which everybody admits cannot last, it is unfair, merely for reasons of legislative or administrative convenience, not to relieve from the unfair burden which it imposes, those people who will not live to benefit by any reformation of it.
    The Chairman: I have allowed the hon. Member a little latitude, but as a matter of fact I think he is now urging things which cannot be dealt with by the Bill, and, therefore, I am not at all sure that I ought not to stop him, if, as I suggest, he is now dealing with something which is obviously outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. Silverman: I am afraid I do not quite follow that the support I am giving to Amendments on the Paper deals with matters that cannot be dealt with by this Bill.
    The Chairman: I am not referring to the hon. Member's reference to Amendments on the Paper, but to his suggestions and arguments on matters which are not covered in this Bill, and to what he is urging should be done which would be outside the scope of this Bill.
    Mr. Silverman: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. I am sure it is entirely my fault. I was suggesting that the artificial distinction which the Amendment seeks to remove creates an injustice which would be removed if the Amendments were accepted or passed. That is the only point I am making. I have made it to the best of my ability, and I propose to leave it there.
    Mr. Mainwaring: I would like to invite the Minister to consider the position of another small class of persons who will be affected by the terms of this savings Clause. I refer to the small body of injured workmen in industry who are compelled to commute their weekly sums of compensation. It will be appreciated that, in the first place, this small body of men have no right to initiate commutation of the weekly compensation, but it is forced upon them by the employers. When they receive such a commuted sum of compensation, how are they to be affected? I know how they are affected at present. If they are in receipt of weekly sums, one half of it is ignored, and the same principle is carried forward when they receive a lump sum. One half of it is disregarded, but the other half is balanced on the basis of is. for each£25, and it affects either unemployment assistance or supplementary pensions. What is to happen to these men if they place this commuted sum into war savings? Are they to be free to do this? A strong case can be made out for that to be permissible. I suggest that the only difference between the injured workman who receives the sum of£200 or £300 in a commuted sum of compensation and that of the superannuated man is that the superannuated individual has had deductions made from him for 20 or 30 years past from which he now benefits, and the injured workman is regarded as having had a proportion of his weekly capacity deducted which is bound to be exempted at the beginning and not at the end of the period. It has always appeared radically unfair that the administration should be able to utilise a sum of money which represents 30 or 40 years of limited capacity which he loses and use it at this present juncture.
    There is another point. The State has very properly disregarded the injured sailor, soldier or airman. That is not the same principle as for the industrial worker who has also suffered disability, and I would like to ask the Minister to give consideration to this point once again and see whether he cannot extend to the disabled industrial worker the same measure of consideration as is extended to others, and also that if they invest their commuted sum in war savings, that should be disregarded in the same way that other sums are disregarded.
    Mr. Collindridge: I will not detain the Committee for long in making my small contribution to this Debate. I join with others in paying tribute to the Government for what they have done for the Bill generally. I think we have made considerable progress on past legislation but perhaps we on these benches cannot expect 100 per cent. of our type of social legislation from the type of Government we have to-day. If there is to be any perpetuation of anomalies, we hope to try to remove them. In my own district we are prone to be members of Co-operative societies, and we find advantages because of that. In our early days of home building we found that dividend accrued through the periodical purchase of articles, but in the passage of time we find that dividend left in accumulation of share capital has an adverse effect on the eventide of our lives. We have this situation: £100 of share capital brings 3½ per cent., and 70s. a year to a person with share capital shows to the advantage of is. 2d. per week income in the home. But when a supplementary pension is applied for, there is a deduction by the Assistance Board of 3s. a week for what is actually is. 2d. per week interest accruing on that£100 of share capital. That anomaly ought not to be perpetuated.
    Contrast it with this position: If you have a man and wife as members of a society with two books of£200 each, and they have this amount accruing of four times is. 2d. a week in income, or 4s. 8d. a week, they are deprived of receiving a supplementary pension of 12s. a week. In my own district many of our working-class people are doing what they have been advised to do, namely, becoming individual owners of their own houses, but by reason of war conditions there is no house building as heretofore, and I think it is wrong that the capital they have should deprive them of their supplementary pension. It was a grand gesture to say that he who owns his own house should not have that capital of house cost taken into account when seeking supplementary pension, and we suggest that at least we should cut adrift anomalies of that description at this juncture by saying that a modest amount of capital, of the kind in cash that has been quoted to-day, also ought to be exempt from consideration in this matter.
    Mr. Woods: I appeal to the Chancellor to approach this matter not so much from the point of view of the pledge that was given by his predecessor, but rather from his own human point of view in the assessment of values. The pledge was given largely to induce new savings, but I ask the Chancellor what chance the average old age pensioner had of making savings up to£375? Obviously he had very little chance. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the problem from the point of view of persons who will be either blessed or afflicted by this Bill.
    There are one or two points I want to stress. In the first place, if the present attitude is persisted in, I think it will reflect upon hon. Members. Many of us are associated with the Co-operative movement, friendly societies, and so on. People consulted us on this matter. Some of us advised those who consulted us to take their money out of the Co-operative society and buy Savings Certificates, and others said, "I do not think there is any need for you to do that, because the society is already investing the whole of its surplus in war funds, and to make such a transfer as you suggest would only create unnecessary clerical work." Now, as I understand the position, those who advised people to make a change are, as it were, in clover, whereas those who were more conscientious and did not want to create unnecessary clerical work, are looked upon as being a very poor sort of political tipsters.
    Moreover, if the present attitude is persisted in, it will, I think, create another grievance on the sex basis. I have in mind a case where the husband was not an ideal husband in many ways. He had a good time, and gave his wife an amount barely sufficient for her to bring up the family. The man is now an old age pensioner, and owing to his having been in an industry in which it was necessary for him to be in a trade union, he receives from the union a small payment which is practically a superannuation payment. His wife was thrifty and made sacrifices, but the only means she had of saving was by her being a member of the Co-operative society and not drawing her dividend, but allowing it to accumulate, very largely because she wanted to give the old man a decent funeral. She now

    1363
    has a sum approaching£200 in the Cooperative society. Now, the husband, who was never thrifty but who was very thirsty most of his life, will get the benefit of this Bill, whereas his wife, who did all the saving, who brought up the family, and has been a credit to the country, is to be penalised by the Bill. I ask the Chancellor to consider that human aspect of the matter. It is a human aspect which appeals to the average man and woman. I hope that at an early date the Chancellor will take an opportunity of rectifying this anomaly.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I have been very shocked to hear two or three hon. Members treat the pledge given by Lord Simon in such a cavalier way. Some hon. Members have suggested that my right hon. Friend ought to have ignored that pledge altogether; one hon. Member said that it was a mean and petty pledge, and another hon. Member said that it was a very bad thing. It is true that Parliament can repudiate what any Minister says, but do hon. Members really mean that they want the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of a Government which, at the time Lord Simon gave that pledge, had the support of the House by a very large majority—and which now has the support of the House by an even larger majority—to say that words uttered by such a Minister can be entirely ignored by his successor when they were given as a pledge to the workers of the country? That would be a curious line to follow. This Clause does not deal with the general question of whether or not there should be an improvement in the position of old age pensioners. Some hon. Members have indicated various ways in which, in their view, the old age pensioners' position should be improved by making different conditions concerning what are called the disregards.
    That has nothing to do with this Clause. This Clause merely deals with implementing the pledge that Lord Simon gave. The idea of making this concession was the result of very considerable conversations that had taken place. It may be that the person most responsible for it is the right hon. Gentleman who has been sitting next to me rather than Lord Simon, because it was a declaration by the Trades Union Congress at a time when there was
    1364
    a fear on the part of organised labour that the reactions which the then means test might have on savings that prompted them to ask the then Government whether they could not make some concession by which that difficulty could be got over, in order that the workers could take their full share, as they wished to do, and as they are doing in a magnificent way. It was after much discussion and consideration that Lord Simon gave the pledge on behalf of the Government that there would be this disregard. It is no secret to say that in suggesting the total of £375, he went to a higher figure than had been mentioned in conversations before.
    All that the Clause does is to bring in the machinery by which that can be implemented. All the difference between this and the Bill that we discussed in August is that, instead of dating back to the beginning of the war, the Clause as it now is dates back to the Second Reading of the Bill. The reason for that is that there apparently had been some misunderstanding as to what was meant by "new money" There again the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who is always such an agreeable controversialist, struck me nearly dumb, which he will be the first to recognise is no mean achievement. He said the Clause now is very anomalous because some people had been quick enough to discern before 14th August that something of that sort might happen and had taken the chance of improving their situation by switching from investments that they had into these specific investments so as to get the advantage of this Clause. That is exactly contrary to what he said in the Debate in August. That is why I was so taken aback. He and the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) pointed out the awkward situation in which they were put because people had asked them whether, if they transferred their money from something else into war savings, they would or would not get the benefit of this, and they said, "You will get the benefit," whereas under the then Bill they would not. The hon. Member said:
    "I said to the man, There is a Bill before the House of Commons which, if I am correct, will put that money right in your case. Evidently I did not read correctly"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1940; col. 841, Vol. 364.]
    He did not. It is just because of cases like this, because Members doing propa-

    1365
    ganda for war savings fell into an error that we made an alteration in this Bill. Having done that, it is illogical for him to say it is anomalous for us to do it and that it gives an advantage to people who were quick enough to make the change before August.
    Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think it reasonable or lair or equitable that our constituents who lead the Bill correctly should be penalised while others are not?
    Captain Crookshank: I should personally have preferred to stick where we were in August. I have not looked to see what the hon. Member himself said and whether he is consistent or not, but, in view of the obvious cases of misunderstanding, the Government thought it better to make that alteration. If we are to say that that is bad luck on someone who did not do something else at some other time, we shall never get any finality at all. I can say, on behalf of the Government, that we are grateful for the way in which hon. Members have met us in the alterations that have been made.
    I should like to say one thing about the Co-operative question. The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) asked, in effect, in his Amendment, that among the classes of investments which should be considered for war savings should come investments in Cooperative societies. He also mentioned building societies. We could not accept any Amendment on those lines, for two reasons. For one thing, it is going very far wide of the pledge given by Lord Simon to the Trades Union Congress and everyone else concerned. Once we start extending the scope of a pledge, we are in a different field altogether. We are either carrying out the pledge or not. Extending it widely is another story. Apart from that, while, of course, it is true that Co-operative and building societies are great sources of thrift for the workers, it is also true that all the money that is put into those forms of thrift does not automatically pass to help us in the war effort. The object of the pledge was to try and get the maximum amount of new money that we could during war-time for the purposes of the war. With regard to savings in Co-operative societies, I know that they invest—and we are grateful to them—large sums in Government issues,
    1366
    but they do not invest every penny that they get. They require some for their trading purposes. The same applies to building societies. The hon. Member said that they were of considerable financial assistance to us. We are grateful to them and acknowledge it, but we cannot go so far as he would suggest in his Amendment. Having said that, there is nothing more that I require to say at this stage.
    Mr. James Griffiths: May I press the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring)?
    Captain Crookshank: It has nothing to do with this Clause, any more than the point which was made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). This is merely a question of how we are to deal with war savings within the terms of the pledge. The question whether there should or should not be greater disregards for old age pensioners—
    Mr. Griffiths: I was not referring to that aspect, but to another, in view of the campaign that is going on all over the country in which some of us are taking part. Suppose that next week a man's compensation is commuted for£300. If he invests that in war savings, is it new money within the meaning of this Bill?
    Captain Crookshank: Of course it is. If a man gets £300 in cash from somewhere or other and puts it in one of the specified securities, it is new money. There is no question about it.
    Mr. Mainwaring: Will the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Health disregard it for unemployment assistance or benefit and not only for supplementary pensions?
    Captain Crookshank: That is another question. I will not go into it at the moment, because I would like to give a correct answer. If, however, a person receives a lump sum from somewhere, whether it is compensation or anything else—it may be a lucky bet on the Lincoln—and puts it into a Government investment during the war, it is new money and will be covered by the terms of the Clause.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I think we all agree that this Clause implements the pledge given by Lord Simon and that the matter that is left is less important than

    1367
    it was at the time, because we are abolishing the household means test. What some of my hon. Friends may not have realised is that before we abolished the household means test, it was a question of the means not only of the applicant, but of any other member of the household. They would all be brought into the account, and the old age pensioner would have suffered because, say, a son had savings of his own. Although we are agreed that the Chancellor has implemented the promise of his predecessor, I hope that this not the end of the matter. I should be out of order if I were to go in detail into the wider considerations, but there is a number of ways in which relief can be given in this matter. As it stands, it will represent an anomaly. It will be an anomaly between two people, one of whom has his savings in one form and one of whom has them in another. It will be an anomaly between the man whose war savings were made in one war and the man whose savings were made in another war—I have already had a case from a constituent along those lines. It will be an anomaly between the man who went out to the war and fought and the man who stayed at home and made money in munitions work.
    I am sure that the position cannot last very long, and although it cannot be changed in this Bill, I hope that at an early date the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do what he can to remedy the anomalies which are certain to arise, and in the meanwhile to reduce the hardship to people who have their money invested in other ways. As an old Financial Secretary to the Treasury I know that the task of the Treasury is in many ways a hard one, and that their attitude is not always understood by the people of the country, but I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the position and bear in mind the other points which have been raised, so that this anomaly which we are creating to-day in furtherance of this pledge will be modified and finally removed before very long.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. White: I beg to move, in page 2, line 45, at the end, to insert:
    "and in the case of war savings certificates the growing produce thereof."
    1368
    Although I am moving this Amendment, I hope that it may be found to be one which is unnecessary. It raises the position of the holder of War Savings Certificates. The accumulation on War Savings Certificates is not paid out annually, but the holder of certificates to the maximum amount of £375 will in course of time become the possessor of £500. What is to be his position? When the certificates fall in it is frequently the case that they are changed into other certificates. I think it is right that those who help the State by leaving their money there should have the benefit of it. I move the Amendment in order that the point may, if necessary, be considered.
    Captain Crookshank: This Amendment is really unnecessary, because the Clause as it stands says that where investments are to be disregarded under the Bill, the income receivable therefrom is also to be disregarded. The result is that we do not get the somewhat arbitrary calculation which has been discussed this afternoon. In the case of War Savings Certificates, they produce no income at all. The growing interest, if you call it interest, never comes to the holder at all, but is a form of capital accretion, and therefore it does not fall to be considered or treated as income. The actual value of the certificate is described in the last words of the Bill:
    "references to the amount at any date of any Government stock or National or Ulster Savings Certificates shall be treated as references, in the case of any such stock, to the amount originally subscribed there for, and, in the case of any such certificates, to the amount for which those certificates could be en cashed on that date"
    Mr. White: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 4, 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Consequential amendments of enactments.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"
    Mr. Mainwaring: I should like to ask the Minister how broad an interpretation will be given to the words at the end of Sub-section (1). Is it proposed to introduce words in substitution of

    1369
    "due regard shall be had to the personal requirements of all persons whose resources are taken into account"?
    I have in mind a body of pensioners who, on account of age and other factors, are infirm, enfeebled or, indeed, as will be the case with large numbers of them, bedridden, and who, in consequence of their extreme disability and lack of personal resources, have either entered the homes of married sons or daughters or have received married sons or daughters into their own homes. In such cases, the married daughters or daughters-in-law will have undertaken the unpleasant task of looking after one, or it may be both, of the parents. I know of two cases where both parents are bedridden and their daughters-in-law have accepted sole responsibility for giving them personal attention. On top of that, at the present time, and because they are in the homes of their sons or daughters-in-law or their sons or daughters-in-law are in their homes the interpretation given is that their requirements are lessened by that fact. If those aged persons were not in those circumstances, they would require not merely the supplementary pension, as is provided for, but something more, in order to ensure such personal attention as they need. Is it intended, or will this matter be considered, that such aged persons, who really require not less but more, and whose daughters or daughters-in-law have undertaken this extremely unpleasant task, will not have their supplementary pension reduced, and that full regard will be paid to their situation?
    Mr. Bevin: These words were made wide enough to enable us to draft the Regulations. I cannot give my hon. Friend any other answer, because the Regulations are drafted. He will see, if he looks at the words, that, instead of being rigid, they allow for the taking into account of resources which may vary.
    Mr. Mainwaring: We have had words before. Words are very easily given. What I want to know is whether it is intended really on this occasion to give a general interpretation.
    Mr. Bevin: Certainly. I have said so.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.
  Mr. White: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, at the end, to add,
  "6. Save in exceptional circumstances, or at the request of the applicant, investigations into the needs of an applicant shall be carried out at the office of the Assistance Board and not at the domicile of the applicant."
  I have little doubt that after a few words of explanation my right hon. Friends, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour, will accept this Amendment. If I may address myself first to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is the case that these domiciliary visits are very costly. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman were to inquire into the cost of the machinery of these visitations, he would be surprised. It would be interesting to know the cost of the domiciliary visits in the West of England, and how many times a man has to go on a motor cycle once a month 100 miles or so in order to check up on the resources of individuals. The Committee will have noticed that in the White Paper the hope is expressed that the number of visitations will decrease; I think that that process ought to be carried a good deal further. It is unfortunate that under this Bill we perpetuate and even accentuate some of the anomalies which riddle the whole of our social services. We may have this sort of case arising: A son who is a householder, and with a considerable income, may have been paying Income Tax for 10 or 20 years, and in that respect may have his word taken for it, but if his affairs are looked into by the Unemployment Assistance Board, his word is not taken for it; instead, visitors from the Unemployment Assistance Board go to his house and make an inquiry into his affairs. From the point of view of economy, this Amendment should be accepted.
  The other point I wish to make is this: There is a hang-over from the old Poor Law tradition. The visits are not appreciated. Much of the bitterness in connection with the administration of the Unemployment Assistance Board and the means test has arisen from the domiciliary visits. What happens is this: If I and my right hon. Friend here were living in the same street and he had the misfortune to get out of work, the Unemployment Assistance Board would call at his house,

  1371
  and when my right hon. Friend's wife stepped into the street she might be confronted by her neighbour, who would say, "So you are on the U.A.B. now?" That may seem a small matter, but, believe me, from close observation I know that such matters are of some consequence to people who have to undergo those experiences. It is for that reason that I have put down the Amendment, which, on economic and psychological grounds, should be accepted by both my right hon. Friends.
  Mr. Bevin: I regret that we are unable to accept the Amendment. We do not want this to be put in the Bill at all. The administration of Measures of this kind must undergo a process of change from time to time. Imagine the cost of transport, and the other difficulties in a rural area, with which an old age pensioner would have to contend if he had to visit the Board. This difficulty has arisen even in regard to paying out unemployment benefit in scattered areas. With all respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think you can have a strictly rigid and uniform method at all. There will have to be a process of change, and in time it will no doubt be better than it has been. But there is another factor to consider. When the Old Age Supplementary Pensions Act was going through the House, I noticed that great anxiety was shown that the administration, in addition to investigating the means of an applicant, should have a second function. The House was very concerned for the development of a service to look after the welfare of old age pensioners. That side of the work of our administration must develop more and more, and if it is reduced to a mere calling at an office, we shall get back to the counter method, the method of indifference, and perhaps even the queues, which would be a very bad thing. I give the Committee an assurance that when this Bill is through my right hon. Friends the Minister of Pensions and the Minister of Health and myself will carefully examine the whole of the methods of administration in order to accomplish two purposes—one, which I indicated earlier in the day, to avoid any temptation for applicants to use cunning to get their benefits, and the second to develop the welfare aspect, in order, as far as we can, to humanise the whole business.
  Mr. White: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill"
  Mr. Mainwaring: I would like to refer to one or two points in connection with the Schedule. Reference has already been made earlier in the day to one, namely, the amount of profit which will be deemed to be made from a boarder and which will be regarded as resources. It is one thing to assume that a son whose earnings stand at 40s. will provide a given profit, at 50s. another and at 55s. something more, which will presumably be 7s. per week. But it is another to say what a boarder, paying perhaps 25s. a week for his board and place in the household, will provide by way of profit. His earnings may be anything perhaps£2 a week, perhaps£8 a week—but it does not seem to be possible to base the amount deemed to be profit and to be calculated as resources on the wages of the boarder. It is an utter impossibility. Some figure, which will be fair in its application to the householder, must be agreed upon. I simply mention that point so that it may receive consideration.
  Our second point is that similarly, under the resources which must be estimated under this Schedule, appears the question of rent. This Bill provides for further rent Rules, and great advantages to a large number of applicants. But is there any possibility that the existing Rules may be modified to the disadvantage of large numbers of people? For example, an aged husband and wife, in receipt of 32s. a week pension and supplementary pension—or, for that matter, an unemployed husband and wife, in receipt of 32s. a week unemployment assistance—are deemed to be able to pay 6s. a week rent. What if, in fact, this couple succeed in finding accommodation costing them only 5s. a week? At present, their pension, or assistance, is not reduced by reason of the fact that they pay only 5s. when they are deemed to pay 6s. Is there any danger that, under this new method of administration, provided for under the authority of this Schedule, there may be reductions in some of such cases? I hope that my fears

  1373
  are groundless; and that it will be decided that the old rent rule shall operate, together with the new benefits.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: We now come to the part of the Bill which contains the most dangerous provisions. To use a vulgarism, we come to the guts of the means test, which still has a place in the Bill. We had put down a series of Amendments designed to remove the household means test from the Bill; but, as has been said before, it is not our intention at this stage to re-fight the battle we lost on Second Reading. But the time is opportune to impress again on the Committee the importance of the main theme of our contribution in the Second Reading Debate. This morning we have had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer an indication of certain improvements that have been negotiated. As long as the distinction remains, in the First Schedule, between the householder and the non-householder, nearly 50 per cent. of the applicants for supplementary pensions will not, in my view, be affected by the reforms contained in this Bill. Perhaps the Minister of Labour will take note of this point. He indicated that if he undertook to carry out the principles contained in the letter of the ex-Minister of Health, that would solve the problem. I submit that it would not even touch the fringe of the problem.
  The problem really is here. The Assistance Board know that if an old age pensioner can be described as a non-householder, it means 6s. a week less for him in supplementary pension. So long as that distinction is there, so long do you get the difficulty about genuine households and all the consequences which arise from it. I submit that, the Prime Minister having made his pledge that personal need should be the test, we should now be carrying out that pledge in this Schedule, but it is in this Schedule that we provide for the contravention of that pledge, in so far as there are distinctions made between the needs of the householder and those of the non-householder. We have appealed to the honour of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to keep the pledge to the country. Apparently they are not sensitive on that point, but they might be sensitive on another phase of human nature, and that is their vanity. They ought to know that the Assistance Board and the Assistance Board's officials
  1374
  up and down the country are laughing at the way they have got away with the undertaking which the Prime Minister gave in this House. The Prime Minister was made to read a document which, first of all, promised the abolition of the household means test. Personal need was to be the test, and in the last part of the last paragraph the personal need was replaced by the household need. In continuing those distinctions in the first Schedule you are betraying the pledge that was given by the Prime Minister and are misleading thousands of old age pensioners in this country.
  A question has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) about rent. I said on Second Reading that provision as to rent in the First Schedule was a tremendous advance on the old rent position, but I submit that that advance on the old rent position was a recognition of the lack of justification for the distinction between the householder and the non-householder, and an attempt behind the scenes, as it were, to try and equate the personal needs of the various applicants for supplementary pensions. I am afraid these contentions and arguments will not now unduly impress the Minister, in view of the probable Third Reading, which is to be taken to-day, but I ask that when the Regulations are considered and this First Schedule is being interpreted in the form of new Regulations, he will endeavour to see to it that he abolishes this distinction between the need of the non-household and the household. If that is removed, in my view, it will satisfy a substantial proportion of the complaints that now arise out of the administration.
  Mr. Bevin: With regard to the point about the lodger, we have not attempted to define what a boarder should be. It would be impossible for us to try and define a boarding-house, as it is such a wide term. In some cases it may refer to a person in business running a complete boarding-house, but if you take the type of house and the type of lodger that I think the hon. Member has in mind, the determination will be approximately the same, so that the whole basis of the Bill is to treat that type of case and not to penalise the person who lives at home as against the person who lives outside. Clearly in that type of case you will apply a similar kind of ascertainment. I am

  1375
  afraid I cannot add to the answer with regard to the householder and the non-householder that I gave on the Second Reading, which completely demolished the same kind of case put forward by the same speaker to-day.
  Question, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Second Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time"
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Now that we have arrived at this stage of our proceedings, I want to record my keen satisfaction at the great improvement in this Bill. While I do not withdraw one word of what I said on the Second Reading, and while I have some misgivings with regard to administration, it seems to me that when one considers that we are involved in a battle for our lives, one owes a debt of gratitude to this House and to those organisations which have for their object the welfare of our people for the kind of Measure we have been able to bring forward for the benefit of many people in the country. I want to make one or two observations in order that when the framing of Regulations and the issuing of circulars is considered, instructions will be given to officers as to how they should administer the provisions of this Bill. I wish to quote an extract from a high authority in this country, who is well versed in this kind of legislation and administration. He says:
  "There is a nasty snag which will cause difficulties in administration and will cause a whole crop of complaints to Members of Parliament. Rule 3 (a), paragraph 12, deals with free board and lodging (normally free). A great percentage of old people live with their sons and daughters who provide board and lodging, normally free"
  He goes on to say that this will debar a supplementary old age pension being paid, and he draws attention to the fact that many old people, owing to their having spent 30,40 or 50years in industry, are feeling the need for convalescent treatment and special holidays. We hope that when people who apply for these supplementary pensions are in a position of this kind they will not be brought under the old form of administration,
  1376
  namely, that their circumstances have changed and that their supplementary pensions should be changed. We say that, once determination has been made, that determination ought to stand for a relatively long period. The fact that there is a limited change in their circumstances for a short time, because they go into a convalescent home, visit relatives, or go to another district because they have been bombed out, does not make a reasonable case for saying that their circumstances have changed. The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), who was then Minister of Health, said on 20th February, 1940:
  "Cases frequenly arise in which the state of an applicant's household calls for some special measure of assistance"
  Everybody who is acquainted with this matter knows that when people have been drawing only 10s. a week for years, nearly the whole of their household calls for some special measure of assistance. Therefore, in order that the good-will which has been expressed in the Committee and in the House may find expression in the administration, I hope that the Bill, as an Act, will be interpreted as generously as possible, so that the old people may have reflected in their lives some of the spirit that has been shown in our Debates. The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove went on to say:
  "For example, it may be found that there is overcrowding or that the premises are dilapidated, or that the bedding or other articles of essential furnishing are inadequate. The Board's officers are always ready in such cases to ensure that housing or other defects are remedied if possible"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1940; col. 1210, Vol. 357.]
  I ask hon. Members whether it is their experience that what the right hon. Member then said has found expression in the administration of this matter? The right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance that those things would be done. They were not done. I hope that on this occasion they will be done. The right hon. Gentleman then said that the administration of supplementary pensions would be conducted in such a manner as would best promote the welfare of the pensioners. I remember when he said that I asked for an interpretation of "welfare" I was very pleased with the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave, and I am hoping, as the Minister has given such generous answers, especially during the last hour—

  1377
  and I was pleased when I heard him say that in future the Government were going to consider not only the means of an individual, but his needs—that more and more will the Government consider the welfare of applicants. I am hoping that in future we shall find the same spirit in the administration that has been shown in our deliberations to-day.
  Mr. Tinker: I rise to ask a question in regard to the Second Schedule. Its meaning is somewhat complicated. When this Measure becomes an Act, people who wish to apply for supplementary pensions will wish to know exactly what is meant by savings. I suggest that a leaflet might be issued for the benefit of applicants, explaining clearly what is the meaning of this Schedule. I have read it many times, and it was not until to-day that I obtained a grip of the situation. One can readily understand the difficulty of the ordinary applicant, unless an explanation is given. There will be many new applicants under this Measure, and I should like to know whether, when the time comes for applications, some notice will be given in the Post Office to show that now is the time to apply for benefit. A number of people who applied under the last Measure were unsuccessful, and I want to see that they will be the first to benefit.
  Mr. McLean Watson: I welcome the Third Reading of this Measure. I was glad to have the opportunity of saying a word or two in its favour during the Second Reading Debate, and I welcome the stage which it has now reached. I wish also to express pleasure that we shall not require to wait for some months before it comes into operation—at least, I hope that will be so. This Measure would certainly have been delayed in its operation if an Amendment, which was moved earlier in our Debates, had been carried. I was called a Tory because I opposed the Amendment.
  Sir Edward Campbell: Congratulations.
  Mr. Watson: I was called a Tory because I showed a little commonsense in regard to that Amendment, and because I was opposed to needless delay in this Measure coming into operation. During his remarks a few minutes ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr.
  1378
  Ness Edwards) was concerned about the pledge given by the Prime Minister. A lot of concern was shown on the Second Reading as to what was the Prime Minister's pledge, but I notice that my hon. Friend was not quite so sure of his ground when he spoke a few minutes ago as on the previous occasion. On the previous occasion he was perfectly certain that the Prime Minister's pledge had been broken. The Prime Minister's pledge was that there would be a "personal test," but that was qualified by the "household circumstances." That is the reason why on Second Reading I opposed the Amendment from these benches and supported the Second Reading of the Measure. The Prime Minister's words were perfectly plain. He said that where the applicant was not the householder, regard would be had to the constitution and circumstances of the home, and I was not surprised when this Measure came along that a certain measure of the means test was still being retained. I said on Second Reading, and I say again, that despite that fact this Bill goes beyond anything any of us honestly expected during a period of war.
  When this war began the old age pensioner was receiving 10s. a week, but today there are hundreds of thousands who are receiving 19s. 6d. and over 1, even without this Measure. There are hundreds of thousands more who will benefit under this Bill. I frankly confess that this is a measure of justice to the old age pensioners, and also to the unemployed, which I did not expect during the period of this war. However, it is nothing more than they deserve, and I am prepared to say that it is not as much as they deserve. In the Second Reading Debate I mentioned the demand of the old age pensioners—it was not a demand for 19s. 6d. or 32s., but a demand of £1 a week together with a cost-of-living bonus. Had that been the terms of the Amendment moved from these benches, I could have understood it, but in fact the Amendment was framed without regard to what the Prime Minister had said. The Government have gone as far as they possibly can without completely removing the means test, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone even further still today. As far as I was concerned, I was prepared to accept what was in the Bill and in the White Paper as an honest endeavour to fulfil the pledge which was

  1379
  given. I do not know what my hon. Friends have been doing since this Bill has been printed, but I have been addressing meetings of old age pensioners in my constituency during the last fortnight and explaining the Bill to them. There is only one desire in their mind, and that is to have this Measure in operation at the earliest possible moment. I hope that that will be the case, and if we Members of Parliament are pestered by pensioners coming to us with means test grievances, I hope we shall do as we have done in the past, and that is to try and go on to something better. This Measure marks a big step forward in social amelioration.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: We all, in every part of the House, recognise that this Bill represents an appreciable advantage as far as the unemployed and the old age pensioners are concerned, but I cannot be persuaded, notwithstanding the eloquence of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, that a great deal more could not have been done. I have noticed, in connection with the handling of the Bill, how extremely close the Treasury has kept to the Minister of Labour, and I am absolutely satisfied that he has had a very considerable kind of stranglehold put upon him.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): It is the Minister of Labour who is sitting close to the Treasury.
  Mr. Davies: I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having learnt a very useful lesson in the short time that he has been here. He has appreciated how close an eye he must keep on the Treasury. Possibly we shall see greater results of that careful watchfulness in the near future. But I am under no illusion at all as far as the Bill is concerned. The means test is still part of its structure. I know the Regulations may be changed from time to time, and I am under no illusion that they cannot be changed for the worse. But what I really cannot understand about the Government is this: Here was, at very little extra expenditure, a splendid opportunity to make the noblest gesture that they could make. These old age pensioners have their thousands and tens of thousands of sons who have gone to do their bit for the country, and the incomes of very many
  1380
  homes have been reduced as a consequence. Many of these sons are very anxious as to the well-being of their parents. At the time when the Government could have made a fine gesture to these old people which would have been appreciated by our men in the Armed Forces, they have placed before us a Bill which, notwithstanding its advantages, is a very niggardly Measure. By removing the means test they could have cut down the expenditure of administration by hundreds of thousands of pounds. Instead of doing that, they have kept the vicious machine in being and have perpetrated a thousand and one anomalies. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) will soon be up against them.
  The Government could have done the big and clean thing instead of perpetrating the injustices of the means test. I was pledged against it not only to my constituents, but to something far wider than that. The movement of which I have been a part for many years has pledged itself on innumerable occasions that whenever an opportunity presented itself in the House we should fight the means test. I regret that that movement is not what it was. Given the opportunity to-day, I would, notwithstanding the advantages of this Bill, have gone into the Division Lobby to express my detestation of the niggardly spirit that has been shown and the class spirit of legislation which perpetuates injustices at the expense of the poorest. I am sorry that the Government have not risen to the occasion by responding to the demands of the old people. The time will shortly come when we who have protested against the contradictions, the anomalies and the viciousness which are still here will be able to show that our protests have been only too well founded.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I want to express my profound disappointment with the contents of this Bill. Something bigger and better should have been done which would have had a much better effect on the country. I want to warn my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson), who apparently finds pleasure in currying favour with people on the opposite side of the House by attacking his friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not think I have said anything that is untrue. I was able to see the smiles playing backwards and forwards from one side to the other, and I

  1381
  must believe my own eyes. My hon. Friend is very satisfied now, but he will become very dissatisfied when the Bill is in operation. I am certain, too, that many other Members who voted for the Second Reading will be dissatisfied. It has been suggested that we want to defer this Bill for months. We were asked half-an-hour ago to agree to the Third Reading to-day, and with regret we do agree, because it is obviously the desire of the House. We have no intention of wrecking what is regarded by some as a magnificent piece of work, but regarded by us as a puny piece of work.
  There has not been time to raise all the points that one would have liked to raise. May I ask the Minister to see to the immediate payment of new determinations, and see also that the Assistance Board is properly authorised to deal with cases of accumulated hardship? Will he see, too, that the Regulations are laid before the House in ample time, so that we can give them full study before they are brought before the House for debate? It is proposed to deal with 100,000 applicants for supplementary pensions who have been rejected. The test will be how many of the 100,000 applicants who had a nil determination will get something under this Bill. I hope the Minister will give us an early report upon the working of the Bill and indicate the measure of relief which will, in fact, be given to old age pensioners.
  Mr. Bevin: I should like to thank the House for the way in which it has received this Bill and the effective assistance which has been given in carrying it through. With regard to notices bringing it: to the attention of the public, steps will be taken, as soon as the Regulations are approved, to put them in the post offices, and also to make a wireless broadcast statement We shall also issue a pamphlet explaining the position as regards savings. The other points put to me will all be taken into account when we make the Regulations. I express, on behalf of the Government, their thanks to the Members of this House for the way in which they have helped to speed this legislation through.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT,1932.
  Resolved,
  "That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the under mentioned areas:—

  (1)the Borough of King's Lynn;

  (2)the City and County Borough of Wake-field;

  (3)the Urban District of Aldridge;

  (4)the Urban District of St. Neots;

  (5)the Borough of Workington; and

  (6)the Urban District of Newquay,

  copies of the first four of which were presented to this House on 26th February, and copies of the remainder on 4th March, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

  FEEDING-STUFFS (HOUSEHOLD WASTE).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Dugdale.]
  Mr. De la Bère: I desire to raise the question of the neglect of the Ministry of Agriculture to utilise fully kitchen waste for providing feeding-stuffs for pigs and poultry. Someone must initiate things, and one might reasonably suppose that the Ministry of Agriculture should take an interest in maintaining, as far as possible, the livestock, and that is the pigs and poultry, of this country; but I regret to say that the Ministry of Agriculture have not displayed any real interest in the matter, although the war has been going on for 18 months. I believe that the scheme for the collection of kitchen waste comes under the Ministry of Supply, but my remarks and my criticisms are not levelled against the Ministry of Supply, because the only drive, the only initiative, the only efforts have come from the Ministry of Supply. The Ministry of Agriculture fall back on their usual complacency, their love of laisser-faire, the desire to let everything go on, or else to say, "Let us find some obstacle and say the scheme is not any good" What did they do? They said this scheme might spread foot-and-mouth disease. Of course it might, if you utilise kitchen waste without having properly boiled and prepared it, but it is nothing like so dangerous as allowing raw swill to be fed to animals as is done now.
  I know of another excuse which they will put forward. They will say that the

  1383
  concentrator plant and machinery are not yet available. When it is available then the Ministry of Agriculture will come in and give the scheme its blessing. It will be good of them to do so, but that is not showing initiative. Fanners are getting more and more exasperated with this absolutely defunct Ministry. Not only is it defunct in the sense that it does nothing, but it obstructs measures. I have had bitter complaints within the precincts of this House only to-day that the Ministry have not attempted to support this scheme. Indeed, I have a great deal of evidence here to show that they have done nothing at all to support the efforts of the Ministry of Supply to get the scheme going. It is a very serious state of affairs. The Minister of Agriculture goes all over the country and makes speeches to draw attention to the fact that feeding-stuffs are not only short but are going to get much shorter. That is so, but what steps is he taking to make a constructive effort to ensure that supplies which can be made available are made available?
  It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn"—[Major Dug-dale,]
  Mr. De la Bère: In connection with increased supplies, it is well to bear in mind what the yield from kitchen waste may amount to. I am told by the Ministry of Supply that the output of kitchen waste would, possibly, be in the neighbourhood of 300,000 or 350,000 tons a year. I further learn that the amount which is being provided at the present time is in the neighbourhood of 100,000 tons. That means that only about one-third of the available supply is being collected and used for feeding pigs and poultry. That position is deplorable after 18 months, more especially as pigs and poultry are being killed off at an alarming rate now, as has been the case for many months. The position is bringing ruin to many small farmers and poultry keepers.
  If my remarks to the Ministry have been rather direct they have, I think, been well deserved. The Ministry cannot possibly view with complacency the complete wiping out of the small men without
  1384
  making some effort to assist them. Other hon. Members will be able to speak on this matter with a great deal of knowledge. They may not direct themselves so much against the Ministry of Agriculture as I have done, but I think my contention will be borne out that the Ministry of Agriculture have not succeeded in putting anything forward. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies I should like to hear from him what steps the Ministry of Agriculture have taken from the beginning in connection with this matter; what steps they are taking now, and what co-ordination exists among the various Departments concerned? The Departments dealing with this matter are, I understand, the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Health and, last but by no means least in adding to the confusion, the War Office.
  What a state of affairs. What confusion and chaos after 18 months. Let me cite an example of what took place between the War Office and the Ministry of Supply. Some time ago—I think it was on 22nd December—I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply and asked him for some information about National By-products. He wrote back a courteous letter, acknowledging my communication and so on. After about eight weeks I learned from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply that it was not at all certain whether this particular contract came under that Ministry or under the War Office. I then saw the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office, only about a week ago. I said, "Look here, have you found out, after three months, whether National By-products comes under the Ministry of Supply or under the War Office?" I do not want to abuse any confidence which was given to me, although I could add a good deal. All I can say is that he did not know.
  Nobody knows, not even after 18 months of war, when we are fighting as we have never had to fight before. No wonder nothing is done. These Departments are simply "passing the buck" one to the other. They write a little letter to the hon. Member saying that his letter will receive consideration. Then there is another chit written from one Ministry to the other. The whole situation is Gilbertian. It is tragic farce. In another

  1385
  sense, it is calculated to cause tears, because of the agony caused by the appalling ineptitude which is being exhibited. I hope that when we have a reply Ministers will, for once in their lives, forget words and deal with realities.
  Mr. Hannah: I would support my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère). It is popularly said in the United States that the most patriotic Englishmen never boast about English cooking. There is probably something in that saying. We are a wasteful nation in the kitchen. We have probably improved a good deal since Victorian times, but I doubt whether there is a country in the whole world where waste from the kitchen is larger than among ourselves. I feel very much that we should do our very utmost to use this waste for the feeding of stock. The importance of so doing cannot well be exaggerated. In all humility, I wish to support my hon. Friend in the protest which he has made.
  Mr. Price: I should like to add a word or two, because, in view of the shortage of feeding-stuffs, it is a matter of considerable importance that all producers should try to get whatever substitutes they possibly can. There is little doubt that household edibles, when mixed with bran or home-grown corn, provide a very useful food which will enable one to keep some poultry and pigs. At present, living on imported feeding-stuffs, they are a burden and almost a danger to the country. Anyone who can keep poultry and pigs by feeding them on home-grown feeding-stuffs is doing a national service, because there is then no burden placed on our imports or on our shipping.
  I believe there is a great muddle between the different Departments. I do not think that the question of transport has been efficiently handled. A few days ago, in answer to a Question, there was published a list of local authorities which had done nothing in this matter. I suggest that in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary might indicate that something is being done about it, and that the heads of Departments are collaborating in order to see that something is done. In this connection, too, it might result in the assistance of many small people, ex-Service men, for instance, who for some years past have been living on the pro-
  1386
  duce of their small poultry farms. In view of the cutting of rations next month, they may have to give them up altogether. Here it might be possible to find a way by which they could be kept going in these difficult times. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give us some assurance that something will be done.
  Mr. Woolley: I should like to support the remarks that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère), although, perhaps, I would not go to quite the same extent in the excesses in which he indulged. One of the difficulties at the present moment is in the collection arrangements for waste food products. Only on Sunday last I was speaking with one of my constituents, who is a fairly large poultry and pig farmer, and he told me that, in spite of the reduction in feeding-stuffs which he obtains through the normal trade channels, he has been able to retain and feed 100 per cent. of his pre-war poultry and his pig stock; he has done that not without difficulty, because he experienced very considerable difficulty with the local authority. But he pressed and pressed hard—I think he also made some private collection arrangements of his own—and at this moment he is keeping and feeding between 4,000 and 5,000 head of poultry and about 100 head of pigs. That is a very considerable contribution to the food position, and I feel that if the problem of collecting waste food were sincerely tackled, a great deal of additional food could be obtained. The private collector, at the moment, is not encouraged sufficiently to save waste foodstuffs, because too little opportunity is given for passing them on to those who can utilise them. If the method of collection can be improved, I am sure that a very real contribution would be made to the solution of our food problem.
  Miss Lloyd George: I would like to say a few words as Chairman of the Committee of Women Members of Parliament appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary when he was Minister of Supply. I am sure that no one will deny that the waste of one scrap of food cannot be justified at present, having regard to our shipping losses and to the drastic cutting-down of feeding-stuffs for livestock in this country. I can quite honestly say that my Committee—and I am sure the right hon.

  1387
  Gentleman will bear me out—have consistently, constantly and persistently advocated the adoption of some very active policy in regard to this matter. It is perfectly obvious that the Ministry of Supply cannot proceed vigorously without the co-operation of the Ministry of Agriculture. It is, in fact, not the primary responsibility of the Ministry of Supply; it is only a secondary responsibility for them. But it is certainly a primary responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry of Supply cannot proceed without the enthusiastic co-operation of the Ministry of Agriculture, and we have not seen much of that enthusiasm up to date. At any rate, it is not my idea of enthusiasm.
  It is obvious that the Ministry of Supply cannot issue an order for the compulsory collection of food by local authorities unless arrangements have been made for the processing and, above all, the disposal of that waste food. You cannot collect waste food and have it lying about in various parts of the country; every kind of complication might arise from it. It is therefore vital that there should be really whole-hearted co-operation between the two Departments. In July proposals were put forward for local authorities to be encouraged to instal concentrator plants, after the model of Tottenham, which has been such a conspicuous success, and for Treasury assistance to be given to local authorities. That policy was actively pursued by the Ministry of Supply, but, probably because local authorities are not prepared to face financial commitments at the moment, it has not succeeded, and it must now be recognised to have been a failure. It will have to be abandoned, and a new policy will have to be adopted. I believe that only 18 of the larger authorities put in plants, which means about 23 units in the whole country. It is therefore quite obvious that that policy has now exhausted its usefulness, and I believe that a new one must be sought and adopted without delay. When it is adopted, it must be carried out effectively.
  We believe that only by putting this matter into the hands of a central authority can anything be achieved. That central authority should be charged both with the processing of the food and
  1388
  with its distribution, because that is a vital matter too. No policy which is going to be adopted by the Ministry of Supply can be successful without the cooperation of the Ministry of Agriculture.
  Mr. De la Bère: Which will never be forthcoming.
  Miss Lloyd George: They have certainly not put their heart into this. They say that there is foot-and-mouth disease, and so they have to be careful. They have been investigating foot-and-mouth disease for years. I think that at this moment, of all moments, they might have at last come to a decision. If they think it is too dangerous to encourage swill, they should say so. At the moment they are adopting neither one policy nor the other. They are encouraging small pig-keepers to use raw swill, which I think is a more fruitful source of foot-and-mouth disease than the policy which we want them to adopt, that of processing swill. It seems that in regard to this question the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture is:
  "He that is not with me is against me"
  Mr. R. C. Morrison: It fell to my lot more than a year ago to initiate this subject into the House of Commons, and I have been concerned with it ever since. I endorse everything that has been said in this short, but extremely interesting, discussion. The Parliamentary Secretary, in a written answer to a Question the other day, pointed out that 608 local authorities of over 10,000 inhabitants have made no attempt yet to organise any collection. That is a most astounding thing, after nearly 18 months of war. I say this with some reluctance, because I have been in local government myself for a great part of my life; but if the local authorities have reasons why they are not doing this work, it is time that somebody else did it. I hope that there will be no further delay, having regard to the fact that three Government Departments—the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Agriculture—are involved; and I am sure that the Ministers will not deny that it has been necessary at each stage to bring other Government Departments into line. One does not expect to hear Ministerial decisions announced in a discussion such as this on the Adjournment, but I wish to impress upon the Ministers who are present that they

  1389
  should use such influence as they can to get rapid decisions without delay, because the position has become very serious.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): My hon. Friend who raised this matter can congratulate himself on the degree of interest which it has aroused; and the number of speakers who have taken part, all of them with special knowledge of the question, shows how vital this matter is considered by the House. My Department, in particular, who have charge of this responsibility, owe a great debt of gratitude to the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison). My hon. Friend has for many years been an authority on this matter, and has given a splendid lead in dealing with waste food. The hon. Lady and the Committee on which she has worked have been of the greatest possible service in developing new ideas, both upon this question and upon matters of general salvage as well.
  I am bound to say that when my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) gave notice yesterday that he intended to raise this matter on the Adjournment, I felt somewhat alarmed in view of the indignation with which he demanded a Debate, particularly in regard to my Department. But I seem to have got into the position of a man who is interposing his body between the assassin and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, who is meant to be the victim. Naturally I am very pleased at the high compliments the hon. Member has paid to my Ministry, but I am afraid I cannot accept the strictures which he makes upon my colleagues. If it were possible to conceive a Ministry better conducted and organised than the Ministry of Supply, perhaps I should say it was the Ministry of Agriculture. Perhaps I might sum up the speech of my hon. Friend by saying what another famous character said of himself:
  "I will aggravate my voice so that I will roar you as gently as any sucking dove"
  I would like to give the position as it now is and say a few words of indication as to how we want to improve it. We must not exaggerate in either direction. At the moment 393 local authorities,
  1390
  covering districts whose population together is over 23,000,000 persons, have schemes for the collection of waste food in operation. That is to say, that over half of the population of the country is dealt with by some scheme or other.
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these schemes cover the whole of towns or are they limited to a portion of towns and the scheme itself only applies, maybe, to one or two boroughs in a locality?
  Mr. Macmillan: I was coming to that, and was going to say that there was this proviso, that in all cases the schemes do not cover the whole of the population. In addition 1,200 local authorities report to us the existence of private collecting schemes. We must not neglect the value of the private schemes. They are of great value both in towns and rural districts. Arrangements made to deal with material on the spot are often far more satisfactory than having to collect and carry it away. We are perhaps all aware of some such scheme making provision for farmers in the neighbourhood. Let me deal with it in another way. My hon. Friend the Member for Evesham is not quite accurate. The estimate of the peace-time collection from bins was 350,000 tons of organic matter collected through the collection of refuse. We have to make an allowance for the reduction through rationing and other reasons, and also for part of the refuse, such as orange peel and banana peel. The estimate of the amount of usable refuse of this kind is about 250,000 tons today. Of that, 110,000 tons are now being collected by local authorities—that is to say, that about half the total is now being collected and made serviceable for this purpose. It is true, of course, that there exist over 100,000 tons to go after, and we have to get as much as we can, having regard to the fact that as we get nearer to the maximum we shall reach some point where the cost of collection and the difficulties of transport and labour will not make it worth while. You will never get absolutely 100 per cent.
  Mr. De la Bère: My figures were obtained from my hon. Friend's Department. No doubt they were figures for some little time back and he has had an opportunity of revising them.
  Mr. Macmillan: I have given the figures and the amount of collection. There are also about 50,000 tons to 75,000 tons from private collection—from hotels and restaurants and such places in the country. In Westminster alone the collection from private sources amounts to 600 tons a month, quite apart from any local authority collections. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey truly said that there are difficulties in persuading councils to make use of the processing plants which are now being manufactured. At present two councils, of which Tottenham is one, have plants of their own and two others have them on order. Eighteen councils have agreed to take 23 plants, and we have 30 concentrators and five vertical boilers which we have ordered in anticipation of being able to place them. If there is any reluctance on the part of local authorities, I think it will be largely overcome by the fact that the Treasury is now prepared to guarantee a council to some extent against loss in the operation of these plants. At the same time there are difficulties of manufacture, but I think the hon. Lady is right in saying that if we are to get this further waste food, we must have a forward policy and a different policy.
  The difficulties of local authorities are not due to mere reluctance. Many of them
  1392
  are overwhelmed with the many duties which have come upon them, not the least of which is due to enemy attack. They have manifold problems to deal with, with comparatively small staffs and overworked officials, but my right hon. Friend has already arranged to confer with the Ministers of Food and Agriculture with a view to developing a forward policy which I hope will, when announced, give satisfaction to the House. I could not go into details to-day, because I have not the time nor is it appropriate, but I think I might say that we are taking our cue from the recommendations from the Committee over which the hon. Lady presides. I do not think she will find that we shall go very far from those recommendations. There are many matters which affect food policy. There is the price policy and the system of controlled operation which affects several Departments. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend is very conscious of the importance of this question, and is anxious and determined to press forward towards a more satisfactory solution.
  Mr. De la Bère: Even to go and talk to the Minister of Agriculture, and tell him that he has erred in the past and must mend his ways?
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  REDUNDANT FIRMS (TRADE RIGHTS).
  REDUNDANT FIRMS (TRADE RIGHTS).
  STEEL HELMETS.
  STEEL HELMETS.
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  FIRE PREVENTION.
  FIRE PREVENTION.
  REQUISITIONED LAND AND BUILDINGS.
  REQUISITIONED LAND AND BUILDINGS.
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  DOCTORS (IDENTITY CARDS).
  DOCTORS (IDENTITY CARDS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  BARLEY.
  BARLEY.
  FRUIT AND VEGETABLES.
  FRUIT AND VEGETABLES.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  BUTCHERS' SHOPS (CLOSING).
  BUTCHERS' SHOPS (CLOSING).
  COMMUNITY KITCHENS.
  COMMUNITY KITCHENS.
  RATIONING.
  RATIONING.
  CHOCOLATE (HOME-GUARD).
  CHOCOLATE (HOME-GUARD).
  FEEDING-STUFFS (SMALLHOLDERS,SCOTLAND).
  FEEDING-STUFFS (SMALLHOLDERS,SCOTLAND).
  FLOUR.
  FLOUR.
  SLAUGHTER-HOUSE, LLANRWST.
  SLAUGHTER-HOUSE, LLANRWST.
  MAGISTRATES' DECISION, HOVE.
  MAGISTRATES' DECISION, HOVE.
TRANSPORT.
  GOVERNMENT TRAFFIC (CO-ORDINATION).
  GOVERNMENT TRAFFIC (CO-ORDINATION).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (STATISTICS).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (STATISTICS).
  QUEUE SYSTEM (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' BY-LAWS).
  QUEUE SYSTEM (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' BY-LAWS).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  WOUNDED OFFICERS (ACTING RANK).
  WOUNDED OFFICERS (ACTING RANK).
  PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES (REGULATIONS).
  PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES (REGULATIONS).
  NORTHERN IRELAND (TRAVEL PERMITS).
  NORTHERN IRELAND (TRAVEL PERMITS).
  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS, CHESTERFIELD.
  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS, CHESTERFIELD.
  BALKANS (SITUATION).
  BALKANS (SITUATION).
ROYAL NAVY.
  PERSONNEL (NEXT-OF-KIN).
  PERSONNEL (NEXT-OF-KIN).
  TEMPORARY MEDICAL COMMISSION (APPLICATION).
  TEMPORARY MEDICAL COMMISSION (APPLICATION).
  AGRICULTURE (BRACKEN, CLEARANCE).
  AGRICULTURE (BRACKEN, CLEARANCE).
  MILITARY SERVICE (FISHERMEN).
  MILITARY SERVICE (FISHERMEN).
  DIPHTHERIA IMMUNISATION.
  DIPHTHERIA IMMUNISATION.
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL.
Clifford Salisbury, Lord Bishop of Bristol—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Viscount Rothermere—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES IN JAMAICA.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government if they can make a statement about Jamaica.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, I have recently addressed a Despatch to the Governor of Jamaica setting out proposals for certain constitutional changes in the island. I am placing a copy of this Despatch in the Library of the House. In recent years, there has been in Jamaica a demand for a reform of the Constitution to enable the people to take a greater part in the business of government. The West India Royal Commission heard a good deal of evidence on constitutional questions, and recommended that the object of policy should be the introduction of universal adult suffrage in the West Indies, though they were not able to generalise as to the speed at which the change should be carried out. In Jamaica, there is a Legislative Council consisting of the Governor as President, five ex-officio members, nominated members not exceeding ten, and fourteen elected members. Property qualifications are required, both for membership of the Council and for the right to vote.
Proposals for reform based on the recommendations of the West India Royal Commission have been discussed with the Governor of Jamaica, who was recently in this country, and as a result, the following changes are recommended: (1) Universal adult suffrage; (2) an enlarged
660
Legislative Council to comprise approximately double the present number of elected members, with nominated members, and three (instead of five) ex-officio members, the total number to be not less than forty. Two difficulties in carrying out these changes are the absence of trustworthy statistics of population and the standard of local government which has resulted in unsatisfactory social services. The Governor is, therefore, being requested to consider the carrying out of a census as early as possible and to reorganise local government. Until this is done, and elections are held on the new franchise, the reconstitution of the Legislative Council proposed above cannot take place.
There are, however, changes that can be made forthwith: Official representation in the Legislative Council to be confined to the Colonial Secretary, the Treasurer and the Attorney-General. Resulting vacancies to be filled by nominations in which care is taken to ensure that all important sections and interests of the community receive adequate representation. Concurrently with the reduction of the official representation the Governor's powers to be in some degree enlarged, but the special powers of veto at present held by the elected members to be retained. The Governor's overriding powers would be sufficient to carry any measure considered expedient in the interest of public order, public faith, or good government. If these changes are accepted by the Legislative Council of Jamaica, it is proposed that the Governor should withdraw from the Presidency of the Council and be replaced by a Speaker, who would be appointed by the Governor in the first instance and later be elected by the Council, subject to presentation to the Governor for approval. These proposals are being placed before the Legislative Council for discussion.
This statement which I have read has to-day been made in another place, and I only want to add one or two words of comment from a rather wider aspect than that of Jamaica only. I would specially stress the point which is mentioned in the statement—namely the opportunity which these reforms should provide for the improvement of local government. The Colonial Empire is very remarkable for the contrasts which it offers in constitutional expedients, and nowhere, as we

661
realised from the hearings of the West India Royal Commission, is there a greater diversity than in the West Indies, where the constitutions are almost as varied as the physical conditions of the Island Colonics. Whatever may be the ultimate future of the West Indies as a whole, we cannot look for any uniform system of government in the component parts. Reforms will inevitably be called for in all these governments, but they will need very careful examination and inquiry which we did not feel it possible to undertake during the hearings of the Royal Commission, although we felt that in their bearing on social questions we were bound to admit evidence as to constitutional methods. In Jamaica we found an exception. The defects and the advantages of the Jamaican Constitution have been the subject of very considerable controversy for many years past, and while we were in Jamaica the Governor was able to outline to us proposals closely related to those I have read to the House to-day, which were generally agreed as a sound basis for reform.
I would only again stress this one point of local government. Elsewhere in the West Indies we found local government institutions much better developed than they have so far been in Jamaica, and we hope that the reforms which I have just outlined will enable this deficiency in local government administration to be remedied, not only for the social advantage of Jamaica, but also as a training ground in administration for the members of the Legislative Council in the new responsibilities with which they will be faced.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:
URBAN DISTRICT OF ALDRIDGE ORDER.
BOROUGH OF KING'S LYNN ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF ST. NEOTS ORDER.
CITY AND COUNTY BOROUGH OF WAKEFIELD ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF NEWQUAY ORDER.
BOROUGH OF WORKINGTON ORDER.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on the 26th of February last and the 4th instant, be approved.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHIPLEY) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

WAR DAMAGE BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order):
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 8:
Time when payments may be made.
(5) Any sum or sums to be paid in accordance with the last preceding subsection may be paid subject to any conditions which the Commission think requisite for the purposes aforesaid.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): I beg to move the drafting Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 1, leave out ("in accordance with the last preceding subsection") and insert ("under subsection (3) of this section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert, at the end of subsection (5), "and, if any conditions imposed under this subsection are not complied with, the sum in question shall be recoverable as money had and received to the use of His Majesty." The noble and learned Viscount said: Your Lordships will, of course, appreciate that it is necessary to have some sanction for the observance of conditions imposed under this clause. This seems the proper form, and it is a form which is used elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: May I say one word before we part with this clause? On the Second Reading I asked the noble and learned Viscount whether he would tell me if, under the temporary-works payments, the payment for work done would be made on completion of the work or whether it would be made at the end of the war. The noble and learned Viscount, in reply, kindly referred me to Clause 8. I have studied Clause 8, and I am afraid I can find no real answer to my question whether this payment will be made on completion of the work or whether it will be made at the end of the war. To make my point quite clear, may I state a case? I am indirectly interested in a certain building in this City which has suffered from enemy action. The damage is not very great, and if the temporary works were done the building would be preserved as an asset to the country. If they are not done, the house will deteriorate owing to weather conditions, and in time will be a total loss to the country.
I am, as I say, only indirectly interested in this matter, but those who are more-interested in it are the Crown, the Treasury, and, in consequence, the public. The Crown, quite rightly, for many reasons, say they are unable to do the work. If I can get an assurance that the money will be repaid, I am prepared to risk the money. It is not my own money. If it were, I should not be here addressing your Lordships. It is money belonging to other people. I have to be more than careful. In fact, I am at the moment in the presence of many noble Lords who would soon call me to book if I hazarded money which belongs to them before assuring myself that I should be reasonably able to recover the money on completion of the work. I can find no provision in this clause which will satisfy me in that way. The clause is strictly permissive. At the beginning it states "the times when payments may be made." I quite understand that His Majesty's Government would never tie themselves down to anything, but there it is, it is a permis-
664
sive clause, and that is, I would say with the greatest respect to His Majesty's Government, not enough for me.
Now this is an asset to the country and I, in my work connected with other buildings, have taken the greatest care to preserve every asset, whether it is a library or whether it is fittings, or whether it is furniture or anything else, because at the end of the war there will then be something tangible which can be converted into money, whereas if it is destroyed the whole of the money goes and a great deal of it can never be replaced. There are many other people in the country to-day who are not perhaps in exactly the same position as I am, but who are in very nearly the same position. They have suffered from enemy action, the damage has not been very-severe and could be repaired at a cost under £800, which is provided for in this Bill, but many of them are unable to provide that amount to-day.
Everybody knows how difficult it is for some people to find money. They would go to a builder and would say, "Will you repair this building for me?" The builder would reply, "Yes, I will look into it," and he Would estimate the cost. Then he would naturally ask, "Who is going to pay?" The owner's reply would be, "Presumably the Government under the War Damage Bill." Then the builder would say, "That's all right, but when will they pay?" "Well," says the owner, "I am very sorry I cannot tell you that because they have not said when they are going to pay. It might be to-day or to-morrow, or it might be at the end of the war." The builder would naturally say to that, "I am very sorry; if you cannot pay I cannot afford to do the work and I must leave it alone." There must be many people all over the country in that position. Although I do not ask His Majesty's Government to tie themselves down to any terms or to an undertaking that this will be paid, I think they should give us some assurance which will assist us to go ahead with this very important national work of preserving the assets of the country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend behind me has put his point very clearly and, if I may say so, in a very practical spirit, but with all respect to him, I still think that if he will look

665
at Clause 8, or perhaps I may say if we look at it together, we shall find that the necessary provision is made. The question is as to how far the Bill contains any assurance indicating when payments of this kind will be made. As I think I pointed out on the Second Reading, a temporary works payment is dealt with in Clause 5, which we have already passed, and the matter that is dealt with later in Clause 8, on page 9, and which may amount to £800 in value, is not a temporary works payment, but is an advance that is made in proper cases because the sufferer has got to move himself or his family or has to move his place of trading. The answer I can now give will really cover, I think, what the noble Lord wishes to know.
May I ask his attention to the words at the beginning of Clause 8? The side note to the clause is "Time when payments may be made." The clause reads:
"The times when payments may be made under this Part of the Act shall, except in such cases as may be determined by the Commission in accordance with directions given to them by the Treasury, be the following, that is to say—
(a) in the case of payments of cost of works … the time of the completion of the works, or where payment is to be made by instalments, of the relevant parts thereof.
That is to say that in the case supposed my noble friend calls in his builder and the builder will be left in no doubt as to whether he will have to wait for his money, because the payments will be made as and when the works are being executed, either in a single lump sum or, if the amount is too large, in instalments. The intention of these words, though the word "may" is used, is really to convey an assurance that it is the intention and the policy of the Bill that the cost of works payments shall be paid when the works are done, and the only qualification really is that which appears on the top of page 9. Alternatively, it will have to be at
"the expiratian of such period thereafter as may be reasonably requisite for enabling the Commission to ascertain whether the works have been duly completed and what was the proper cost thereof."
That, I am sure, will appear to everybody as quite reasonable as a matter of business.
You cannot pay for a thing when you do not know what it is, but there is no reason to suppose as I read the Bill that the payments will not be made as and
666
when the work is executed. I think a point of importance that there may be anxiety about is as regards temporary works payments, which are rather different. They really are made under Clause 5. Instances will occur where it has not been possible to wait, and where a man has to put up some temporary-structure or make some temporary-arrangements to live in what are broken-down premises. In the same way the provision is that the payment should be made in the case of temporary works at latest as soon as the Commission can ascertain what it was that was done and what it was that it cost. I think that is the correct answer and I hope it is a clear answer which will satisfy my noble friend.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite sure your Lordships are very glad to have so clear an answer to my noble friend from the noble and learned Viscount. Ever since I have been in Parliament, I am sorry to say a good many years, there has always been this tremendous struggle as to whether "may" means "shall" or not. In almost every Bill the difficulty arises. On the one hand it is quite clear that "may" does not always mean "shall" and on the other hand we generally have an assurance that it does; but I think the Lord Chancellor's assurance goes rather farther than the assurance we usually get in these cases. He has said in the clearest language that, except in particular cases where the work has not been completed which was alleged to have been completed, "may" in this case does mean "shall," and if that is so then I am quite sure my noble friend will be satisfied.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I ask one question? Do I understand that anybody who can do these repairs has the authority to go forward and do them? I know, of course, that the necessary leave has to be given in respect of materials and so on from the proper authorities which grant licences; but, provided that that authority is forthcoming from the Department which controls the supply of all material and the priority of building, is anybody free to come forward without any other authority, do the repairs and claim to be paid under this clause?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad my noble friend has mentioned this

667
point. It is obviously "may," and, while I stand to what I have said and accept the noble Marquess's interpretation, I would like to make this quite plain. The overriding principle of this Bill is that the public interest must come before any private and particular interest, and, as I pointed out on Second Reading, there might be cases where in the public interest it was not desirable that there should be reconstruction of the damaged property on the spot. The heavy duties which are put on the shoulders of my noble friend Lord Reith might come to grief if it were not so. Both town and country planning may be involved. The scheme in substance would be that anybody who has suffered this sort of damage and is about to repair it will be given an opportunity of giving notice to the War Damage Commission, and I trust and believe that the arrangement will be as simple and speedy as possible. Unless the War Damage Commission, in the name of the public interest, say "We are sorry, but you cannot have this building reconstructed, we shall have to compensate you on the value basis," then everybody has a right to go ahead and will be entitled to receive pari passu the appropriate compensation.
LORD MANCROFT: Is there not a practical or work-a-day difficulty about the interpretation of the words in paragraph (a) at the top of page 9? The noble and learned Viscount used the words "simple and speedy." As one with some experience of these operations—not in war-time—it occurs to me that the War Damage Commission will undoubtedly be snowed in with large numbers of claims, and a claimant, who may be a poorish contractor or a poorish owner, will have to wait the convenience of the Commission who are looking after the public interest. Ought there not to be some statement by the Government that time shall not drag on week after week with the poor contractor kept out of his money, or equally the poor owner kept out of his money? We have no reason to believe that there will be a simple and speedy method of enabling the Commission to look into the matter, and therefore I think we should be given some assurance by the Government that there shall be some limit of time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that I could undertake to mention a number of days or weeks in such a case. The circumstances might alter the appropriate time. But I will certainly say, not in any formal sense but speaking, I am sure, the mind of the Government as a whole, that it is going to be our fixed object to create the machinery of a War Damage Commission which will work in a businesslike way and as quickly as circumstances admit. We must face the fact that there will be an enormous number of cases to be dealt with—many of them cases which have already arisen—and there must be many people who are waiting until the Royal Assent is given to this Bill in order to send in their particulars. All that creates a difficulty. All that I can say, and all that I think the Committee will expect me to say, is that I am not dealing with this matter formally or trying to put off my noble friend with a mere assurance. I will certainly make it my business to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this debate, and I will urge that everything possible shall be done both in the organisation and in the working of the organisation not to waste time unnecessarily.
LORD MANCROFT: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: There is one other point to which I would like the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to give attention before the Report stage. I cannot help feeling that subsection (3) of this clause is too narrow. Two cases have been brought to my notice, one of them only to-day, affecting in one case a really poor, and in the other case a relatively poor, owner. Both depend for their income upon small house property, and in each case a considerable part of that property has been destroyed. If the rest were destroyed—in one case it consists only of four houses, two of which have been destroyed—the two owners would be absolutely destitute. Subsection (3) provides for the case of a house in which the owner is himself residing or carrying on his trade, but it does not provide for the case in which the property is the sole or principal means of subsistence. Great hardship might result in certain cases if this matter is not looked into before the next stage.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I would like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his courtesy. His reply has certainty helped me and I expect it will help many other people.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Persons to whom payments are to be made]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "any surrendered tenancy" and insert "any such tenancy surrendered by virtue of that Act." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is really a drafting Amendment, but I might explain that its purpose is to make it clear that the reference here is to surrenders that take effect by virtue of the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act—which are referred to earlier in paragraph (a)—and not to surrenders on agreed terms. As your Lordships know, there are cases where by arrangement between the landlord and tenant a tenancy is surrendered. What we are dealing with here is the case where a house is damaged and the tenant exercises his right to surrender the tenancy.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, leave out ("any surrendered tenancy") and insert ("any such tenancy surrendered by virtue of that Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should like to suggest to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that he might consider whether he ought not to add the words "or any amendment thereof." It is common knowledge that amendment of that Act is extremely likely at an early date.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will look into that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Contribution to be made towards expense of making payments.
18. Contributions towards the expense of making payments under this Part of this Act in respect of war damage shall be made in respect of the properties, at the rates and in the manner specified in the following provisions of this Part of this Act.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved to add to the clause:
"Provided that if a sum due and paid to any person out of a fund distributed under subsection (2) of Section eighty-six of this Act shall be less than the amount due and paid by such person to the said fund, the difference shall be credited to him in respect of any contribution due by him under this Part of the Act. This provision shall apply only in the case of a fund constituted under a scheme approved by the Board of Trade."
The noble Lord said: This matter arises out of the affairs of, and the effect of this Bill on, the mutual indemnity trust that I referred to yesterday. Then I referred to the position of the managing company of that trust. On this occasion I want to say just a word on the position of the existing contributors to that trust. I may say that while yesterday I stated that I had no interest in the matter, today I am bound to say that I have an interest which may amount to £10. If it be thought that that impairs the validity of my argument, I shall be glad, if I am ever repaid that money, to surrender it to the Exchequer.
The position is that under this Bill moneys received by way of premium—since it is not strictly insurance perhaps I ought to say contributions—are to be repaid on compulsory liquidation. But it will be impossible to repay them all. The position is that 25 per cent. of the contributions were assigned to the management company for expenses, and they and a good deal more have gone. Therefore the contributors will go short. Besides the expenses of the management company, there are the expenses of the trustees, which may perhaps be put at 5 per cent., so that the money paid in by contributors will be 30 per cent. short. Now I do suggest that they should not suffer in this regard. After all, they have made provision to the best of their power against damage and have paid their contributions accordingly. But now they will have to be on exactly the same footing as those who have made no contributions, and have made no effort. They will have paid their contributions and will not be relieved in any degree for it, they will not have got their money back; yet they will, under this compulsory scheme, have to pay their new contributions as well.
I do suggest that this is a case which has arisen solely through the action of the Government and the forced liquidation of

671
a trust like this, while it may be a very small matter in money from the point of view of the Government, is not so from the point of view of individual cases. I suggest that there is an equitable claim here which the Government ought to consider. It may be better to deal with it on Report. But whether dealt with here or elsewhere, I do trust it will be done. After all, these schemes went through with the sanction of the Board of Trade and it would be hard, if through the action of this Bill not only was the whole scheme made void but individuals have to suffer.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 43, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I regret that I am not able to offer to meet my noble friend on this point and I must make a very short statement to tell how this matter stands as it appears to the Government. I notice that my noble friend's Amendment ends with the words "This provision shall apply only in the case of a fund constituted under a scheme approved by the Board of Trade." These schemes to which he refers—the one in which he has told us he is interested and the others—were private schemes in the nature of mutual insurance against war damage by which members joining up paid a premium—a very much smaller premium than the Government have thought it wise to make their contribution—in return for an undertaking, subject of course to many stated limitations, to compensate them if war damage happened to them. It is not the case that any such scheme has ever been approved by the Board of Trade.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: They have certainly been sanctioned.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They have not even been sanctioned. From beginning to end there has been on the part of the Board of Trade and of the Government the very strongest view that these schemes were unfortunate, and on this ground: that however carefully and honourably they were administered there was no possible actuarial material which enabled those who promoted them to know what the premium ought to be. I think that there have been cases where the premium was as low as 2s. 6d. per £100.
672
The premium of the Government scheme is something like £2 10s. per £100.
LORD BARNBY: Is there not some distinction between the insinuation which the noble and learned Viscount made that the intention was to compensate for the damage done in some of those cases and the suggestion that the contemplation is to bridge the difference between what the damage ultimately might prove to be and what the Government might at any time pay.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will no doubt find it more convenient to explain his distinction, if he wishes, if he takes part later in the debate. What I am saying is that it really is a misunderstanding to suppose that such schemes have been approved by the Board of Trade. Any proposals of this kind have been steadily rejected by Lloyds and by the established insurance companies of the country. We may be quite certain that if Lloyds and the established insurance companies fought shy of them, it was because they felt it was not a piece of business which they wished to encourage as being profitable and assured. I make no criticism of those who started private schemes but it is a complete misunderstanding to say, as this Amendment say's, that a scheme was approved by the Board of Trade.
The Weir Committee reported, in reference to schemes of this sort, that they saw the strongest objection to them because they feared that members of the public might be led to go in for them and find afterwards that they did not get the return they expected. They would of course get what they contracted to get; I make no reflection on anybody. But the Weir Committee, I think, recommended that the advertising of these schemes should be brought under control. Parliament accordingly passed the Restriction of Advertisement (War Risks Insurance) Act, 1939, which, broadly speaking, forbade such schemes being advertised. It is only because the Board of Trade was satisfied that the restrictions imposed were being observed that one can say that, in any sense, there was approval or sanction by the Board of Trade. Nothing more was required than that the Board should be satisfied on this point.
I gather that as these different schemes are going to be wound up it unfortunately

673
arises that in some cases there will not be returned to the subscribers the full amount which they subscribed. That is very unfortunate. It has been, in the view of the Government, rather a risk which was being run, but would the House for a moment consider that there is any possible reason why the Government, the Treasury or the taxpayer should now come in and say: "If that is the case we will make up to you that which is short on the return of the money made to you in connection with one of these schemes"? Manifestly, there is no reason for the Government to do anything of the kind. I believe that cases where there has been any actual payment of compensation from these schemes, as yet, have been extremely few. Of course, in cases where there has been payment the total fund has been reduced and there is therefore a slightly smaller sum remaining to be distributed to the members. I think that was one of the risks incidental to this kind of business, and it should be plain that the Treasury is not going to say that the taxpayer should be called upon for the purpose of making it up. I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I wish to say as a trustee though not a director of this scheme, that there were, I think, constant conferences. The draft scheme was prepared under counsel's opinion, was taken to the Board of Trade and was gone through with the greatest care. It may not have amounted to any official statutory approval, but it was encouragement to the promoters of this to go on. When the Lord Chancellor says that the Weir Committee protested against these schemes, their opinion might equally have been quoted against the Government Bill. If that is quoted in one case, therefore, it may well be quoted in the other. Obviously I cannot press this Amendment now, but I do think that before this Bill is passed further attention should be given to this matter.
LORD BARNBY: As one who has consistently urged that this matter should be regarded as the responsibility of the State, and who did so long before this Bill was discussed, I cannot help intervening at this point Since I spoke in the debate on the Second Reading I have refreshed my memory, and I find that the Federation of British Industries urged very
674
strongly that the State should regard this responsibility as one which essentially should be undertaken by it, on the ground that no private individual should suffer unreasonably owing to war conditions without receiving some contribution from the community as a whole. My noble friend who has just spoken referred to certain schemes which were undertaken by private enterprise in order to assist in meeting—not, as I understand it, to meet entirely—the damage done, and which were undertaken in the face of the categorical repudiation by His Majesty's Government of the suggestion that this was an appropriate task for the State to undertake. I shall not retrace the ground just covered by my noble friend, but I cannot refrain from taking note of the tribute which the noble and learned Viscount has paid to the skill with which these private undertakings were managed. It is obvious that skilful selection was exercised; and that still further emphasizes the justice of the contention which has been put forward in this House and elsewhere, that this matter ought to have been taken up by the Government at a much earlier stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Properties liable to contribution.
19.—(1) The properties liable to the said contributions (hereinafter referred to as "contributory properties") shall, save as otherwise provided in this Part of this Act, be every property—

(a) the full annual value of which was ascertained for the purposes of an assessment under Schedule A in force at any time during the risk period; or

(b) which, not being a property to which paragraph (a) of this subsection applies, was, at any time during the risk period, the subject of a valuation shown in a valuation list for the time being in force under the Rating and Valuation Acts, 1925 to 1940, or the Rating and Valuation (Metropolis) Acts, 1869 to 1940, as the case may be:

Provided that a property shall not be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as a contributory property if the conditions specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection are satisfied as respects the property by reason only of the use of any land for the exhibition of advertisements, or for the erection of any hoarding, frame, post, wall or structure used for the exhibition of advertisements.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"or

(ii) if the property consisted of a fishery; or

(iii) if the property consisted of any corn-rent or other rent-charge issuing out of land,

so, however, that nothing in paragraph (ii) of this proviso shall affect any liability to the said contributions in respect of properties consisting of or including such fishing rights as are mentioned in Section six of the Rating Act, 1874."
The noble and learned Viscount said: The Amendments which I have to move, beginning with Clause 19, are necessarily somewhat technical. I will give a fuller explanation if it is desired, but let me state quite briefly what I am now proposing. In Clause 19 I am proposing to insert a second and a third case, in addition to the one already given; and, if these insertions are made, the proviso in subsection (1) will run:
"Provided that a property shall not be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as a contributory property if the conditions specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection are satisfied as respects the property by reason only

(i) of the use of any land for the exhibition of advertisements, or for the erection of any hoarding, frame, post, wall or structure used for the exhibition of advertisements; or

(ii) if the property consisted of a fishery; or

(iii) if the property consisted of any corn-rent or other rent-charge issuing out of land,

so, however, that nothing in paragraph (ii) of this proviso "—
that is, the reference to a fishery—
"shall affect any liability to the said contributions in respect of properties consisting of or including such fishing rights as are mentioned in Section six of the Rating Act, 1874."
The fishery rights that are referred to in the Act of 1874 are the ordinary sporting rights of fishery over non-tidal waters, and they do not come into this Amendment at all. The fishery that is referred to in my proposed paragraph (ii) is, for example, a salmon fishery or an oyster fishery in tidal waters, and in private hands. Apart from this Amendment, those fisheries would be contributory properties and would have to pay something towards this compensating fund, because they are rated; you rate an oyster fishery. It seems very difficult to imagine circumstances in which that sort
676
of property is going to be damaged, and it was therefore thought right to exclude it, just as we exclude the case of property which is rated but which is used for the purposes of advertisement.
In the case of paragraph (iii), which deals with corn-rent, it is possible that other noble Lords, like myself, would not have been prepared without inquiry to give a definition there. It appears that corn-rents, which are rare nowadays, are old rents paid in connection with the commutation of tithe. They also, apart from this Amendment, would be contributory property, as being subject to Schedule A assessment. These, therefore, are the two additions which I wish to make. They are not of great general importance, but they are of importance to the people concerned. By them we say, "We do not think it fair to take a contribution from you, and we therefore exclude you."
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 21, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next three Amendments which follow on the Paper are purely drafting, and I ask that they may be accepted en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 18, line 3, after ("property") insert ("which").
Page 18, line 6, leave out ("but") and insert ("comprised").
Page 18, line 7, leave out ("comprised").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 14, leave out ("but the property").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment, in subsection (5), is merely a proposal to leave out the word "and," because it will be neater drafting if that is done.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 36, leave out ("and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 19, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount a question arising out of the proviso in subsection (1) of this clause. The intention of paragraph (i) of this proviso appears to be to exclude all property used solely for the purpose of displaying advertisements from the necessity of paying contributions under the compulsory insurance scheme. Does this cover all types of property used for this purpose? Does it, for instance, cover hoardings attached to business or residential premises and assessed separately for rating and Income Tax purposes, as well as hoardings which are set up in fields and open spaces? That is a question which has vexed the minds of a certain number of people and they would be very much obliged if the noble and learned Viscount could enlighten them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was warned that this question might be raised, and I am glad I was warned because I doubt if anybody could give a confident and precise answer without preparation. But I think I now can. The proviso to which the noble Lord referred aims at excluding advertisements for a reason which the Committee will appreciate, because if you have an advertisement hoarding the amount at which it is rated is very often a high figure, out of all proportion to the sort of damage that might be expected to be done to an advertisement hoarding. It is thought better to leave them out. But there is a qualification which I will state. There are two types of case. First of all, you may have a property which is used exclusively for poster advertising—a hoarding erected on a vacant building site is the obvious example. The second case is the case where the hoarding is affixed to premises occupied for other purposes; or it may be, posters posted on an external wall of a house.
If we take the first of those cases, the answer to the noble Lord's question is that the effect of the proviso is to exempt from the contribution all cases of the first type. As regards the second type, it will exclude from contribution any case in which the advertising rights would be a separate contributory property, either because they are separately assessed under Schedule A or because they are separately rated. There are many such cases, in which the rating authorities and the Income Tax authorities will make a separate
678
assessment of the hoarding, even though it be fixed perhaps loosely to the building. Well, all those will be excluded. But there is this qualification. What I have already said will exclude, it is estimated, 70 per cent. of the cases. But if there were a case in which the advertising rights exercised on a building arc included in the Schedule A assessment on the property, then the contribution will be charged on the Schedule A assessment. It really would not be practicable to dissect it in that case. That is in accord with the general principle adopted in the Bill of taking Schedule A assessments as they stand as the measure of contributory value. I do not expect I have stated it so clearly that it could be followed completely by everybody, but I think those specially concerned, if they look at the words I am reported to have emitted, will there find out exactly how they stand.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his exceedingly lucid reply.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Amount of contribution and time for payment thereof.
(3) The amount of each instalment shall be two shillings in every pound of the contributory value of the contributory property:
Provided that in the case of a contributory property—
(e) which consisted of such rights as are mentioned in Section six of the Rating Act, 1874 (which relates to shooting, fishing and other rights)
the amount of each instalment shall be sixpence in every pound of the contributory value.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of paragraph (e), to insert "or of any other incorporeal rights." The noble and learned Viscount said: I referred just now to the sporting rights, like fishing rights, in non-tidal waters which fall within the Rating Act, 1874, but of course there are other incorporeal rights which may be contributory properties—easements, for example, like a private right of way which the occupier of one property may have over an adjoining property. The effect of inserting these words will be to secure that the contribution in those cases also is not at the rate of 2s. on the annual value, but at the rate of 6d. If I might

679
be allowed at the same time to refer to the next Amendment, I am proposing there to insert:
"but nothing in paragraph (e) of this proviso shall be construed as affecting the amount of an instalment in respect of a property which was the subject of a valuation for rating purposes by virtue of the occupation of land."
The first Amendment, which I am now moving, reduces the rate of instalment on such rights as these to 6d. in the pound, and later on, under Clause 26, the contributions will be payable by the contributor in respect of the land over which the rights are exercisable. The purpose of the second Amendment is to make it clear that the lower rate of 6d. does not necessarily apply where the property is not the right, but is land which is occupied by virtue of the right. For example, you may have land which is occupied by virtue of a wayleave; you could not get the full enjoyment of the wayleave unless you had what amounts to a right to occupy the land. You may have the case of a shop belonging to a private person which in fact is in a railway station, and the private person may occupy the shop, or a stall on the platform, just as the newspaper people I think do by virtue of a licence. Those Amendments are technical but they have been very carefully looked at. They are not of very great importance in money, but they affect a certain number of people and it is in the endeavour to get the Bill completely right that we have thought it proper to put in these changes.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 28, at end insert ("or of any other incorporeal rights").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment, which I have explained.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 30, at end insert ("but nothing in paragraph (e) of this proviso shall be construed as affecting the amount of an instalment in respect of a property which was the subject of a valuation for rating purposes by virtue of the occupation of land").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:
Persons primarily liable for instalments.
23.—(1) An instalment of contribution be coming due in any year in respect of any contributory property shall save as otherwise provided in this Part of this Act—

(a) if there is at the relevant date only one proprietary interest subsisting in the whole of that property, be payable by the owner at that date of that interest;

(b) if there is then subsisting therein more than one such interest, be payable by the owner at that date of that one of those interests which as between them carries the immediate right to possession of the whole of the property.

(2 The person who is liable as aforesaid in respect of any instalment on any property is hereinafter referred to as a "direct contributor."
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY moved to leave out all words in subsection (1) after "shall" and insert:
"(a) in the case of property to which paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section nineteen of this Act applies, be payable by the person primarily liable to pay Income Tax under Schedule A in respect of such property;
(b) in the case of a property to which paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section nineteen of this Act applies, be payable by the person primarily liable to pay a general rate under the Rating and Valuation Acts, 1925 to 1940, or the Rating and Valuation (Metropolis) Acts, 1869 (as the case may be) in respect of such property."
The noble Lord said: Curiously enough, in the discussions in another place, this clause passed with little, if any, comment. In the light of subsequent discussion on other Parts of the Bill and after further consideration, it appears that there is some confusion of thought as to what is intended by this clause. The aim of the Amendment is merely to simplify the procedure under the Bill. It suggests no new financial liability and it would not, of course, infringe on the structure of the scheme, nor would it impose a charge on the subject. The general impression in the country and the impression of all students of the Bill was that the usual Schedule A procedure would be followed in connection with this, and that that method of collection would obtain. But such does not appear to be the case. It is for that reason that the Amendment appears to simplify the procedure.
Paragraph (a) of subsection (1), dealing with an owner occupier, is clear, but the words of paragraph (b) might appear to imply the employment of a new Schedule. It may be that that is not the intention;

681
anyhow it is for that reason that this Amendment is moved. I realise that, were this proposal agreed to, it would involve some amendment of the Fourth Schedule by the insertion of a new line, but that would merely be a technical change. I hope it will be understood that in a Bill as complicated as this, it is quite possible that some wrong interpretation should be put on it, and, with a full knowledge of the patience and care with which the noble and learned Viscount explains this Bill, I hope he will see his way to dispose of my anxiety in this matter. It may be that the assurance which one seeks—namely, that the normal procedure of Schedule A will be employed—may remove the necessity for this Amendment, but it would seem nevertheless that the wording of the Amendment would make the matter clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 2, leave out from ("shall") to the end of line it, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Barnby.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend is right when he says that what he is here proposing is only a modification in the machinery. He commends it to us because he thinks it will be simpler and better machinery. Whether or not in another place this Amendment would be regarded as putting a new burden upon a class of citizens I am not so sure—the rules are very strict there—but I shall deal with the thing on its merits. The purpose of Clause 23 is, of course, to define who are the people who have to pay to the authorities these contributions. There may be cases in which, the whole of the contribution having been paid, the party liable to pay it to the Government may get some part of it back by way of contribution from some other party under the Schedule; but here we are dealing simply with the question how shall we define who are the people who are to make the payment in the first instance.
I understand that my noble friend's proposal is to shift the primary burden of the contribution from, let us say, landlords to tenants, even in the case where the tenant holds the tenancy for a term of seven years or less, and that would include a very large class of tenants and farmers whose tenancy is merely from year to year. It is not the design of the Bill at all that these contributions will be collected from the same individuals who
682
might have to pay Schedule A in the first instance, and I do not think it would be a very simple process if it were so, because consider Schedule A. Income Tax under Schedule A is generally collected, as we all know, from the occupier of the property, who has the right to subtract it from the payment of rent, but the tax is collected from the landlord if the house is let for a period of less than a year—weekly tenancies, for example—or if the dwelling-house is of a value of less titan £10 or, again, if the house is let in tenements or flats. It is therefore not a very simple transfer that is being made. If one takes the rating test which is mentioned in paragraph (b) of my noble friend's Amendment, there again you will find there are some very complicated arrangements as to who is to pay the rates, especially when you have regard to what is called compounding.
The scheme of the Bill is to say, if the tenant is a tenant holding for a term of seven years or less, in which case, for practical purposes, you may assume he is really holding at rack rent and has no intermediate profit, or if the tenant is holding it from year to year, that in these circumstances the landlord shall find the money and the tenant shall be free of obligation to do so. My noble friend's proposal is that all these people should find the money in the first instance—people holding from year to year, small householders, farmers and everybody else, although they are not going to be finally liable because ultimately they hope to get it out of another party. I think, beyond any question, that the scheme of the Bill is to be preferred on grounds of simplicity of working. I am glad to have had the opportunity which my noble friend has given me of stating quite clearly that the scheme of the Bill is not to collect in all cases from the same people who would have to find the money for the Revenue under Schedule A. The scheme of the Bill is designed to make the simplest possible plan with as few transfers from one individual to another as possible, but at the same time, in the Schedule, to provide where necessary for recovery of portion of the contribution from a party secondarily liable.
I hope my noble friend will be good enough to help the progress of the Bill by withdrawing his Amendment. This matter has been carefully considered. I

683
recognise that his suggestion is intended to be constructive and helpful, but the authorities who have looked at this—and they include those who have the best knowledge of the administration of the subject at the Inland Revenue—are satisfied that the scheme in Clause 23 is to be preferred to the scheme which the noble Lord suggests.
LORD BARNBY: I am deeply appreciative of the noble and learned Viscount's patience and of his detailed explanation of this point. It will be apparent to your Lordships from his careful review that it does bring in very many fundamental underlying considerations of the whole administration of this Bill. I am still confused in my mind on the main point. Is one to understand that Schedule A procedure is to be applied? I understood the noble and learned Viscount to say it is not. If it is not, what other simple procedure is going to be employed? The assumption is that it will involve the compilation of some completely supplementary Schedule which would permit the proper apportionment of the liability for contributions. I regret very much delaying the discussion of the Bill, but I would ask the noble and learned Viscount if he can explain that some supplementary Schedule will be needed in order to permit the operation of this clause as it stands in the Bill. If not, then the interpretation is that the usual Schedule A procedure will be employed.
The noble and learned Viscount has brought up an obviously controversial point as to the method of apportionment of these contributions. I cannot suppress the natural reflection that, while appreciating the very pertinent cases of complication and even hardship that might result on the original contributor under this suggestion when he would not be the one ultimately responsible, nevertheless m many cases which must occur to your Lordships' mind, like rents, it would be easy for the contributor to deduct from such payments which he has to make to another person such proportion of the contribution as would be necessary. Therefore I have to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether I am correct in the assumption of these two alternatives.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I in a single sentence just say that the noble
684
Lord is not quite correct? Schedule A is used for the purpose of fixing what is the size of the figure on which the contribution is to be charged, and there exists a complete assessment which states what that figure is in respect of every property assessed to Schedule A—net assessment under Schedule A. If there is no Schedule A assessment available then one takes the net rateable value on the property. The question, with great respect, has nothing to do with what may be the total amount of the figure. The question simply is who should pay it, and my noble friend's suggestion would cause an enormous number of people to have to pay it in the first instance who under the Bill would have no ultimate liability to pay it at all. It would be a pity if all those people then had, by some process or other, to get it indirectly out of somebody else who is made directly chargeable.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I mention one point to the Lord Chancellor for consideration? It is only a trifle, but I am not quite sure that some thought ought not to be given to cases where receivers are in possession of the land. The clause, as the noble and learned Viscount says, determines merely who is to pay. It may put an obligation on a person who has been excluded from possession by an order of the Court or by some other legal appointment of a Receiver. I think it wants looking into.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I make a note of that?
LORD BARNBY: I should like again to express my appreciation of the noble and learned Viscount's reply. I have some diffidence in laying myself open to a charge of not being in order by further discussing a detailed legal matter like this with the noble and learned Viscount; but while I must accept his emphasis of the difficulties that would arise from the employment of the method I suggested rather than the method in the Bill, my proposal would in no way impair the structure and operation of the Bill. I hope the Lord Chancellor will between now and the next stage give further consideration to this matter and perhaps make a further statement upon it at a subsequent stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is a drafting one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 9, leave out ("as between them carried the immediate right") and insert ("as against the owners of the remainder of those interests carries the right.").—[The Lord Chancellor.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Rights over against landlords and tenants]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment down in my name to this clause if drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 17, leave out ("to") and insert ("for").—[The Lord Chancellor.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25:
Rights over against mortgagees in certain cases.
(8) For the purposes of this section—
(b) the amount secured by a mortgage at any date shall be taken to be the capital sum secured thereby, together with any arrears of interest sc secured;
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The first two Amendments in my name are drafting changes to bring the description of the mortgages referred to in the proviso into line with that of the mortgages dealt with in the main part of the subsection. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 7, after the first ("of") insert ("and in connection with.")
Page 23, line 8, after the first ("of") insert ("and in connection with.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 42, after ("conclusive") insert ("for the purpose of this section.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection 8 (b), after "any," to insert "costs or." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the paragraph
686
which defines a mortgage debt which has to be compared with the price on acquisition or value of a property for the purpose of determining the amount, if any, of the mortgagee's share of the contribution. As many of your Lordships know, costs incurred by a mortgagee are often added to the mortgage debt, and it seems to be proper that they, as well as arrears of interest, should be clearly included in the amount of the debt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 8, after ("any") insert ("costs or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 25, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STAMP: May I raise a point on Clause 25 before it is passed? The question I want to raise is one of interpretation or intention, and has an important bearing on the working of the clause, and possibly on the new clause that is about to be moved. There is a most scrupulous object throughout the Bill, quite clearly observed, to protect the interests of the small or average man. I therefore distrust my own interpretation if it runs contrary to what is so clearly the object of the Bill. With all the will in the world I cannot find that my interpretation, which I propose to put to you, is wrong, nor anything in the debates in another place which would show that it is wrong. I find that the operation of the first part of the clause, subsection (1) with the scale, does, in fact, discriminate very heavily against a particular class of the community—the class that the Bill sets out so particularly to help. It seems to me that under paragraph (d), the highest part of the scale, clearly the major part of the money advanced belongs to a certain class of the community, what I may call the small man, meaning by that term the upper working classes and the lower middle classes, and the operation is very arbitrary as between two in that class for this reason.
Take a very simplified case where a small borrower is about to purchase a house at £1,000. He goes to a small lender and says: "I have some money, £150, to pay the builder but I want £850 on mortgage; can you lend it to me?" The small lender says: "I have looked at it and I am advised I ought not to give you more than £750." The borrower

687
says: "Well, I must see what I can do." He has several alternatives. The clause comes upon them in too arbitrary a manner. His first idea is to sell some other stock or security, say War Loan, and raise £100, and with that and the mortgage money of £750 and his original money buy the house, or he may go to a life assurance company and raise £100 on the surrender value of a policy. Or he may go to the small lender and ask for a loan of £850, giving his war stock or insurance policy as collateral security. By that means he does in fact get an advance of £850. But he comes in bracket (c) and his contribution is smaller than in the third alternative. For there is a third alternative. He deposits his collateral with the lender himself, then he comes under the very heavy provisions of paragraph (d) and he recovers two-thirds. As between the two first and this third there is no difference in substance at all. This is a very arbitrary action indeed.
Now I know I have simplified this case. The small lender and the small borrower are not in this way in personal contact. Actually the affairs of the small lender are managed for him collectively by men of his own choosing, but it is his money that is in the hands of these collective users or boards of the different societies registered under the Provident Societies Act. It is the money of the small man that is being advanced in this way, and what I have put in a simplified form is strictly true of a very large body of people. The practice of lending above the value of the house provided there is collateral security has been sanctioned by the Courts as being perfectly proper and it is done on a very large scale. Some 3,000,000 people are affected by this highly discriminatory clause. No debate took place in another place, nor has any reason been put forward for this proposal, and therefore there has been little opportunity for examining it minutely. It is the only clause in the Bill to secure any contribution in respect of any wealth or property not the subject of the Bill and which gets no benefit from it, so there is this grave discrimination against this class of lenders whom we have for many years been trying to augment.
I may be misinterpreting the clause. If so, I hope that the reproof that will
688
be administered will be gentle. I have tried my best to get at its meaning. There are three difficulties. The first is based on the case of mere acquisition and therefore it hits a particular type of lender. That I will not debate in principle, because it is raised by the new clause that is to be proposed later. In the second place, it deals with a particular grade of lender; and thirdly, it is quite arbitrary in its action. In reading the report of the earlier discussion on this Bill, I noted that it was stated that if you are in acquisition, so to speak, then in these cases you are practically establishing the position of landlord and tenant. That is a very facile observation for one aspect of it, but it is also a dangerous one, because the points of distinction are much more numerous than those of identity.
Of course statements made in the course of these proceedings cannot be quoted in the Courts, but if they could be they would make havoc of the whole principle of the Bill. In the first place, borrowers can at any moment become owners; tenants cannot. In the second place, borrowers can sell and take the profit if there is one; tenants certainly cannot do that. In the third place the lender cannot sell the house and clear out his money; the borrowing owner can do that. In the fourth place there is the question of liability and upkeep and repairs. It seems to me that we must not be misled by a facile analogy of landlord and tenant. The distinction is clear. I hope that if discrimination exists we shall be assured that it was not intended, or, if it was intended, I hope it will be explained why it should be so intended. If I am right in my interpretation I hope the Government will seriously consider the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We all recognise the quite exceptional authority with which my noble friend Lord Stamp deals with these matters, and no one could put his comment in a more moderate and reasonable way. The matter which he raises, as far as I am concerned without notice, is a little complicated and I am not sure that I am prepared at the moment to give him the full answer which, of course, his speech deserves, but I will take the opportunity of studying it and if necessary will deal with it further at a subsequent stage. The scheme, as he sees it very clearly—

689
and I do not think he misdescribed it—is one which we had better look at for the moment without regard to the fact that there are mortgages of another sort which are not made to share any part of the burden. Take it that, for adequate reasons, this provision is made in the case of mortgages entered into on the occasion of or in connection with the acquisition of a house, or in connection with the construction or improvement of a house. We shall probably be having some debateasto whether the distinction between that class of case and other cases is right, because that point was prominently referred to by my noble friend Viscount Swinton, and I think by others. We may postpone that for the moment.
Assuming it is right to ask for a contribution in these cases, which I may perhaps not with complete accuracy but conveniently call building societies cases, the scheme is, as your Lordships will see, that the traction of the contribution paid in the first instance by the mortgagor, which can be recovered from the mortgagee, will depend, amongst other things, upon the size of the advance as compared with the price of the subject matter. I have seen the comment nude that this is not worked out according to the strict rule of three, but that the proportion that is laid on the back of—may I say the building society? is less than the rule of three might suggest. But then, of course, mortgagees have other advantages besides the security of the house, though I agree that in the case of the small man who is buying a house no doubt the building society must place very great importance upon the security of the structure, because supposing it was destroyed probably the personal promise of the small man—sometimes the man and his wife, I think—is not necessarily very valuable. Of course, if there is in addition contributory security, such as the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, suggested, that is valuable, even though the house does disappear owing to the malevolence of the Germans.
We thought these proportions, all things considered, were about right. They have been somewhat revised in the passage of the Bill through another place. I do not wish to make any assertion on the subject of which I am not quite certain, and probably the noble Lord knows this point better than I do, but I certainly
690
understood that the building societies, who are extremely well organised, had been consulted, and that, while nobody can be expected to be pleased at having to bear a burden, they were not in a condition of violent protest but on the whole were prepared to acquiesce. I thought therefore that the scheme was about right. I do not myself see that there is anything wrong in providing that if the amount which is secured by the mortgage exceeds three-fourths of the price, the proportion of the contribution should be higher than if the amount only exceeds two-thirds. It seems, on the face of it at least, moving in the natural direction.
My noble friend described the paragraph as discriminatory and called it a very heavy contribution. Of course it is a very heavy contribution from the point of view of the mortgagee who has to find that amount of contribution, but it is a relieving provision, an enlightening provision not a heavy one, if you consider it from the other side, from the position of the mortgagor who should not be made to contribute too much for the reconstruction of the house out of this fund which will inure very largely to the benefit of the mortgagor who has made so considerable an advance. I am not quite sure that the noble Lord said this—he probably did not as I am not going to agree with it—but it would not appear a true proposition to say that the mortgagor gets no benefit from the payment that is provided out of the fund. He gets a very substantial benefit in any case. It is true the money will be paid to the mortgagee and so it ought to be, but one result is that instead of the mortgagor being the prospective owner of a smashed-up house he is a person who has had his mortage discharged, or very largely discharged, by the operation of the Bill. In other words, if you have a man whose house is smashed but it is a mortgaged house, it is not correct to say that the owner of the house gets no advantage from the compensation because it all goes to the mortgagee. He gets the advantage that his mortgage debt is discharged. It is paid off, so far as the money is available, by the process of the Bill.
Probably these observations do not completely cover the point which the noble Lord has raised and which is, I have no doubt, a very important point. If I may

691
venture to suggest it, the noble Lord having made his point and having given us the opportunity to consider it, he will not, I am sure, ask that Clause 25 should be modified at the present moment. I think the right course would be to consider what he has said—it is well worthy of consideration—and when we come to the Report stage we can, if necessary, give the matter more attention.
LORD STAMP: I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I was anxious to ask that special attention might be given to the arbitrary distinction between two people, the one who uses collateral with the lender and the other who uses his collateral outside. It seems to me that there is going to be great distinction between the two different classes even if the operation of the Bill is right. I am not going at all on what the building society authorities or the building society movement have done in relation to the matter.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 25:
Rights over against mortgages in cases to which Section 25 does not apply.
(1) This Section applies in all cases where the interest of a direct or indirect contributor in respect of a contributory property is at the relevant date subject to a mortgage, except any case where the contributory property is one to which Section twenty-five of this Act applies and the mortgage is also one to which that section applies.
(2) In any case in which this section applies the contributor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the mortgagee against the contributor's net liability in each year ending 1st January of the period during which contributions are payable under this Act to the extent of two shillings in every pound of the mortgage interest payable to the mortgagee in respect of that year but not exceeding in respect of any year two-thirds of the contributor's net liability in that year. Provided that in any case where the contributory property is subject to more than one mortgage to which this section applies the indemnity to which the contributor shall be entitled under this subsection from each mortgage in respect of any year shall extend to two shillings in every pound of the mortgage interest payable to that mortgagee in respect of that year, but not exceeding such proportion of two-thirds of the contributor's net liability in that year as the mortgage interest payable to that mortgagee in respect of that year bears to the total of the mortgage interest payable to all the mortgagees in respect of that year.
(3) If in a case in which subsection (2) of this section has effect the interest in question
692
of the contributor is not the only property, real or personal, which is at the relevant date subject to a mortgage in respect of which the contributor is entitled to an indemnity, that subsection shall have effect as if for the references therein to the amount secured by that mortgage at that date there were substituted references to an amount which bears to the amount secured by that mortgage the same proportion as the value of that interest bears to the aggregate value of all the property, real or personal, then subject to that mortgage. The said proportion, if it is not agreed between all the parties concerned, shall be determined by the Commission. An appeal shall lie for any such determination of the Commission at the instance of any of the parties concerned, to one of the panel of reference appointed under Part I of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and the provision of the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to any such appeal.
In this section—

(a) the expression "mortgage" includes any charge, lien, floating charge, debenture, debenture stock or like security on any property (including in that expression floating assets) for securing money or money's worth, and the expression "mortgagee" has a corresponding meaning;

(b) the expression "the mortgage interest" means the gross amount of interest payable to the mortgagee on the amount secured by the mortgage, before deduction of Income Tax; and

(c) the expression "value" has the same meaning in relation to property which is subject to a mortgage to which this section applies as it has in Section nineteen of this Act in relation to property which is subject to a mortgage to which that section applies.

The noble Lord said: I regret that I have again so quickly to ask the indulgence of your Lordships and I hope that the generous tribute of the noble and learned Viscount to the constructive intentions of my last Amendment will be extended to this, which covers a much wider field. It strikes indeed at the underlying intentions of the operation of the Bill. I propose rather to avoid the legal angle of it, and to confine myself to the public relations angle. I welcome the presence of Lord Stamp this afternoon and I am glad that a discussion between himself and the noble and learned Viscount has preceded my moving this Amendment, because it has enabled ground in the field with which Clause 25 particularly aims to deal to be again covered in this House. The object of my Amendment is, of course, to cover all classes of mortgage other than those which are dealt with in Clause 25—which are of the character generally known as building society mortgages—all other mortgages indeed, including building charges.
The principle to which I draw attention, without addressing myself to the terminology of the clause which is a very lengthy one, is that, because this is a measure brought about by the war, conditions of advantage accruing from it should be recognised. The discussion on this clause, on this aspect of the operation of the Bill, in another place was quite lengthy, and that has been urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place, and indeed pointed out by the noble and learned Viscount in his review of the Second Reading, on rereading which, as many of your Lordships will have done, one cannot fail to have been struck with admiration that it should have been so clearly outlined in so short a space of time. Here the thought is that now because of the position assumed by the State, the peace-time angle whereby the lender, a mortgagee, expects a low rate of interest because of low risk, is changed by the war-time position.
I realise, from the discussions that have taken place, that the proposals which motivate this Amendment are of a character which will be distasteful in many circles, but I am not going to be deterred from urging it because it seems to me that it does come within the ambit of the Bill. I repeat that it was originally thought that no such insurance would be necessary. Now a change of outlook has changed that thought. Originally it was intended that the contribution should be entirely from the owner of a property, with the exceptions provided for in Clause 25. There are circumstances when the equity in a mortgage may have in substance passed entirely to the mortgagee and be no longer in the hands of the mortgagor. In those circumstances, the mortgagee is in the more happy position, in that he is assured of receiving such money as is available; but meanwhile the burden of contribution lies entirely on the mortgagor, who may, indeed, be receiving nothing at all.
I realise that it has been argued that it is unattractive in principle to make the mortgagee a contributor, but surely that is based on peace-time reasoning. Again, it is said that it must mean a valuation; and here I make the suggestion to the noble and learned Viscount that the Schedule A procedure would be appropriate. It has been suggested that it would discourage mortgagees, and it is
694
urged that it interferes with the sanctity of contract. I have already said that this is war-time legislation. Does not the Rent Restrictions Acts already interfere with the sanctity of contract? Do not various other regulations and Acts which are inevitable in time of war also do so? As opposed to that reasoning, I would suggest that, as the mortgagee is assured of the first claim, it is difficult to understand why he should not bear some part of the burden in return for the underwriting of the value of his property by the provisions of the Bill.
Moreover, what I suggest should achieve a very desirable purpose from the point of view of the Bill itself. I urge this because I would say with regard to this Amendment, as I said with regard to the last one on which I spoke, that this clause does not affect the aims or the operation of the Bill. What I suggest would mean a widening of the basis of contribution, and that must surely be to the advantage of the Bill and should therefore commend itself strongly to the noble and learned Viscount. If it were collected by deduction, only a small reduction of interest to the mortgagee would occur—probably not more than 5 per cent., unless the interest was more than 5 per cent. It is a small matter compared with the responsibility of the mortgagor for the contributions, based on a hypothetical figure, the net annual value, which, incidentally, he may not receive, so that he will be responsible for the outgoings and will have no income from that particular source. There is a natural suspicion in one's mind, when it is said on grounds of equity that this course should be adopted, that there must be some outside influence which has affected the reasoning of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not make that suggestion for a moment, and I never did.
LORD BARNBY: I did not hear the interruption, but the point which I was about to make was that one would feel that there must have been some influences at work in the decisions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took, and which are not apparent on the surface of the discussions in another place. I impute nothing irregular; I do not know what was suggested by the insinuation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord may like to be reminded that he said that he thought in the circumstances that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in coming to a conclusion on this matter, must have been under some outside influence. That is what the noble Lord said.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BARNBY: I am very glad that the noble and learned Viscount has called my attention to the words which I employed, because, as sometimes does happen in the course of one's remarks, I said something which did not represent my intention. I appreciate very much the support which other noble Lords gave to the noble and learned Viscount in raising the point.
NOBLE LORDS: Withdraw!
LORD BARNBY: I certainly withdraw any such suggestion. I was dealing with the reasons why the principle had been adopted that the mortgagee should in no circumstances pay some contribution; and what I was attempting to explain was that in reading the debates in another place one felt that there must have been considerations—doubtless valuable and weighty considerations—in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which did not appear in the speeches which he made. I should like at this stage to give an instance which will illustrate what I have to say. Perhaps it will be safer to deal with the matter in that way. Let us assume a mortgage of £2,000, the rent at a yield of 6 per cent. being £120.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The rent or the interest?
LORD BARNBY: I beg your pardon; let us assume that it was on the basis of a rent. Taking a Schedule A valuation of only £100, the contribution at 2s. in the pound would be £10 per annum. Assuming a mortgage of £1,300 at 5 per cent. per annum, this would equal £65. The contribution on this at 2s. in the pound would therefore equal £6 10s., so that it would amount to less than two-thirds of the £10. Under the proposed Amendment, therefore, the mortgagee would suffer a deduction from his £65 of £6 10s., but if the building suffered damage, the mortgagor would receive no income from his building but the liability for interest
696
would remain. That is a simple illustration, and it shows what I want to bring to the attention of the Committee.
I anticipate other objections, because this strikes, I repeat, at what has been preserved as a principle until now in the discussions on this Bill. I note the presence here of my noble friend Lord Wardington, who presides with such effect over the activities of what is easily the best of the five large joint stock banks. I noticed interest on his part in this subject during the Second Reading debate in this House, and I listened, as was appropriate, with great attention to the weighty comments which he made. Many of your Lordships, however, are probably directors of large joint stock banks, and familiar with current practice. It has been suggested that because banks are in the habit of making advances against collective security, which charge would include, among other kinds of security, that of buildings, the money would be very difficult to collect. Surely all those buildings would be subject to Schedule A valuation, and it would appear to present no great difficulty, apart from the inconvenience of administration, which I admit is appreciable. It would, nevertheless, be a feasible thing.
I have heard it said that in the case of all these debentures, of which there might be many hundreds or even thousands, the attempt to collect from so wide a field would present great difficulties. But would it? Because there would always be the normal method of making the deduction from the interest received, and presumably, if the holders of the debentures could be reached through addresses available, they could also be subject to the deductions for this purpose. My noble and learned friend, I remember, made the obvious point that the charges which banks place over their various classes of security might often be against accounts which are of fluctuating character, and it would be a very indelicate thing to assume the deduction of contributions when the account was in such a situation. Again, that is an administrative matter. I would repeat that the proposals in this additional clause in no way strike at the intentions of the Bill, and would in no way affect the financial receipts from the Bill. It is, therefore, a matter of considering the delicate adjustment of convenience. In any case, I

697
hope I may assure the noble and learned Viscount that this is put forward with the same constructive aim that he was generous enough to attribute to me on the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 25 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Barnby.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I need hardly say that I dissociate myself entirely from any possible suggestion that in drafting this Bill, or in considering it, anyone in charge of it or so advising in connection with it, would be actuated by any motive other than a proper consideration of what is the most practicable and the fairest thing to do. I support this Amendment, and I propose to base my case entirely on what is fair and equitable—which I do not think was really disputed by the Lord Chancellor last time—and also on what is practicable. Let me anticipate one argument, and the only argument which has been used to suggest that the mortgagee should not contribute as well as the mortgagor: that there is a contract and a personal covenant by the mortgagor to pay. Well, that stands. But can anybody suppose that the reality of the transaction in a mortgage is not something much more than the personal covenant? Of course it is. The security is the mortgaged property, and if the lender had not taken that security then he would have relied merely on a promise to pay. I anticipate that argument; it is the only one which has been used to suggest that there is any reason why the mortgagee should not contribute.
But now we have passed Clause 9. That clause gives to every mortgagee the complete protection of his interest. If the property is repaired and the cost of that is paid, the whole of the new building inures first and foremost to the benefit of the mortgagee, and there will be many mortgagors who will never probably be in a position to redeem their mortgage. But, more than that, if, either in the public interest or because the cost of repairs and restoration is too high, the compensation money (which is what is contributed for under this Bill) is paid by the State, to whom is it paid? It is not paid to the mortgagor, and the Lord Chancellor said it is quite rightly not paid to the mortgagor. Every penny of the compensation money is paid to the mort-
698
gagee. The mortgagee satisfies, within that compensation money, the whole of his principal and accrued interest, and the Lord Chancellor has just moved an Amendment, which the Committee has accepted, that he should get his costs in addition. Now where every single provision in this Bill inures to the benefit of the mortgagee first, and the mortgagor always comes in for what is left after the rights of the mortgagee are completely satisfied, I do suggest in common fairness that when we talk about equality of sacrifice the mortgagee ought to contribute towards this insurance fund as well as the mortgagor.
And indeed the whole of this principle which I contend for is accepted in the case of the building societies. In the case of the building society mortgage the mortgagee has to contribute. Whether he contributes in the right proportion is a matter on which the Lord Chancellor and Lord Stamp may hold slightly differing views, but neither of them differs on the principle. The principle is accepted that the mortgagee should contribute. And I do hope the Lord Chancellor will not advance the argument that he contributes because this is a landlord and tenant business. I am sure no Law Lord in this House would agree with that. My noble friend Lord Stamp has advanced admirable reasons why it is nothing of the sort. Of course it is not; it is an ordinary relation between the mortgagor and mortgagee, the only difference being that when the man who has borrowed money from a building society pays, he pays something on account of principal with his interest every year; he pays back the capital by instalments. But the position, of course, is the position of the mortgagor and the mortgagee.
I ask any layman in this House and I ask any independent lawyer whether in common fairness, where everything inures to the benefit of the mortgagee, it is not fair and reasonable that he should contribute towards his insurance fund. I am not concerned to argue now what is the right proportion. The Lord Chancellor said we must do rough justice; I think he said that, certainly it was said in another place. I accept that. Let us do rough justice, let us say that the contribution shall be fifty-fifty, or whatever is the proportion which is considered most fair and reasonable. Lord Wardington

699
himself said that what I was saying last time on the face of it sounded quite fair, but there were great practical difficulties in the way. I do hope the British Parliament is not going to lay down or accept the principle that we should do something unjust because it is administratively difficult to do justice. That is a principle which the British Parliament has never accepted, and I hope never will accept. I have far too high an opinion of the ingenuity of the Parliamentary draftsmen and of the Treasury and the British Civil Service to believe that they cannot devise and administer a perfectly sound scheme.
The actual case cited by the Lord Chancellor to me last time was, "What would you do in the case of debenture holders?" This Amendment says what might be done in the case of debenture holders, quite simply and clearly. The Lord Chancellor asks how would you collect the contribution from a large number of debenture holders? Why not collect it out of the interest which is paid on the debentures? There are the trustees for the debenture holders. When they pay interest, they pay Income Tax. We receive, if we are debenture holders, interest after tax has been deducted. The company or trustees who are paying the interest pay the Income Tax to the Inland Revenue. Let them pay, say, Is. in the pound or whatever it is, half and half, as the contribution on the mortgages just as they pay tax on the debenture holders' interest. There is nothing difficult in administration there.
What were the other difficulties in administration? There was the case raised by Lord Wardington—the case of the banks—which may be more difficult. I say this to him. I am sure he wants to be as fair as I do in this matter. If the property which is mortgaged to the bank—the land or buildings, because that is what we are concerned with here—is mortgaged for a very substantial amount, and is not just a little bit in a large amount of collateral security deposited against an overdraft, in that case it is quite possible to make an apportionment, because if the real security which the bank relies upon is the mortgage of the freehold of the land, then it is reasonable that the bank should pay part of this; but if it is only a small part of a large amount of collateral
700
security in respect of a floating overdraft, then—de minimis…—I should let it go. Rather than do this grave injustice, leave out the case of the banks where there is collateral security. Certainly we ought not to do a grave wrong because there may be a difficulty in providing for the case of the banks.
I believe this is a great Bill. It is a bold and ingenious Bill. It is a Bill in which we are all called upon to contribute. I am not in the least concerned with whether, as a landlord in a rural area, I am contributing more than my actuarial contribution to help other people in the towns. It is quite right that we should all be in it, and all be in on the basis of a fair contribution and equality of sacrifice. I do beg the Government to reconsider this position, and not to mar a great Bill by doing a grave and obvious injustice.
LORD STAMP: I should like to support; the closing words of the last speaker in this way. As Clause 25 stands, it turns on the accident of the mortgage being raised for acquisition. I call it an accident. We can leave building societies out of the picture altogether, and take the case of two adjoining owners who are mortgagors with identical mortgages from the same mortgagee. One finds that he is recovering part of his contribution and the other is not and they exchange notes and say, "Why is this?" The reply is, "When I bought the house I raised the money from A," and the other says, "I did not do that. I was in possession of the house for two years, but I wanted the money for other reasons." Could you have anything more arbitrary, more inexact, more unscientific and unfair as between two people? Let us suppose the idea of landlord and tenant, as suggested, is correct. Surely it is not correct that the matter should depend on the accident of time of acquisition. If the intention is to deal with specific classes, why not have a clause saying this applies to building societies and is not applicable to banks and solicitors' mortgages? Let us be definite and clear about it. As it stands the distinction rests on the most arbitrary of all grounds. While I do not impugn the principle of Clause 25, it cannot in justice stop there. It must be made to cover similar cases which have nothing to do with the time and the reason for which the mortgages were raised.
LORDWARDINGTON: Lord Barnby said that I am connected with banking, and no doubt banks arc very closely associated with the problem before us, but I do not want to speak on the matter from the point of view of the banks. I want to consider it from the point of view of fairness to the general community and also in relation to the administrative difficulties which would undoubtedly arise. I do not myself see how they could be overcome it this Amendment is passed. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, referred last week and again this week to the great unfairness of the case of the owner of property who mortgages his property, pays all the contributions, and then, when the property is, destroyed, finds that the mortgagee who has paid nothing gets the whole of the compensation money I did say that that, on the face of it, sounded lard, put in that way, but is it really as hard as the noble Viscount makes out? Naturally all our sympathies go out to the man who has had his property destroyed, whether by enemy action or by what I may call a peace-time fire.
May I take the analogy of insurance against fire? The owner of the property insures his house. It is mortgaged, and he insures his house against fire. The mortgagee sees that he does so. He does not think of asking the mortgagee to pay the premiums. The mortgagee would not do so if asked. He would refuse a mortgage on these terms. A fire comes, unfortunately, and burns the house down. What happens then? The owner gets the money from the insurance company, and if it is sufficient to rebuild the house he does so. If it is not sufficient, owing to the fact that it has been under-insured, or the value of money has gone down and the cost of building has gone up, he either finds the balance out of his other resources or he pays off the mortgage with the insurance money. He seems to me to be in exactly the same position if his house is destroyed by fire or by enemy action. I cannot for the life of me see that there is this great unfairness to which the noble Viscount has referred.
Also it is necessary in considering the whole situation to have a very clear idea of the difference between the building society type of mortgage and the commercial mortgage. In the building society type of mortgage one uses rather loose language sometimes, but there is a definite
702
element of joint venture. Although it might not be legally correct to say that the building society is more in the position of owner in the first stages, there is no doubt it is so, in the ordinary everyday sense of the word; but as the instalments are gradually repaid year by year, the mortgagor tightens his hold on the property to the same extent as the mortgagee lessens his, until with the final payment he becomes the complete owner without any incumbrance. In the case of a commercial mortgage, however, the purpose for which the mortgage is raised in 99 cases out of 100 has nothing whatever to do with the property at all. It may be for an entirely different purpose. It may be that the mortgagor wishes to re-invest the money in something else, it may be he wishes to extend his factory or set up his son in business. It may be for a hundred and one different purposes, none of them connected with the property itself. You get this case also of a temporary borrowing pending a mortgage. If that temporary borrowing happens to take place on the relevant date, that temporary lender is responsible for contribution. That is an entirely unfair thing when the permanent mortgage wipes out the temporary loan the very next week.
The Government have recognised the distinction between these types of mortgages, and have in my opinion been most successful in dealing with a very complicated subject, and in bringing in a Bill which is fair on the whole to all parties. As the noble and learned Viscount has said, it does present a rough measure of justice. Many of your Lordships no doubt are in the position of trustees under a marriage settlement or under a will, and you have the duty of looking out for investments, and may have chosen as an investment a mortgage, which is a very suitable investment for a trustee. It provides full trusteeship quality and you get rather more interest with equal security than you get on the Stock Exchange. You pay the interest to the beneficiaries under your trusteeship who may be a widow and orphans. Is it fair, then, to ask the widows and orphans to bear their contribution under this scheme? I maintain that it would be quite unfair.
With regard to the point about debentures, which has been raised, I do not think the main objection is the difficulty of administration, arising from

703
the necessity of collecting from all the different holders of the debentures. But how would you find out what the contribution ought to be? The debenture is based on various securities. Only a very small proportion of it will probably be secured by the actual freehold. The debenture holder looks much more carefully at the liquid assets, and the liquid assets might be, and very often are, four or five times the amount of the actual freehold. Again, looking at the matter from the point of view of fairness, you get a company with a debenture issue of, say, £100,000 and ordinary capital of £500,000, paying 10, 15 or 20 per cent. The debenture holder has to put up with his 4 per cent. or 4½ per cent. interest, or whatever it may be, whereas the ordinary shareholder has got a very fine investment, and why should he not pay the contribution rather than the investor in debentures? It seems to me to be altogether unfair to suggest that the mortgagee in a case of that sort should have to pay his contribution.
There is another considerable administrative difficulty in connection with debentures. I gather from the rather difficult wording of the Amendment that the proposition is that in trying to arrive at the amount of contribution you must take the proportion of the freehold to the liquid assets, and apply that to the contribution which has to be borne. Let us for the sake of example take this case. The assets are £500,000. The freehold is £100,000, and the liquid assets are £400,000. The freehold, therefore, is one-fifth of the whole, and you must apply that proportion to the obligation of the debenture holder under this Amendment. That seems to me an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. How are you to arrive at the value of these liquid assets? You have to take the figure appearing in the balance sheet, but the balance sheet may have been produced at June 30, whereas the relevant date is January 1, and to apply the amount on January 1 to the figures that appear in the balance sheet of June 30 would not be to act with any fairness at all so far as I can see. In a commercial mortgage the mortgagee's interest in the property is very limited as compared with the interest of the owner of the equity of redemption. The mortgagor pays his 4 per cent., or whatever the interest is, and hopes to make
704
much more out of it. He hopes to make an investment which will perhaps double his income, and in that respect the mortgagor is the adventurer. The annual profit is his, and the capital gain is also his, and the rewards he expects from his enterprise or his adventure are his, and surely the contribution ought to be his also. The mortgagee has no part or lot in any profit or any increased income.
If this Amendment were passed I think one of the effects of it very likely might be largely to dry up the lending market on property, and that surely could not be for the benefit of the community. It is a very convenient form of security to offer to any lender, and just as partly-paid shares with a callable liability are looked upon in the market with less favour than fully-paid shares, so you would have in the ordinary course, if this Amendment were passed, people looking askance at property as a security with this liability attached to it. Some reference has been made already to the difficulties arising out of third parties. A third party may deposit the deeds of his house in support of a friend's overdraft, or he may be kind enough to guarantee the advance, and in support of his guarantee may lodge the deeds of his own house. How can you attach any contribution to the owner of the house in that case? He is actually a mortgagor although he has no debt, and he may never have a debt unless he is asked to implement his guarantee. It seems to me the Amendment would create very great difficulties and would be unfair to a very large number of people. The Bill as it stands has been widely proclaimed as a desirable one and the Government, rightly, I think, has been praised for their courage in bringing it in. I think our gratitude is due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place for the patience and conciliatory manner in which he listened to all kinds of suggestions and criticisms, many of which he met. It has brought new hope and confidence to thousands of people. On grounds of equity, expediency and convenience of administration, I hope the Government will stand firm on the Bill as it is and will refuse this Amendment.
LORD SNELL: At this stage I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

SECRET SESSION.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the further sitting of the House this day be secret.
Moved, That the further sitting of the House this day be secret.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.
The Official Reporter then withdrew.
House in Secret Session.
House adjourned.