Sitting of 20 May 1943

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRITS
For the Borough of Birmingham (Aston Division), in the room of Colonel Edward Orlando Kellett, killed in action.
For the County of Nottingham (Newark Division), in the room of William Arthur Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, commonly called the Marquess of Titchfield, called to the House of Peers.—[Mr. James Stuart.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRIDGWATER GAS BILL {By Order)
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  FACTORY ACCIDENTS
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour the number of fatal and nonfatal accidents, respectively, in factories for 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942; and the percentage of accidents to the total employed for each year?
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Accidents reported under the Factories Act were for 1939, 1,104 fatal and 192,371 non-fatal; for 1940, 1,372 fatal and 230,607 non-fatal; for 1941, 1,646 fatal and 269,652 non-fatal and for 1942, 1,363 fatal and 313,267 non-fatal. Numbers employed are constantly changing, and I can only say that the percentage of such accidents to the total employed was roughly 3.4 in 1940 and 3.8 in 1941.
  Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he has a sufficient number of inspectors who are able to do the work for
  1206
  which they were appointed rather than to look atter A.R.P. and kindred problems in factories?
  Mr. Bevin: I do not think there are sufficient factory inspectors, but the difficulty is one of man-power at the moment. I have, however, done a good deal in relation to safety through personnel managers in our factories who have supplemented factory inspectors to a considerable extent.

  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

    Control of Employment (Directed Persons) Order
    Commander Bower: asked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the wide powers affecting the lives of large numbers of persons taken by the Control of Employment (Directed Persons) Order, 1943, No. 651, he will withdraw this Order and substitute a new Defence Regulation which can be debated?
    Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. This Order does not take any additional powers to direct persons into employment. What it does is to provide safeguards as to conditions of employment for persons directed into employment under the existing powers provided by Defence Regulation 58A.
    Commander Bower: Does not the Minister think that generally speaking, in the interests of democratic practice, it is advisable that this kind of change should be made by a new Defence Regulation which can be debated in the House and not by a subsidiary Order over which Parliament has no control?
    Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. Defence Regulation 58A has given me power to direct all persons, and I see no reason for amending that power at the present moment. I think it is suitable procedure to safeguard people by means of Orders to protect them.
    Mr. Thorne: Will my right Friend be careful when he is moving men and women about the country?
    Mr. De la Bère: Further, will the right hon. Gentleman hear in mind that the small round-the-corner shopkeeper has got to be protected further than has been done?

    Food Distribution Firms {Workers).
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the warning by the President of the National Union of Distributive Workers at their recent annual conference of the danger to the distribution of foodstuffs consequent upon denuding shops of skilled employees, whether he intends to take action in the matter?
    Mr. Bevin: I am satisfied that the arrangements recently made in agreement with my noble Friend the Minister of Food for the withdrawal of a limited number of workers from firms engaged in food distribution will not endanger the efficient distribution of essential foodstuffs.
    Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to watch the statistics of sickness among shopworkers, consequent upon the heavy strain upon them these days and will he also inquire into the problem of housewives who are having grave difficulty in shopping because there are not sufficient skilled staffs left in the shops to serve them?
    Mr. Bevin: I have these things constantly under review, but I have to meet war circumstances.
    Mr. Leslie: Would my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of setting up a training school so that substitutes who are to take the places of trained assistants can obtain some little knowledge of the food trade beforehand?
    Mr. Bevin: Certainly. I will go into that and consult the industry in the matter.

    Disabled Persons (Rehabilitation)
    Mr. Storey: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Rehabilitation and Resettlement of Disabled Persons; and whether a joint committee, representative of the Departments concerned, has been set up to supervise the preparation of such legislation?
    Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Moss Side Division of Manchester (Mr. Rostron Duckworth) on 23rd March, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. Storey: Can the Minister give me an answer now to the second part of my Question?
    Mr. Bevin: My Department has been preparing preliminary details which will be discussed with other Departments.
    Mr. Storey: Will the Department do what the Committee had no power to do—consult the voluntary agencies concerned in this work?
    Mr. Bevin: I think we have consulted them.
    Mr. Storeyasked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet ascertained the views of the British Employers' Confederation, the Trades Union Congress General Council and the King's Roll National Council upon the proposals of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Rehabilitation and Resettlement of Disabled Persons; and whether he has any statement to make thereupon?
    Mr. Bevin: The Report of this Committee is under discussion with the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress General Council. It has already been discussed with the King's Roll National Council, whose views on it are under consideration.

    Transferred Women
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Labour how many girls have been directed from Scotland to England and from England to Scotland in connection with the war effort?
    Mr. Bevin: The number of women transferred from Scotland to employment in England after registration under the Registration for Employment Order and the National Service Acts was 3,385 up to 17th March, 1943, from i6th May, 1942, on which date my Department started to maintain records in this connection. In the same period 57 women were transferred from England to Scotland.
    Sir T. Moore: In view of the strong feeling among mothers, does not the Minister think that some exchange could be made, even though a comparatively small number of Englishwomen have been sent to Scotland, so that our Scottish mothers can be relieved in their minds?
    Mr. Bevin: The people we sent to Scotland went with certain firms. They

    1209
    were specially skilled and specially trained. Otherwise, we have sent no people from England to Scotland, although we get a constant influx of Scotsmen into England.

    Sanitary Services, Eton Rural District
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the closing down of arrangements for the disposal of sewage by the Eton Rural District Council in the parishes of Burnham, Datchet, Iver, Horton and Wraysbury, owing to the lack of man-power, and whether he will release sufficient personnel to prevent a serious epidemic?
    Mr. Bevin: My Department has already met some of the labour requirements of the Eton Rural District Council for the maintenance of its sanitary services, and further efforts are being made to meet those outstanding.
    Sir A. Knox: Could the Minister send down an inspector to inquire into the situation locally?
    Mr. Bevin: A labour supply officer has been sent there.

    War-Time Prosecutions
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour what is the total number, to the best available date, of workpeople prosecuted by his Department for offences that did not appear on the Statute Book before the outbreak of war; the number sent to prison, male and female, respectively; and whether the number of these prosecutions has increased recently?
    Mr. Bevin: I am obtaining such information as is available and will communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend consider from time to time whether prosecutions of this kind actually further the war effort? Does he consider that sometimes we may poison the whole community by prosecutions of this kind?
    Mr. Bevin: Every prosecution is carefully studied. It is not to help me in my war effort, but the country's war effort.

    Parsonages (Domestic Help)
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the special difficulties involved in the calling up of the only
    1210
    resident domestic helper in the case of large parsonages which the incumbent cannot get rid of, particularly where the wife of the clergyman is actively engaged in social ' and National Service; and whether he will make arrangements to permit of domestic help continuing to be possible in such cases?
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, the general arrangements made for the withdrawal of domestic workers permit of special consideration being given to cases of exceptional hardship arising in this way.

    Flag Days (Man-Power)
    Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Minister of Labour whether any record has been kept of the number of people engaged in making, distributing and selling flags and similar tokens in aid of charitable causes, and the time spent by them in so doing?
    Mr. Bevin: No, Sir; not by my Department.
    Mr. Dugdale: Will not my right hon. Friend take steps to discourage this tiresome work by well-meaning ladies who might be engaged in some more useful occupation?
    Mr. Bevin: It does not come under my Department.
    Mr. Dugdale: I addressed the Question to the Prime Minister, because I did not know under whose name it came. It was transferred to the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. Bevin: I was asked for certain statistics which I have not got. I am not responsible for flag days.
    Mr. McNeil: Surely my right hon. Friend is responsible for the employment of these women whom we have seen wellmcaningly wasting their time.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Should we encourage those people who are too mean to put something in the box?
    Mr. Thorne: Is it not true that a large number of married women and come of their daughters do this flag selling?
    Mr. Bevin: I really do not know. It is not under my Department.

    Small traders (Women)
    Mr. De la B ère asked: the President of the Board of Trade whether he will

    1211
    confer with the Minister of Labour regarding the recent pronouncements in connection with the calling up of one-woman shopkeepers and the wives of small one-man family businesses where the husband has been called up, in view of the possibility of these women being directed to full-time or substantial part-time employment, which would necessitate the closing down of the businesses?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): My right hon. Friend has done so, and has been assured by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that any woman in the position described may apply for her case to be considered on grounds of exceptional business hardship.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is not the Minister aware that the attitude of the Government in regard to the small, round-the corner shopkeeper shows a definite failure to understand the apprehension and the uncertainty which are caused? Is it not a fact that to reprieve him is not enough? What he wants is an assurance. Will my hon. and gallant Friend ask the Minister of Labour to give further attention to this matter, which is not only not satisfactory but is thoroughly unsatisfactory?
    Major Petherick: Is not the Minister aware that the policy of taking one person out of a small business in which only two persons are involved is causing ruin to those persons in many instances? Is it not a mockery to suggest that the remaining person ought to get alternative labour, when it is impossible to do so?
    Captain Waterhouse: I am well aware of the hardship in these cases and it is for that reason that the Minister of Labour has agreed that hardship shall be a consideration taken by these appeal tribunals.

  MILITARY SERVICE

    Farmers and Farm Workers
    Mr. Butcherasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now arrange for suitable young men who volunteer to serve with the Royal Navy to be accepted, notwithstanding the fact that they may be employed as farm workers or farmers?
    Mr. Bevin: On the application of the appropriate Service Department, the restriction on the voluntary enlistment of a farmer or farm worker may be waived. as it may in the case of persons engaged in other industries, if it appears, after consultation with the Government Departments concerned, that this is in the national interest.

    Exempted Men
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now consider a system whereby a gradual exchange may be made between a proportion of those serving in the Forces and those who are fit and hitherto, for one reason or another, have sought exemption, or have been exempted from service in the Armed Forces?
    Mr. Bevin: Large numbers of men are being continuously called up who had previously been regarded as reserved or whose calling up had been deferred, and simultaneously a limited number of men with special qualifications required in essential industry are being released from the Forces. In general, however, I understand that the Forces are not in a position to part with their trained men.
    Rear-Admiral Burnish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some such system would be extremely popular with the Army and would do a great deal of good to many of those who have hitherto been exempt? Would he consider such a system for the future?
    Mr. Bevin: The matter has been considered on many occasions, but training in the Army is of such a character and is so intense that the Forces would regard themselves as being seriously prejudiced if they parted with highly trained men.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Could not German prisoners of war taken in Tunisia be brought here to relieve agricultural labourers and farmers?
    Mr. Bevin: I would like to have notice of that Question.

    DEMOBILISATION (POLICING OF EUROPE)
    Mr. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that there will be a heavy demand on manpower for the policing of Europe after the

    1213
    war, he has made plans to direct to the Armed Forces those now engaged in civilian work in order that the men now in the Services, particularly those serving abroad, may be given the opportunity to return to their civilian employment as soon as possible after fighting ceases?
    Mr. Bevin: Until the circumstances likely to obtain at the end of the war can be more clearly envisaged, it is scarcely possible to anticipate the provisions necessary for meeting the post-war requirements of man-power for the Armed Forces. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend is one of many which the Government will need to examine in due course in the light of all relevant considerations.

    PEACE ORGANISATION (DOCUMENT)
    16. Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the pronouncement by a peace organisation, of which a copy has been sent to him, suggesting that there should be no second front before a further definition is made of peace aims; and whether he will consider taking action against those whose aim is the subversion of the war effort?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Whatever view may be taken as to the wisdom or unwisdom of this document, my hon. Friend's description of it does not appear to be accurate. I have read it, and I do not think it is either likely or intended to have any harmful effect on the war effort, and I can find no ground for action on my part.
    Sir L. Lyle: Is it not very unfortunate that this sort of statement should be made just now?
    Mr. Morrison: I am not concerned to defend the document at all, but I am rather doubtful whether the hon. Gentleman has read it himself. I think it hardly bears out the description he has given.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does that last question illustrate our British love of liberty?

  CIVIL DEFENCE

    Fire Guard Duties
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider
    1214
    instituting district or area pools of male civilians from whom all necessary fire-watchers will be drawn, before housewives or women war workers in such districts are compelled to perform these duties?
    Mr. H. Morrison: The primary Tire guard obligation of men is to protect the premises at which they work. Subject to this primary obligation, men who live in a prescribed area, and are not exempt, may be formed by the local authority into a pool of fire guards to be posted wherever there is a shortage of fire guards in the area. Women are at present liable to share with men the fire guard duties at premises where they work, if compulsory arrangements are in force there, but under the revised Orders they will only he so liable if the available men who work at the same premises are insufficient to provide an effective fire guard. Women who do not perform fire guard duties where they are employed will only be liable to do fire guard duties as members of street fire parties.
    Sir T. Moore: While that answer is very satisfactory as far as it goes, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in some great industrial undertakings there is a very large number of men and very few women employed, and the men have a reasonably long period between their fire watching duties, whereas in other undertakings there are many women and few men and the women are forced to do fire watching while there are surplus men available in a nearby undertaking?
    Mr. Morrison: I think we have met the point as much as we can, and we have given the women equal compensation. My difficulty is that the premises must be protected, and I wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman would help me to get them protected rather than seek to diminish the labour force which is essential to the work. If and when fire watching becomes unnecessary, no one will be happier than I to be rid of that trouble.
    Sir T. Moore: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was not asking that we should not be protected, but that men should be more fully -employed wfiere they are available and surplus to present requirements, rather than women.
    Mr. Morrison: I think in the revised Orders the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that we have met that principle as far as ever we can.

    Motor Vehicles and Vessels in Inland Waters (Immobilisation)
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to make any further statement on the subject of the immobilisation of unattended motor vehicles and of vessels in inland waters?
    Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The Government have given careful consideration to this matter and have decided that some relaxation of the existing orders would be justified at the present time. Amending Orders have accordingly been made by which the requirement of the immobilisation of unattended motor vehicles and of vessels in inland waters will cease to have effect, except in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Sussex, Hampshire, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall and those parts of Essex and Kent which are outside the Metropolitan Police district. I must, however, make it clear that this requirement may again be imposed over the whole country at any time if the Government think that course necessary.
    Mr. Bowles: Does my right hon. Friend mean that cars need no longer be locked when unattended?
    Mr. Morrison: In those areas, left on the highway—that is so.
    Mr. Woodburn: In the interests of public safety will my right hon. Friend consider a relaxation of lighting restrictions when the winter comes?

    Northern Ireland (Exit Permits from Great Britain)
    Dr. Little: asked the Home Secretary whether he will, on compassionate grounds, make a regulation whereby any person from Northern Ireland in Great Britain presenting a medical certificate stating that it is essential for recuperation after illness to spend some time at home in Northern Ireland will be granted a travel permit for the journey?
    Mr. H Morrison: No, Sir. I could not treat convalescence as a ground for the grant of an exit permit to Ireland without admitting so many cases as to defeat the object of the restrictions. I am always
    1216
    prepared to consider cases of exceptional hardship on their merits.
    Dr. Little: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to make that known to passport officials.

    Personnel (Employment of Casual Labour)
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Civil Defence units quartered in the country employ casual labour, which otherwise would be available for the agricultural industry, as domestic servants; and whether he will put a stop to this additional handicap on home food production?
    Mr. H. Morrison: Much of the routine domestic work at headquarters of units of the Civil Defence Reserve is performed by members of the units themselves so far as essential training and operational requirements permit, but a small additional complement of other domestic staff, including cooks and kitchen staff, is essential for the efficient and economical running of units. I am not aware that staff is being engaged for this purpose to the detriment of agriculture.

    ALLIED GOVERNMENTS (NEWSPAPER ATTACKS)
    Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the mischievous campaign of propaganda in regard to one of our Allies, and inimical to the resumption of friendly relations between Poland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, recently commenced by the "Daily Worker"; and whether any warning has been issued to that paper?
    Captain Alan Graham: asked the Home Secretary whether, in order to safeguard the unity of the United Nations, he will take the necessary steps of warning or suspension to prevent the heads of allied Powers invited to these shores suffering such open insults as are exemplified in the abuse of the President and Government of Poland in the "Daily Worker" of 4th May and in Mr. H. G. Wells' article ridiculing General de Gaulle in the May number of "World Review"?
    Mr. H. Morrison: I share my hon. Friends' anxiety that the relations between

    1217
    the United Nations should not be prejudiced by irresponsible attacks on Allied Administrations. The war-time powers conferred on me for suppressing publications are, as they know, closely limited: but a careful watch will be kept, and I trust that these Questions will serve to direct the attention of the persons responsible for this mischievous propaganda to the dis-service they do to the cause for which we are all fighting.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not peculiar that the Minister is very careful in his language when dealing with Fascist propaganda and very vicious with his language when it is a question of the "Daily Worker"?
    Miss Rathbone: Is it not possible that the Allied Governments, and this country, are already aware of the democratic principle that there should be as little interference as possible with the freedom of the Press except in cases where it is likely to interfere with the war effort or to give information to the enemy?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Lady's observation is perfectly relevant, and I am sure it is understood by all the Allied Governments.
    Mr. Silverman: Do my right hon. Friend's powers extend to papers published by refugee organisations and Governments in this country, some of which are themselves engaged in making unjustified attacks on Allied Governments?
    Mr. Morrison: As I understand it, my powers extend to any publications which come within the Defence Regulations, whether they are published under the auspices my hon. Friend mentions or not. I think the House should realise that propaganda is going on both ways.
    Mr. G. Strauss: As we are free to criticise our own Administration if it appears to be doing something which in our view is contrary to the war effort or to the best interests of the United Nations, surely we are free to criticise the Administrations of other countries?
    Mr. Morrison: It is quite true that the British public take the view that they have a right to criticise their own Government, and those engaged in it, in forceful terms from time to time. Therefore I have taken the view that I cannot lay down the doctrine that refugee Govern-
    1218
    ments, or the Governments of other countries, are exempt from criticism, whoever they may be.
    Mr. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Information whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the ban on the export of the "Daily Worker"?
    Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Information whether, in view of the harm that is being done to the Allied war effort by the publication in Allied newspapers published in foreign langauges in this country of views hostile to and inconsistent with the policy of the United Nations, he will consider the possibility of withdrawing their licences from the journals concerned?
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): I have received representations from hon. Members of this House that the "Daily Worker" and also some other papers which are printed in England in foreign languages are stirring up trouble among the United Nations. The Ministry of Information is conducting an inquiry into the activities of these foreign language newspapers which are alleged to occupy themselves in attacking the Soviet Government. If this allegation is well founded, we shall be in duty bound to prevent the hospitality of Great Britain being abused by journalists who seem to be more interested in feuds than in news. Meanwhile the Chief Press Censor has been instructed to regard their activities as falling within the Regulation which prohibits the cabling abroad of extracts from newspapers which are likely to cause disunity between the United Nations. This Regulation must also be applied to quotations from the "Daily Worker" which has given up a good deal of its space to vilifying the Polish Government. My hon. Friend will realise that in these circumstances I am unable at present to lift the ban on the export of this newspaper.
    Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some of these journals are clandestinely produced and are not always printed? Will he see that those are dealt with also?
    Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir. It is a very great problem, because these newspapers are printed in small printing factories throughout the country by a nationality

    1219
    for which I have a great admiration but of whom I may say this: Every time you find a Pole, you will find a newspaper.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not the answer just given by the right hon. Gentleman in contradiction to the answer given by the Home Secretary earlier to-day, in which he specifically said that he was not opposed to any criticism, by elements in this country, either of their own Government or of any other Government? If we are entitled to express our dissatisfaction, as we occasionally do, of His Majesty's Government, are we not entitled to express dissatisfaction with other Governments?
    Mr. Bracken: I am quite in favour of the British papers criticising the Government, because I think that criticism is the absolute basis of democracy, but I might point out that the contents of these small, obscure papers are wired abroad and do infinite harm. This is not a question of the freedom of the Press at all, it is a question of the grossest possible licence, and I do not intend to tolerate these people rushing around the country, publishing in foreign languages the most violent abuse of the Soviet Government, or the Polish Government, or indeed of any Government connected with the United Nations.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman not examine the answer to which I referred? I do not object to a good deal of what he has said. To satisfy hon. Members, will not the right hon. Gentleman examine the answer given by the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir, I read the Home Secretary's answer before I gave mine. They deal with quite different points. The Home Secretary was dealing with the question of suppression, but I am dealing with the editing of stuff that goes out of this country and that is likely to cause disunity among the United Nations.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the material which appeared in the "Daily Worker" was justified by the very vicious and foul slanders which appeared in certain Polish journals in this country?
    Mr. Bracken: No, Sir. No justification could possibly be made for the scandalous language used by the "Daily Worker" about the leaders of Poland. The "Daily Worker" called into question the patriotism of the leaders of Poland; well, the "Daily Worker" is no authority on patriotism.

  EDUCATION

    Public Elementary Schools (Classes)
    Mr. Harveyasked the President of the Board of Education how many classes in public elementary schools there were, at the latest convenient date, with more than 5o on the roll and with between 40 and 5o on the roll, distinguishing between infant and junior departments on the one hand and senior schools and departments on the other?
    The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): For the reason given in reply to a Question on the same subject by the hon. Member on 5th March, 1942, I am unable to give particulars of the size of classes during the war period.
    Mr. Harvey: Cannot my right hon. Friend give some approximate information as to the number of these excessively large classes?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot do it by way of statistics at present, because I have not got them, but I can say that there are a number of these classes and that we are doing our best to reduce them.

    Women Teachers (Training)
    Mr. Harveyasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in, view of the urgent need for more teachers on the conclusion of the war, any further measures are being taken to increase the supply of students in the training colleges and departments of education, having in mind that the entry of women students in 1943 is expected to be far short of the authorised number?
    Mr. Butler: I assume that the hon. Member's Question refers particularly to women students. The Board's returns are not yet complete, but there is evidence to show that the number of women students in training colleges and training departments in 1943 will be substantially larger than it was in 1942. I keep the question of the supply of teachers under constant review,

    1221
    and only last February issued a statement, a copy of which I am sending my hon. Friend, designed to encourage recruits to the teaching profession.
    Mr. Harvey: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that in spite of a certain increase, the number of entrants will still fall far short of that required, in view of the need for more teachers in future?
    Mr. Butler: We could do with more teachers, and that is why we are doing all in our power to encourage entrants.
    Mr. R. Morgan: Has my right hon. Friend's Department taken any further action with a view to releasing some of the teachers in the Services of low medical category who can be of no possible use in many cases in the Services and so relieve the grievous shortage of teachers?
    Mr. Butler: I am naturally in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, but I can give no general undertaking of that kind.
    Mr. Stephen: Are women students who are undergoing training being called up for the Forces?
    Mr. Butler: I need notice of that Question.

    Evacuated Schoolchildren
    Mr. Sorensen: asked the President Of the Board of Education the present approximate number of evacuated schoolchildren; to what extent there has been a recent increase in child evacuation in the London area; and approximately what proportion of children are now not receiving full-time education?
    Mr. Butler: According to the latest returns received from local education authorities, the approximate number of evacuated schoolchildren in the reception areas in December, 1942, was 222,000. There has been no material change during recent weeks in child evacuation from the -London area. The proportion of children who were receiving less than full-time education at the date of the last returns in December last was approximately one-half of 1 per cent.
    Mr. Sorensen: Even though that is a gratifying and small percentage, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to
    1222
    see that even the few that exist have full-time education?
    Mr. Butler: We have reduced this problem to an absolute minimum under war conditions, and I shall squeeze the matter further, but it would be difficult to find any better result than we have achieved in any country in the world.

    Education Bill
    Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is now able to announce when he will introduce his new Education Bill; whether this will include proposals for a comprehensive, expanded school medical service; whether it will also include arrangements respecting religious instruction agreed by the principal ecclesiastical bodies; and if any agreed national syllabus of ethical or religious principles will be recommended?
    Mr. Butler: As I have informed the hon. Member on a number of previous occasions, I will make an announcement on the Government's education proposals as a whole as soon as I am in a position to do so. In the meantime I have nothing to add to that statement.
    Mr. Sorensen: As it is some time since we were told that a Bill would be introduced, will my right hon. Friend at least give some interim indications of the points to be covered in the Bill?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir, I will certainly not do that. I think it is much better to present the plans as a whole when they have received the approval and support of the Government.
    Sir H. Williams: Is it not the case that as soon as the hon. Member has been educated he will not need to ask so many questions?
    Mr. George Griffiths: Is not the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) taking the other Member for his looking-glass?

  HOUSING

    Agricultural Workers
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Minister of Health whether internal fittings required in the proposed scheme for the construction of 3,000 cottages

    1223
    for agricultural workers are to be supplied by open tender by builders' merchants, or direct from bulk supply?
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health whether local builders' merchants are to be invited to tender for the supply of internal fittings for the 3,000 cottages which are to be built for agricultural workers?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): Internal fittings will not be provided from bulk supply. Local authorities will make their own arrangements for purchasing the requisite supplies, and they can invite competitive tenders; but they are being asked to pay regard to the need for economising in transport when placing orders.
    Dr. Thomas: May I express my gratification at the Minister's answer and ask whether he will be good enough to look into a special case which a local council has turned down?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir.
    Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Health on how many of the authorised 3,000 rural cottages has construction been commenced; whether he is satisfied with the progress being made; and, if not, what is the principal cause of delay?
    Mr. Brown: No building has yet commenced, but the necessary preliminary arrangements have been largely completed. By May 14th, 1,065 sites to take nearly 2,700 houses had been selected and approved, detailed plans for some 1,30o of these houses had been approved and tenders for substantial numbers of houses are expected shortly. Bearing in mind the large number of separate sites throughout the country and the wartime difficulties of staffing I think that the rural district councils have carried out the preliminary work which is their responsibility with speed and energy.
    Major Lyons: In view of the fact that the House was given to understand that in not one instance anywhere has construction yet commenced, will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to urge this matter as one of great urgency?
    Mr. Brown: We are doing all we can, but when builders are invited to tender we must wait until the tenders come in.
    Mr. Kirby: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering increasing the number of houses?
    Mr. Brown: The answer to that has been given before. The House has been told that this is the largest number that can be authorised in the light of the present stringency in labour and materials.
    Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health (I) whether he will arrange for each of the authorities who now separately examine the plans of wartime agricultural cottages, to delegate the task of examination and approval to one of their number to be selected by him; and if this is not possible can he state the reason preventing this procedure;
    (2) how many authorities are now separately examining and approving each set of plans and proposals for each group of war-time agricultural cottages; and what is the approximate length of time it takes for the average set of plans to circulate to all these authorities and be returned to the persons responsible for them fully approved and available for immediate use?
    Mr. Brown: As a rule, the rural district councils building these cottages submit the plans only to my Senior Regional Architect, who has been authorised to approve them, after consultation with the Regional Planning Officer of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. The delegation suggested has therefore already been made, and the remaining parts of the Questions do not arise.
    Mr. Bossom: Could my right hon. Friend, who has told the House 'on another occasion that there are something like half a dozen authorities who have to approve some of these plans, say whether there are any cases in which one person alone is allowed to approve them?
    Mr. Brown: We have worked it out in this way and, I would describe it, in this simpler form. In the other case I was asked a question, and Ministers have to do their best to answer the questions which are put to them.
    Mr. Bossom: Could my right hon. Friend say that there are no plans for cottages now that require more than three authorities to approve them?
    Mr. Brown: No, I would not say that, because I do know of rare and exceptional instances where a rural district council does not happen to be the planning authority and a particular case might arise there.

    Rents
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that under the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939, the standard rent of flats which were empty at 1st September, 1939, may often be fixed by reference to the highest rents charged at peak periods following the last war when demand exceeded supply; and whether he will amend the Act to equalise the rents of such flats, and of similar flats, which were tenanted at that date, and so to protect tenants of all similar flats irrespective of the dates of their leases?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am aware that anomalies sometimes arise under the existing law in regard to the standard rents of similar dwellings, and, as I have previously stated, the point has been noted for consideration when amending legislation is undertaken. I am not quite clear, however, what type of case my hon. Friend has in mind and perhaps she would be good enough to send me details.
    Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give an assurance that all classes of property protected under the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939, will still receive legislative protection after the expiration of that Act, in order to prevent exorbitant increases of rent while a shortage of fiats and houses still exists?
    Mr. Brown: I am not at present in a position to indicate the nature of any legislation which may be proposed to replace the Act to which my hon. Friend refers, which does not expire until six months after the termination of the present emergency. I recognise the close association between this problem and the supply of housing accommodation.
    Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Health whether he will print a White Paper explaining and giving full particulars about rent, in view of the complication of the subject as disclosed in the broadcast by Mr. Douglas Houghton, on
    1226
    Saturday night, 15th May, at 6.30 o' clock?
    Mr. Brown: I am already considering the best means by which these most informative talks can be printed and will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as a decision has been taken.

    War-Damaged Areas
    Major Lyonsasked the Minister of Health when he will be in a position to assure the House that all local authorities, without exception, who are responsible for the rebuilding of enemy-damaged areas have their plans and lay-outs and financial arrangements ready to allow work of clearance and preparation of foundations to be started at short notice?
    Mr. Brown: I am not at present in a position to add to the information furnished to my hon. and gallant Friend by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works on 5th May. I may say, however, so far as rehousing is concerned, that the preparations for the first year's programme by local authorities, in accordance with my circular of 4th March last, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy, are making progress. It is realised that difficulties arise in some districts where the use of war-damaged areas for housing purposes is necessary and these cases will be discussed with my right' hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
    Major Lyons: In view of the urgency of the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me further information if I put a Question down in a short time?
    Mr. Brown: I will do my very best.
    Mr. Bossom: Can my right hon. Friend explain how he is able to prevent these new lay-outs, which he has called for, for the first year's post-war housing problem being situated within green belts which later may be required to girdle these built-up areas?
    Mr. Brown: These are the very issues we are discussing with the Ministry of Planning. There are sites in many areas which would conform with any plan, however drawn.

    House Property (Speculation)
    Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health whether, in order to check speculation in house property, he will take

    1227
    steps to permit, for the duration of war, the sale of houses only to persons who require them for their own occupation?
    Mr. Brown: I am having the whole question further examined, and I will certainly take into account the suggestion made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he hopes to make a statement on the matter, in view of its urgency?
    Mr. Brown: Not to-day.
    Sir Irving Albery: Will my right hon. Friend, in doing that, also bear in mind that some people cannot buy houses and that others, who do, may make available for letting some which had not been formerly to let at all?

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Alien Doctors
    Mr. Hannahasked the Minister of Health whether he can make any statement as to the policy of the Government for the future of alien doctors allowed to practise under restrictions in this country for the duration and anxious, if possible, to continue to serve here or in the Colonies?
    Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. As my hon. Friend is aware, the present arrangements under which certain medical practitioners are temporarily registered under the Medical Acts by virtue of foreign qualifications will cease with the lapsing of the Emergency Powers under which they are made.
    Mr. Hannah: Will doctors who have served us during the war be given any kind of consideration for permanent residence in this country or the Colonies when peace is restored?
    Mr. Brown: We should have to consider that. I have answered as to the facts and stated how they now operate their medical skill under the Emergency Powers.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: Would it not be better for those doctors who belong to foreign countries to go back and help their own countries in their time of need?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot make a general announcement on that.

    Disabled Persons (Benefits)
    Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Health whether, when the Government are considering the question of sickness and invalidity benefits in connection with the proposals in Sir William Beveridge's Report, sympathetic consideration will be given to the claims of cripples and disabled persons who are ineligible for health insurance benefits and have not reached the age for the old age pension, for adequate provision to meet their needs?
    Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. I recognise that the position of the classes of persons to which my hon. Friend refers will need special consideration.
    Dr. Little: Will my right hon. Friend have a census taken of the disabled persons in the category mentioned in the Question?
    Mr. Brown: I would like to look at the information available before I give any such undertaking.

    Food and Drugs Act, 1938
    Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Divisional Court in the case of Collins Arden Products, Limited, versus Barking Corporation, given on 2nd April, 1943; and whether he proposes to amend, at the first opportunity, the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, to cover such cases?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of the case referred to. I do not propose to make Regulations under the Food and Drugs Act to deal with this matter, but my right hon. and Noble Friend the Minister of Food, in conjunction with my Department, is considering the establishment of suitable standards having regard to present-day conditions.

    Local Authorities' Medical Officers (Hospital and General Practice)
    Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Health whether he approves of arrangements whereby in the present call upon medical practitioners, medical officers, both men and women, holding appointments under local authorities, voluntarily agree to assist in the work at hospitals and general practices in cases of special urgency; and whether he will consider taking steps to encourage this type of arrangement in present circumstances?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am glad to learn of any co-operative arrangements between medical practitioners which will help to relieve the pressure on the profession at the present time, but owing to the great variation in local conditions I do not think that I could usefully commend any particular scheme for this purpose.
    Major Lyons: While realising the difference in local conditions, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would let local authorities know that where practicable this kind of co-operative effort meets with his approval?
    Mr. Brown: I think that they know that, and this Question will serve to spread the light further.

    Day Nurseries, Liverpool
    Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the medical officer of health of Liverpool has received from employers, labour officers and factory welfare officers applications for the establishment of more day nurseries with the provision of which the local authority is prepared to proceed providing such schemes are given his sanction; how many schemes have been submitted to him by the city council for approval; how many have been approved by him to date; will he state the reasons for his non-approval in other cases; and whether his approval can be expedited in such cases so as to meet the local demand?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am not aware of any applications for day nurseries in Liverpool having been put up for approval but not considered, Thirty schemes have been submitted by the City Council to date, and 29 of these have been approved. Any fresh applications which may be made will be considered without delay.

    Venereal Diseases
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that only one man and 27 women have been treated under Regulation 33B, he will now consider the introduction of compulsory notification in order effectively to reduce the incidence of venereal disease?
    Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. The numbers mentioned by my hon. Friend relate to persons so far reported from more than one quarter as alleged sources of infection, and the figures are not in themselves a
    1230
    true criterion of the efficacy of the Regulation, which it is already evident is indirectly doing much to help in getting infected persons to undertake voluntary treatment.
    Dr. Suntrnerskill: In view of the fact that this disease is a great menace to public health, will the right hon. Gentleman say how serious must the incidence of venereal disease become before he will introduce effective measures?
    Mr. Brown: I have promised the House that if, in the light of the working of Regulation 33B, I find it necessary to ask for further powers, I shall not delay taking action, but we ought to have time to see how it is working, because I am sure the House does not want compulsion for compulsion's sake.
    Sir A. Knox: Is not the issue of this Regulation merely trifling with what is really a terrible problem?
    Mr. Brown: I would not agree. Those who are administering the Regulation locally in certain difficult places do not take that view.

    PRIVATE MEMBERS' TIME
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance that at the earliest possible moment after the cessation of hostilities the Government will take steps to restore to Members of Parliament the right to introduce Bills and other rights which have been suspended and dispensed with during the period of hostilities?
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. It is the Government's desire to restore Private Members' time as soon as practicable after the war.
    Mr. De le Bère: Is it not a fact that the House has accepted gladly the restriction while the war continues, but Members want to regain their rights immediately after the cessation of hostilities, and will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to reducing the number of Orders in Council, which the House, in the main, does not care very much about?
    Mr. Mander: My right hon. Friend says "as soon as practicable after the war," but surely it is the intention of the Government to restore Private Members' rights at once?
    Mr. Holdsworth: Would it not be the right of the House and not the Government to decide that?
    Mr. Attlee: That is quite right, but I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish the Government to do something that was not practicable.

    NORTH AFRICAN CAMPAIGN
    Mr. Bowles: asked the Prime Minister how many of the casualties suffered by the United Nations in the North African campaign are prisoners of war?
    Mr. Attlee: About 70,000 of the casualties suffered in North Africa by the Forces of the United Kingdom, the Dominions, the Colonies and India are now prisoners of war. I regret that I have no figures of the prisoners from the Forces of the other United Nations.

    DAY OF NATIONAL PRAYER
    Dr. Littleasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the setting apart of a day, preferably a week-day, of national prayer to give thanks for our recent victories?
    Mr. Attlee: I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the observances held throughout the country last Sunday and to the formal act of public thanksgiving in St. Paul's Cathedral yesterday.

    AMENDED ORDERS
    Flight-Lieutenant Chalienasked the Lord President of the Council whether he has observed the difference in methods of amending Orders in the recent cases, namely, 1943, NQ. 653 and 1943, No. 616; that in the former case the Minister of Food has adopted the method of amendment by reference and in the latter case the Minister of Supply has adopted the method of restating the Order in amended form; and whether the latter will be regularly followed?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): I have been asked to reply. Order No. 653 of 1943 alters a permitted charge from 3s. to Is. To revoke and re-enact an Order extending over 36 pages to make this amendment would appear to be a course open to criticism, but where the nature of an amend-
    1232
    ment is such that a revocation and reenactment are necessary for a proper understanding of the amendment this course is followed and, I can assure my hon. Friend, will continue to be the regular practice of my Department.
    Mr. Ralph Etherton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary draw the attention of the Lord President of the Council to the desirability of reducing as much as possible in delegated legislation the evils and inconveniences of legislation by reference?

    PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS
    Mr. Hannahasked the Minister of Pensions whether he can now give the House any information about the proposed independent appeal tribunals for war pensions?
    The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The necessary legislation is being prepared and will be introduced as soon as possible. Meanwhile the practical measures for the setting up of Tribunals are being prepared.

    ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the possibility of paying the cost of dental treatment for dependants of serving men on the same scale as payment for medical treatment?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Pensions (Mr. Paling): Assistance in respect of dental treatment is already given under the scheme of emergency grants explained in Command Paper 6318 of 1941, in all cases where such treatment is necessary for the relief or cure of a serious and prolonged illness resulting in a financial emergency in the household. The scheme does not cover other types of illness and there are no grounds' for making an exception in respect of general dental needs.
    Mr. Dugdale: Can the hon. Member explain how it is that his Department refers such cases to charitable organisations as apparently they require dental treatment and is he aware that the principal charitable organisation concerned

    1233
    has a waiting -list of 500 people, for whom the funds cannot be found to give the dental treatment?
    Mr. Paling: I am not aware of that, but what I am aware,of is that if dental treatment is necessary to cure a patient or to assist in his cure, it is paid for. In other cases it is not, because those cases do not come under the regulations.
    Mr. Dugdale: Then may we take it that his Ministry are not concerned with people who want dental treatment unless it is regarded as being the cause of serious trouble?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will again bring before his Central Advisory Committee the question of extending wives' and children's allowances to cases where the most severely disabled ex-Service men marry after disability is incurred?
    Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir.
    Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend call the attention of the Committee to the fact that this important reform has already been made by all our Dominions, so that they may take that fact into account?
    Sir W. Womersley: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that all those points are placed before the Committee.
    Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the House will be informed of the decision come to on this and other points by the Central Advisory Committee?
    Sir W. Womersley: My hon. Friend knows, because I have told him already, that I am considering every point which was raised in the Debate, and also various points sent in to me by organisations representing ex-Service men, one of which would mean a very important and fundamental change in policy, and I think the House will agree that the best method I can pursue is to go carefully through all these suggestions and then bring comprehensive proposals before the House.
    Mr. Beverley Baxter: Can we have the assurance of the Minister that in bringing this proposal before the Central Advisory Committee he will give it his support, and his enthusiastic support?
    Sir W. Womersley: My hon. Friend can rest assured that I shall put everything in front of the Advisory Committee that is likely to be helpful to them.
    Mr. Silverman: Has the right hon. Gentleman abandoned the idea of asking a Select Committee to consider all these questions and made a report to the House?
    Sir W. Womersley: I think it would be better first for the House to hear my proposals. Then the House can decide whether there is any necessity for setting up a Select Committee.
    Mr. Baxter: May I ask for a specific reply to my question? It was not whether the Minister would put the relevant facts before the Committee but whether he would personally recommend this policy?
    Sir W. Womersley: With all due respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that is a fair question to put.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Pensions why the allowances to disabled ex-Servicemen undergoing in-patient treatment under Articles 34 and 35 of the Royal Warrant, 1943, are less favourable than those granted under the Ministry of Labour scheme for the training and resettlement scheme of disabled persons?
    Sir W. Womersley: The broad distinction between these two classes is that the pensioner undergoing in-patient treatment is comparable with the workman who is off work on account of illness, whereas the trainee is a fit person undertaking a course of training for a new occupation and at the same time drawing his pension. It must be taken into account that training allowances are subject to reduction in the event of sickness.
    Mr. Bellenger: Surely a disabled person needing medical treatment and not undergoing training is more in need of adequate allowances for his family during that period than is the comparatively fit man who is undergoing a course at the Ministry of Labour? Is there not any collaboration between the Pensions Department and the Ministry of Labour in regard to these problems?
    Sir W. Womersley: I think I have sent to my hon. Friend a list of the allowances both for in-patients and out-patients. As

    1235
    to the question relating to the Ministry of Labour, I think that should go to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. Bellenger: That is not my point. Will the Minister submit this matter, with all the other complaints that _we have made, to his Central Advisory Committee, and make a statement on it?
    Sir W. Womersley: I will consider it.

  INDIA

    Officers' Webbing Equipment
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that officers joining the Indian Army are obliged to pay about £3 15s. for their webbing equipment which would be issued to them free in the British Army at home; and whether he will give an undertaking that British officers will, in future, in India be given their initial issue of necessary military equipment free?
    Mr. Amery: I have asked the Government of India to let me know by telegraph the reason for this difference in treatment, and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend when I receive their reply.
    Lieut. - Colonel Macnamara: Is the Minister aware that these charges are being imposed upon British N.C.O's as well as upon officers?
    Mr. Amery: I will look into the matter.

    4th Indian Division
    Captain Gammonsasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will try to arrange for a contingent of officers and Men of the 4th Indian Division to be brought to this country so that a fitting tribute may be paid by the British people to them and to the Indian Army?
    Mr. Amery: I am in full sympathy with the proposal made by the hon. and gallant Member and will certainly consider the matter in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. It must, however, be realised that the question of bringing a contingent from an overseas theatre of operations to this country is dependent upon operational necessities.
    Sir A. Knox: Would it be possible to send a few of these men to America in order to show that country that there are other people in India besides Congress supporters?
    Mr. Amery: I should be delighted.

    Political Prisoners and Detainees
    Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India the approximate present number of prisoners for offences arising out of or in connection with political agitation; the total number of arrests or detentions during the past 12 months; the number discharged or released; the number of women arrested and now in detention; how many punishments by whipping have now been inflicted and how many of these were on youths under 18 years of age?
    Mr. Amery: According to my latest information, which does not cover the North-West Frontier Province, the number of persons convicted of offences in connection with the Congress rebellion and undergoing imprisonment on 1st March was 23,071, and the number undergoing detention for an indefinite period was a little in excess of 8,000. The total numbers in either category for all Provinces from August until 15th March last were respectively 34,895 and 11,623. I have no reason to suppose there has been any substantial increase in the number of sentences of whippings which I gave in reply to the hon. Member's Question on 18th February. Separate statistics for the arrests of women and the whipping of youths under 18 are not available.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman not inquire regarding the last matter? Can he say whether any steps are now being taken to stop this deplorable and medieval practice of whipping in India?
    Mr. Amery: I do not accept the hon. Member's description Of this penalty, and I certainly could not get the information which he wants, involving different Provincial authorities, without a great deal of unnecessary trouble.
    Dr. Russell Thomas: In view of the fact that the British Government are the one stabilising influence in India which enables many millions of our humble subjects to live in peace, does not the

    1237
    Minister think that the constant questions of the hon. Member are completely mischievous?
    Dr. Summerskill: Has it been brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman that psychiatrists are of the opinion that whipping makes an individual anti-social?
    Mr. Amery: I cannot answer that question.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a similar penalty in this country for a similar offence would be tolerated by any decent person in this House?
    Mr. Amery: I believe that there are similar penalties in this country.

    INCOME TAX (WAGE EARNERS)
    Mr. Kirby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the "pay-as-you-earn" Income Tax scheme operated by Mr. Francis J. Ferrie, of a Merseyside ship-repairing firm; whether he is aware that the scheme works smoothly to the satisfaction of the management and the workers; and whether he will press its general application in other establishments which at present deduct Income Tax during the low wage period of the year?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): The scheme to which my hon. Friend refers is a domestic arrangement between the firm and its employees, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to adopt the suggestion for its wider application. I may point out that the scheme in question is not founded on what is known as the "pay-as-you-earn" or current earnings basis, the possibility of introducing which is at present under consideration.

    POULTRY AND RABBITS (DISTRIBUTION)
    Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fond whether the examination of the alternative proposals for the distribution of poultry and rabbits, referred to in the notice issued by the Ministry on 5th February last, has been completed; and, if so, with what result?
    Mr. Mabane: The examination of the proposals referred to is nearing comple-
    1238
    tion and consultations with the interests concerned will shortly commence.

    FORESTRY (REPORT)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Report on afforestation and timber planting for amenity purposes after the war, can be made available to Members of the House?
    Mr. Assheton: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend is arranging for the publication of this Report.

    SCRAP METAL DUMPS (COLLECTION)
    Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he can give any information in connection with the tops of scrap metal lying about Hackney Marshes and in Plaistow; and why those dumps of metal have not been collected?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): When my attention was first drawn to the London County Council dump of debris or filling at Hackney Marsh, about which I have seen articles in the Press, I had an immediate inspection made. From reports which I have now received I am unable to substantiate in any way the allegations which have been made of the large quantities of metal salvage lying there. The face of the tipping dump is nearly a mile long. The dump itself contains roughly 1,250,000 cubic yards of debris representing over one-third of a million lorry loads. My officers report that, over the whole of the surface of the tip, no copper, brass or tram lines could be seen, the metal articles generally being small tins or old dustbins and other metal of very poor value as scrap metal. All reasonable steps are taken to segregate any appreciable amounts of useful scrap when the lorries are emptied. As a mater of cold fact, the galvanised tanks and pots shown in the Press photograph had been pulled clear of the shoot by the foreman in charge of the site to be put aside for salvage. I have no knowledge of any considerable dumps of scrap metal in Plaistow, but if the hon. Member will be more precise in regard to their situations I will cause further inquiries to be made.
    Mr. Thorne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the scrap in question in Plaistow is on a piece of waste land close to the L.C.C. main sewer embankment, Balaam Street?
    Mr. Wakefield: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the ornamental railings surrounding Crown property in Regent's Park, which could with advantage be taken away, and will he take steps to remove them?

    ROAD PLANNING, BUILT-UP AREAS (COMMITTEE)
    Sir Charles Edwardsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether anyone from Wales and Monmouthshire has been appointed on the Committee to consider the type and layout of roads in built-up areas; and, if not, will he consider such an appointment?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): No, Sir. The members of the Committee were chosen for their expert knowledge, and not as territorial representatives. The Committee is, however, admirably qualified to consider and report on road planning in built-up areas in all parts of the United Kingdom, and my right hon. Friend may be sure that the interests of Wales and Monmouthshire in that matter will be fully safeguarded.
    Sir C. Edwards: Is there no informed knowledge of road building in Wales, and is my hon. Friend aware that in our narrow and winding valleys road making is more difficult than in most parts of the country, and does he not think that because of that Wales should be represented on that Committee?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The problem is purely a technical one, and I think the problems are common to the whole country. The Committee is already rather large and I should hesitate to add to its numbers.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the problems in places such as South Wales are peculiar to that district, that questions of subsidence and other things have to be taken into consideration, and that there is a great deal of expert knowledge in South Wales which I am sure he would be only too pleased to make good use of?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If my hon. Friends will submit a memorandum in writing, I will consider it.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Home Guard (Lectures on Tunisian Campaign)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider getting two or three officers, who have been through the Tunisian campaign, to go round the country and make speeches to Home Guard units?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I regret that there are not at present sufficient officers available with experience of warfare in Tunisia to lecture to the Home Guard. I am, however, bearing the matter in mind and can assure my hon. Friend that I will arrange as soon as possible for officers with this experience to lecture to the Home Guard on aspects of the recent fighting in Tunisia which are applicable to the Home Guard.
    Mr. Turton: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman also consider similar action in connection with non-commissioned officers?

    Demoted Non-Commissioned Officers
    Mr. Kirbyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the communication from the hon. Member for Everton regarding the dissatisfaction of former non-commissioned officers of a certain battalion of which he has been informed, who have been demoted because of their age and are said to be engaged on training duties, etc., for which their age unsuits them; and, in view of the circumstances of their enlistment as volunteers at the beginning of the war and their past military service, will he do something to remove their grievances?
    Mr. A. Henderson: Inquiries are being made, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

    CAPTURED GENERALS (PAY)
    Sir C. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for War what salaries Von Arnim and other German and Italian generals, who are prisoners of war in this country, are to receive; who pays for those salaries; and whether the same rule applies to our officers who are prisoners of war?
    Mr. Mackasked the Secretary of State for War whether General von Arnim is in receipt of payment while a prisoner of war in Britain; can he state the amount; and is any preferential treatment afforded him by virtue of his rank?
    Mr. A. Henderson: I gave an outline of the general principles underlying the payments which are made to officers who are prisoners of war in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) yesterday. With my hon. Friends' permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the rates of pay, appropriate to their rank, of German and Italian general officers who are prisoners in British hands. Article 21 of the Geneva Convention contains the provision that officers who are prisoners of war shall be treated with due regard to their rank and age. Generals are given better quarters and more privacy than other officers, but in general they receive the same treatment.
    Mr. Mack: If preferential treatment of this character is to be given to generals of high rank, would that not create a considerable amount of dissatisfaction among the Forces of this country, first because of shackling, secondly because of unfairness?
    Mr. Henderson: It is not for us to follow the example of others in breaking international Conventions.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Has my hon. and learned Friend made it clear in his answer whether the figures are inclusive or exclusive of their keep?
    Mr. Henderson: In the case of German officers the food is supplied in addition. In the case of Italian officers they have to pay for the food out of what they get.
    Following is the table:

    GERMAN.

    Rank.

    British equivalent.

    Rate (monthly).

    £

    s.

    d.

    Generalfeldmarschall

    Field-Marshal

    16

    0

    0

    Generaloberst

    —

    General

    General

    Generalleutnant

    Lieut.-General

    14

    0

    0

    Generalmajor

    Major-General

    12

    0

    0

    ITALIAN.

    Maresciallo d'Italia

    Field-Marshall

    48

    12

    3

    Generale d'Armata

    General

    Generale di Corpo d'Armata

    Generale di Corpo d'Armata

    41

    13

    4

    Tenente Generale (including Generale di Divisione)

    Lieut.-General

    36

    2

    3

    Maggiore Generale (including Generale di Brigata)

    Major-General

    27

    15

    7

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to state the Business for the next series of Sittings?
Sir L. Lyle: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. You did call my name to ask Question 73.
Mr. Speaker: I did not notice that a Supplementary Question was being asked. Maybe it was my fault, but it is after Question Time now, and the hon. Member has lost his chance.
Mr. Attlee: The Business for the next series of Sittings will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—Committee stage of a Supplementary Vote of Credit for War Expenditure; Committee and remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Bill; and, if there is time, Second Reading of the Railway Freight Rebates Bill [Lords] and of the Telegraph Bill.
Second Sitting Day—Report stage of the Supplementary Vote of Credit; afterwards there will be an opportunity to consider the Motion standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick) relating to Statutory Rules and Orders; Motion to approve the continuance in force of the Proclamation under the Government of Burma Act.
Third Sitting Day—Report and Third Reading of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Bill, and, if there is time, Second Reading of the Nurses (Scotland) Bill.
Mr. Greenwood: May I, for the guidance of the House, ask my right hon. Friend whether it is understood now that there will be a short Debate on the first Sitting Day on the stabilisation of prices?
Mr. Attlee: I will consider that. I have not had any notice of that subject being raised.
Mr. Greenwood: I understood it had been through the usual channels.
Sir Percy Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when the long promised Education Bill is likely to be introduced? Will it be before Whitsun?
Mr. Attlee: I think not before Whit-sun.
Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Air gave a promise many weeks ago that we would have a full day's Debate on civil aviation, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we shall get that?
Mr. Attlee: I am afraid not in the next series of Sittings. If the hon. Member will ask again, I will see what can be done. The matter is under consideration.
Mr. Perkins: Do I understand that the Government are not prepared to accept the challenges now on the Order Paper?
Mr. Attlee: I cannot go beyond saying that we have promised a Debate and that we will have that Debate in due course.
Sir H. Williams: Do I understand that the Vote of Credit will be formally moved so that the whole day will be available for the Motion in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Penryn and Falmouth?
Mr. Attlee: I hope so.
Mr. Tree: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety, not only in this House but in the country, on the subject of post-war civil aviation? In view of that, and also as we have been promised a day's Debate on this subject ever since March, is it not possible to promise that we shall have a Debate in the very near future?
Mr. Attlee: I have promised the fullest consideration with regard to having it at the earliest possible time. As I say, we cannot have it in the next series of Sittings.
Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the scope of the Debate about the Proclamation under the. Government of Burma Act, and what topics can properly be raised on that?
Mr. Attlee: A copy of the Proclamation is available in the Vote Office, and what can be brought under it is rather a matter for the Chair. It is brought about because, owing to the circumstances in Burma, the Government of Burma Act cannot be carried out at the present time.
Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been three Debates on civil aviation
1244
in the House of Lords and not one in this House? It is a most important subject, and surely we ought to have a Debate?

BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION (APPOINTMENTS)
The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): As the House will be aware, it has been my intention, since the resignation of the late members of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, to appoint a Chairman who could devote his whole time to that important office.
I am now able to tell the House that I have invited Viscount Knollys, K.C.M.G., M.B.E., D.F.C., the present Governor of Bermuda, to be Chairman of the Corporation, and that he has accepted. In order to take up this appointment, he has tendered his resignation as Governor, which resignation His Majesty has been graciously pleased to accept. Lord Knollys, who has agreed to sever his business connections, will start his new duties at an early date. His appointment will be for a period of four years.
I am also appointing as members of the Corporation Miss Pauline Gower, M.B.E., Commandant of the Women's Air Transport Auxiliary, and Air-Commodore Critchley, C.M.G., D.S.O. After consulting Lord Knollys, the Corporation have selected Air-Commodore Critchley for the post of Chief Executive. Air-Commodore Critchley, who will now cease to be employed on the active list, will take up his new duties immediately. He will, of course, devote his full time to the service of the Corporation, to the exclusion of other business activities.
Sir Harold Howitt, who has discharged the duties of temporary Chairman with conspicuous zeal and ability, has accepted my invitation to become Deputy Chairman, in which capacity his knowledge of public and business affairs will, I am glad to say, continue to be available.
Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Has the new Director-General any qualifications whatsoever for that post; and has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries from the Army and other bodies in which that gentleman has been active in past times as to the reputation he bears and as to his suitability for a post of this sort?
Sir A. Sinclair: I have known Air-Commodore Critchley since he was adjutant of that famous regiment, Strathcona's Horse, in the Canadian Cavalry Brigade in the last war. I have the utmost confidence in his loyalty, energy, and zeal in the discharge of his duties.
Mr. Lawson: Has he any commercial experience?
Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will he sever his association with dog racing?
Sir A. Sinclair: He will sever all his business connections and devote himself to this task.
Mr. Shinwell: What are the qualifications of Lord Knollys?
Sir A. Sinclair: He has great qualifications, as being very experienced in the conduct of large business affairs and in important administration.
Mr. Pickthorn: Was it the necessity for this announcement that made the Government so anxious to put off as long as possible any Debate on civil aviation?
Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. I have explained to the House why it was not possible to have an early Debate on civil aviation. It has nothing whatever to do with the announcement of the new members of the Board.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: Is it not true that Air-Commodore Critchley's plan for initial training and his carrying-out of it have been most brilliantly done, and have been of the greatest possible assistance in maintaining the flow of trained personnel for the Air Force?
Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. Air-Commodore Critchley has done quite magnificent work in command of initial training for the Royal Air Force.
Several Hon. Members rose
Mr. Speaker: This is not the moment for debating this subject.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance, Sir, on one point? Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the gentlemen and lady referred to, have we the right to exercise our discretion as to the decision by the Executive in the appointment of these persons? Have we any power in the matter?
Mr. Speaker: Certainly. There is that right, but it can hardly be done by question and answer. There are other methods.
Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that the Dominions must play a great part in post-war civil aviation in the British Empire, is it not the intention to invite representatives with air experience in the Dominions to sit on that Board, to plan the whole post-war future of civil aviation?
Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. I dealt with that fully in a Debate on the Adjournment, which was raised by the hon. Gentleman himself.
Major Petherick: As a large number of Members obviously do not know anything about Lord Knollys, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some information about his record?
Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. Full information will be published.
Mr. Hopkinson: To include Air-Commodore Critchley?
Sir A. Sinclair: Information will be published about all the people whose names I have mentioned.
Mr. Shinwell: Can we have a White Paper on it?
Mr. G. Griffiths: And will it say how many times Air-Commodore Critchley attended this House when he was a Member of it?

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE
Eighth Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. go.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm Agreements between the Taf Fechan Water Supply Board and the Magor and Saint Mellons Rural District Council respectively and the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Cardiff and to enact consequential provisions; to provide for the vesting in the said Lord Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of the undertaking of the Company of Proprietors of the Glamorganshire Canal Navigation, the dissolution of that Company and the closing of their Navigation;

1247
to empower the said Lord Mayor Aldermen and Citizens to acquire certain lands; and for other purposes." [Cardiff Corporation Bill [Lords.]

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PENSIONS AND DETERMINATION OF NEEDS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. Will you indicate to the House, Sir, whether any of the Amendments on the Paper will be taken?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is my intention to call the Amendment—not right at the beginning, but in about two hours' time—in the name of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards).
  Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that all the Amendments are similar, might I point out that the first Amendment is in the names of myself, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan), and my hon. Friend
  1262
  the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood)? However, in view of the importance of the other Amendment, I am quite agreeable to that being called.
  Mr. Speaker: The Chair is not guided, when selecting Amendments, by the order in which they are put down.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  As the House is aware, this is a Bill to effect improvements in the system of pensions law. Two of the improvements are of a comparatively minor character, but considerable attention has been drawn to them and to the issues underlying them, and some feeling has been shown about them—the treatment of capital assets on the one hand and the question of widows with children on the other. There is one improvement in the Bill which is of more importance, for it carries the break-up of the Poor Law one stage further, by applying the principles of the Determination of Needs Act to public assistance. I would like to make it clear at once that this does not alter the general Poor Law. We could not do that without raising the whole question of the Poor Law. But it is a move in the direction of applying the code for supplementary pensions and unemployment assistance to local public assistance.
  The primary object of the Bill is to make these improvements in relation to pensions. I need not spend time in relating, except very briefly, the history which has led up to the production of this Bill. The House will recall that on 17th June last, as the result of a Motion which was accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Government, the first step was taken, and there was an examination of the rates of supplementary pension and unemployment assistance. It was then my duty to bring to the House draft Regulations providing for an increase of 2S. 6d. a week in respect of every adult and is. in respect of every child whose needs are taken into account. In winding up the Debate on those Regulations, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service said there were other matters for further examination, and it is with those that we are dealing in this Bill to-day. As was made quite clear in last year's Debate, the Government's examination of these

  1263
  problems is independent of the comprehensive proposals of the. Beveridge plan. This Bill is designed merely to effect some improvements of detail in the present system, without prejudicing consideration of the new system of benefits and assistance recommended by Sir William Beveridge.
  I may say one thing departmentally. There seems to be a feeling in some quarters that there is delay in working out a comprehensive plan. I can assure the House that that is certainly not so from my experience. The House will know, that in regard to the wider plan, a great many issues do fall within the scope of the Health Departments and necessarily come to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. I would venture to say that, apart from the ordinary routine work of my Department, it would be an underestimate to say that 60 per cent. of our work now is concerned with the working-out of that wider plan. I hope I have made it clear, if there are assumptions in any quarter that there is delay in looking at the wider picture, that those assumptions are not well-founded.
  The Government have now completed their examination of the smaller points, and they have decided to propose that widow pensioners under 60 shall be eligible for supplementary pensions if they have children in respect of whom an allowance is being paid. But after the Bill and the Financial Resolution had been placed on the Order Paper, our attention was called to the fact that it might cause this situation—that if and when a widow with children who was receiving a supplementary pension from the Assistance Board arrived at a date at which her children passed out of the category in which allowances were paid on their behalf, she would then have to go back to public assistance. We looked into the point, and we have amended the Financial Resolution accordingly, and it is the intention of the Government to propose an Amendment in Committee which will secure that the widow in receipt of a supplementary pension by virtue of the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill, will not cease to be eligible for such a pension by reason of the fact that she ceases to be entitled to an additional allowance in respect of a child.
  Mr. Silverman(Nelson and Colne): Why had not that been thought of before?
  Mr. Brown: Because these things are much more complicated than those who have not had to draft the Bill may understand. I reply to that point, because it is important for the House to see that this comparatively small Bill touches at least five codes of law, and the Minister who has to handle the drafting of any alteration or improvement in these various codes of law deserves the sympathy of all concerned for this reason—that he can scarcely make one alteration, without bringing to light the need for some other alteration. I have made it clear that the Government intend to propose an Amendment on this point.
  It is also proposed to make two adjustments in the rules relating to the treatment of capital assets which apply to supplementary pensions to unemployment assistance and to financial assistance to the blind. The present rule is that the Assistance Board, or the local authority, takes into account in full any capital (other than "war savings," which are dealt with separately) in excess of Loci and treats a smaller amount as equivalent to an income of is. a week for every complete £25 after the first £25. In the Bill it is proposed to increase this figure of £300 to £400 and at the same time to reduce from 1s. to 6d. the amount which is to be taken into account as a weekly income for each complete £25 after the first £25.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Before the Minister passes from that point, would he explain why 6d. has now been chosen? It represents more than 5 per cent., and no one can get 5 per cent. nowadays. It is much more than 5 per cent.
  Mr. Brown: The answer is that we have discussed the basis concerned, and have come to the conclusion that this is the best improvement that could be made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It works out in this way. If the capital is anywhere from £200 to £224 195. 11d., it is to be treated as producing a weekly income of 3s. 6d. instead of vs., and the allowance or supplementary pension will be increased accordingly. It is deemed to produce that—
  Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman says that 6d. on the amount he has mentioned would produce an income of 3s. 6d. But it would not produce anything of the kind. There is no place now where

  1265
  funds can be invested at 5 per cent., or whatever would be necessary to produce such a weekly income.
  Major Procter: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what investment there is in the whole country which would produce that?
  Mr. Brown: These questions of course beg the issue. I am rather surprised at them, because I thought the House would regard this as a very generous concession, having regard to the point of principle.
  Mr. A. Bevan: Is not the real answer that the is. was irrational and that the Government have reduced it to 6d., and therefore there is now only half the irrationality?
  Mr. Brown: I should say that at the time Parliament agreed to the first figure it was thought that the is. was reasonable and that in the light of further discussion it is now thought that the proposed new figure is reasonable. This new provision will affect about 125,000 pensioners with capital of £50 or more.
  There is another change which affects supplementary pensions only, and that is in relation to superannuation payments. The present rule is that the first 7s, 6d. a week of any such payment is disregarded in assessing resources. It is now proposed that the total amount to be disregarded shall be 10s. 6d. a week, which is the same. as for sickness and disability benefits under the National Health Insurance Acts, whether the pensioner's resources include one or more than one superannuation payment. This will affect nearly 40,000 cases in which more than 7s. 6d. a week is now being received.
  Two small changes are proposed in relation to non-contributory old age pensions. The first provides that financial assistance granted by a local authority to a blind person shall not be calculated as part of his means for pension purposes. This assistance will, thus, be like the supplementary pension in the sense that it will be given so as to bring up the pension to what is required to meet the needs of the blind person and his dependants and an increase in the assistance will not result in a reduction in the pension. This, as hon. Members will appreciate, will avoid a source of irritation to local authorities and to blind persons, which, although recently partially met by administrative means, still exists to some extent. We are taking steps here to regularise the position.
  1266
  The other small change provides for reciprocity with the Isle of Man, so that persons born in that island and living in Great Britain will be able to obtain pensions under conditions similar to those which apply to persons born in Great Britain and living in the Isle of Man. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] I could not say without notice.
  Another matter to which the Government have been giving attention is what is known as the household means test. The Determination of Needs Act, 1941, abolished this test as applied to supplementary pensions and unemployment assistance, but left it in force as regards outdoor relief under the Poor Law, and left it to the local authority to apply it or not as they think fit to financial assistance to the blind. It is now proposed to clear up these differences in the household test by applying the rules in the Determination of Needs Act both to the Poor Law and to the Blind Persons Acts.
  May I now look at the Clauses of the Bill in some detail to explain, as simply as I can, what they do?
  Mr. Silverman: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the effect of this Bill would be to apply to the Poor Law the kind of conditions and disregards and application of household needs test as applies to the Pensions Board?
  Mr. Brown: I did not say that at all. Those who are familiar with the Poor Law know that the Poor Law has never been on the household needs test as such; it has been on the family test. I explained at the beginning that it was not possible in this Bill to touch the whole Poor Law structure. (An HON. MEMBER: "That remains the same") That does not remain the same. It is entirely different, for this reason. The old complaint against the household means test used to be that it led to the break-up of families, but as to this alteration, I suspect that the complaint will be the other way. Normally, there will still be an obligation on those not in the household, but what we are doing is to remove the household test as it is removed from unemployment assistance, on the one hand, and Supplementary Pensions, on the other, from public assistance. It is that which was put to us by the bodies who made powerful representations to us. It was that for which they asked, and that is being done by the Bill.
  Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not a fact that the married man outside the home that is going to receive public assistance will still be liable and under an obligation to help to maintain?
  Mr. Brown: I made that perfectly plain both in the first statement and in the second.
  Now let me come to the detailed points. With regard to Clause I, Sub-section (1) raises from £300 to £400 the maximum value of the money and investments to be treated as capital and carries out the change I indicated earlier in my speech. It applies to unemployment assistance, supplementary pensions and to financial assistance to the blind. Sub-section (2) does two things. It raises the amount of the superannuation payment to be disregarded from 75. 6d. to 10s. 6d. a week, and it also provides that, where the resources of the applicant include more than one superannuation payment, the amount disregarded shall be los. 6d. Subsection (3) provides that draft regulations for amending the Regulations as regards unemployment assistance and supplementary pensions in accordance with the changes that are made in this Clause are to be made within a month of the passing of the Act and to be submitted to Parliament for approval as soon as may be after they are made. Sub-section (4) gives the Assistance Board three months in which to review existing cases. It may be remembered that Section 4 of the Determination of Needs Act gave them two months for this purpose. Members may ask why the longer period? The longer period is necessitated by the greater stringency of man-power.
  In regard to Clause 2, Sub-section (1) provides for the abolition of what is called the household means test in the granting of outdoor relief through the Poor Law and the provision of financial assistance for blind persons, and makes the rules contained in the First Schedule to the Determination of Needs Act, 1941, applicable to members of households who are applicants for such relief or assistance. The effect of these rules is as follows: First, the resources of the members of the household, other than the applicant, the husband or wife, and any dependent member, are not to be regarded as resources of the applicant. Second, where the applicant is the householder or the husband or wife, the resources of the
  1268
  applicant will normally be deemed to include a small contribution, net exceeding 7s. a week, towards the expenses of the household from any dependent member. Three—first, if the householder is the father, mother, son or daughter of the applicant and has a substantial income, £6 a week or more according to circumstances, and there are no members of the household dependent on the applicant, the needs of the applicant normally will not be deemed to include the need of making contributions towards the cost of his board and lodging or other expenses of the household; secondly, in other cases where the applicant is not the householder, the applicant's needs will normally be deemed to include the need of making a reasonable contribution by way of rent. Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, provides that an Order for the maintenance of a poor person who has attained the age of 16 may not be made against a member of the same household other than the husband or wife of the poor person.
  One or two comments on Clause 3 may help the House.
  Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the proviso to Clause 2?
  Mr. Brown: A little later. Sub-section (1) of Clause 3 makes widows with contributory pensions which include allowances for children, eligible, irrespective of age, for supplementary pensions. Sub-section (2) and the First Schedule makes the necessary changes in the Poor Law consequent on the inclusion of a new class of persons among those who are eligible for supplementary pensions. These changes, which are similar to those made in respect of existing classes of eligible persons, are shortly these. Outdoor relief except relief in respect of medical needs and relief in cases of sudden or urgent necessity is not to be granted to persons who are eligible for supplementary pensions except before the date on which the basic pension was received. Second, if outdoor relief, not in respect of medical needs, is given during the period of waiting for a basic pension or in respect of sudden or urgent necessity, the cost is to be repaid by the 'Assistance Board. Sub-section (3) enables the Assistance Board to make payments in respect of past periods in certain cases. This is important, for eligibility for supplementary pension

  1269
  depends upon "being entitled to receive weekly payments." This state of affairs does not exist until the basic pension is actually awarded, which may be later than the date from which the pension began to accrue. The Assistance Board have no power to meet need retrospectively, and as long as they were dealing in the main with old age pensioners, it has been possible to deal with the situation administratively. A person knows when he or she is going to become 60, 65 or 70 and can apply for a pension in advance so that, as Members know, in the great majority of cases it is actually awarded as soon as it begins to accrue. Failure to do so is generally the pensioner's own lack of application. But a widow is not in this position. There is commonly a delay of about six weeks between the husband's death, when the pension begins to accrue, and the award of the pension. The Government think that the Assistance Board must be given power to deal with that need retrospectively during this period, when the widow may have been running into debt or using savings that would otherwise be disregarded or treated as capital. If this is done for widows it would not be practicable to withhold it from old age pensioners where, owing to exceptional conditions the decision on an application for pension is delayed. So the Government have decided to give the Board power to do this.
  I do not need say anything special about the Isle of Man. Subsection (2) of Clause 4 provides for reciprocity in noncontributory old age pensions, which is in the nature of a debt of honour to the Isle of Man who are now paying pensioners from Great Britain in Man without any quid pro quo, on the understanding that the matte)' will be dealt with at the first opportunity.
  Clause 5 deals with expenditure out of moneys provided by Parliament. The Clause authorises the meeting of expenditure resulting from the Bill from moneys provided by Parliament. Clause 6 defines the appointed day. Clause 7 is the application to Scotland, and Clause 8 is the short title and extent.
  I would like to say one general word.
  Mr. Shinwell: What about the proviso to Clause 2?
  Mr. Bevan: There is one important thing on page 3. The right hon. Gentle-
  1270
  man has told the House that under this Bill the determination of needs proviso can be applied to applicants for outdoor relief. How on earth is that the case, when in the proviso to Clause 2 the obligation still remains upon the Poor Law authority to act in accordance with the procedure of the Poor Law Acts?
  Mr. Brown: That, of course, covers the point which has already been made clear three times [HON. MEMBERS:No."] I think so; if not, if hon. Members, having put the Question, will let me inquire, an answer will be given before the Debate ends. As I understand it, this is the legal way of indicating that we are dealing solely with the household test, already abolished for certain purposes by the Determination of Needs Act, and that the Clause will not affect the fundamental structure of the Poor Law.
  Mr. Bevan: Every Poor Law authority in the country will be confused by the situation. The Minister has told us that under this Bill the same procedure as is applied to applicants for outdoor relief is now to be applied under the determination of need. If local authorities act in accordance with this instruction, they will be breaking the law and will be subject to a surcharge, because the proviso takes back the power the Clause gives. The Minister is confusing the House and the Poor Law authorities.
  Mr. Brown: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I have stated accurately the position, and I have already promised to give an answer before the Debate ends. I do not think that after the care which has been given to the drafting of this Bill my statement will be found to be inaccurate. I have just ascertained that what I have said is quite right. What happens now is that under the family test in many cases discretion is used and in many cases it is not in fact applied.
  Mr. Silverman: We really must get this clear. I am not clear, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is clear either. At present the Act demands that a Poor Law authority which grants relief shall collect it back from certain classes of persons. The Minister said that this Bill does not alter that. Clause 2 purports to alter it or to make certain distinctions in respect of it. The proviso preserves the existing law, and, therefore, it is im-

  1271
  possible for the Poor Law authorities to act under Clause 2 without a breach of their present obligations under the Poor Law Act.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Member has put his point of view, but I still maintain that my statement is accurate. It will be completely cleared up before the Debate ends, but I think it is one of those trails which are so often started and which are not accurate.
  Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman started it.
  Mr. Brown: No, I did not. As I said at the beginning, this Bill contains proposals to amend five different codes of legislation—
  Mr. Maxton: Six.
  Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to put it accurately.
  Mr. Buchanan: Whoever heard of the right hon. Gentleman being accurate?
  Mr. Brown: The answer to that is to be found in the record of the many thousands of statements I have made in the course of Debates and the number of challenges which have been made afterwards. That is the answer to that [Laughter]. Now we are all enjoying ourselves. I will go back to the point I was making before I had the assistance of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). The Bill contains proposals to amend five different codes of legislation, dealing with the Poor Law, blind persons, non-contributory old age pensions, supplementary pensions, and unemployment assistance, and it refers to a sixth code, namely, contributory pensions. Thus the assistance of the hon. Member was quite unnecessary, and my accuracy is now, I think, unimpugned. I will only add that the present Bill continues the process of breaking up the Poor Law by adding another class of persons to those whose needs are to be dealt with by the State, namely, those referred to in Clause 3. As "The Times" rightly points out to-day, Clause 2 also is an important reform of the Poor Law, for in future the principles governing the treatment of households by the Poor Law authority will be similar to those which Parliament, the year before last, laid down for observance by the Assistance Board.
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood: The question which is before the House to-day is one in which my hon. Friends have taken a very deep interest for a very long time. I am not saying that my hon. Friends and I are alone in the House in wishing to help those who have fallen by the wayside, but we are dealing now with a relatively narrow problem arising out of a pledge which my right hon. Friend gave to me last July, after we had specifically asked for some reconsideration of the question of savings and of widows. If I remember rightly, in the two Debates which were inaugurated by my right hon. Friend this question of dealing with old age pensioners on a much more generous scale ran through them both. That was particularly so in the Debate in July when the Regulations were under consideration. Those Regulations did improve the situation of aged people, widows and the like, rind my right hon. Friend, on the narrow points, undertook to deal with this matter. I must say that my right hon. Friend has fulfilled the pledge given to me; I do not think he has fulfilled it with all the generosity I should have liked, but he has, in fact, done so. There is one further improvement which has been made by the alteration of the Financial Resolution and the subsequent Amendment of the Bill which will deal with a point which will affect all my hon. Friends on this side of the House, namely, the quite impossible cat-and-mouse situation of a widow being one day on A.B. scales and then, because her child dies or she ceases to receive children's allowance, has to go back to the Poor Law. That is one concession which my right hon. Friend has agreed to to-day.
  But there remains the question of old age pensioners. I believe myself that the time is long overdue for an increase in the basic rate for old age pensioners. That is the view shared on all sides of the House, because on the Order Paper the Amendments to the Second Reading of this Bill, coming from various quarters, including all parties, stress the importance of an improvement in the basic rate of pension. With that object I am in full agreement. I do, however, appreciate that in the circumstances of war-time and in the many difficult considerations which will arise, to expect that to be done in a complete way is to expect too much. On the other hand, that is no justification for

  1273
  not giving to the aged more generous treatment in order to enable them to live in decency and to enable the poorest of the poor to do something to meet the increased taxation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his last two Budgets, has, with that ruthlessness with which we always associate him, inflicted upon the poor. It may well be that the Government are right at this stage in saying that they cannot handle the question of the basic rate. Personally, I accept that point of view, but I do not accept the view that there can be no further improvement in supplementary pensions. Provision can be made for that in the Regulations, and I hope that the Government, between now and the publication of the White Paper containing the draft Regulations, will give very earnest consideration to this question.
  I believe myself that there is a good deal of feeling in the country on this problem—certainly there is in all quarters of the House. I hate this nibble, nibble, nibble policy of dealing with a problem of this kind. I would like, and I have said so before, to take the question of the aged off the Floor of this House until we come to discuss a permanent scheme as part of a comprehensive scheme for ensuring social security for all. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take heed of this very serious plea. Nobody can say that I am being awkward in this matter; indeed, I can feel the drips of icy water from some of my hon. Friends running down my back. I think, however, that that makes my appeal all the more forcible, in that having taken this very moderate point of view I am entitled to ask the Government to bring forward in the Regulations something that this House can accept with honour for the aged people.
  I intend the support the Second Reading of this Bill, and I would like all my hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby, although I realise that there may be a difference of opinion. I support this Bill with certain mental reservations. I appreciate that it is an improvement, and T. look forward to the Regulations being sufficiently generous to stave off any further pecking at this problem until we have dealt with it in a broad and statesmanlike way. I do not want to delay the House, but I want to make the position of some of us clear in this matter. The Regulations which will cover other
  1274
  things besides old age pensions, will, I hope, show that some regard has been paid to the feelings of those in this House whose hearts are sore at the appeals which have been made to them by the aged and widows. I hope the Regulations will show that a good job of work has been done.
  Sir Percy Harris: I wish to intervene for only a few moments, first to say that this Bill is a harmless and Departmental Measure.
  Mr. E. Brown: No, that is not so. It is a Government Bill as the result of a promise.
  Sir P. Harris: That is the point I was about to make. A promise was made in the King's Speech that a Measure dealing with old age pensions would be introduced. That promise aroused considerable interest in that it was believed that something constructive, if not revolutionary, would be forthcoming. I cannot understand anybody voting against this Bill. So far as it goes, it fills certain gaps and remedies certain weaknesses, but it is by no means the Measure which was foreshadowed in the King's Speech. Hopes were aroused in the breasts of hundreds of thousands of old age pensioners that some great improvement was going to be made in their condition. I do not say that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is the particular moment to increase the basic rate, but there is a demand among the old age pensioners that there should be some real improvement during the war-time in the payment made to them.
  Major Procter: I should like to add a word to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that many of us on this side are in complete agreement with all that has been done in this Bill, but it does not go far enough. I should like to plead for a more comprehensive scheme of social security for the old age pensioners, and, although it is war-time, to increase the basic rate of pension so as to enable them to meet the rise in the cost of living and to prevent an agitation throughout the country which in itself is a danger to democracy. A large organisation has been formed which is putting a sort of pistol to the heads of Members of Parliament, saying in effect, "If you don't do what we tell you, we will vote against you." These sectional

  1275
  demands are a danger to democracy. I deplore these organisations—they ought not to be necessary—but there is essential justice in the claims of the old age pensioners, widows and elderly spinsters for an increase in the basic rates. The time has come for the Government to meet their needs by producing at an early date a comprehensive scheme.
  Mr. Buchanan: I wish first to say a word of apology to the right hon. Gentleman, because through circumstances over which I had no control I did not hear the beginning of his speech. Some people say this is not an important Bill, but while the Bill itself may not be important, the issues raised by it are of the greatest and keenest importance. It is a mistake in democracy to think that human issues—the issues of food, clothing and shelter—are not grave issues. They are issues of which war is often the result, nations as well as individuals trying to gain the mastery over the things that they require for life. I hope we shall examine this problem from the approach of seeing if the Bill, even within its limits, cannot be made much better than it is. I am not going to say that the Government have broken their pledge, but with most pledges and most statements it is always possible to make two approaches. I have for many years been dealing with employers about wages, and when you have made an agreement there is always the question of the approach to it—how will it be interpreted, how will it be worked? It can be approached meanly or generously.
  If you take the Government pledge in its narrowest and meanest sense, they have carried it out, but taking it in its broadest sense, together with the statement in the King's Speech the pledge does not mean what the great mass of the people thought it did. To us it meant that they were going to examine the question of old age pensions and deal with it. One of my complaints is that it has never been examined. This Bill, in many ways contemptible, is not the result of examination at all. Ten months ago they gave a pledge to the Leader of our party that they would examine this issue, and they have produced this Bill, but it was never thought out. Before the ink was dry on it it was altered. It was shown that the issue of the widow was in-
  1276
  defensibly wrong and they altered it. Most Members will agree that we ought to see that the soldier injured in war and his widow and children are decently treated. The Government have brought in the childless widow, but they have left out the widow of the soldier killed in the war. Under the Bill she is to get nothing. It is true that the scales are not published, but the childless widow and the widow of 60 are chargeable to the Board, and the scale is fixed for her. It is obvious that you cannot make the scale any more generous than hers because you are not going to be any more generous to the old age pensioners.
  Taking the scale that you have fixed for the widow of 60 at 21S., after paying a rent of 6s. she is left with 15s. I defy the best calculator in the world to show that a woman can live on 15s. a week after paying her rent. Under the present scale a soldier's widow paying 10s. rent is slightly worse off than a person under the Assistance Board. A man injured in the war is granted a pension of £100. He lives for, say, two years. He had two children before he was injured, and a child is born 12 months after he receives his injury. If the widow is eligible, she will get 3s. for the third child from the Widows' Pension Fund, and she is left with three alternatives. Either she has to keep this child out of her pension that she has for having the other two, or she has to go to the Poor Law, or she must work. Whoever intended that the soldier's widow was to be worse treated than a man who happens to be injured and has a child after he is injured? Why should the child be differently treated from any other child? The Government know nothing about the Bill they have introduced. They never thought about the case of the widow until their attention was called to it. It was under pressure that they changed it, because they had never examined the problem.
  Take the widow with an industrial record who works, but is not eligible for a pension. The number of widows who are ineligible for the widows' pension is amazing. Through some technical fault —perhaps the man has neglected to become a voluntary contributor—she is disqualified. Sometimes a man has neglected, because he was on a means test, to sign on the exchange and got passed out. Sometimes rather than draw relief here he went to the Colonies to search for

  1277
  work. Because he was adventurous and left his wife she has no pension. Why should she not be brought in? A widow with an industrial record who has one or two children will come back on to the Board through her industrial record of unemployment assistance, but the minute her industrial record finishes she goes back with her children to the Poor Law. The soldier's widow ought to be on the same basis as any other widow if she needs it. It must not be forgotten that the Assistance Board do not pay out money for fun. Anybody who has tried to get money from them has seen how difficult it is. Why should a soldier's widow in need be deprived of the right to come under the Government supplementary scheme like anybody else? I do not think the Government have studied her case and nobody who knows about her will stand for this treatment.
  I want to say a word about the Poor Law issue. I am not qualified to argue the legal merits of the Poor Law business. Sons who are inside the house are told that they will be relieved to the extent of a determination of needs test. But what about the sons who are not in the house? There is no relief to them. It may be argued by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that the system of going after sons and daughters outside the house has fallen into disuse. If it has fallen into disuse, that is all the more reason why the Act of Parliament should be put right. The position now is that a son in the house, being a member of the household, gets the relief of the Determination of Needs Act, but under the Poor Law Act the son outside the house, not being a member of the household, does not get any relief at all. I make the frank admission that Glasgow, in dealing with these poor people, has an honourable record in recent years, but even Glasgow when dealing with people in institutions chase after certain of the relatives who they think can afford to pay. This Bill makes no attempt to deal with that situation.
  May I say a word about the issue of the old age pension itself? Some of my friends say that the basic pension cannot be increased. I think that the best way of doing it is to increase the basic pension. I cannot see any strong argument against it. The great argument hitherto used has been the man at work, but I cannot see any difficulty here. To a country that
  1278
  can do the immense things we have done in the war that is a simple problem. I would dispose of the question of the man who is at work by saying that by administrative action or by Act of Parliament the problem could be dealt with. I come back to the question of the basic pension. The argument that used to be made against an increase without a test was that we did not want to give additional sums to people who already had fair sums of money. To some extent the argument is still going in that direction. Under the law a married couple can have £99 war savings each and not 1d. is touched. That does not end it, however, for they can possess an additional amount of £399 each and yet draw 7s. 6d. They can actually possess £200, and then you say to the poor old pensioner who has merely got a boy or a girl working, or perhaps two children working, "We must not touch your basic scale. We might make you too rich or too comfortable."
  Returning to the question of the widow, the woman of 60 for some unknown reason gets 1s. less than the man of 65, who gets 22S. That is the basic scale on a 6s. rent. I cannot understand the way the Government work about with shillings. Can you imagine any of us running a business and treating the woman of 60 differently from a man of 65 to the extent of 1s.? Only the Treasury mind could do that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or the Poor Law mind."] I do not believe it. The Poor Law in Glasgow would be insulted if it was suggested they had a mind like that. I do not believe they would make such a difference. Take 22S. as the scale. That is what it will be when we have passed this Bill. I have been long enough in Parliament to know that 22S. will be the standard for years to come. Once this Bill goes through that standard will be fixed and nothing can alter it. I see a Parliamentary Private Secretary laughing—
  Mr. Woodburn: I am asking my hon. Friend if he would bet on that.
  Mr. Buchanan: If the hon. Gentleman comes here with a superior knowledge of these things, perhaps he can tell us.
  Mr. Woodburn: My hon. Friend said he was certain that there would be no increase of the 22s. I am merely asking if he is prepared to bet on it.
  Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member is laughing about it. He may have a better reputation than me for being a first-class revolutionary, and this is an opportunity for him to show his revolutionary ideas.
  Mr. Woodburn: Surely the hon. Gentleman has not lost his sense of humour.
  Mr. Buchanan: I will learn it from the hon. Gentleman. He is a first-class comedian. My experience tells me that if the Government intended to give an increase they would, having given ten months' consideration to this question, have done it now. Is there anybody who knows any reason for saying that if they intended to give an increase after ten months' examination of the facts, they would not have done it now? What new facts will emerge next month or in the next six months? All that will emerge is that the old age pensioner will still have 22S. as he is getting now.
  Mr. Shinwell: Ask the Minister if he intends to do it.
  Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Gentleman who is Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Cabinet Minister said he would like to bet that I am wrong. He has access to information and to the minds of the Cabinet Ministers. Can the Minister of Health assure us that the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) is right and that the old age pensioners will get something extra? May I ask the Under-Secretary for Scotland? He is closely associated with the hon. Member for East Stirling; he sits in the same locality and travels North in the same train. Can he give us the source of his inside information and let us know when an increase is coming? I am not apparently being taken seriously. This is too tragic a matter to be taken lightly. I am told now that we must wait for the Regulations. When the Regulations come I shall be told not to vote against them because if I do the Regulations will be defeated and the widow will get nothing at all. Then somebody else will say, "Wait until the next time," and each time I wait the old age pensioner, who cannot afford to wait, is waiting on.
  The old age pensioners cannot maintain decency on the present scale. We can talk about it as much as we like, but that is the actual position. It is an impossibility for a human soul to be maintained on the present scales. The great
  1280
  trade union movement would never have tolerated for the wage earners the treatment that is meted out to old age pensioners.Recently the arbitration tribunal dealing with engineering wages took the view that there was a great deal to be said for those who were least paid getting the greatest increase. If ever a principle ought to be applied, it is that principle in this case. In this petty Bill the only increases granted are increases to people who have something already. To the poorest people, to those in direst need, the people who ask and require comfort and succour, nothing is granted. The House of Commons is a great Assembly. One of its greatnesses is that from time to time it asserts itself even against the Government of the day. I have rarely seen the House of Commons in a better light than one night when we were discussing allowances to the unemployed. For once the House was roused over a domestic issue, it was packed, and it asserted itself, and the Government of the day had to withdraw its proposals. The issue that roused the House then is the same issue that is before us to-day, the issue of poverty, the issue of men and women not having enough to live on. I say honestly that, argue it as you may, use figures as you may, the standard rate for the old age pensioner is fixed at a level which gives no man or woman, however careful, however shrewd, the decencies of home life. The House has a paramount duty in these days to see that no citizen of this country of ours, no matter how humble, shall be in want or destitution. Our first step is to see that these old folk are raised to a level above the pauper and the destitution stage.
  Major Lloyd: No hon. Member can have listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) without having been deeply impressed not only by its eloquence and passion but by the depth of the sincerity of his remarks. I agree with a very great proportion of all that he said. Both of us come from the Glasgow area and know well the pitiable condition of many old age pensioners, and that pitiable condition has existed far too long, and I cannot believe that such things are confined to Glasgow. They must be apparent in many other great industrial cities, and not only in the cities but in other parts as well. I agree wholeheartedly with the

  1281
  hon. Member's criticism that this Bill does not go anything like far enough. Those of us who feel' strongly on this subject certainly had our expectations aroused by the references in the King's Speech to this subject, and the great mass of the people also sincerely believed that something would be done on a more generous scale in the comparatively near future. I cannot oppose the Bill in so far as it goes, but it goes only such a little way. It is impossible to oppose it, but I want to be placed on record as sharing the sentiment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals that it is a bitter disappointment that we have not been able to get more from the Government.
  I agree with what has been said about a very large number of widows who are not really covered by this Bill. Many cases have been brought to my notice concerning not only the widows of civilians who apparently will receive no benefits under the Bill, for, as the hon. Member for Gorbals has so rightly said, a very large number of the widows of soldiers who are badly off will receive no benefits. It is a scandalous thing that the wives, widows and dependants of those who have served us so magnificently in this war are not receiving anything like justice from the country and from the Exchequer. Many instances are constantly brought to the attention of hon. Members and we can get no satisfaction, though we write letter after letter. It renders us impotent to serve the interests of the widows and dependants of soldiers who in many cases are suffering very seriously indeed as a result of their husbands having fought and died for their country. It seems that it is impossible to put any heart, sympathy or understanding into the minds of the Treasury and the bureaucracy who run us to-day. When will they begin to wake up and listen to the voice of Parliament? For many months this has been one of the most burning questions in the hearts of all of us. The Government know that. The Government know that we are desperately keen, and yet we are fobbed off again and again by bits of regulations, hopelessly involved and most difficult to understand.
  All these additions and subtractions which are the major contents of this Bill could have been avoided if the Government had come out with a Bill definitely adding to the basic rate of the present pension. There are far too many involved
  1282
  calculations to be made by those who will have the responsibility of administering this Bill, and I could wish the Government had taken their courage in both hands and given us something definite in the way of an increase on the basic pension. I deplore the fact that there is nothing whatever in this Bill to hold out the slightest hope that the elderly spinster is to have a fairer deal from the State. Many elderly spinsters are in a most unhappy condition, and if only we could have done something for them in addition to what we are, trying to do for widows in this small way, this pitiably small way, it would have been a great and generous concession which would have been appreciated enormously by many hundreds of thousands of elderly spinsters who are almost in penury.
  Mr. Spearman: I was very glad to hear the generous admission from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) that hon. Members in all parts of the House have the welfare of old age pensioners at heart. We are all equally anxious for their welfare, although we may disagree as to the extent of what it is practicable to do for them. The question of the raising of the standard rates of pensions has been brought forward, and I think all of us have had cards from the organisation sponsoring it, asking that the rate shall be raised to 30s. I would like to remind hon. Members that money is, after all, only a convenient method of obtaining goods so as to avoid the cumbrous method of barter. It is no good people having twice as much money unless there are twice as many goods to buy, and it is no good having more money if the prices of things are to be higher. Therefore it is clear that it is not a question only of providing more money but of providing more goods, and so far as I am aware that can be done in only one of three ways. The first is to divert them from war purposes, which would be quite unthinkable to all of us. The second would be by producing more, and that is impracticable because at the moment we are all fully employed in this country, and it technical improvements could enable us to have a greater output then the goods should go towards the war effort. The third way, of course, is by a diversion of goods from the better-off to those who need them most. If anyone has carefully examined the White Paper on

  1283
  national income he will clearly see the bulk of further taxation must fall on those with an income of less than £1,000 a year.
  The Chancellor told us last year that to raise the rate of old age pensions to 30s. a week would cost £168,00,000, and so that any substantial addition to expenditure must fall upon people with incomes of £3, £4 or £5 per week, because if he took everything from the rich, from those who pay super-tax, he would get only enough to pay these higher rates for a few weeks. Therefore the brunt of the burden would have to fall on those with small incomes, and I say it would not be right to impose this further burden upon them at this time, save to deal with the cases of old age pensioners who are in urgent need; and we know that some considerable proportion of old age pensioners are still at work and that others have additional means, which shows that not all cases can be urgent. We were also told last year that even raising the pension to 30s. would still not put out of need all those concerned.
  I have great confidence that after the war we can go a long way in social reform, but all that can be done at the present time is to see that those who specially need help get it, and to see that the machinery is in good condition.
  I support the Bill because it improves the machinery. I am thinking particularly of the alteration in regard to applicants for supplementary pension, but I regret that there have not been other improvements; I should hike to bring three proposals to the notice of my right hon. Friend. A man of 70, with a capital of £865 gets his pension in full, but if the man has £1,102, he gets nothing at all. If the money is invested in Government stock, the old age pensioner with £865 receives an income of £52 a year, whereas the one with £1,100 does not get a pension and so gets only £33 a year. The pensioner with an income of £65 gets his pension in full, but for every £2.12s 6d. in excess of that sum he loses Is. a week. There could be no complaint about that if that figure were the income which the man actually received, but it is not. It is the income which the Minister thinks he ought to receive, and this is how the Minister bases it: He takes the first £25 of the man's capital free; he assumes a rate of interest of 5 per cent. on £375,
  1284
  and he assumes a rate of interest of 10 per cent. upon the remainder. It is very difficult to see how any man can get to per cent. or even 5 per cent. in these days, but we must remember that the plan was devised in 1919 when the Bank Rate stood at 6 per cent. It now stands at 2 per cent. It was possible to invest in Government stock to yield 6 per cent. in those days. Now only 3 per cent. can be obtained. It is surely not being too precipitous now to ask the Minister to put right this anachronism of 1919 and which he has put right in regard to the qualification for supplementary pensions.
  I have examined these figures as carefully as I can, and I think the position in 1919 was something like this: An old age pensioner was assumed to have invested the first £375 in a Government stock to yield 5 per cent. and as to the remainder of his capital half in a Government stock to yield 5 per cent., half in an annuity to yield 15 per cent., making an average of 10 per cent., these returns could be obtained in those days. If you take the current rate of 3 per cent. yield on Government stocks and 12 per cent. as the annuity rate, and bring the position of the non-contributory pensioner up to date as has been done with regard to supplementary pensions, then you raise the capital which would be disregarded to £1,102. A man with that amount would get the pension in full; he would get a pension proportionately less unless his capital exceeded £1,400. I find that few constituents' cases are more hard to answer than that of the man who comes and says that he has worked hard all his life and has saved all he could, and yet, in spite of his accumulated savings, he is worse off than the man next door who has lived an idle life and spent all he could get. I have suggested reforms to the Minister in keeping with what has been done in the past. If the Minister has anything more appropriate, so much the better.
  The second anachronism I would ask him to consider concerns the deduction of the £39 income which is allowed from any means other than earnings. Why should a man who, for example, receives a pension from a former employer be able to deduct that sum and get his pension in full while a man who goes out and does a job of work is not entitled to a pension? I suppose again that that was devised in

  1285
  the days when we thought it preferable to try to keep old people out of industry as much as possible in order to make way for the younger ones. I hope it is becoming generally recognised that the more hands there are at the wheel the greater will be the national wealth. I hope that this anomaly will be removed.
  Finally, I should like the Minister to consider the question of anniuities. He is assuming that non-contributory pensioners and supplementary pensioners will invest part of their capital in an annuity, which they would have to do in order to get the income to which the Minister referred. If that is so, ought not the State to see that the pensioners get that annuity upon favourable terms? At the present time a man aged 70 only gets an annuity of £11 10s. The women's figures are rather different, because they have a way of living longer than us, which make them less desirable as annuitants. The rate is based upon the assumption that annuitants live longer than other people because only those who expect to live a long time apply for an annuity. If you take the general mortality rate, then the rate for an annuity would be just under 14 per cent. Take the case of a supplementary pensioner who has £401 and has invested it in an annuity which gives him an income of £56 a year. If he invested in the annuity now available, the same money would bring him only £46. The difference of £10 represents a supplementary pension of 4s. a week. I would like to see the Government giving an opportunity to buy an annuity of a fixed amount, say not to exceed £400, to people with a capital not exceeding perhaps £1,400, on a more generous basis than 14 per cent. but I suggest that the Government could approach that figure without any loss at all. The alterations I have tried to put forward would cost the country comparatively little, and would certainly cost far less than if the old age pensioner had not earned and saved. It would cost far less than the increase in the national wealth which will result from encouraging people to work and save by giving them a good incentive.
  In times of peace, when the resources of the country are not fully occupied— and they never have been in times of peace during this century—I go a long way towards agreeing that financial considerations should not interfere with what is economically possible. I believe that a
  1286
  wise and expansionist policy would be able to initiate desirable social reforms, but I urge upon hon. Members that what might be done in the open economy of peace is entirely different from what could be done in the closed economy of wartime. In these days, our two anxieties must be to relieve acute need and to concentrate everything we can upon winning the war at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to gives a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to make provision for an increase in the income of old age pensioners and ignores the needs of childless widows under 60 years and elderly spinsters."
  This is one of a series of Debates to which I have listened on this topic, and I have never known the Minister of Health so reticent, so quiet and so lame in the presentation of a Bill as he has been to-day. We missed his brass-band tactics. He generally has employed the tactic of the political dive-bomber, and has endeavoured to terrify us with the vehemence of his address, but to-day he was quite a different man. One wonders whether such a miserable Bill as this one has at last touched his conscience. It is surprising that in every speech made, apart from that by the right hon. Gentleman himself, there has been no warmhearted approval for the Bill. Everyone who has spoken has complained about its inadequacy and has talked about the things it fails to do. I want to indicate some of the failings of the Bill, in so far as it fails to meet the needs of the vast majority of people in this category.
  It will be well within the recollection of the House that a Debate took place in June last year opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar), who made out an extremely good case for an improvement in the income of the old age pensioners. At the end of that Debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would give consideration to the representations that were then being made, and the Government accepted the Motion that had been moved by the hon. Member for Abertillery. In July, the Government brought forward their Regulations, which embodied the result of their considerations of the Debate of June. At that time, there was an agitation in this House that four things should be done.

  1287
  The half-crown per pensioner increase should be increased to 5s.; widows under 60, and orphans, should be brought within the ambit of supplementary pensions; the method of treating superannuation payments should be amended, and, fourthly, there should be a change in the treatment of capital assets.
  Those were the four things in the mind of my hon. Friends on this side of the House when the Amendment was put on the Order Paper to the Motion which was before the House last July. It will be within the recollection of the House that the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) moved the Amendment in order to give the Government an opportunity of stating what they proposed to do in the light of those proposals. After a very hectic Debate the Minister of Labour made an announcement on behalf of the Government. He made certain pledges, and so that there should be no mistake as to what those pledges are, or what they mean, I propose to quote them. In answer to the demand that the 2s. 6d. increase should be raised to 5s.; what was the reply of the Minister of Labour? It was this:
  "I repeat that it is the intention of the (overnment to make reasonable provision for.old age pensioners."
  That is the first undertaking, the one which appeared first when he asked the House to give him time and to listen to the pronouncement he was to make on behalf of the Government. That will be found in column 636 of Hansard, 29th July, 1942. The next part of his pledge was this:
  "We shall, in any event, give further consideration to the position of pensioners, including widows under 6o who need assistance beyond their pensions."
  Not some widows, not widows with children, not widows without children—widows. That was his pledge in regard to the demand from this side of the House that all widows should be brought within the terms of supplementary pensions. Of course, it will be within the recollection of the House, that the Minister, in order to get the House with him, shed a lot of crocodile tears for the poor spinsters who had been worn out; he regarded them as the most deserving section of our community, and he gratuitously brought the spinsters within the terms of his speech
  1288
  without any request from the House. That is why this part of his statement is included within the terms of the Amendment. I may say here that the terms of the Amendment consist of the phrases of the Minister of Labour in giving the pledges from that side of the House. The third pledge he gave was this:
  "I can add the assurance that attention will again be directed to the way in which capital resources are to be calculated for the purpose of assistance. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1942; col. 636, Vol. 382.]
  The fourth assurance, given specifically in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was that the superannuation resources should be reviewed, and that all these pledges would be implemented in this Session in new legislation. It is against the background of those pledges that this Bill must be considered, for this Bill is now alleged to be the fulfilment of the pledges given in July of last year. I want to stress that point, because it is no use talking about what you are going to do with the Regulations. If it is plain that this Bill embodies all the pledges, there is no need to do anything more than is in this Bill—if it does. My contention is that it does not embody the pledges. Those were the assurances which caused the acting Leader on this side of the House to seek to withdraw his Amendment, very much against the wishes of my hon. Friends on these Benches, and it will be recollected that when my right hon. Friend got up to seek to withdraw his Amendment the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) engaged in violent controversy with the Minister of Labour. What was the allegation the hon. Member for Seaham made? It was that this House was being tricked. That was his allegation, that we were being fobbed off. I want to say that there is nothing in this Bill to refute the allegation of the hon. Member for Seaham. We were tricked; we have been fobbed off. It has taken the Government over 10 months to produce this miserable pettifogging Bill, which does not redeem their own pledges and damns the expectations which the Government themselves aroused in the hearts of over 1,000,000 old age pensioners in this country.
  To what extent does the Bill redeem the pledges? On two points I suggest that it does. As regards superannuation, I think the Bill does what was promised. We were not promised that it should be 6d.,

  1289
  3d. or 9d.; we were promised that it would receive consideration. It has been given consideration. Whether it is ample consideration is another matter. The next point was that the method by which superannuation and resources are calculated would be reconsidered, and both things are provided for in the Bill. On these two minor points, affecting an insignificant minority of pensioners, we have no complaint. The Government have done what they said they would. What else does the Bill do in relation to the pledges? The first thing it does is to introduce uniformity into public assistance, a thing not mentioned in the Debate in July. I welcome that small step; I think it is a step in the right direction. Then, with regard to widows, the Bill for the first time introduces into the ambit of supplementary pensions legislation widows with children. As an interim measure it may be the right way of doing the job, but why on so narrow a front? Really, I am at a loss to understand the reason why this small section of widows has been taken in and the vast majority left out.
  We understood that the steps that the Government would take—and I quote the Minister of Labour from memory—would be designed to fit into a permanent structure later on. What has been done is to create greater diversity and new classifications and to create greater confusion. As I see this legislation, which was going to make adequate provision for old age pensioners, it merely improves the position of 160,000 out of 1,200,000. It has given more to those who have got and denied to those who have nothing. That is the damning indictment of it. There is not a single penny to be given to the 1,000,000 old age pensioners who have no resources at all. Nothing has been done for them. What has become of the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of giving the greatest help where the greatest need is? That has been the defence of the means test, but apparently the Minister of Labour takes a new view of feeding the fatted calf and starving the worst-off. Nearly 12 months' cogitation has not produced a single penny for those old age pensioners. Let us deal with the position of the elderly spinsters. Who was it led them to expect something? Not Members on this side of the House, but a representative of the Government, speaking for the Government. The issue was not raised in any other part of the House. Might
  1290
  I ask whether the Minister gratuitously flirted with the spinsters in order to deceive them, or to deceive the House, or both?
  Even the widows have been treated in a pretty bad way. Those without children can go to the devil or the parish, or can continue to live with their pride in their silent privation, as they have done for many years. One notices that by the amendment to the Act the anomaly has been increased. A woman may be pregnant before her husband dies, and the child may be born six months 'after the husband has died. She will not get a supplementary pension while she is carrying the child, but as soon as the child is born she will get a supplementary pension. She may be living with her widowed mother who is under 60, and there will be this anomalous position, that the widowed daughter in the same house will draw supplementary pension, and the widowed mother will not be entitled to it. Surely that is the position, that is the consequence of the Bill, that you will have two widows living in the same house, mother and daughter, the mother refused a supplementary pension and the daughter given one. Then—I do not know whether it has been thought of—if the widowed mother has been dependent on the widowed daughter in the past, there is this queer situation, that the widowed daughter can draw a supplementary pension to meet the needs of her widowed mother, but the widowed mother is not entitled to it in her own right. What a silly, cruel position in which to place households in this country.
  Let me take the other position. A widow of 59 may have reared a large family. She may have spent herself in household drudgery and become old before she ought to. She will not get a supplementary pension, but the girl of 20 who may have had a baby for a month, and whose baby may have died will continue to draw supplementary pension, and the poor old woman who has made this great contribution to the life of the nation is denied it. This, in my view, is just playing with the situation. Our elderly women will ask why. This situation will be quite beyond their comprehension, and the only answer we can give is that the reason is to be found in the minds of Ministers of this Government. I regret very much that the Minister of

  1291
  Labour is not present. It was only recently that I attended a large meeting of old age pensioners and elderly people in Bristol, the place where he is revered, where he built up his reputation, and a place in which he is held in very great esteem. They thought they could now look forward to a large measure of justice. They referred to him affectionately as "Our Ernie." What will those elderly people in Bristol think of this miserable Bill? I am afraid it will do a lot to break their faith in the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour.
  I want to cite a typical case. What is the position of the old age pensioner? That is the gravamen of our case. The man and wife will get 25s., plus 8s. cost of living, plus 4s. supplementary allowance, making 37s. in all, with their contributory pension. I am assuming that they pay 6s. rent, so as to leave out the rent adjustment factor altogether. That leaves them with a net income of 31s. Their coal and light cost 4s., insurance 1s., soaps and polishes is. 6d. That leaves 24s. 6d. to keep them in food and clothing and other little personal expenses. That is to say, they have is. 9d. a day each for food, clothing and personal expenses, which is less than is given to the soldier for his personal requirements after providing him with food, clothing, and shelter. Less is given to maintain the old person than is given as what I might call pocket money to a soldier after all his requirements have been met. How is this position to be justified? The Government have come to the conclusion that an 18s. unit basis must be taken for soldier's wives, so the soldier's wife living under the same roof as two old age pensioners will get 18s. for food and clothing, and the old people will get 12s. 3d. each. An hon. Member referred to the financial difficulties and to the question of not giving people money unless the goods were on the market. The old age pensioners are not able to buy the whole of their rations now, because they have not enough money; and as for the unrationed goods, they cannot smell them. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have not mentioned the clothing coupons."] That is true. Last year when that silly business of allowing 1s. for clothes and blankets was decided upon, they found that the old age pensioners had not got the money to buy them, and they were given to friends and relatives.
  1292
  These old people, with their 1s. 9d. a day, have children and grandchildren scattered over all parts of the globe, fighting in this war. They get letters from them, and they want to reply. Two letters cost 5d., which is equivalent to the cost of a meal. As a House we have congratulated the boys who did the job in Tunisia, but I am afraid we make it impossible for many old age pensioners to write personal letter to their relatives in Tunisia, because it would mean depriving themselves of the necessities of life. I am tired of seeing old people in our villages not going to chapel because they cannot put anything in the collecting plates, of seeing old men sucking empty pipes and going down to the library to read the papers, because they cannot afford to buy one for themselves. This country has done so much to bring freedom to the world, that we shall sink very low in the minds of the people we represent if we cannot guarantee to those who have made our greatness possible a standard of existence very much better than that which they now have.
  Mr. Tinker: I beg to second
  Mr. A. Bevan: I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned," in order to call attention to the fact that we have no Member on the Government benches who is capable of speaking for the Government on this matter. That has been the case for the last hour and a half. I want to press this point. To-day we received three-line whips, calling attention to the fact that a very important Debate was taking place. There is to be a Division. The Mover of the Amendment has spoken in the absence of any Member qualified to reply for the Government, and the Debate is to continue, apparently, in that way. That is treating the House with contempt. We are entitled to have a Member of the War Cabinet here to listen to the arguments. The Minister of Health informed us, in reply to an interruption, that this was not a mere departmental Bill, but that it was a product of the Government as a whole. Yet there is no Member on the Front Bench opposite able to say anything about general Government policy. I contend that the Debate ought not to continue until there is a representative of the War Cabinet present.
  Mr. Bowles: May I second the Motion?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not propose to accept the Motion.
  Earl Winterton: I do not wish to intervene in the domestic controversy between my hon. Friends on this Bill, nor do I wish, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to controvert your Ruling. But I want to draw attention to the fact that it has been the case in the past that such Motions have been accepted, and that it is in accord with the traditions of the House that some Member of the War Cabinet should be present.
  Mr. Bevan: I submit, Sir, that while it is perfectly competent for the Chair to refuse such a Motion, it is most unusual in my experience, which goes back a number of years. [Interruption.] I am not impressed by the arrival of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. He has no power. I want a Member of the War Cabinet here. In view of the fact that the Government have issued a three-line whip all over the House, and that we are discussing the Amendment on which the three-line whip has been issued, I submit that you ought to accept the Motion, as it is disrespectful to the House that the Debate should continue in these circumstances.
  Mr. Tinker: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I am rather glad that this question has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), because it has brought a few more Members into the House. I am only sorry that there are not still more present to hear my speech. We do not want people to go into the Lobby not knowing what the Division is about. There is too much of that done. I do not criticise the pledge that was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I realise that that pledge has in fact been carried out. I complain because that pledge was not carried out immediately, as to give us a chance to go on to something better. That pledge was given in July, and it is now May. Such a pledge could have been carried out in a month. May I read a statement from a newspaper, showing what this Bill means? This article, which is headed "Crumbs," appeared on 12th May, immediately after the Bill came out:
  1294
  "A few miserly crumbs offered by the Ministry of Health's new measure, called, ominously, the Pensions and Determination of Needs Bill will not satisfy the demand for adequate old age pensions. Savings up to £400 are to be left out of calculations of "need." Widows under sixty who have young children may apply for extra pensions. Supplementary pensions of a few shillings here and there will cost about £850,000. The personal means test remains. The few concessions leave the old indignities and stinginess untouched. The system ought to be abolished and a basic.pension of at least £1 a week introduced at once as a stop-gap until the more liberal provisions of the Beveridge plan are carried out. Administering pensions on a "supplementary" and "means test" basis is a shocking waste of time—and, we suspect, little economy in money."
  [An HON. MEMBER: "Name the paper."] It was the "News Chronicle." That sums up fairly well what this Bill contains. Had that been done straight away, I do not think there would have been any complaint. May I draw attention to the statement that caused me to expect something better? On 11th November, 1942, the King's Speech said:
  "Renewed consideration will be given to the position of old age and widowed pensioners and further Measures will be laid before you."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1942; col. 7, Vol. 385.]
  Surely, it was never meant that this should be the "further Measures." His Majesty, on the advice of his Ministers, must have thought there would be something better than what we have here today. I am not going to examine the Bill in detail: it is not worth it. I am going to deal with the Amendment, which calls for something better. On 17th June, when we were dealing with the original Bill, to which this patched-up thing has been added, 25 speeches were made from all parts of the House, and 19 of them were in favour of a basic increase. One would have expected that regard would have been paid to the views expressed by those Members. I thought that the King's Speech had that in mind, and that this Bill would have been more comprehensive. Practically all of us have been invited at some time or other to attend old age pensioners' meetings. At these meetings the cry has always been for an increase in the basic rate. What has been our answer? I put this question to every Member who has attended these meetings, and to Conservatives in particular, because I know that many Conservatives attended them in 14 part of the country. They have always said, "Yes, we are

  1295
  prepared to do something for you. It may not be as much as you want, but there should be some addition to the basic rate." The Government would help those Members in their difficulty if they came forward with a Bill for some basic increase.
  Now the Government have brought forward a small Measure. If this is carried, I know what will happen—the Government will wait until the end of the war and do nothing. The force of opinion on this question may cause the Government to reconsider their position quickly and something more may be done. We are asking for some due recognition of a body of people who have had nothing at all since the war started. I base my argument on this ground. Since the war there has been an increase in the cost of living. I agree that prices have been stabilised, but that has not prevented the price of many things necessary for life being increased, and it has been stated by the Ministry of Labour that the cost of living has increased by 30 per cent. The old age pensioners who have not gone in for supplementary pensions have not received an extra penny. Is it fair for the House of Commons so to treat this deserving body of people who are not considered because they have not sufficient representation behind them? When people have a trade union body to fight for them something is done for them, but nothing at all is done for these old age pensioners, who, if the cost of living has gone up by 30 per cent., are entitled to something on their pension. These people have received no increase in pension because of their thrift. If they have saved any money, they are not to come and ask for anything more at present. They are expected to spend that money, and then, when they are nearly destitute, something may be done for them. In the whole history of our country the idea has been that a person should be as thrifty as he could and save what he could, and that he would not be penalised for that; and now, at a time like this, cruel penalties are being imposed on these old people.
  The Amendment is fairly comprehensive and gives every hon. Member an opportunity of helping to do something in that direction, and for a clearer definition I will read it to the House. It is as follows:
  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to make provision for an increase in the income of old
  1296
  age pensioners and ignores the needs of childless widows under 6o years and elderly spinsters."
  No one can take objection to that. However, it may be said that, if we defeat the Bill, it may be a long time before we get anything more. I do not want hon. Members to take that view, because the Government always have their ear to the ground to sense public opinion. If we reject this Bill, the Government must do something quickly. No Government would dare remain in office long without doing something. I have always been in favour of accepting everything we can get, yet there does come a time when we have to make a definite stand if we want to achieve our object, and it is that stand that I am prepared to make to-day. I know the consequences that, if we defeat the Government, they may withdraw the Bill and not bring forward any other scheme. I am however, prepared to face my constituents and tell them that I did it because I thought the Government would then get a move on and do something else. It is not too much to ask that childless widows under 6o years of age ought to be included. We have always admitted that women are the weaker sex. Physically they are the weaker sex, and mentally—I am not going to say anything about them. They are not able to carry on as long as men in doing hard, physical work. There are also the elderly spinsters. On Saturday night I attended a meeting addressed by Miss Florence White, who has done a great deal of work in this direction. Elderly spinsters should have some say in this matter. They had said that they were not going to press for reform while the war was on, but the war has gone on now for a long time, and they think that they ought to have a say in a matter like this; they are therefore putting forward their case.
  It is on the broad ground of equity that we are making this appeal to the House of Commons. The putting of my name to the Amendment is causing a lot of anxiety and doubt and involving many of my colleagues in a difficult position. They will be torn between standing by the Government and supporting the Amendment, and probably there will be a lot of heartburnings in that connection. But I appeal to them also, as I appeal to other Members of the House, to take a bold step forward. Let us tell the Gov-

  1297
  ernment that this Measure does not meet the case. They think that they are well-intentioned and are carrying out their pledge, but we cannot accept this Bill, and something better must be done after all the pledges that have been given and the anticipations of the public. This would be a step in the right direction, and I believe that at least 90 per cent. of hon. Members would like to see some increase in the old age pensions. If the Government.would say, "We cannot go to 30s., but we are prepared to give something; we will withdraw the Bill and come forward with another Bill which will increase the basic rate by 5s. to all old age pensioners who are not working and will include childless widows under 60 years and elderly spinsters," it would be accepted gladly by the House of Commons. There may be some argument about leaving out those who are working. I want to meet that argument, because on one occasion the Minister caught me out by asking, "Does the hon. Member appeal for pensions for those who are working?" He said that 784,000 were in work. He asked whether I would be prepared to go to the public and ask for the old age pension of these people to be increased. I saw the force of the argument. However hostile I may be to a speaker, when he puts his case well and thoroughly, I appreciate his point. I said to myself that I could not face the public and ask for an increase of pension for those who were working, because we had asked that they should receive full rates of pay. So I withdrew.
  The retirement pension is the policy of the Labour Party, so that I am not going outside the Labour Party's point of view. It is also contained in Sir William Beveridge's Report. I am converted to the idea that this must be a retirement pension. We are fighting for something with which to meet the basic needs of our people, and if people are getting money in any other way, then we have no need to fight for them. There is no need for them to get money from anywhere else if they are working I am fighting for the old people whose pensions remain at 10S. and who have nothing else to which to look forward. I commend the Amendment to the House, and I hope that it will be carried.
  Mr. Willink: Before dealing with the merits of the Amend
  1298
  ment and the Bill, I want to say that those of us who sit on this side of the House have some complaint against "the usual channels" for fixing the Second Reading of so important a Bill on the day that an event is taking place outside which has not taken place for several years.
  A good deal has been said about the exact construction or meaning of certain pledges given in his final speech by the Minister of Labour and National Service in July of last year, and a curious situation has resulted. So far, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and the Seconder of this Amendment have expressed the view that the pledges have been fulfilled; on the other hand, the Mover of the Amendment said with great vigour and, indeed, bitterness, that the pledges have not been fulfilled. I do not propose to examine whether pledges have been fulfilled or not. Is not the wiser course to consider the merits of the Bill and of the Amendment? It may well be that any cross-examiner could find points in the Minister of Labour's final speech which are not covered by this Bill, but there is one point which is far more important on the merits than any question of that kind. Since those pledges were given we have had issued and have discussed at great length the Beveridge Report, for which we were waiting at that time.
  Approaching this subject, I hope with full conscientiousness, I would ask the House to consider whether this is not a subject on which it is difficult to maintain integrity. There is strong pressure from large and influential bodies, and it is a curious situation on which I sometimes think we ought to reflect, that, when those who reach the distinction of the Front Bench are capable of coming to unanimity, those of us who have less responsibility are also unanimous, but with a more generous or popular policy. And I do not think that the explanation is that members of the Government completely change their character. Is not the dominant factor in the present situation that this Government and the House have set their minds to a great task, and that is, the co-ordination of our social services, on the general lines of Sir William Beveridge's Report, with modifications which have already been indicated, but with a great many loose ends which have not yet been fully explored?

  1299
  Looking at this Bill and at the Amendment, I feel that the most vital principle for this House in approaching any legislation dealing with unemployment assistance, old age pensions, widows' pensions, pensions for the blind and the Poor Law, is to see that we do not make confusion worse confounded in the process of building up the scheme we all hope to see. That is a very much more relevant consideration than the terms of any pledge, and it is also to be asked that the pledge was phrased in different terms in different parts of the Minister's speech. In my view we are doing the right thing if we approach the matter in that way.
  From that point of view, may I now consider some of the criticisms made of the three main provisions of the Bill and the diverse propositions suggested by the Amendment and by the Mover and Seconder of it? Prima facie nothing which is not in line with the Beveridge scheme as it is before us now should be accepted; nothing which is beyond all doubt contrary to it should be adopted at this stage. It would be mad to accept something which drove a coach and horses through the Beveridge scheme as a. whole, and I ask hon. Members opposite to consider their own position if they are by this Amendment asking for something which is flat contrary to the Amendment for which 119 of them voted on 18th February last demanding "early implementation of the plan."
  Mr. Silverman: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition to be that what the House ought to consider is whether anything they ask for or is done now would be in conflict with the Beveridge plan. Has he not forgotten that the Government have already stated that they do not propose to adopt the -pensions portion of the Beveridge plan?
  Mr. Willink: I have already referred expressly to the modifications which have been indicated, and I suggest that when a proposal is made at this stage there should be a comprehensive scheme of pensions for childless widows and spinsters, which is right outside the Beveridge plan, that must be premature and in my submission is entirely contrary to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) when he asked for reconsideration of the Government's policy with a view to early
  1300
  implementation of the Beveridge Plan— a plan which excluded the widows' and spinsters' pensions which are being demanded to-day. I am in sympathy with much of what has been said, but our main duty in all these matters of social security is to press the Government to give us information by reasonable instalments as their comprehensive plans develop and opportunity of debate.
  May I consider, first of all, the proposals in Clause r? The essence of Clause I is that by it we draw nearer to the time when the means test will have gone. It is not universally realised to-day, except by such people as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), whose deep knowledge on these matters all of us admire, that in considering the question of supplementary pensions, the capital value of a house in which a pensioner lives is not taken into account, that up to £375 capital in war savings is not taken into account, and that the first £49 of ordinary, not war, savings is not taken into account. There were some fallacious calculations earlier in the Debate with regard to the basis of interest which it is now proposed to be taken. The principle, I think, still survives, that a pensioner who may have a house and £375 war savings and who, it is proposed, may also have up to £400 ordinary savings cannot claim that that capital position can be wholly preserved for his dependants at the expense of the taxpayer. The inroads on the capital position are extraordinarily small, as I shall show in a few moments. Take the position of a man with, say, £200. I think the position is this—and the hon. Member for Caerphilly will, I know, be able to check me in his head and tell me whether I am right or wrong in a few seconds. Take the case.of a man with just under £225. You have £175 to consider which, under the new proposals, counts as 3s. 6d. a week. That is the equivalent of £4 0s. 8d. per cent. When he has just over £225 the actual arithmetical rate is £4 12s. per cent., which is, I think, the highest he can reach. The average is somewhere between four and four and a half. That is not so far away from the yield which can be obtained, and the compensating disinvestment which would be required from that figure of £200 would not be more than £8 to £10 per annum. On the other hand, I think it is satisfactory that the £300 has been raised to £400. When

  1301
  the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) suggested that the result of reducing the 1s. to 6d. was to reduce an irrationality to half an irrationality, that was not a fair way of putting it. It was a debating point at best. In fact there is a reduction of a 9 per cent. yield to something like a 4 per cent. yield; those two bases are different in kind.
  Now I come to Clause 2. On this it is quite clear that so far as they go the Government are acting in accordance with the Beveridge plan. One of the main criticisms made by Sir William Beveridge concerned the multiplicity of differing needs tests and this Clause brings into the field of the Poor Law the policy decided upon by this House, by Parliament, in the Determination of Needs Act, 1941. I think it may be convenient to remind the House of what Sir William Beveridge said about that. On page 142 of his Report he says:
  "When discussing a unified means test, as regards ownership of the resources to be taken into account there appears to be no reason for disturbing materially, if at all, the settlement reached under the Determination of Needs Act."
  So far as they have gone these provisions follow and, in a small way, are an instalment of the Beveridge plan. I admit that I have not had time fully to explore the implications of this Clause as between a member of a family in a household and a member of a family out of a household.
  Mr. Silverman: There is nothing to explore.
  Mr. Willink: But it is clear that this point cannot be a reason for voting against the Second Reading of a beneficent Bill.
  Now I will come to Clause 3, which is, I think, the most important in the Bill, both in what it does and in the controversy which has arisen about it. There is probably no class suffering more in this field of widows' pensions than widows with children under 16. It is of the greatest advantage that supplementary pensions have been brought within their reach. On the other hand, I take the strongest and clearest view that what is being pressed for by a section of the party opposite runs right against the Beveridge proposals, for the implementation of which they asked. The House will remember that with regard to widows the Beveridge proposals have been described
  1302
  already by the Government as somewhat harsh.. As I understand it, the Government do not propose—certainly not by this Bill—to disturb the 10s. pension. Sir William Beveridge would not have given it; he gives nothing but 36s. a week for 13 weeks and training benefit where there are no children. Members have no right to ask the House to vote for something, of a most substantial character contrary to the Beveridge Report when, only four months ago, those Members whose names are prominent in connection with this Amendment were prominent in connection with the Amendment to which I have referred. One of those Members was the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell).
  Mr. Shinwell: I shall have something to say presently, I hope.
  Mr. Willink: Yes, I see the hon. Member is getting ready to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. On the general question of hardship at the present time I am amazed, in view of our Budgetary burdens, how little I hear of the hardships of supplementary pensioners. I am in my constituency a great deal, and I do not believe my constituents consider me a heartless Tory.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: An artful Tory.
  Mr. Willink: I hear a great deal about the hardships of the widows of serving men whose incomes go down most disastrously after 13 weeks, but I do not hear about the hardships of spinsters of 50 and childless widows. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes"] It must be that there are hard cases, but I should have expected to hear more about them. I cannot help thinking that a substantial measure of exaggerated propaganda has been put forward on this subject.
  Mr. Buchanan: The hon. and learned Member says he hears about soldiers' widows. Is he aware that under this Bill they are expressly excluded? What about the widow of a soldier who may die two years after his discharge and the third child who cannot become chargeable to this fund? Will he defend that position?
  Mr. Willink: What the hon. Member is saying is exactly in line with my own thoughts. I think substantial Amendments are required to alleviate the position of soldiers' widows, but not in this Bill.
  Mr. Buchanan: Why is it that the widows of serving men should be excluded from this Bill? Is there any reason why that should be so when other classes of widows are included?
  Mr. Willink: I do not understand the hon. Member's point. I do not know what he means by exclusion from this Bill. Such a widow is dealt with under the Pensions Warrant, and I think any question of that kind must be answered by a Minister. I am entirely with the hon. Member in thinking that there are most substantial injustices in that quarter, about which I hope we shall hear more very soon.
  Now I want to challenge the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and the hon. Member for Seaham on two observations which they made not so very long ago. In July of last year the hon. Member for Leigh make a passionate plea for an increase in the basic rate. In the Debate on old age and widows' pensions he asked for an all-round rise of 5s. and made an assumption which turned out to be wholly unjustified. He said:
  "Does not everybody expect that the Beveridge scheme will be better than this offer, and, if that is so, what is there wrong in anticipating the Beveridge scheme by making a better gesture now? Is it too much to ask for 5s. addition to every old age pension? The Beveridge scheme will go beyond that"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1942; col. 597, Vol. 382.]
  As I pointed out on the third day of the Beveridge Debate, under that plan large classes of pensioners would get only 14s. a wed for years ahead, and to ask for a 5s. increase in the basic rate now, when all these matters are being considered, is something which is unreasonable. And now I want to ask a question of the hon. Member for Seaham. In the course of a somewhat acrimonious discussion in that Debate he charged the Minister of Labour with raising the bogy of an increase in the basic rate. I had better quote accurately what he said. It was convenient from the debating point of view to be able to take the point at that stage that the basic rate was not in question. The basic rate, as I understand it, is in question on this Amendment. What the hon. Gentleman said was:
  "My right hon. Friend raised the bogy—it is a bogy in relation to this Debate—of an increase in the basic rate. It is true it was raised by certain hon. Members but it was.not the considered opinion of this party,
  1304
  because we said that an increase in the basic rate must be an integral part of the long term policy. We said the same about widow's pensions.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1942; col. 642, Vol. 382.]
  Does he stick to that to-day or not? In my submission it would be disastrous to go outside the shape and scheme of the Beveridge Report or to do anything contrary to and contradictory of it. In my submission the Bill is small but it is useful, and to prevent it coming into operation would be foolish, and indeed disastrous.
  Mr. Shinwell: Among the letters that I received this morning was one from a recipient of an old age pension plus a supplementary allowance. It is a pathetic letter disclosing the misery experienced by this old person. It occurred to me while the hon. and learned Gentleman was addressing the House that I might very well send to this old person, who pleads for further relief, the philosophic speech that he has just delivered. Indeed that is the issue before the House. We are not discussing a long-term social insurance policy. If we were, the Amendment would be of a quite different character. It would be much more comprehensive. The hon. and learned Gentleman made an interesting speech and with rare patience I waited for the conclusion. What was the conclusion? There was none at all, beyond asking Members to support the Government. The plea to Members to support the Government no longer carries any weight.
  Mr. Willink: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman regards it as essential that the important part of the speech should always be at the end, and I am not sure that he was present throughout my speech. What I urged was that we should press the Government to let us know at regular intervals how they are getting on with the Beveridge scheme.
  Mr. Shinweli: I shall address myself to that point before I resume my seat. It is quite clear that every Member of the House, without exception, is fully in sympathy with the claims of the old age pensioners.. If that statement is challenged, I am quite prepared to give way, but no one dare say otherwise. Everyone realises that old age pensioners, apart from those in receipt of remuneration derived from employment, are in a parlous condition. I do not want to have recourse to the language of exaggeration.

  1305
  I will not say that they are in complete destitution, but their way of life is distinctly hard.
  Commander King-Hall: May I ask a question?
  Mr. Shinwell: Is this interruption necessary?
  Commander King Hall: I think my hon. Friend will find it is. Is it not a fact that in an article published in a newspaper yesterday the hon. Gentleman said that there was a large army of old-age pensioners in a state of destitution?
  Mr. Shinwell: There are a great many in a state of destitution. I do not understand why the hon. and gallant Gentleman interrupts. His interruption has no relevance, but, since he is seeking for information, I shall be glad to furnish it. It is true that in an article in the "Daily Herald" I stated that there was a very large proportion of old-age pensioners, amounting to an army, who were in a state of destitution, but that does not apply to all old-age pensioners. I do not wish to exaggerate the position. Every one is concerned with the condition of the old-age pensioners taking them by and large. On that, there is no difference of opinion. The issue before us, stripped of all verbiage and irrelevances and denuded of the philosophical utterances of the hon. and learned Gentleman, is whether it is desirable, not as a long-term policy but as a temporary expedient, to come to the rescue of the old-age pensioners. It is an issue which must be faced frankly by everyone in all quarters of the House.
  It is very important that we should consider the background of the Bill. Rather more than ten months ago this party, to its credit—it is always to the credit of this party that we have borne the claims of the old-age pensioners—made demands on the Government to assist the old-age pensioners. At that time the Beveridge Report was not before us and it was doubtful whether we should have it for a long time. The Government could furnish us with no information on that head, although we frequently questioned them. So, this party, as I say, made demands on the Government to do something for the old-age pensioners at once and, in consequence, the Government produced the Regulations. There was no Bill. The purpose of the Regulations was slightly to
  1306
  raise the supplementary allowances. On the submission of the figures contained in those Regulations, this party revolted and many Members, to their credit, associated themselves with us. But the Government, having considered all the factors involved, and more particularly the probability of the Beveridge Report emerging in due course and embodying a long-term policy, considered that an increase of half-a-crown to a single old age pensioner as a supplementary allowance, was reasonable. That is the language that was used. In the opinion of this party, and of others, it was not a reasonable advance. Acerbities were disclosed in the course of the Debate. If there is one subject upon which Members on this side and elsewhere feel with the most passionate intensity the implications of the situation, it is the plight of the old age pensioners. Sometimes we are vehement and express ourselves strongly, but it does not necessarily follow that we wish to embarrass the Government or to impair national unity. It is because we feel that, to some extent we represent those people. We do not claim a monopoly of course, although, curiously enough, the hon. and learned Gentleman rarely hears of the plight of the old age pensioners. That is why acrimony occasionally emerges, and it will continue to exist, until something reasonable is provided for these old people.
  In the course of that Debate something was said, rightly, about the widows. Undoubtedly there are still anomalies and, if the Bill passes, anomalies will continue. No one disputes that. Something was said about the question of savings. Therefore the Government gave a pledge, but only under duress and because strong pressure was exerted, and it was given only at the last minute. That pledge went far beyond the question of widows and the question of savings. The most important part of it was a promise by the spokesman of the Government that the question of a further increase for old age pensioners would be considered. There is no doubt that, to a large extent, that part of the pledge mollified opinion among Members—[An HON. MEMBER: "On the other side"]—in all quarters of the House. [Interruption.] Anyway, whether that is the issue or not, it is less important than our desire to do something for the old age pensioners.

  1307
  We have waited for ten months with infinite patience and now this Bill has been produced.
  Naturally, we ask what is to be done by way of an increase, and some of my hon. friends say that this is the occasion for an increase in the basic rate. In order to demonstrate that I am not an extremist in the matter—because I am more concerned about getting something for the old age pensioners, no matter in what form, than about standing on ceremony or sticking out for some particular issue—I have pointed out that there are difficulties associated with the demand for an increase in the basic rate. It may be bound up with the Beveridge Report and a long-term policy and the same applies to other changes in old age pensions. So I go for what I believe is practical, namely, a further increase in the supplementary allowances. That presents no difficulty. The Government cannot say that because of the Beveridge Report they cannot increase the supplementary scale. They cannot say that because of their long-term policy they cannot increase the scale. I see the spokesman for the Government here, and if he has not the necessary authority there is the Leader of the House. All they have to say in the presence of the hon. Members is that when the Regulations are submitted to the House, they will provide for an increase in the supplementary scale. I will give way if they are prepared to respond to that modest request. Will my right hon. Friend acquiesce? Does he regard is as immodest, as extreme, as revolutionary to ask for another 2s. 6d. on the supplementary scale? Certain circumstances will have to be taken into account and every old age pensioner will not receive it. Does he regard that as likely to interfere with the budgetary arrangements or to impair national unity? In short, are we asking too much, while awaiting the adumbration of a long-term social insurance policy, if we ask for an increase in the supplementary allowance? There is not a Member who dare get up and say we are asking too much. If any hon. Member is prepared to get up and do so, I am ready to give way.
  I am told that on the contrary we are asking for too little. That shows how modest I am in my request. I will tell hon. Members why I am modest. I had a letter this morning along with some others from old age pensioners. It comes
  1308
  from Limehouse, the constituency of the Deputy Prime Minister. The writer says that he was married in December, 1887, and he goes on to tell me that he is suffering from acute rheumatism, that his age is 75, and that he has over 40 grandchildren. We cannot complain about his productive capacity. He has an old age pension of 10s. with a supplementary allowance of 18s. 6d. He is, indeed, on the higher scale. He pays 10s. a week rent. It may be a furnished room, but he does not say. He pays for lighting and coal 5s. 3d. a week. I suppose that is an approximate charge and it seems reasonable. He has to have his room cleaned every week for 2s. 6d., for a man of 75 cannot be expected to clean his room. Other items amount to Is. 3d., and he has left for feeding and everything else, including tobacco at the higher rate because of increased taxation, 9s. 6d. a week. That is why I feel that if I did get even another 2S. 6d. for that man, it would be worth while. Of course it is not enough, but it would meet certain liabilities which are likely to accrue from time to time. Is there an hon. Member who will get up and say that that old fellow is not entitled to another 2s. 6d. a week? Of course they dare not do it. Hon. Members are full of sympathy, sympathy is oozing out of them for the old age pensioners, but when it comes to challenging the Government they say, "For Heaven's sake do not embarrass the Government." I say, frankly, that if I have to choose between my loyalty to the Government and my loyalty to the old age pensioners and the principles of my party, I stand for my loyalty to the old age pensioners.
  Let us consider the Beveridge situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) made a most interesting speech and spoke with great sincerity, as he always does. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) challenged him about the Beveridge Report. I will explain the position in relation to the Beveridge Report. It is quite simple. When this party accepted the principles underlying the Report we made certain reservations. They were explained at the time and they are stated in our official documents.
  Mr. Willink: Were they stated in this House?
  Mr. Shinwell: Yes, frequently. If my hon. and learned Friend will read the

  1309
  three days' Debate he will see that, over and over again, objection was taken to many of the proposals in the Beveridge Report, although, generally speaking, we accepted the principles underlying them.
  Mr. Willink: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any reservation was made such as would be in consonance with what he has been saying about the case he has mentioned? He said that it was not asking too much to ask another 2s. 6d. for a man who is getting 28s. 6d. That is 7s. above the Beveridge proposals.
  Mr. Shinwell: If my hon. and learned Friend will be patient, I will deal with the point he has raised.
  Mr. Willink: Will he answer the question? Was any such reservation indicated?
  Mr. Shinwell: I am surprised at my hon. and learned Friend. I seem to have taken him out of his usual urbane mood. Usually he presents a calm demeanour, but on this occasion he seems to be disturbed. I am sorry if I have occasioned him any difficulty. Let me deal with our attitude to the Beveridge Report. It cannot be dealt with simply by replying to my hon. and learned Friend's question in the form he desires. The acceptance by this party of the Report was conditioned by many reservations. Sir William Beveridge himself was not committed to the figures in the Report. Has my hon. and learned Friend forgotten that? What is more important, the Government had reservations, because they rejected the pensions scheme of the Beveridge Report. It may be said that the Government, as indeed my hon. and learned Friend and the Minister of Health have said, are considering the Beveridge Report, are working hard on it, are operating with feverish activity on it. Hon. Members appear to forget that Government spokesmen on the occasion of the Beveridge Debate made it plain that the Report when it was finally submitted must be taken as an integrated whole, that we could not expect that it would become operative until after the end of the war, that the financial circumstances had to be considered, and all the rest of it.
  At any rate, it is clear beyond any possibility of doubt that the Government do not intend to provide a final solution of the old age pensions position until the Beveridge Report is embodied in legislation and presented to the House after the
  1310
  war. Again, however, if any right hon. Gentleman opposite will get up and tell me I am wrong and that the Government propose shortly—in a month, two months, six months or even twelve months—to produce a new pensions scheme in a comprehensive social insurance scheme, I am prepared to accept that statement. I believe that hon. Members on this side would then be prepared to go to the old age pensioners and say, "In a few months you will get a considered announcement. You will probably get an increase of the basic rate and the whole thing will be put on a proper footing." That would be acceptable. But the Government cannot do that, and the position is that there is to be no Beveridge pensions scheme for a long time, if at all. Who knows what the financial conditions may be? Let us assume that, something will come. I want to be generous to the Government, to hon. Members opposite and opinion that subscribes to the Beveridge Report. Even if the Beveridge scheme comes into operation after the war the old age pensioners will have a long time to wait. Therefore, is it not desirable in the absence of a fully-considered, well-prepared scheme of a comprehensive character, to provide some modicum of relief to these people who are in need?
  That is the issue before the House, and it is no use hon. Members talking in legalistic fashion, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon has done, about the anomalies and the further anomalies that will arise. That is the issue, and I challenge hon. Members to face it. I ask the Government to do one of two things—either to announce from that Box before the end of the Debate that in the forthcoming Regulations old age pensioners will receive some increase, or to adopt the only decent alternative and withdraw the Bill. It may be said that if we withdraw the Bill some people will suffer. Just look at the Bill and see what the financial proposals are. The hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King - Hall) referred to a newspaper article for which I was responsible, in which I said that the financial commitments in this Bill would cost the nation no more than a couple of destroyers. I have since found that I exaggerated the cost. It will not cost as much. I was taking the pre-war price of destroyers. Therefore, if this Bill never reached the Statute book it will mean little

  1311
  or nothing except that the agitation will go on as, indeed, it will go on, unless the Government do something better, and do something which will appease those who are anxious to find some measure of relief for our old friends. Some of us are disturbed because of the increased price of commodities that are in common use. We are disturbed about the increased price of tobacco attributable to taxation. We pay 2s. 6d. for an ounce of tobacco. Some of us do not care how many ounces a week we smoke. It does not disturb us—or perhaps I should say the smoking of the tobacco might disturb us, but the cost does not. The old age pensioner who wants to smoke an ounce of tobacco finds it hard to have to pay 2s. 6d. It may be said that this is sob stuff. It is not sob stuff to the people concerned. It is hard for the person who has been accustomed to these little luxuries in life. It is very difficult to change when you reach maturity.
  I appeal to hon. Members to protest against the Government's parsinomy in this matter and to say to them, "Here is your opportunity to do what is right." I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) and other of my hon. Friends on this side who are so anxious to increase the basic rate, "Exercise more patience; we may have to wait." Let every Member, in the meantime, demand from the Government further relief for people who are helpless, unprotected and unorganised and who can only express themselves vocally through Members of this House.
  Mr. Storey: The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has gone a good deal further than either the Mover or Seconder of the Amendment, because he has asked for an increase in the basic rate of supplementation. I shall have something to say about that when I come to deal with the rates of supplementation. First, I want to deal more specifically with the actual Amendment. I feel that the supporters of the Amendment, in asking for a flat-rate increase on a non-contributory basis, have overlooked a good many things. They have overlooked the fact that our present pensions were never intended to be a complete provision for old age or a substitute for thrift. They have overlooked
  1312
  the fact—[Interruption.] I am quite prepared to face my old age pensioners, and know that my hon. Friend stirs them up in my constituency particularly.
  Mr. Stephen: I have presented a petition.
  Mr. Storey: I know, and I will deal with that petition at the proper moment. They have overlooked, too, the very large number of old age pensioners who at present have means or are at work and are not in any need of assistance from their fellow citizens. They have overlooked, too, the enormous cost of their proposals which, unlike the war effort, cannot be financed out of capital, because it is a continuing charge and must be met out of income over a long period of years. While, therefore, I wholeheartedly favour that the State should at the very earliest possible moment afford all citizens an opportunity to contribute to a higher rate of pension on an actuarial basis, I think that as an interim provision the Government are right to proceed by the extension of supplementation.
  If we believe that they are right to proceed by the extension of supplementation we have to show that the supplementation is both sufficient and widespread enough. I turn, first, to the question whether it is sufficient. If it is to be sufficient it must enable pensioners to maintain a decent standard of living. The hon. Member for Seaham said we should do this by increasing the rates of supplementation. I ask the House to look at the present rates of supplementation. Many of us have been advocating the adoption of the Beveridge plan, in which Sir William Beveridge worked out the rates which he proposed for retired persons. They were carefully worked out by an expert committee, and Sir William Beveridge estimated that the requirements of the retired, at 1938 prices, amounted in the case of a married couple to 29S. 8d. If the House will add 30 per cent. to that figure to bring it up to present-day prices it will make the Beveridge rate for a married couple 38s. 6d., against the Board's rate of 37s. We have to remember that the Board's rate is subject to winter allowances, subject to an adjustment for rent, and subject to provision of clothing, bedding and household supplies where necessary. The winter allowances, spread over the year, are equivalent to

  1313
  Is. 3d. per week. Sir William Beveridge, in his calculation, included 8s. 6d. for rent. The Board's figure of 37s. is based on a rent of 6s. To make the two figures comparable we have to add 2s. 6d. to the Board's 37s. Let us add the figures together: 37s. basic rate, Is. 3d. winter allowances, 2s. 6d. rent adjustment. That gives a rate of 40s. 9d., against Sir William Beveridge's proposal of 38s. 6d.
  I think I have said enough to show that those who are asking for the implementation of the Beveridge Report must feel that the Government, in the provision they have made for supplementation, have already met that issue. If we have to remember that supplementation must be sufficient we must also make quite sure that we do not penalise thrift and that we treat capital assets generously. That, I submit, the present Bill does. I did not quite agree with the figures which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) quoted on this subject. I think he slightly underestimated the notional income, but it is quite clear that the notional income on savings is something under 5 per cent. I think we should all admit that anybody can invest savings at present to get 3 per cent.
  If the notional income is something under 5 per cent. and the actual income is 3 per cent. you are eating into capital at the rate of 2 per cent. per annum. It would take 50 years to exhaust your savings at that rate. If you put your savings into National Savings Certificates and sold a few each year it would take more than a normal lifetime to exhaust your savings. To put it in another way, £100 would only be exhausted at the rate of 9d. per week. We have seen that supplementation of pensions can bring in at least 4os. 9d. to a married couple, of which 30s. 9d. is supplementation to which they have not paid anything at all, and is it too much to ask that they should meet the odd 9d. out of their savings? It is all very well for hon. Members to groan, but the figures are there. The figures have not been disputed and cannot be disputed. I think I have said quite enough to show—[Interruption.]I know that hon. Members opposite do not like it, but it is time somebody talked frankly to them. I think I have said quite enough to show that supplementation is sufficient.
  1314
  I turn now to the question of whether it is widely enough spread. I think we should all agree that supplementation to widows with children, particularly with the extension which has been announced to-day, is right, and we are entitled to say that here, again, those who want Beveridge and nothing but Beveridge have got something better than Beveridge. But the main criticism is that there is no supplementation for widows without children. Frankly, the national interest demands that widows without children who are capable of work should work.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Does the hon. Member suggest that a widow of 55 who has been a widow for 20 years is able to go on working, and she is not in this Bill?
  Mr. Storey: I said a widow who was capable of working.
  Mr. Griffiths: But she is not in this Bill.
  Mr. Storey: I am coming to that. All of us would like to see the widow who is ill or is unsuitable for employment able to draw supplementation, but where is that going to lead us? What about spinsters? What about the difficulty of proving the state of health or unsuitability for work? I think it is better when we are dealing only with an interim proposal that we should not attempt to include these classes. If they are in need, after all there is assistance available to them, and let us face the fact that there is no moral difference between taking assistance and taking supplementation towards which you have not contributed.
  In conclusion, while this Bill is, I think, on right lines as an interim solution I would join in pressing upon the Government that the opportunity to contribute to a higher pension cannot be given too soon. With actuarial principles demanding that the premium shall be calculated for an entrant at 16 and that the State should carry the additional costs of all who enter above the age of 16, the sooner the State gives the opportunity to new entrants to contribute to higher pensions the better it will be for the State's purse. While, therefore, I accept this Bill as a useful step in the right direction I do put a very strong plea to the Government that at the earliest possible moment they will afford new entrants into the contributory scheme the opportunity to contribute to a higher rate of pension on a sound actuarial basis.
  Mr. McGovern: I rise to support the Amendment, and I do so because it is the only possible course to follow if one takes a progressive and Socialistic line on this issue. My Friends and I have put down an Amendment which has not been called. It says:
  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which while professing to deal adequately with the problem of the maintenance of the old people and widows fails to relieve in any adequate measure their necessities, creates new anomalies, makes no addition to the present statutory allowance of 10s. per week and urges the granting of the demand for 30s. per week put forward by the Association of the Old Age Pensioners."
  In substance the Amendment before the House conforms to that one. When the Minister of Health made his speech I thought he was ashamed of the Bill because he said very little in defence of it. He briefly explained the parts in which he thought certain advantages were given. The Bill is backed by the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Labour and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are getting the worst of both worlds in this combination in the Government, because it restrains Members of the Opposition from demanding full justice now for the old age pensioners and others. The Tory-dominated Government is using war necessities to create that national unity about which so much has been said. I can hardly conceive any Government thinking it worth while to include a Bill like this in the King's Speech, which usually foreshadows only Measures of importance. We are told that this Measure will cost £800,000, that is to say about one and a half hour's cost of the war.
  The hon. Member who has just spoken dealt with some of the advantages of the Bill, compared with the proposals of the Beveridge Report, but I do not know that any hon. Member advocated those proposals except as a basis. I remember saying that they would form the basis of some scheme of social security. In defence, hon. Members may say that this Measure is a result of not having some broader plan of social security to embrace all these classes of people, such as widows, orphans, old age pensioners and unemployed, but pledges were given of a very far-reaching character. I would like to see what defence will be made of the pledges that were given to this House that
  1316
  the position of those classes would be dealt with. Up to now, nobody has attempted to defend them. The hon. Member attempted to show that there would be some benefit from the Bill. One cannot help noticing benefits, such as that superannuation is raised from 7s. 6d. to 10s. 6d. and that an individual may have extra capital. It used to be argued that you could not pay pensions to people who had money in the bank—that was the argument for the means test—but we have gradually got away from that point of view because of the force of public opinion.
  In all walks of life people, including a large number of Conservative business men and die-hard Tories, tell us that we must never go back to the days previous to 1939. They are unanimous and sincere in saying that we ought to give the old people a decent standard of life at the earliest possible moment and not the pitiful allowance on which we asked them to exist in the past. I believe that the Government do not represent that progressive thought and conscience which the nation has developed during the war. The Government have been divorced from the actual suffering of the great mass of the people. I realise that the people who are hardest hit are those who have always been hit in every crisis, those who have fixed allowances which never rise according to increases in the cost of living. The Ministry of Labour would never dream of telling transport workers or engineers that they had to continue to suffer on 1939 standards, because those workers can make themselves felt by threatening to withdraw their labour. The old age pensioners and others depend upon the support that they can get in the House of Commons in the interpretation of the popular will of this country.
  This is a disgraceful and contemptible Measure to deal with a tragic situation in which people are suffering tremendously because of their lack of purchasing power. On the point about changes in the cost of living, I remember, when I was a young man, taking a great interest in prices. As a grocer's boy I used to sew up bags of Lyle's sugar which was sold at 7 lbs. For 10½d. I remember that coal was 6½d. a cwt. I worked with the late John Wheatley at the age of 11 or 12 as a messenger boy, when I discovered how many competitors there were in these things. I remember when eggs were 5d.

  1317
  and 6d. a dozen and liver was 4d. a lb. —now it is 1s. 8d. Coal is now at least 3s. 6d. per cwt. compared with 6½d. then. If an old age pensioner consumes coal and has to use one bag a week at 3s. 6d., that makes a substantial inroad into the miserable pittance.
  These people ask me: "Why do we not get a substantial increase in our allowance?" If I were to tell them that the Government said that we cannot afford it they would laugh, and they would be justified in laughing. That was the old stock-in-trade argument in prewar days, in the 1931 period. It was the argument that broke the Labour Government when it was stated that we were getting into a financial panic because £100,000,000 had been borrowed by the State to keep the unemployed whom Capitalism could not employ. I read the article in the "Daily Herald" by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), and I agree with every line of it. I am surprised that, after this Measure was promised in the King's Speech and after all the process of questioning and demand and speeches in this House, the Government should only have brought forth this Bill. I am surprised that anybody connected with the Labour Party can attempt to defend it. It is this sham that is doing such tremendous harm in the country. Hon. Members get on to a platform, and are elected, on the basis of the discontent and antagonisms of the people, but when they get on to the Government Front Bench they do not want by-elections or antagonisms any longer, because they are in the Tory pocket. They come here and try to defend the indefensible by saying that we have to maintain national unity. We have seen among the intelligent and humane Tories in this House, a revolt of feeling. They are not prepared to stand up and defend this sort of thing and yet we can get Labour Ministers to append their names to Bills of this kind.
  The old age pensioners are being crushed mercilessly by an economic system that is steadily going down into despair and confusion. The people most in need of assistance are those who are being denied. The great mass of the old age pensioners have no money in any shape or form. One old age pensioner in my constituency came to me in a state of great anxiety. His wife had died, and believing that he had a sum to come from insurance, sufficient to cover the funeral expenses, he had con-
  1318
  tracted with a funeral undertaker to bury her. He found that the policy had run out because the old lady had been unable to keep up the payments. We had to pass round the hat to get enough money to bury the old woman. Such people have worked and served their country well, in war or in industry, and have piled up a credit, in the shape of unpaid wages, for the selected few who live on the backs of the workers. But when they demand a return, in the shape of old age pensions, from the fund they have created, there is a howl from the other people, who ask: "Where is the money to come from?" The answer is "Where all money comes from. All wealth is produced by the energy, suffering, sweat, blood, tears and toil of the ordinary men and women." The old age pensioners are not getting a square deal.
  The Government are not intelligently and wisely interpretating the conscience of the country. People, whether Tory, Liberal, Labour, Communist or Christian are all demanding that the old people should be put above this struggle. If the House of Commons accepts this Measure we shall go on for another year or so, and great numbers of the old people will go to their graves unwept, unhonoured, and unsung, justice never having been done to them. Is it that the nation cannot afford it? They see thousands of millions being spent on the defence, not of their interests, but of the interests of the few. Therefore, we are asking that a number of millions should be set aside for those who have made this country and the world what it is, and have given it the wealth it already possesses. Everything the human eye can see in this House or outside of a material character has been fashioned by the energy and sacrifice of those people who are the old people of our generation. Therefore, I say that the Government, if they did the wise thing, would withdraw this Measure.
  The Government should be big enough to admit that they have failed to interpret the wishes of the community and of this House, and withdraw the Measure and come forward with some form of compromise which will do justice to the old people. I am sure this House would back them if they did. If they do not intend to do that, I make this further appeal: Let the leaders of all the parties in the Government take off the Whips, refuse to apply the Whips, leave it as a pure matter of conscience, and you will get the best

  1319
  hiding you ever got in the Lobbies of this House. [Interruption.] I do not expect the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) to agree. He is not a Tory in the ordinary sense; he is a backwoodsman of the sixteenth century. I feel sure that the ordinary Tory is anxious to give justice to the old people. I talk a great deal to them in the Lobbies. Sometimes Communists say I am often seen talking to Tories in the House, and I do talk to everybody. I believe in the saying, "Honour all men, and bow down to none." I refuse to pass anybody by, whatever their view may be. I believe that there are a great many Tories in this House who would feel more comfortable to-day if the Government were doing that act of justice. I appeal to the Government to withdraw the Measure and bring in something more worthy of being included in the King's Speech. If not, take off the Whips and allow freedom of action to Members of this House, and I am satisfied that this Labour Amendment would be carried by a very strong majority in the Lobbies to-day. Anyhow, we shall vote in the Lobbies for it.
  Mr. Lipson: I am very happy to have an opportunity briefly to explain my attitude to the Bill and to the Amendment. I am one of those who do not object to the proposals of the Bill, but I regret very much not what is in it but what has been left out. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, in introducing the Bill, said that it was intended to bring about improvement in the details of the present scheme. To my mind the detail that most needed improvement was the raising of the basic rate, and it may be because my mind works in a very simple fashion that to me the issue seems quite clear. It is this: The present basic rate of 10s. was fixed in 1919, which is 24 years ago. I do not know whether any wage rate or salary scale that was fixed 24 years ago is considered sufficiently good for to-day, and I therefore feel that an overwhelming case can be made out for increasing the basic rate and that that case has been made very much stronger by the fact that we have now been at war for 3½ years, and the war has reduced the purchasing power of that 10s., as compared with its pre-war standard, to something like 7s. 8d. Of all persons who have been most affected by the increase in the cost of living since the war surely the worst
  1320
  off are those on fixed incomes, retired persons who are no longer able to take up employment. I think the hardest hit of all must surely be the old age pensioners. In addition to the cost of living there is the increase in taxation which has affected the old age pensioner.
  When the Chancellor was discussing the increase in the Tobacco and Beer Duties he appeared to allow the old age pensioner two ounces of tobacco a week and a pint of beer a day. How is it possible for him on a basic rate of 10s. to live up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's standard? Therefore, I feel very strongly that there ought to be an increase in the basic rate for those old age pensioners who are no longer able to follow their employment. We are told there are something like 750,000 old age pensioners who are back at work, and we accept the Minister's argument against an increase so far as they are concerned. But we do feel very strongly that for the rest, and that view is shared by some hon. Friends of mine who put their names to an Amendment, there ought to be an increase in the basic rate. What should be one's attitude towards the old age pension? If you regard it as a dole, something which is just to keep the old people alive, you will argue down to the very last penny as to what is necessary for mere subsistence. If you have a somewhat different conception of old age, not a modern conception but what the ancient Romans used to describe as "leisure plus dignity," if this is the kind of old age one wants to see old people of all classes and sections enjoying, you will not reason too strongly about basic needs. I submit that on general grounds there is an overwhelming case for an increase in the basic rate, and I urge the Government to recognise this fact.
  So far as this particular Bill is concerned, I am very anxious to see its proposals become law, because I recognise that so far as they go they are good. Therefore I cannot vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, but I have made my position perfectly clear. I stand now, as I have stood for some time, for an increase in the basic rate. I hope that even if the Government get their majority on the Second Reading they will recognise the strength of feeling in all parties in this House that the next change to be made, and that at an early date, should be in the direction I have indicated.
  Mr. Barr: A good deal has been said as to the Beveridge Report. We are not to-day considering anything so large as that, but there are some things in the Beveridge Report, some statements and figures, that have a very relevant bearing on the Bill which is before the House. I would remind the House that the kind of pension which Sir William Beveridge had in view was one in a man's and woman's own right; in the second place, that it should be enough for subsistence even though the pensioner had no resources whatever; and thirdly, that it had not to be reduced if the pensioner had resources. What I think is more important are the figures and the calculations of the rates paid at present to old age pensioners and to widows and others. What he tells us, and what his figures say, is that these are far below the benefit given for unemployment, for disability or for sickness. Yet while what they are receiving, and I think this is what is most relevant, is far below what is given to their companions in distress, if I might so call them, on the other hand their needs are not less. Indeed the Report says that in some respects their needs are more, such as in regard to fuel, lighting and household sundries. Taking things all round, he comes to the conclusion that they should certainly not have less than these others and fixes his figure. accordingly.
  What we have to remember—it has a bearing on what we are doing to-day—is that the Beveridge Report has a transitional period, a long period of years during which the rates rise from 25s. to 40s. That is certainly a great weakness. It takes 20 years, and the Government have expressed their disappointment at this long term. They are able to do, and have promised to do, something better than that. The Lord President of the Council speaking on 16th February last, said in this regard:
  "The Government definitely prefer a different approach. They would prefer fixed contributions and benefits now. It may be that the initial pension may be somewhat higher than that recommended in the Beveridge Report, having regard to the existing assistance grants, and to the proposed benefits for invalidity and unemployment."
  I am not going to stress against the Government that word "now." I take it that they might do better at the initiation of the Government's larger scheme that may be coming. What do they say
  1322
  in regard to that? They say that their initial scheme, however it may end—it may not equal Beveridge in the end—will begin better. Is this their fair beginning for doing better? Is this a token and proof of the promise and potency that, however they may end, at least they will begin better than Beveridge, and that we should rely on them thus far? What was the Lord President's reason for discarding that part of the Beveridge Report which related to this case? He said:
  "Once contributions and benefits are fixed, a very heavy commitment, running into many hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of pounds would be immediately entered into." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1943, col. 1672, Vol. 386.]
  Certainly no such accusation can be made against this scheme. I need not repeat the figures. It is quite true that the £850,000 referred to under Clause, first and second subsections, does not cover all the expense. It is pointed out to us that in regard to the new supplementation the Government cannot say what it will take for women with children, or in regard to past needs or in regard to blind persons. I have not found them always so encumbered with difficulty when we have asked questions as to what would be the cost when we were pleading for spinsters and others. They gave us estimates as to what it would cost.
  The cost indicated by the Lord President of the Council, and by others who referred to it to-day does not frighten me at all. I recall that the non-contributory old age pension began at 5s.; during the last war a further 2S. 6d. was added, to meet the cost of living; when the Labour party came in, it was raised to 10s.; and still it went on progressing. I remember a question being asked in 1939 as to the cost of these non-contributory old age pensions. In the year 1913, it came to £12,400,000; by 1939 it had risen to £39,000,000; and still it went on rising. When the question about spinsters and extra costs in that way was put, in 1939, we were told that, taking into consideration all the various forms of contributory pensions, it was now £95,000,000; and the right hon. Gentleman sought to frighten us by saying that, bringing in voluntary insurance, which was looming ahead, it would be in 40 years, £228,000,000. But the nation is finding a buoyancy and expansion, where there is need, in finance.

  1323
  The Budget figures show that the central Government expenditure on war finance has grown from £3,339,000,000 in 1940 to £5,106,000,000 in 1942. So there is the expansion of the net annual income. It has gone up in four years from £4,490,000,000 in 1938 to £7,384,000,000 in 1942.
  I do not want to detain the House by dwelling upon the question of the pledge. We admit that the pledge has been honoured in two particulars; but it was always implied, and sometimes said, that, the general question of the position of old age pensioners would be taken into account. That was said on the day that the pledge was given. It was not said that it would be favourably considered, but it was said that it would be considered. The result is the Bill we have to-day. There are many ways of honouring a pledge. You can say that you did not break it. That is the farthest that the Government can go in this regard. On the other hand, you can have a pride in saying that you have honoured it, and honoured it handsomely. Many Members here have read Aristotle. Aristotle, in his "Ethics," discusses the "magnificent man," whom he calls his "Ideal Man." There are two qualities that he gives to the magnificent man. The first is that he "glories in great expenditure." It cannot be said that the Government do not, in many respects, glory in great expenditure, but not in this realm which we are discussing to-day. Here is another sentence from Aristotle about the "magnificent man." If he had been writing it as a prophecy about this Government, he could not have been more far-seeing. He said that the magnificent man
  "will be more like to consider how he will do the thing most beautifully or most appropriately than how much it would cost, or how he might do it at the smallest expense."
  I would like, in closing, to give three quotations. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has gone, which is a pity. I meant the first for him, because it is from John Bunyan. We all know about the Hill Difficulty. I do not know whether many Members have read Nathaniel Hawthorne's; "The Celestial Railroad," which is a revised edition of the "Pilgrim's Progress." It might be called "Pilgrimage made Easy." In it, all the difficulties are made easy by Mr. Smooth-it-away. There is a bridge over
  1324
  the Slough of Despond. There are no persecutions now in Vanity Fair, because they have a minister of their own; they like him, and he speaks smooth things to them. As for the Hill Difficulty, Nathaniel Hawthorne says:
  "Through the very heart of this rocky mountain a tunnel has been constructed, of most admirable architecture, with a very lofty arch."
  There seems to have been some tunnelling done here; and so they have discovered women and children and benefited them, and evaded the Hill Difficulty, and what was the big question in regard to this matter. I appeal to the Minister of Labour and others, seeing that the Minister of Health is not here. In John Bunyan's version, the pilgrim looks at the Hill Difficulty, with all that it is to cost, and he says—and I should like some of this heroism to be shown by the Government:
  "This hill, though high, I covet to ascend; The difficulty will not me offend."
  That is a spirit I commend to the Government and other Members.
  I come now to my second quotation. It is from John Wesley's "Thoughts on the Present Scarcity of Provisions." This was written nearly 200 years ago. After describing poor people he had known gathering the bones that the dogs had left in the streets, and making broth of them, to prolong a wretched life, he said:
  "Such is the case at this day of multitudes of people in a land flowing, as it were, with milk and honey, and abounding with all the necessaries, the conveniences, the superfluities of life."
  After well nigh 200 years, there is still a good deal of truth in that. Poverty, in a land of plenty, still abounds.
  My third quotation is apt at least today, because it so happens that this is the centenary of the publication of Carlyle's "Past and Present," published in 1843. In the very first chapter, he said:
  "We have more riches than any nation ever had before… In the midst of plethoric plenty, the people perish."
  When I think of the figures of the Budget, and how we are going on year by year, and of the fact that we have more riches than any nation ever had before, I think also of my poor people in Coatbridge and Airdrie, and the houses in which they live, these old age pensioners and others. I make this confession on their behalf, that we stand at the head of overcrowding in all returns that have been issued

  1325
  for Britain. The people come to me every Friday, when I am in my constituency, and they tell me that there are four, five or six in a bed, in a single-roomed house —although, be it said, they have stood at the top or almost at the top for Scotland in the number of new houses, per 1000 of the population, they provided before the war. When I think of the wealth of the country. and the housing conditions; and the poor fare that is given to the poorest of the poor, to the poorest of the old age pensioners, I say that it is still true what Carlyle said in "Past and Present" 100 years ago:
  "In the midst of plethoric plenty, the people perish."
  Major Gates: If I had had my choice, I would have followed my hon. Fiend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd), because I found myself in complete agreement with what they said. As regards the pledge, I think the hon. Member for Gorbals was fairest in what he said—that in its narrowest sense the pledge has been honoured: in its widest sense it has not. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) had been in his place, I would have said, although I have no desire to defend the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), that up to the time when the Amendment was moved and seconded every speaker had expressed disappointment with this Bill. I hope that the Government are taking due note of that disappointment.
  It is three years almost to a day since I entered this House, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive a comment from a very junior Member. It is only natural that on this occasion I should look back on my experience of this House. I have listened patiently to a great many discussions on pensions. It seems to me that they all take more or less the same course. I hear great eloquence, causes are pleaded with sincerity and emotion, the most convincing cases are made, and we are all agreed that something must be done. I say "all." Even the Minister concerned, even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will get up and express agreement and sympathy with the causes which have been pleaded. Then what happens? Either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or somebody else connected with the Treasury will say,
  1326
  "Yes, we agree; this should be implemented; but will some Member kindly tell us how it should be done?" I feel that what we need more at this present moment is not these wide-ranging, moving discussions on pensions, but a full-dress Debate by the many learned and hard-studying Members of this House on the post-war possibilities of the finance of this country.
  I was most interested by a speech made yesterday by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). In the same connection, I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has been badly treated for his misuse of a phrase about pounds, shillings and pence. It is not so much a question of increasing the wealth of this country as of increasing the relationship between our wealth and its expression in currency. During my lifetime a great many scientific developments have taken place, but our conception of finance has not kept pace with the other advances of human activity. I believe that we are very much richer than we think we are. I doubt whether orthodox finance, in our present conception of it, could carry all these schemes—all these dreams that we have of our post-war world—all our rebuilding, all our Beveridge schemes and all our pension schemes, but I am one of those who believe it can be developed and expanded without risk of financial disaster. I am expressing a personal wish and preference when I say that I would like to hear that full-dress Debate held in this House, and I would willingly listen to even my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on such questions.
  So much in general, but in particular I wanted to intervene in this Debate to call the attention of the House to a point of principle in our Pensions Acts where, I think, this House has been wrong in principle and which, as far as I can see on my reading of this Bill, this Bill perpetuates that particular principle, or at least, it does nothing to ameliorate it. The principle is that which we seem to have established that persons shall be paid a pension from the date when they establish their claim to it. That is wrong. A person should automatically be paid a pension from the date when he becomes entitled to it, arid sometimes there is a very big difference, as has just been brought to my notice. I will quote a case briefly to the House. It is of a woman who felt she was

  1327
  entitled to a pension but who failed in her application, when it came to the question, "Is your husband an insured contributor?" Her husband left her 15 years ago in rather distressing circumstances. She is an old lady of 63, and she did not know the answer whether he was or not, and so she could not fill in the questionnaire completely and correctly, so that her claim failed, as, of course, it must by the Regulations. Many months elapsed before she could find the whereabouts of her husband who had deserted her 15 years previously, and when he was found he turned out to be an embittered man and refused to give any information. This was first brought to my notice in March, 1941. In November, 1942, over 18 months later, we eventually discovered. the information we required. The form was filled in, and I will say that the old lady received her pension promptly and expeditiously. But I maintain, as a question of principle, that that pension should have been paid, not from November, 1942, when we established the validity of the claim, but from March, 1941, 18 months previously, when that lady became due for her pension. As that principle, I feel, is wrong and nothing is done about it in this Bill, I have ventured to draw the attention of the House to that question..
  Mr. Leslie: It may be argued that the Government have carried out the undertaking made last July, but how meagre is the fulfilment of the pledge that was then given. We certainly expected. something more tangible and substantial. The, little offered will undoubtedly be a bitter disappointment to the great mass of old age pensioners. The raising of the capital values will be accepted by those with capital. It removes certain anomalies such as exist among those who have small savings in the local co-operative societies, but these are very few indeed in comparison with the many with little or no savings at all. Can it be denied that the increase in the cost of living and the recent Budget increases hit the old people very hard? There has been no adequate increase even in supplementary allowances with which to meet this increased burden. When one learns the cost of maintaining a person in an institution, one wonders how many of the old folks manage to exist on their allowance. Even before the war it cost on an average 3s. 11d. a week to keep an old man in an institution, and the cost now-
  1328
  adays must certainly be considerably higher.
  Government speakers on previous occasions have stated that our social services were the best in the world, but, may I remind the Government, we fall very far behind our Dominions in this respect. New Zealand and Queensland present an object lesson to the Mother Country in the care of the old folk. The plight of the poor widows ought to have received the attention of the Government years ago, and the war has certainly accentuated their plight. It is very humiliating for the helpless widow with no children to be forced to seek public assistance. Domestic circumstances prevent many from Offing work to enable them to provide for their children, and this Bill offers scanty help in such cases. Much has been said about the childless widow and the spinster. The Bill, we must admit, gives some easement, because they get the benefit of the disregard under the Assistance Board. We may be told that this is only a temporary Measure, just a stop gap, until the Government formulate a scheme to give effect to the Beveridge Report. While one cannot help deploring the treatment meted out to the old folk and widows, one has to consider whether it would be wise to deprive old age pensioners and widows of even this morsel. As it has taken the Government Io months to produce this meagre Measure, one wonders how long the old folk and widows would have to wait before a more generous Measure could be introduced.
  In view of what the Minister of Health said to-day, I hope there will be no delay in working out a comprehensive plan. In the interval there are the draft Regulations to be dealt with, which may mean something better for the recipients under this Bill. Therefore, I would urge upon the Government when they are considering the draft Regulations to take into consideration the criticisms that have been levelled at this Bill to-day. Feeling disappointed as I do, and as many of us must do, I yet feel that it would be unwise to reject even the tiny scrap that it provides. May I finally express the hope that the Government will take to heart the criticisms which have been levelled against the Bill and will introduce in the very near future a Measure

  1329
  more adequate to the needs of the pensioners, widows and spinsters?
  Mr. Ralph Etherton: From the speeches of many of the hon. Members opposite one might think that the Government had been unsympathetic towards. the aged, but an examination of the facts does nothing to support that sort of charge. More has been done by this Government since the war, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) pointed out on 29th July last year, for the aged and the widows than had been done in many years of peace. The record of the Government on this matter is, I suggest to the House, a good one. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), and, I think, another hon. Member, drew a comparison between the cost of an increase in the basic rate and the cost of some of the charges of the present war. I am surprised that any hon. Member in this House should fall into so fallacious a comparison, because, of course, the one has to be met out of capital by borrowing and the other is a continuous charge which the nation has to meet for all time. I feel that the agitation that we have had and the speeches which have been delivered urging an increase in the basic rate of the old age pension are misconceived, and for this reason. No increase in the basic rate of the old age pension could in any way benefit those who are in need of further assistance. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because whatever the increase in the basic rate was, by that amount would it be necessary to decrease supplementation in all those cases where there was supplementation.
  Mr. McNeil: Surely, the hon. Member is forgetting that within 10 months we have had a lifting of supplementation, and similarly we can have an increase in basic pension and an increase in the determination of need.
  Mr. Etherton: It is true, as the hon. Member has just said, that there can be changes in the rates of supplementation, but the point I am making is that the agitation which we have witnessed here to-day, and which has been taking place for some time in regard to an increase in the basic rate, is completely misconceived. I could understand it being urged that there should be some change
  1330
  in the rates of supplementation. There may or may not be a case for that. In my view, at the present time, the case is a very thin one. I will not go into all the details of that matter, because it was dealt with most adequately and in a very realistic way by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey).
  Mr. Tinker: We are asking for an increase in the basic rate for all old age pensioners who are not working, which would mean that supplementation would also go up accordingly.
  Mr. Etherton: I appreciate what the hon. Member says, but I cannot see how a rise in the basic rate would effect what he wants for those whom he has in mind.
  Mr. McNeil: Why not?
  Mr. Etherton: For the reasons I have just given. Sir William Beveridge and his Committee heard a great deal of evidence and made an exhaustive examination as a result of which Sir William made certain recommendations with which we are all familiar. Even those recommendations were not well received by those who had been conducting this very considerable campaign, and particularly by the Old Age Pensioners' Association, whose President happens to be a constituent of mine, so that I hear a good deal about their activities. One can forgive them for singleness of purpose, but I think they ought not to spoil their case by being unreasonable in this matter. They appear to want, if I understand their arguments correctly, specialised consideration at the expense of other social services. The Beveridge proposals, which I hope to see implemented at the earliest practicable moment, represent a carefully balanced plan. The Home Secretary indicated on i8th February in this House that the Government hoped to be able to better the Beveridge proposals for old age pensioners. This Bill to-day is a, step forward, because it removes some of the anomalies, and that there are anomalies I do not think anybody would deny. What I fear and notice is that some hon. Members opposite are sometimes carried away by their enthusiasm for good causes. The Home Secretary summarised his experience in these matters much better than I could hope to do when he said on 18th February, when speaking of his experience on the London County Council:

  1331
  "We had members, my own political friends, on the Council naturally demanding that we should do this, that or the other; it was what they were sent there for. Somebody wanted free milk for all the children in all schools; somebody else wanted free meals; somebody else higher rates of public assistance benefit. And we said, as any well conducted municipality or Government ought to say, that those items were desirable things, but they had to be looked at in their relativity."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 5943; cols. 2034–5, Vol. 386.]
  It is just that aspect of the problem which hon. Members opposite appear sometimes to ignore. Let us approach this matter in its proper perspective. I am as anxious as anyone to see that everything practicable is done for the aged, not only by cash but in kind, As I have already said, this Bill is another step forward, and I feel that hon. Members should give it the welcome it deserves.
  Mr. George Griffiths: If Sir William Beveridge had been here today, he would have been proud to have heard his name mentioned so often, but I think we have had too much "Beveridgitis" and have not heard sufficient about this Bill. I listened to the hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink), who came in, did his piece and now, I expect, has gone to wind up across the road and tell the Conservative annual conference that he has been here and put things right. I was amazed at his statement that he has had little correspondence and few interviews with old age pensioners in his division. If he had-represented a division in Lancashire, Yorkshire or Durham, where there are many old men, who are made older much more quickly than in any other counties in the British Isles because of their working conditions, he would have had many complaints. I would like to take him with me to my division for a week-end. When I get home my wife usually has a queue waiting at the door for me with their complaints, and the majority of them are about pensions or about the work of the Assistance Board. Then we had the speech by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). I would like to go on a platform with him in his own division and hear him make the same statements there as he did here to-day. If he did, I should not have much fear but that at the next General Election there would be no more Storeys in this House.
  1332
  I do not intend to delay the House very long, but I want to put two points to the Minister of Labour. I remember that when my right hon. Friend was making his promise to us there was a rare old row on these benches. He said that the Government would look into the question of widows' and spinsters' pensions. What I want to draw attention to is the fact that this Bill will create more anomalies than it removes, so far as the introduction of widows to supplementary pensions is concerned. We intend to put widows with children on to supplementary pensions but not to put any widow under 60, who has no children, on to supplementary pensions. I know widows over 60 have had supplementary pensions, and I want to say, to the credit of the Government, that they are doing very well with their pensions. There is a widow in my own division who is now getting 31s. instead of her former 10s., and she feels that she is in clover. There are other widows with 28s, or 29s., which has been given to them because of rent and other circumstances, and I want to give credit to the Government for that. But I am not bothered about them. There are widows in my division who have been asking me ever since supplementary pensions came into operation, "George, when shall we get anything? We have got nowt yet." That is the way they talk in my division. I have said to them, "Your turn is coming. Ernest told us it is coming, and I have any amount of faith in Ernest." I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will not mind me saying that, but if I had said, "The Minister of Labour," they would not have understood what I meant. While I was at home last week-end I met a widow who said, "How are we getting on?" I said, "I will be able to tell you next week." This woman has been a widow for 18 years and is 54 years of age. She has been charing to help make both ends meet, yet we have a Member on the other side saying that this is the sort of woman who must get nothing at all. I would like him to come to my division and tell that tale to this woman and others who are in a similar position.
  That is the fault that I have to find with this Bill, It does not state any age for the widow who has no children. The War Office is different. I hoped that the Government would have taken a leaf out of the book of the War Office. A soldier's widow

  1333
  under 40 without children has a pension of 17s. 6d. I am not questioning the amount; I only want to apply the principle. If she is over 40 and has children, she gets 25s. and the children's allowance. Why is it not possible for the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health to put in an age limit for the widow who has no children? Cannot they insert a provision that a widow of 40 or or 45 whys has no children shall be entitled to a supplementary pension the same as a widow who has children? I do not think that is too much to ask. She has had to work her soul out when she has been left with children, but the children have grown up and, when they reach adolescence, you expect them to get married and have children of their own. The widow who is left has nothing but her 10s.
  Now I want to say a word on the determination of needs. The Financial Memorandum says that Clause 2 (2) modifies the power to make Orders for the maintenance of poor persons against relations who are members of the same household. What does that mean? Only six weeks ago in the Barnsley Magistrates' Court three young men were hauled up because their mother was on poor relief. The sons are married. One has three children, one two and the other one. They were prepared to pay a certain amount, but the public assistance committee said it was not enough. They said they were not going to pay any more. They are earning more money than they ever earned in their lives before. There was a time When they were doing two or three days' work a week, and they lived very scantily. They had not sufficient to live on themselves. They are now working six days, because coal must be produced. The public assistance committee got to know how much they were earning. The eldest boy gets 8s. 6d., the second 7s. 6d. and the third 6s. 6d., and they will have to contribute towards their mother's support. The lad who is staying at home, if he is earning £3 a week and the mother is making his bed and looking after him and doing his washing, has a liability under the determination of needs to 7s., but the liability of the other lads is put on by the magistrates. In this Clause the Minister is giving to the boy at home, who has no responsibility for the home at all, privileges over and above the other lads who have to contribute. I ask both Ministers to put their heads together and give me an answer to the point that I have put forward.
  Sir Arnold Gridley: There are two things on which I want to say a few words. I represent a constituency in which I suppose something like 85 per cent. of the population work with their hands. Fortunately we have a wide variety of industries—cotton, many classes of engineering, hatting, glove making, confectionery and many others. When I first went there and had a look round, and gave the people an opportunity of summing me up, I was almost in despair, for I thought, How can a place like this return other than a Labour Member? History, however, proved later on that the great majority of the workers were more Conservative than Labour. But a great many of them have grown old in the service of their town and its industries and, it naturally follows, in their country. This question of the old age pensioner is one into which I felt it my duty to examine. That examination has proceeded of late, and this week-end I met some of my old age pensioners and those who had been moving about among them. One thing I regretted to find was that there were some well-intentioned but misguided people going about among them leading them to believe—and this is a form of deceit I intensely resent—that they had only to persist in a demand of 30s. a week each for husband and wife and the Government would certainly grant it. I think that that is quite wrong and reprehensible. It is wicked enough to deceive little children; it is almost as wicked to try to deceive old people. The first thing I found was that when it was explained to these old folk what a burden such a demand if granted would place upon the country, in addition to all the other demands which they are still wise enough to realise will have to be met, the universal comment was, "We do not want to be put in a position that will make things more difficult for our children who are following us."
  I find that one need of a great many old age pensioners is for free medical treatment as of right. The better type of old age pensioners, however poor they may be, are very proud. Doctor friends of mine told me of cases where doctors had attended these old people without any intention of making a charge for the attention and medical skill devoted to them, but it has been surprising to find how insistent some of them are on having bills rendered so that they can pay, though

  1335
  many of them find it extremely difficult to do so. I am satisfied that if it were possible somehow or other before long to provide for them free medical attention, it would be an additional form of assistance which would be of the greatest possible value.
  The second plea I want to make is this. I am not one of those who are satisfied with the present basic rate. I want to see that rate increased. I do not postulate today what I think the addition ought to be. I have views which I have expressed in this House as to how far the Beveridge proposals may be implemented, and I do not think the work the Government are doing in pursuing their investigations—which I hope they are pursuing energetically—can be divorced from the question we are debating to-day. While I know it is possible for those in need to obtain supplementary pensions, what one finds is this: There are people, not only in one walk of life, who will get all they can and have no hesitation in applying for the utmost to which they may be entitled. There is another class who always pride themselves on their independence, which is a commendable type of pride, and even if they are entitled to make application for supplementary pensions it would cut them to the heart to have to do it. That is the type of old age pensioner uppermost in my mind. I feel that they should not, because of their wholesome pride, have to exist in conditions that not one of us here would like to see their aged parents living in. I make these two pleas because I can only look upon this Bill and the proposals it contains as an instalment. I hope that the Government can see their way—I hope it will be soon—to make some increase in the basic pension. Although it may be only a few shillings, how much will it really mean to the old age pensioners?
  Mr. A. Bevan: I understand that technically, having tried to move a Motion for the Adjournment, I am not entitled to speak again except with the permission of the House.
  Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member on that understanding.
  Mr. Bevan: I am much obliged to the House for its permission. I think that Members in all parts of the House will now agree that the Debate is inclined to become somewhat repetitive, and neces-
  1336
  sarily so because there is very little meat on the Bill. The arguments, therefore, have a tendency to repeat themselves. The ground has been sufficiently cleared for the House to know exactly what are the alternatives before it. I am not going to argue the merits of the different Clauses of the Bill, because they have been discussed in very competent speeches, but I am deeply alarmed by two considerations. I am alarmed by the failure on the part of public opinion in the country effectively to register itself in the House of Commons. I am alarmed, too, for the effect that that is bound to have on the reputation of Parliament as a representative institution. I believe that no one in any part of the House will disagree with me when I say that there is an overwhelming majority in Great Britain for an immediate increase in old age pensions. I do not know whether members of the Government will deny that. But there does exist throughout all classes of the community and in all parts of the House a deep conviction that the existing standards of living for old age pensioners are much too low and that, therefore, an increase ought to be immediately accorded. If I am correct in saying that, I want to say a further thing.
  No responsible body of opinion in Great Britain believes that it is impossible for us out of our resources to grant that increase. The old age pensioners, and the people generally, whatever views they may have had about the arithmetic of old age pensions before, are now convinced that a nation which can afford this colossal expenditure on war can afford the few millions necessary to give an immediate increase on old age pensions. So we have two very important streams of public opinion, one that an increase ought to be granted and the other that it can be granted. Why, therefore, is it not granted? I believe this question is fundamental. If a deep-rooted conviction among the population as a whole fails to find adequate representation in the legislation of the Government, a deep gulf is being dug between Parliament and the people. 'It is most important for maintaining national unity and morale at the present time that our legislation should be brought into closer alignment with the realities existing outside the House.
  What are old age pensioners to do? They have organised themselves in

  1337
  various parts of the country. Some exception has been taken to that to-day. One hon. Member said that his old age pensioners were holding a pistol at his head by telling him that unless they got an immediate increase they would not vote for him next time. That seems to me a perfectly proper and democratic sanction to apply. That is exactly what this institution exists for. There is only one other way of doing it. Unless you can get your way by refusing to vote for people who will not give you what you want, the only other way is to organise rebellion, and why on earth the hon. Member should speak of a pistol being put at his head I do not know. The Income Tax paying members of society do exactly the same thing. Preceding every Finance Bill there is considerable perturbation in the City, and on one or two occasions I have seen Income Tax payers telling Members that unless they got certain reliefs through the Finance Bill they would not vote for them next time. No one regarded that as holding a pistol at the head of Members or as indicating the decadence of democratic institutions. It is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Old age pensioners have organised in considerable numbers and therefore are articulate. They have been bringing pressure to bear upon us for some years, and largely as a result of that pressure they have got relief.
  What are we to do? There are 40 of us who have put down our names to this Amendment. We shall go into the Division Lobby against the Government, and we shall be voted down by an overwhelming majority of Members who have no mandate from their constituents to vote us down, because if my original statement is correct, they will be violating the wishes of their constituents. Even the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), although he deprecated certain things, asked for an increase in the basic rate. So if hon. Members stream through the Lobby to vote against our Amendment, they will do so in violation of every principle upon which this House is based. I have never heard any hon. Member dare to defend these scales, not one. Will any hon. Member rise and say that the standard of living possible with an expenditure of 16s. a week is enough? Is there anyone who will say we have not at our disposal the resources out of which we could increase the
  1338
  amount? If hon. Members will not take up either of those two positions, then in voting against this Amendment they will be violating their own convictions and what they know to be the wishes of their constituents. Nothing does more damage to Parliamentary institutions than that kind of cynicism.
  The next argument behind which some hon. Members seek to conceal their embarrassment is that the Government are giving consideration to long-term reconstruction of our social services, and we ought to do nothing now which might prejudice the permanent reconstruction. I think it was the hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) who used that argument. I am frightened by that argument, very much frightened indeed. In this Amendment we are not asking for any great change in the structure of social services, only for an increase in the incomes of old age pensioners. If the argument is sound that the Government cannot grant an increase now without prejudicing their future plans, what are they going to say about workmen's compensation, which is an intergal part of the social services? I cannot pursue this point very far, and am merely using it as an illustration, but if we cannot have a substantial increase in old age pensions now because of the permanent plans, how can the Government increase workmen's compensation without prejudicing their long-term plans? And if they do not increase workmen's compensation very soon, the miners will be on strike. Evidently the argument is unsound. Everybody knows that we could increase the amounts without prejudicing future schemes. I understand there is some doubt about it, but the President of the Miners Federation of Great Britain has already declared, and it has been published in the Press, that the Government will bring in a Bill to increase workmen's compensation. How will the Government be able to justify an increase in the basic rates in one form of social insurance and to deny an increase in another direction on the ground that it would prejudice the future? I think the argument answers itself. There is no reason why workmen's compensation or old age pension scales cannot be raised and the higher scales woven into the permanent structure.
  If there is nothing in the argument that what we do now may prejudice future schemes, it is almost equally alarming to be told that we ought to look forward to

  1339
  these schemes as our main goal, because even though the permanent schemes may give an increase in pension rates we are not to have them until the war is over. Therefore I ask my hon. Friends, particularly those on this side of the House, to realise that what we say by not voting for this Amendment is that there is to be no increase in old age pension scales until the end of the war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House, and it was confirmed by other Ministers in the discussion upon the Beveridge Report, that we should have to consider what we were going to do in the light of our post-war commitments. Therefore, if that remains the attitude of the Government, there is to be no increase and no scheme at all until after the end of the war. There is to be no increase in old age pensions at present. Hon. Members are prepared to walk into the Lobby and say that this is not a mere interim Measure, awaiting a better Measure shortly dealing with scales, but that this represents the last attempt that this House is to make to improve old age pensions standards until the war is over. That is the position with which we are faced. I suggest that there is no hon. Member in this House who dare go to his constituents and justify a position of that kind.
  I say, therefore, that we are facing not a comparatively small Bill, but a major issue of Government policy. It is rather scandalous that we have had to wait for 10 months for the Bill. It was pretty evident from the speech of the Minister of Health that that time had not been devoted to any close study of the principles of the Bill, because, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), pointed out, the Bill was hardly in the Vote Office before the Government had to make an alteration in one of its main proposals. If we are voted down in the Lobby, what are we to do? What is left for us? At the present time there is a political truce. The unity of the Government is preserved by the party agreement, which disfranchises the old age pensioners in the constituencies from altering the composition of the House of Commons. We have agreed that we will not put up candidates against each other, so that the one sanction which can be applied against us by disgruntled constituents of voting at by-elections is denied them. Our position as a Labour Party becomes hopeless,
  1340
  because all that we can do is to stage a number of futile rebellions and find ourselves voted down by the sheepish battalions on the other side of the House. We get the advantage of making speeches, they vote us down, we do nothing about it, and the old age pensioner gets nothing.
  There is only one other sanction that this party can apply. If we are to be voted down on matters deeply affecting the welfare of our constituents, the psychology of the Armed Forces and the attitude of the people towards the Government, the Government are exposing the unity of the National Government to grave peril. All that is left for us to do is to apply the last sanction of all, and that is to take the Minister of Labour away from there and put him here. There is nothing else left for us to do. Hon. Members must face these facts realistically. What sanctions can be applied to a change of Government policy when that policy is deeply opposed to the wishes of the people and to an important section of the Government itself? Every time that we press for any of these things to be done, what are we told? That to press our claims further destroys the unity of the National Government. It implies that our representatives in the Government have tried to get these things and have failed. It means that, the Conservative section of the Government are faced with the odium of keeping Labour Ministers there under duress. I do not know what position they want to adopt. If Labour Ministers have not been pressing for these increases, then they violate our principles; if they have been pressing for those principles, they have been denied them by the Conservatives, who say, "You shan't have them, and if you press too far, you break up the National Government." In other words, the attitude taken up by the Government is taking national unity to the point of ultimate break-up.
  There are 40 names to the Amendment on the Order Paper, and we are to have a Division in which 50, 60 or 70 votes are going to be cast against the Bill. When the votes are counted, it will be found that the majority of this party will have voted for the Amendment or that sufficient of them will have abstained from voting for the Bill. This party will be hopelessly divided. That suits the Conservative Party. They allow us to talk, and they get their own way. There

  1341
  is only one thing for us to do. We must say to the Labour Members of the Government, "You must bring Government policy more into accord with our point of view, or the Government must be broken up." I am satisfied that a Labour Opposition would serve the interests of the nation far better than for Labour Ministers to be hostages. We could get far more, and the people of this country would have their grievances more immediately redressed. The political atmosphere would be much more healthy if that were the position. Members on this side of the House are anxious not to be driven to that position. We do not want to take the step of saying that our Members must leave the Government. We are very anxious to preserve the facade of national unity for the next year or so, because we are still going to face great military adventures. Why do hon. Members not help us to preserve it? They will not do so by asking us to support policies wholly distasteful to our constituents and out of accord with the modern mood.
  If this represents the attitude of the Government towards this matter, what faith can we repose in any of their promises about the post-war world? If they cannot do now what would make a wholesale contribution towards national security, how will they be able to do it then? I believe that the reason the Government are not making more concessions at the moment is that they want to hold them all back. If they raised the scales at the moment, they would find it difficult to provide still higher scales when bringing in their permanent scheme, whereas if they deny the increase in the scales now, they will have something to give them. Our old age pensioners are being sacrificed at the moment to the future politics of the National Government. When that is understood in the nation as a whole, people will say that the Government should stop playing politics and be decent towards our people.
  I am convinced that in the Bill we have one of the great test cases of the relationship between us and the Government and between the Government and the people. How are the Government to get out of this dilemma? There is a dilemma, without any doubt. When the Bill is passed, we are to have Regulations, and before we have Regulations we shall have
  1342
  a White Paper telling us roughly what the Regulations are to contain. There is no reason why the Bill should be proceeded with now. If the Government intend to bring forward Regulations that are to improve the situation, there is no reason why this Second Reading should not stand adjourned and the Government put their White Paper into the Vote office indicating what the Regulations are to be. There is no reason why the House and the Government should be put to the embarrassment of a critical Division. It will be critical, if not in votes, then in its implications. Why do it? It is not necessary. If the Government have generous intentions, why should they not make them clear now in a White Paper? They cannot issue Regulations in pursuance of the Bill until the House has authorised the Bill, but in the White Paper the Government could indicate their intentions about the Bill and about the draft Regulations. There is nothing unconstitutional in that.
  The Minister may not be able to make a statement to-day to satisfy us, but unless he is able to do something on the lines I am suggesting, we are left once more with the impression that nothing is intended to be done at all and that this Bill therefore is not an interim Measure but the last Measure we are to have on this subject during the war. I end with a plea to the Government not to embarrass the nation, and not to undermine the structure of the National Government for a matter of this sort, on which there is common accord, where there is universal agreement that these old people's standards have to be improved, and regarding which people cannot understand why the Government are not doing that. I regret the attitude of the Government in this matter. Not only is it reactionary, but it is opposed to the deep, permanent and vital interests of this country.
  Major Sir George Davies: The hon. Member has been delivering one of a series of addresses which he has been making to the House in the course of this Debate. A previous speaker spoke of the question of holding a pistol to the heads of Members of Parliament, and in the very interesting speech to which we have been listening it seemed to me that the hon. Member was levelling a very direct pistol at the heads of certain targets sitting opposite him rather than addressing

  1343
  himself to the actual merits or demerits of the Bill or the Amendment before us today. This always seems to me one of those occasions when it is extraordinarily difficult for some of us to take part in the Debate, for this reason: As has been emphasised by other speakers, this is a matter which appeals to all of us, from a charitable point of view if you like to use that term, perhaps more than any other we can think of. It is our relationship with, and our responsibility to, those who are least able to continue the struggle of life, that is, the old and infirm. There is no doubt about that appeal. The old question "Am I my brother's keeper?" must still be answered in the affirmative by every right-thinking person, but it does not follow that when we come to consider the matter from the point of view of the possibility of legislation that we must not put out of our minds such appealing considerations, and get down to the actual facts of the problem with which we are faced.
  There has been a certain amount of discussion as to whether this Bill is or is not carrying out certain pledges and undertakings that have been given in previous Debates. I do not propose to enter into that at the moment except to say that I think the view that is probably taken by most Members about it is that the pledges have been carried out actually in the letter but have rather failed in the spirit. We must, however, not shut our minds to this fact, that whatever may be said about the provisions of the Bill which claim to carry out those pledges, they are to a certain extent a definite improvement on the situation which has hitherto existed. I think there seems to have been a certain amount of confusion in some speeches, particularly connected with the Amendment, between the matter of the basic rate and supplementary pensions. Those who are asking now for an increase of the basic rate do not seem to me to have realised what was pointed out by an hon. Friend of mine a little earlier in the Debate, that to the extent that you increase the basic rate, unless other provision is made, to that extent do you reduce the supplementary assistance because the maximum amount has remained static.
  I think that what really is the view of those who are in favour of this Amend-
  1344
  ment or are opposed to the Bill as a whole is not that the basic rate should be increased but that the total receivable income of old age pensioners—people over a certain age, and under certain conditions—should be increased. That is a very different point from the question of an increase of the basic rate, because it must be borne in mind that there is this advantage in certain of the provisions in this Bill which I hold are an improvement apart from those connected with the limit of the amount of capital which should be considered in calculating the benefits to be received, and that is the special provision that is bringing in a different class for consideration—the one dealing with widows and young children who hitherto have not been eligible for consideration. If we really concentrate on the total income to be provided for our old people, whether it is basic or whether it is supplementary, we come down to the question of want or need. That is a matter, the determination of needs, which has been wrangled over times without number in this House. It is a matter that had to be dealt with, and has been dealt with by Sir William Beveridge in his Report, which Members on that side, almost with unanimity and also many on this side, have wished to see "implemented in toto," I believe is the expression, though I think second thoughts are coming home to very large numbers of our people who realise that to do that would fall very far short of some of their aspirations.
  Sir William Beveridge has pointed out that whatever the standard of want or need which you are eliminating or supplying, whatever that standard is to be, it must be ascertained beforehand to what extent that individual requires to be relieved from that fear of want, and so some form of investigation or determination of need is absolutely essential, because I do not believe there is any large portion of the community to-day, whatever their status may be, who would support the idea that out of their earnings, out of the wages they are sweating to obtain, should be paid to others financial assistance which those others do not really require. We then come down to the consideration of what should or should not be the standard to be laid down of want or need. That surely is somewhat elastic, because conditions change with the cost of living, the fact that to-day's luxuries may be to-morrow's necessities, and regard

  1345
  must be had to conditions which are changing all the time.
  Here I would like to make a protest against two statements made in the course of two speeches to which we have listened. The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) made use of a quotation to the effect that in the midst of plenty the people perish. I repudiate that suggestion. There is not a word of truth in it. We are too prone to blacken our own characters and to forget that we have a record unequalled by any other nation in the world for the way we have answered the question, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Since the days of Queen Elizabeth, when the first vestiges of the feeling of responsibility for others began to dawn on our people, that first flicker has developed into a flame, until today, when we are faced with the almost immediate problem of considering how best to implement the suggestions in the Beveridge Report. The hon. Member for Sea-ham (Mr. Shinwell), whom I am glad to see in his place, since I wish to refer to him, spoke of a large or vast army of people—referring to old 'age pensioners—who were in destitution. I say it is not true. It is not fair to our people to use in this House those expressions, which may pass for currency on political platforms outside, and to say that there is a large army of old age pensioners, or of any other people, in destitution. That is simply not true, and it ought to be withdrawn or explained away.
  Mr. Shinivell: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for allowing me to deal with the point. Is it not a fact that if a single old age pensioner has only 9s. or 10s. a week to provide himself or herself with food and all other necessaries, that is a state of destitution?
  Sir G. Davies: That may be, but I maintain that the position does not exist. It is purely hypothetical. The provision made for supplementary allowances and public assistance covers all those points. It is simply not true that there is a large army of people in this country suffering destitution. What is the line to be drawn as to where necessities should be supplied by the State, by the taxpayer, by the public in general? This matter was gone into with great care by Sir William Beveridge in his Report. He took into counsel people well known in studying these subjects, like Cadbury, Rowntree,
  1346
  and others, in order to find out what should be taken as the standard below which we should not fall. I have concerned myself to ascertain how that compares with the standard which can, with the exceptions that I will mention in a moment, be achieved by the provisions already existing for supplementary allowances. I myself was surprised to find that in the case. of an old couple, both pensioners, with an average rental of 10s. a week—you must take some basic figure for comparison—and getting the public assistance to which they are entitled, they are better off now to the extent of a shilling a week than they would be under the Beveridge proposal under which they would receive 40s. and then not until 1965. You may say that I am picking out cases which support my own argument, but that is not so. I am trying to compare like with like. If you say that. even with this Measure, we are countenancing a state of destitution for a vast number of our fellow-countrymen, I say that it is not true.
  Mr. Shinwell: It is absolutely true.
  Sir G. Davies: Whether the Beveridge measure of want, or the one provided to day, is adequate or not adequate, is another question. What I want to say is that the question of the basic rate does not touch that matter at all; it is quite another consideration. The concern I have with the basic rate is a twofold one. We must bear certain facts in mind. I have not had the privilege of being here for the whole of the Debate, and hon. Members must forgive me if the figures which I am about to give have already been quoted. We have 3,500,000 people concerned with this question, of whom about 1,250,000 have their pensions supplemented by the Assistance Board. There remain some 2,000,000 others. The vast majority of those have never applied for assistance. There are three reasons for that. One, which was touched upon by an hon. Friend of mine upon these benches just now, is a feeling of pride, which we all understand and admire. Although their need exists, that feeling of pride has prevented these people from making any application for assistance, We do not know the number of these people, and it is impossible to find out. They do exist in substantial numbers, but not in "vast armies." Then there are those who because of certain possessions which

  1347
  they have—and it is no good pretending that no one amongst those who become eligible for old age pensions have possessions—do not qualify. And, thirdly, there are those who know that if they made application they would not qualify. The only people who can conceivably be affected by the increase in the basic rate are those who have been too proud to apply for public assistance. They are now receiving the statutory 10s., and if the basic rate is increased to 15s. they will be that much better off.
  But there is a substantial number of people who are now getting the 10s. a week, who do not need it. That is the price we have paid for giving a basic rate to which any contributor is entitled. It was never intended to be something which anyone could live on irrespective of need. If we increase the basic rate, however much we increase it by, we shall be increasing that burden on the earnings of other wage earners for the maintenance, even to a limited degree, of those who are not, under any standard fixed by Sir William Beveridge or anyone else, in need of it.
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: Surely the hon. and gallant Member will agree that a big proportion of that large number of people who are drawing the pension have contributed to it, and that they are just as much entitled to it as he would be entitled to his insurance, or as his wife would be if he died?
  Sir G. Davies: I agree that most of them have contributed, but not all. This is not an easy problem. I have said that the increase of the basic pension is not a solution, but when those who have studied this matter decided that a basic rate of 10s. was a proper one certain conditions were taken into consideration, primarily connected with the cost of living at that time. The cost of living has substantially increased since that basis was fixed. If the appropriate basis then was los. today it would be proper to increase it by a certain amount because of the increase in the cost of living. This is a small Measure. It is, to some extent marking time, for the reason put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink), namely: that we do not want to take an irrevocable step now which is going to conflict with the broad decisions that are taken when
  1348
  the Beveridge Report is "implemented." But small as they are, they are an advance. This Debate has brought home to the Government that they are small and that further steps will have to be taken. But I cannot see for these reasons that it is wise or desirable that anybody should vote against Me Second Reading of this. Bill, which, as far as it goes, is an indication that we wish to put on to the Statute Book something which shows how deeply we all feel the responsibilities we have to the old and the infirm and to those who need the assistance of those of us who are more fortunately placed.
  Mr. Coilindridge: I had better declare my attitude at the commencement of the few remarks I propose to make. I am supporting the position of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). That position is by no means a new position in this House. It consists of suggesting that we should accept what is embodied in the present Measure but at the same time, doing what is customary in this House, asking the Government to look still further and to accept other matters that we think would be beneficial to the people concerned. In this case it is the old age pensioners. It is an attitude which a good many of my hon. Friends sitting on these benches adopted in their normal lives before they entered Parliament. In the trade union world to which we belong we rarely have had occasions in our negotiations when we have got 100 per cent. of what we desired to have, but that fact has not precluded us from accepting what was offered, and, further, it certainly has not prevented us pressing home at the time of the acceptance the fact that we should have an improvement in the existing position.
  It was natural to expect that this Bill would be a mixed kind of Bill, in view of the constitution of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) tried to read into it that there are things calculated to bring down the Government if they persist in this policy. Candidly, I do not think that even the bulk of the people who have supported this Amendment on the Order Paper would wish it. The overwhelming number desire that this Government, which was formed in 1940 for the more effective prosecution of the war, shall still continue, and it was woefully wrong of

  1349
  my hon. Friend to introduce the suggestion that, if the Government got their way and large numbers of Members on these benches went into the division lobby against the Government—I hope they do not—it would tend towards letting down the troops and in all probability—
  Mr. Davidson: Surely, my hon. Friend will agree that on the last occasion when we discussed this question a large number of Members on this side, including himself, went into the Lobby in favour of the old age pensioners, but we did not bring down the Government.
  Mr. Collindridge: That really did happen, but it happened over the Beveridge Report. At no stage has there been a majority of this party who have wished to bring down the Government on this question. We know that overriding everything is the question of the prosecution of the war. It is not telling tales out of school when I say that the Parliamentary party to which we belong recently decided, in the democratic way of things, to accept by majority decision what the Government have to offer but still to continue to press for better old age pensions.
  Mr. Shinwell rose
  Mr. Collindridge: My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has had the opportunity of making his speech. I would suggest that he allows me to make mine. Since the hon. Gentleman made his contribution a Member on these benches has dealt, not with the question of pensions, but the question of what is going to happen to the Government assuming large sections of this party go into the Division Lobby against the Government.
  Mr. Shinwell: Why does not my hon. Friend tell the whole truth?
  Mr. Collindridge: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham is just now indulging in the thing he suggested that the hon. and learned. Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) was doing. I have no desire at all, and indeed I would not have referred to this aspect of the matter but for the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. I was saying, at the beginning of my remarks, that the customary practice in this House has been to accept even what is offered, but to be rather critical
  1350
  because ideas we have had have been left out of the proposals before the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield did that. Indeed, in the remarks that I have to make on this question I shall be somewhat critical of the Government's position on this Bill. My own life and that of many of my hon. Friends on these benches has been concerned with asking for certain things, failing to get them, coming away with what we have got and still continuing to fight for what we want. Surely, that is the democratic way of doing things.
  I must be candid. One of my hon. Friends suggested a moment or two ago that I wanted to jump in with both feet on this question. I have sat in this House since the first words of the discussion on this Measure, and, except for about 15 minutes, I have been in my seat the whole time. Therefore, it was wrong to suggest that I was desiring merely to whitewash someone. If anybody cast a little gloom on the proceedings and the Measure, it was the Minister of Health. He was wordy in explaining the proposals of the Bill, but he was by no means enthusiastic, in his usual way, in putting the proposals before the House. It was natural to expect that we should have a mixed Bill from a Government of this kind. I believe that members of the Cabinet who belong to the party which sits on these benches have done their best to get the proposals for which we stand accepted. But we cannot expect that we shall get from what is after all the minority section of the Cabinet all that we want. I would say, as an old trade unionist accustomed to negotiations, that I rarely failed to accept things which tended to improve our position and still press on for more. A good many people in my district will derive undoubted advantages from this Bill, but it would be wrong to say that there are not many more people who feel that if we are going to have a real settlement of old age and widows' pensions which will give general satisfaction, we must look upon this Measure as an interim Measure and press for further improvement.
  The Measure leaves untouched some great grievances in connection with old age and widows' pensions. Can we justify the continued passing by of the widow without children or the widow whose children have gone to work? More

  1351
  often than not it is the middle-aged widow who needs the greater consideration. This Bill, as far as I can see, prevents such a widow having any extra benefits. We must press for redress of the unfair treatment of these women. Again, can it be denied that there is need for an improvement in the basic pension in the case of those old age pensioners who have definitely retired from work? I want to refer also to the failure of this Bill to give some redress to pensioners with resources. There is a penalty upon the thrifty worker who by living frugally, by regular attendance at work and with the advantage of good health, has found it possible by methodical saving to amass a small capital sum. I view with alarm the fact that there is nothing in this Measure to put these people in the position in which they ought to be. I claim that that class ought to be more encouraged.
  When young people see how harshly the old pensioner with capital resources is treated I do not think they will receive much encouragement to be thrifty. Not only from the point of view of advantaging the thrifty pensioner, but as a good example it would be beneficial to treat this class of pensioner in a better manner. Under present conditions the thrifty pensioner with £400 capital, invested, say, at 2½ per cent. in the Post Office Savings Bank, receiving by way of income from that investment 3s. 10d. a week, is at a disadvantage because of that income and to the extent of 15s. he gets a reduction of his supplementary pension. This Bill admittedly improves the position, but you will still have individuals with a small capital sum of £400, invested at 2½ per cent., receiving from it an income of 3s. rod. a week, who will be at a disadvantage to the extent of 7s. 6d. a week because of a reduced supplementary pension. I was recently asked to analyse two pensioners cases in the district where I live. The pensioners were brothers. They had lived rather similar lives as regards their work, but the one had been thrifty and the other had spent his money as he went on.
  It turned out that one brother with no capital resources received a State pension of 10s. for himself and 10s. for his wife, supplementary pension of 17s., a coal allowance for 26 weeks of 3s., and because
  1352
  he had a rent of 9s. a week was allowed an extra 3s. That resulted in a total income of £2 3s. His brother, with £500 of hard-earned savings invested at 2½ per cent., bringing him 43. 10d. a week, had his own and his wife's State pension of 10s. and the interest of 4s. rod. from his £500, making a total of 24s. 10d. No supplementary pension. That was the result of being thrifty and saving money. Surely that is not the way in which we ought to treat old age pensioners who have been thrifty. There are a good many things in this Bill which will benefit people, but I hope it will not be thought that because we support the Bill for the sake of those benefits we are going to discontinue a sensible and constitutional agitation on behalf of those people who have been left outside the Bill. Just as in our industrial lives we have accepted what was offered, so in this case we shall accept this Measure but, like Oliver Twist, press on for more.
  I think a good many of those who have put their names to this Amendment have done so because they want to improve the old age pensioners' position. But let us look at what the Amendment says. It says:
  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to make provision for an increase in the income of old age pensioners, and ignores the needs of childless widows under 60 years and elderly spinsters."
  A good many of us would subscribe to that, but can it be suggested that a vote in the Division Lobby In favour of that Amendment will give us the conditions that we want? You will not get by voting for that Amendment an increase for anybody. The Amendment is really more negative than positive, but the fact is that this Measure, which, I agree, is weak and only moderate, is advantageous to many people, particularly in our industrial constituencies. I appeal to my hon. Friends on these Benches to accept this Bill for the moment for what it is. We are not unduly enthused or elated about it but it is at least something. We shall continue to press the Government to bring in legislation to include all the pensioners who have been left out to-day.
  Captain Sir William Brass: I have listened to most of the Debate to-day, and one of the speeches which did not surprise me very much was that made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who said he thought

  1353
  it was right that a pistol should be held at our heads in order to force us to vote for an increase in the basic pension. Personally, I think that is all wrong—
  Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. Ought the hon. and gallant Gentleman to take advantage of the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)?
  Hon. Members: He is here.
  Sir W. Brass: Yes, I can see he is here; he is sitting on the Front Bench now, instead of at the back. I want to make some remarks about his speech, because I think it was thoroughly unfair from start to finish. He said he thought a pistol ought to be put at our heads in order to force us to vote for 3os. a week for old age pensioners, regardless entirely of what it will cost the country.
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Member is misrepresenting me —
  Sir W. Brass: I am not giving way at the moment.
  Mr. Silverman: Then the hon. and gallant Member should not misrepresent if he does not intend to give way.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: He should not speak any more.
  Sir W. Brass: But I intend to say more; I have been a Member of this House for 20 years—
  Dr. Edith Summerskill: Why?
  Sir W. Brass: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is always attacking his own Ministers on the Treasury Bench. He said that sheepish battalions would go into the Lobby in favour of the Government, but what I suggest is that it will be the responsible battalions who will go into the Government Lobby, while irresponsible people, who do not mind attacking their own Ministers because it is the popular thing to do, will go into the other Lobby. It is a cheap and easy thing to be asked to vote hi favour of so much money being spent out of the public purse. It is often done by irresponsible people. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale often abuses his own Ministers, who have responsibility, while he and many others on the other side of the House have no responsibility whatsoever. I think it is a bad thing that
  1354
  we should have in this House an opposition which is continually pinpricking its own Ministers because it thinks it is popular in the constituencies. I do not think it is popular in the constituencies. I do not know whether hon. Members have realised it, but when it is advocated that a certain amount of money should be spent on pensions or anything else, it must be remembered that it has to come out of somebody's pocket.
  In the old days it used to be said, "Soak the rich." But since then the Chancellor has pointed out that £30,000,000 is the only amount that could be obtained from all the Super-tax payers of the country and I am not at all sure that hon. Members will find it quite so popular when they go to their electors and say, "You must find this extra money out of your wages." I have said that, because I felt it keenly while the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was speaking. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) also talked about a certain amount of money as if it were only the cost of two destroyers. That is very cheap stuff. It is easy to get up and say, "We are spending so much on the war; why should we not spend it on pensions?" Hon. Members opposite seem to forget one thing, and that is the very large proportion of this money that is being borrowed from working people, who are themselves contributing. We cannot go on doing that after the war. Pensions are not only a matter of war policy; they are concerned with post-war policy as well. We cannot continue to give undertakings which cannot be implemented later, when we cannot borrow the £4,000,000,000 a year that we are borrowing now. It is a bad thing to say, and very unfair, that the cost would be only a certain number of days' expense on the war or the cost of a certain number of destroyers. We cannot go on borrowing at the rate at which we are borrowing at the present time.
  I think this Bill is a step in the right direction. I am not satisfied or happy with what it is doing, because it is only an instalment, but we are doing something to make the means test, so far as capital assets are concerned, far less burdensome than before. I do not agree that people should get public money regardless whether they need it or not, but I agree with one principle which I

  1355
  think is right and which is in this Bill, namely, that you should encourage thrift. The amount has been increased from £300 to £400, and the amount of contribution has been reduced from is. to 6d. That is all to the good, because it encourages the thrift that we want to see. It is wrong to encourage agitation among the people that if only they persist long enough, they will get what they want, regardless of the cost. There have been complaints that the supplementary allowances were too low, and I am not at all sure that I do not agree. I think they are rather too low. I have represented a working-class constituency for 20 years, and I do not believe that my constituents regard me as one who is trying to grind down the poor.
  Mr. Davidson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must have had a very good agent.
  Sir W. Brass: I want to see the people in my constituency, as in others, living under happy conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) pointed out, rightly, that the supplementary allowance was, in fact, higher than that provided for under the Beveridge scheme. I feel that the Beveridge scheme is something that we have to take as a whole later on. It is a contributory scheme and, as the pension rises, as indeed it should rise later on with the alteration in the value of the £, the contributions will increase at the same time, so that, as far as the contrast between the Beveridge scheme and this is concerned, I am not very much interested.
  I want to appeal for the non-contributory pensioners. There are not very many of them, and they are not at all in a good way. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) when he talks about their pride. There are large numbers of people who are existing on 10s., and they will not ask for a supplementary pension because they feel that there is something infra dig. about doing so. These people come under the non-contributory Old Age Pensions Acts, which date back for a very long time. Would it not be possible to increase their basic Pensions? They are mostly very old, out of work and very hard up, and there is a great deal of pride about them. The case of the contributory pensioners is a different problem altogether.
  1356
  I am going to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would not consider increasing by 5s. the pensions of the non-contributory pensioners. The people you want to try to help are those who are not employed. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will give some indication of some help in that direction.
  Mr. Gallacher: Yesterday there was a great thanksgiving ceremony for the victory in North Africa, an event of world-shaking importance. Yesterday evening the Prime Minister enthused the United States Congress as he spoke of the great events of the past few months and the still greater events that lie ahead. A great Army and a great country! Now, look what the House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments, is discussing. Look at the miserable, trivial production that has come from the Government to take up our time. It is almost unbelievable. I have heard about the mountain in labour but here are four mountains— "Presented by Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Ernest Bevin, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Secretary Johnston." They have "laboured," they have conceived and they have brought forth this miserable little freak, a shamefaced little illegitimate, which has no relation whatever to the pledge that was given or to the expectations of the country.
  I often hear talk about "the usual channels." I am not fed through those usual channels. Other Members seem to draw their inspiration from this source. As to the pledges that were given, there must have been talk somewhere. Some of the people on the Government Front Bench who wanted to be important must have been whispering. From Member after Member I heard, "There is going to be an increase in the basic pension." That feeling also existed in every part of the country—that the Government intended to bring in something which would increase the basic rate. Why all the delay, the putting off from week to week and month to month, if this is all they are to have? The Memorandum says, "The main objects of this Bill are"—then we get two trivial items, which cover only a small percentage of the pensioners of the country. It has taken these four Ministers longer to produce these two miserable little items than it took our Army to take Bizerta and Tunis. That is simply playing with the House and the country and

  1357
  with the old age pensioners. The Bill is an insult to them and to their children and grand-children who carried through the heroic events of North Africa. It is an insult to Members of the House if they are not beyond the stage of being insulted.
  The old age pensioners expected an increase in the basic rate. The widows, who have been so far neglected, expected to be brought in. some are brought in but others are not. We come here today and listen to the talk that is almost invariably served up from the other side. The hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), for instance, has the audacity to say that the pride of certain people in the ranks of the working class will not let them apply for certain rights to which they are entitled, and that is a good thing.
  Sir A. Gridley: I did not say anything of the sort.
  Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member said it was good for them that they should have this pride. Will the hon. Member for Stockport and his associates hesitate to grab anything that is going? If there is an indication of profit anywhere, an opportunity to dodge Income Tax, or a chance of getting gain anywhere, do any of them hesitate? Have they any pride? It is not pride that prevents poor people asking for supplementary pensions but fear, and the Minister of Health knows it. Many of these people are afraid to go before these various boards. I have a friend here to-day visiting me from my home town. His wife's grandmother, 90 years of age, gets a supplementary pension. A young investigator goes to her every month to see that the old lady is not wasting the money on riotous living, and she is asked all kinds of questions about how she spends her money. We are told that it has to come out of somebody's pocket. The hon. Member for Stockport took up the same attitude. Do he and his friends take up that attitude when it is a case of their own gang getting pensions? Why is it only when the working class get pensions that we hear arguments about the duty of the son to keep his father or that it is public money that is being spent? I remember one night a Tory Member giving us a lecture on the spending of public money, and he said that we must be satisfied that those who are getting it are in need of it. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) asked, "What about your
  1358
  own pension?" The Member said, "That is an entirely different matter." What about the pension we discussed a month or two ago of a man who was retiring with £2,450 of public money and no questions asked? He would have been insulted if any questions had been asked.
  What about the thousands of people receiving pensions of £500, £1,000, £1,500, £2,000 and £2,500? 'The Lord Chancellor, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, put up a terrific argument at that Box in favour of the means test. He can serve a year or three years as Lord Chancellor, and when he retires he will get £5,000 a year of public money. That will come out of somebody's pocket. It will come out of the workers' pockets. Will Members on the other side talk about that? Public money can be handed out without thought, without a care, without a question of any kind as long as it is paid to their own class. The superior people in this country can do anything, and no questions are asked. Nobody asks them how much money they have in the bank, how many there are in the family and how much money is coming into the household. They do not have to go before a board and explain this and that, and they do not have young men and women visiting them and asking them questions. We have heard cases of investigators going to some of these elderly women and lifting up their outside skirts to see what they were wearing underneath. There are all sorts of insults of that kind. That is why many of the people will not make application for supplementary pensions. The old age pensioners are entitled to demand 30s. a week. They consist of men who have worked for 50 years on the railways, in the mines, in the factories, and of women who have given 50 years of devoted service to the home. Yet they are accused of impudence because they ask for 305. a week. Of course, it will cost a lot of money, and if they get their 30s. a week, some of the people on the other side will have to do with a bit less. It might be better for their physical and moral health if they did have a bit less.
  We support the Amendment because of the demand that exists in the country. I do not know of any issue on which there is more unanimity in the country than on the issue of justice for old age pensioners. They make a claim for a larger pension, and they are entitled to it. The Government should be prepared to give it to them

  1359
  graciously. We are living in a time of great events, and we ought to rise to the height of those events. What a contrast between listening to the Prime Minister last night and listening to the Minister of Health to-day. Talk about coming from the sublime to the "gorblimey." The great mass of the people support this demand. I do not want to exaggerate, and I would say that go per cent. of them support it. It is not right to say that the workers will make a row because it would mean that something is coming out of their pockets. The workers know very well where the wealth comes from. It does not grow on orchard trees. You may have a big estate, but you cannot grow wealth. The workers will not raise any objection. Most of them, particularly the organised workers, want justice for the old age pensioners. This Amendment is put forward to get rid of this Bill and to force the Government to withdraw it, so that they will have to bring in another Bill. These crumbs will never satisfy the appetites that should be satisfied. Therefore, we urge the House to reject the Bill and to force the Government to withdraw it and to bring in a Bill more in keeping with the great days we are living in and with the justice that the old folk desire and deserve.
  Mr. Mathers: We have had an impassioned Debate, but after sitting through almost the whole of it I think that if an analysis were made of the speeches, it would be found that 75 per cent. is not an over-estimate of the speeches that have been devoted to what is not contained in the Bill rather than to the Bill itself. Working on the principle of speaking as nearly as possible only to the Bill itself, my intervention will not be a long one. I have a kind of reputation for standing by those who are badly placed, for minorities, for those who are helpless and unbefriended, and it may be to some extent that attitude of mind which causes me to feel inclined to stand by this little Bill.
  A number of my hon. Friends are very condemnatory of the fact that this is a little Bill. When I looked forward to the coming of this Bill I must say that I did not expect it to be a big Bill. In my own constituency I have told old age pensioners that I did not think it would be a big Bill, because I said that before any-
  1360
  thing in the way of big moves were made I thought the pledge given last July would require to be given effect to separately, and we have it from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) that this Bill does in fact carry out that pledge. While it is true that I want to see greater progress made, greater benefits for old age pensioners than are contained in this Bill, at the same time I would say that the Bill with which we are presented is not the instrument for carrying that purpose into effect. It does not seem to me that what we want can be done by means of this Bill, which is limited to certain improvements which I want to see in addition to the bigger things I have in mind. The fact that I want those improvements makes it quite impossible for me to oppose this Bill, because if I do oppose it, then I do not get the improvements, and people in the country who have been told that they will participate in these improvements within a very short period will be disappointed. If I were to vote against this Bill, I should be denying to them the fulfilment of a promise which has been made to them publicly by the publication of this Bill.
  Mr. Davidson: May I ask the hon. Member one question? He has stated his attitude very clearly. If the Government, instead of bringing forward two small reforms, had brought forward one small reform, would he still accept that one small reform and look for more?
  Mr. Mathers: That would not have been an implementation of the pledge which was given last July, because two reforms were most specifically promised at that time. Therefore I shall vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, because I want to see what is in this Bill carried into effect. I want to see the improvement in the thrift position, I want to see the improvement there is in this Bill for widows with children and for blind persons. I wish we could have added a greater improvement for widows under 60 without children, I want to see the improvement in public assistance payments by giving effect to,the Determination of Needs Act Regulations in assessing resources and disregarding the numerous items of income that can be received without detriment to the receipt of the supplementary pension.
  In this connection I think there is something in this Bill that we must not destroy, because here is the first authority, as I

  1361
  see it, that the Government will have to carry into effect the granting of supplementary pensions to the class of widows who are being brought in. It is because of the prospect of the improvements that will flow from giving effect to that part of the Bill that I am further in favour of it, and feel that it is quite impossible for me to deny the opportunity to the Government to carry into effect, by means of new Regulations under the supplementary pensions scheme, what they would not have the power to carry into effect in respect of those persons if this Bill were not passed. Therefore, I dare not take the responsibility of denying to these people the opportunities that this Bill provides.
  Much has been said about this being the only thing that the Government will do and that after this Bill has been passed the Government will sit back and do nothing at all. I do not take that view. If I had been inclined to that opinion, I should imagine that the strong feeling shown in the House to-day would have clearly indicated to the Government that they must not take that course. If there is an overwhelming demand in this House for the opportunity, which this Bill provides, to bring into effect new Regulations to make an improvement which I am sure everyone hopes will be a substantial improvement in the position of supplementary pensions—
  Mr. Davidson: Will the hon. Member take a bet on that?
  Mr. Mathers: I am not a betting man, and therefore I shall not respond to my hon. Friend's desire to lose his money to me. I do not respond to that invitation to gamble. I am opposed to gambling in any case. But I have the faith, if I may put it that way, that out of the new Regulations which will come along following the passage of this Bill into law we shall have an improvement in the position of old age pensioners over quite a wide field. I started by saying that this Bill was a small Measure. Everyone admits it. I expected it to be small. It is small, but not quite so small as some of my hon. Friends have tried to make out. In the Financial Memorandum which prefaces the Bill there are references to amounts making up a total of£850,000, and a number of my hon. Friends have limited themselves to describing this as a Bill putting only£850,000—an estimated
  1362
  amount—into the pockets of the people for whom it is intended. But my hon. Friends should not ignore the fact that there is a statement in a further paragraph of the Financial Memorandum showing clearly that in respect of a number of people for whom no calculation can be made there will be a considerable amount of money to be added to that £850,000.
  I know that we live in times of vast expenditure. If I try to relate the position in which we are as a nation to our own family life, I find the only thing I can do is to compare the position in which we are at the present time with the position in which a family finds itself when some member of the family is very seriously ill and requires a surgical operation. For that purpose they are willing to spend any amount of money. They will drain their resources to the uttermost in order to pay for the necessary treatment of that individual member of the family. But they do not, after that, base their weekly expenditure upon the expenditure that was incurred during that period of crisis in the family life. In the same way I say—and this is the only reference I am making to what these things cost—that we cannot possibly relate the expenditure upon these matters to the vast expenditure which is inevitable at the present time to save our national life. We cannot relate this vast expenditure to the normal, everyday expenditure to which we normally commit this nation. We have to keep in mind the fact, however, that this country can afford anything if it has the productive capacity and if the energy and the activity are there. If the making of wealth is there, by the only method by which wealth can be made, the application of labour to natural resources, we can afford anything. Building upon that basis, I am not afraid of any expense which this country may be called upon in the future to meet. I would conclude by once again reminding the House that we are dealing with a small Measure. I am going to back it with my vote.
  Mr. Molson: In rising to address the House upon this Bill, I do so as one who has associated himself inside and outside this House with the Beveridge Report and has advocated its implementation, and have spoken in favour of the principles of the Beveridge Report at a meeting of my party. I find

  1363
  it difficult to understand how it comes about that a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite can have associated themselves with the Amendment now before us, while, only a short time ago, they went into the Lobby against the Government on the ground that they wanted the Beveridge Report carried out in its fullest particulars. I would remind them that politicians should try to observe the principle of consistency. To vote against the Government on one occasion on the ground that they have not carried out or undertaken to carry out the whole of the recommendations of the Beveridge Report, and a few weeks later to propose an Amendment asking that certain things should be done which are clearly in conflict with the recommendations of that Report, is not a course of action which is to the credit of the hon. Members concerned, and is explicable only on the ground that whatever appears at the moment to be a popular issue in the constituencies will obtain their support.
  When I read the Amendment I find that it asks for an increase in the income of old age pensioners. I can only assume that that means an increase in the flat rate of pensions. That is exactly the point that Sir William Beveridge was at pains to say could not be carried out at the present moment. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) spoke in favour of the Amendment. I have always understood that one of the principles of the Communist Party was "From each according to his means and to each according to his needs." I should therefore have supposed that he would be in favour of the general principle which is being applied by the Government of giving supplementary pensions in cases where the need can be proved. When one considers how the conditions of old people vary from case to case, it is obvious that you cannot have any flat rate of pension which will be sufficient for those who are in the greatest need and will not be excessive in the case of those who have other sources of income. We should therefore try to devise a system by which supplementary pensions will be given in the case of those who are in need. There can be no justification at any time for imposing heavy burdens upon the taxpayers of this country in order to pay money to those who are not in need.
  Mr. Davidson: Would my hon. Friend apply that to all pensions?
  Mr. Molson: I am not applying it in the case of contributory pensions any more than I would do so in the case of unemployment benefit, where a man has entered into a contract with the State and paid a contribution. In these cases it is perfectly right and reasonable that the full benefit should be paid. We are discussing an increase in the pension in order to meet special cases of need. Under the Supplementary Pensions Act, I940, it is possible now for a pension of as much as 37s. to be paid where both of an old couple are pensioners and one is a householder. The only effect of raising the flat rate of old age pensions would be that more money would be paid to those old age pensioners who are unable to prove that they are in need. That is exactly and precisely what Sir William Beveridge, in the Report which the Labour Party asked the Government to accept in every particular—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. G. Griffiths: The Labour Party did not ask the, Government to accept certain proposals of the Beveridge Report.
  Mr. Molson: Throughout the length and breadth of this country hon. Gentlemen and their newspapers were saying that Beveridge was the bible of the workers' security and that the Government, under the domination of big business, was refusing it to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members are asking for a flat-rate increase in order that increased old age pensions should be paid to those who are unable to prove that they are in need, but they go on to complain that the Bill
  "ignores the needs of childless widows under 60 years of age and elderly spinsters."
  There is a very important recommendation in the Beveridge Report, but it is not one to which very great prominence was given, so far as I remember, in the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were criticising the Government in the Beveridge Debate. It is that, as regards the future, pensions should not be given as a right to widows, except to those who had children. I can think of nothing more unreasonable or improper in a Government who have, as we know, the recommendations of the Beveridge Committee under consideration and have accepted the general principles of its Report, than

  1365
  now, in what is an interim Measure, to propose to increase the pensions paid to a particular class which Sir William Beveridge, after most careful consideration, thought should not be granted pensions in the future.
  Mrs. Hardie: In his scheme, Sir William Beveridge gives the widow 13 weeks at 36s., and then he gives her training for another job. While she is being trained she gets 24s., and I assume that by the time she is trained he will find her a job. If not, she will come on to unemployment benefit. That is very different from what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that to-day the Government have promised for the Committee stage the very thing that he is now condemning?
  Mr. Molson: I am not aware of that, and I shall study Hansard to-morrow morning on the subject with very great interest. As for the intervention of the hon. Lady, I would only say that I am fully aware of the provision of an increased pension for 13 weeks and training afterwards in cases where it is necessary. What I should find it difficult to understand is how that particular argument could justify dividing against the Government, which hon. Ladies and Gentlemen opposite are supposed to be supporting, on the ground that it is carrying out part of one of the recommendations of the Beveridge Report. I think that in this Bill the Government are making those little adjustments in the administration of the old age pensions which we all of us should welcome. As the hon. Gentleman who spoke just before me said, in what I think the House felt was a weighty and responsible speech, there is no justification in dividing against the Bill, which is carrying out certain steps in practical and financial forms, because certain people would wish it to go much further. I continue to stand firmly on the general principles of the Beveridge recommendations, and I do urge on hon. Gentlemen opposite that they will not in the long run do themselves good, even in the constituencies, if they blow hot and cold and change their attitude in accordance with what they believe to be the fluctuations of public opinion.
  Mr. Daggar: Before dealing with one or two matters of interest to one who has a special interest in this subject, I may be permitted to make one or two comments on the observations of the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat. It is obvious from his speech that he was speaking the truth when he said that he had not been in the House during the whole Debate. Had he been here he would have known that in no single instance has reference been made to an Amendment that we should ask for an increase in the flat rate. The Amendment before the House is one dealing entirely with a different method of improving the lot of old age pensioners. May I also be permitted to register my protest against the remark of the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Sir G. Davies) when he associated the reasonable demands we are now making with charity? We are not here to ask for charity for the old age pensioners. We think they are entitled to a measure of justice, and that has been our claim upon every occasion on which we have dealt with this question of old age pensions. He also took exception to the word "destitution" being used in connection with the Debate to-day. I may be permitted to suggest to him that if he will do me the honour of reading a speech I delivered in June last year, he will find that I submitted to the House for consideration three actual budgets of three individuals differently placed, and I was able to demonstrate to the House that those individuals, after meeting the ordinary expenses of the household, had to exist on meals which could not exceed the price of 3d. Those figures have never been refuted, and until they are we are entitled to associate the word "destitution" with the conditions under which some of our aged people live at the present time.
  As one might expect in a Debate of this kind, many irrelevant issues have been raised, such as the political truce, and here, to the amusement of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the dissensions which take place in the party to which I belong. Reference has also been made to the fact that we ought not to associate the amount required to build two destroyers with the demands made for the aged people of this country. As we have said on more than one occasion, we have a slight knowledge of economics, and we know perfectly well that you cannot

  1367
  spend the same pound twice. If it is spent upon the production of destroyers, or upon anything else to destroy brains, that money cannot be used in order to improve the mental apparatus of any individual. But all we want to stress is that it is very difficult for us in our various constituencies—and here I wish to remind the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) that we will look after the interests of our own constituencies without requiring advice from him—it is very difficult, we do not say it is impossible, to persuade our constituents that a Government which can find £16,000,000 a day to spend upon war and other items of expenditure cannot find the amount of money required to improve the lot of the aged people of this country. That is the point we want to make.
  In addition, I would remind hon. Members that the cost of pensions of all kinds in this country is less than 20s per head per year. While I do not claim to speak on behalf of everybody in the country—I am never disposed to express an opinion as being held by everybody in the country—I do claim the right to speak on behalf of the people I represent, and I know that in my division there is not a single individual who would not agree to increase that sovereign to two sovereigns per head per year in order to afford the aged people an opportunity to spend more than 3d. per meal each clay. I think that the main issue is to do with the nature of this Bill, and whether it implements the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour on 29th July last. Here I want to make it perfectly clear that we are emphasising the pledge, not because it was given by the right hon. Gentleman, who, after all, is only a single member of the Government, but that the pledge he made was one which he was authorised to make on behalf of the Cabinet and the Government themselves. He told us on that occasion that the Government will
  "give further consideration to the … pensioners … who need assistance …"
  He also said:
  "I repeat that it is the intention of the Government to make reasonable provision for old age pensioners."
  That is the statement he made. [Interruption.] I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman opposite observed. I am
  1368
  not introducing any words. If he desires that I should read the whole of the statement, I am quite prepared to do so, but I am entitled to be credited with sufficient honesty not to misquote the right hon. Gentleman. I note these words again—I am quoting:
  "We shall, in any event, give further consideration to the position of pensioners, including widows under 6o who need assistance beyond their pension.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1943; col. 636, Vol. 382.]
  We submit that that pledge has not been honoured. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very much disturbed again, as he is on most occasions when I am addressing the House. We submit that that pledge is not being redeemed by this Measure now before the House.
  There are one or two other matters to which I wish to refer. Whenever the question of pensions, particularly old age pensions, has been the subject of discussion in this House some of us have regretted its frequency. It follows too closely the precedent established in dealing with unemployment insurance. That issue has been the subject of over 20 Acts of Parliament, and almost as many sets of Regulations. The same thing apparently will be true in the case of widows' pensions after the passing of this Measure. This will also necessitate the tabling of other Regulations. Every Member knows that the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, was the first Measure in which the Government made definite provision for pensions to widows and orphans of workmen who died otherwise than by accident or industrial disease. Some of us would have liked the Bill to provide for an increase in the widows' pensions without bringing them into the scope of the means test, especially as they have had no increase in their pensions since that Act was passed in 1925, although the cost of living in that time has gone up from 73 points to 100, an increase of 27 points. This, again, implies that we can now consider the means test to be a permanent institution in the legislation of this country. It is a feature of our pensions administration which I think is not only discreditable, but represents an unnecessary and wasteful expenditure of public money, and constitutes a subtle substitute for the primitive administration of Poor Law relief. These women will now undergo mean, petty and inquisi-

  1369
  torial investigations; they will become the recipients of blankets, household utensils and allowances for coal; and they will provide additional employment for clerks and investigators, all engaged on work of a definitely unproductive character.
  The Assistance Board, to which they will now have to apply, cost this country over £4,250,000 in 1935, when it was created, and during its existence of eight years, it has cost about £37,000,000. When it accepted the responsibility for the payment of supplementary pensions in 1941, the cost increased by £500,000; and now that it is proposed to hand over to it responsibility for the payment of widows' pensions, the cost will obviously rise again. Let us assume that the number of employees of this Board is 8,000. If they were engaged upon useful work, the increase in wealth in this country would be in excess of £2,000,000 a year. I suggest that to save over £5,000,000, in addition to that increase in the wealth of the country, would be worth consideration. I make those observations because I believe that, as one writer has put it:
  "If we wish to convince the world that democracy is the highest form of government and to persuade other nations to copy our institutions, we had better set about showing what democratic government can achieve in terms of human welfare in our own country."
  That will never be achieved by the continuation of the Assistance Board, to administer this infamous means test. It has been argued to-day, and it will probably. be argued again, that the Bill redeems the pledge given by the Minister on 29th July last year and the promise contained in the King's Speech. It may do so, but there is not a Member on this side who anticipated that it would not provide for all widows, especially as these women have received no consideration since 1925. There will still be widows left outside the operation of this Measure—and there must be thousands of them—because they have no dependants. Yet the pledge was given that all widows would be included under this Bill. As has already been stated, there has been a serious effort made to relate the proposals in this Bill to certain principles in the Beveridge plan. I am almost disposed to exclaim, "God save us from Sir William Beveridge"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say again "Heaven protect us from Beveridge and his plan," because before it was published it was used by the Gov-
  1370
  ernment as an excuse for inactivity, for doing nothing, and since its publication it has been used as a defence for doing the right thing in the wrong way. To exploit it in such a manner is sheer political hypocrisy. Its proposals concerning pensions of any kind have not as yet been accepted by the Government, who are using the plan to defend their attitude, as I have described. We are told that the provisions of this Measure are part of a larger and more comprehensive plan. That is simply another form of the "short-term and long-term policy" of the Government. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health that we must be careful and cautious, so as to dovetail it into some bigger piece of political furniture. Some of us would like to look at the design of that elaborate furniture. The final scheme may be a part of the Prime Minister's four year plan; perhaps a suitable window advertisement for a coupon election, or a political catch for the continuation of a similar Government to the one we have now. I have referred previously to the character of some of the speeches delivered by Members of the Government at week-ends. I am reminded of a speech made by one of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, no later than 28th September, when he referred to a
  "big, peaceful, decisive, social transformation."
  I wonder what his description of this Bill would be. It is neither big nor peaceful. It certainly will not effect a social transformation. Other right hon. Gentlemen have talked about social security for all, opening wide the gates of opportunity, and they have emphasised the need for larger families, neither of which will be achieved by the miserable, mean Measure which is now under discussion. There will be thousands of widows left out of its provisions, notwithstanding the pledge given by the representative of the Government. It has been accurately and apty described by the "Economist" in these words:
  "Thus, once again, Britain's social services have had to be patched up by an ad hoc Measure. If proof were still needed of the case for a unified scheme, such as was proposed by Sir William Beveridge, this hotchpotch Bill provides it."
  Unless an undertaking is given to "make reasonable provision for old age

  1371
  pensioners," which is part of the pledge given on 29th July of last year, the House will divide on the issue that is now under discussion.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevitt): Nothing seems to excite so much interest in Debates in this House—and properly so—as when you mention any problem that touches on the transformation from the Poor Law, which has a very hated past, to some other system. In dealing with this Measure, I do not propose to follow all the ramifications of the Debate, which mainly, so far as the opposition to the Bill is concerned, deal with the larger problem, which my hon. Friends well know—and, if they are honest with me, will admit—was never intended to be dealt with by this Bill. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) for saying honestly that the Government had carried out the undertakings I gave in response to his request last year. The Government do not go back on their pledge to deal in a comprehensive way—and I hope completely—with the pensions problem in this country. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) seems to look upon me and others on this Bench as if we were just dancing dolls to be picked up by him and translated over there, and if he does not translate me too quickly, I hope to stand at this Box and play my part in that complete scheme. Happily it is not in his power to move me anywhere, either physically or morally.
  Neither did I on behalf of the Government make any promise or give any pledge or any indication that there would be an increase of supplementary pensions in connection with this Bill. The express point put to us was that we should do something for widows who were in receipt of the pension—that is the 10s. pension—and it was also put to us that we should deal with capital. I have looked up some of the things—I am not going to quote them now—said by my honourable Friends about capital. I am amazed when I know that the Government have carried out their pledge in absolute fulness to find that it is just ridiculed. I do not think that is playing fair with the old age pensioners or playing fair in regard to a very difficult human problem. I venture to suggest that in handling a difficult thing of this character in their own organisa-
  1372
  tions hon. Members would not play with their own members in that way.
  When the question of widows was being discussed I did say, with the authority of the Government, that we would look into the question of spinsters, and I say frankly that under the general scheme this problem of spinsters has got to be settled somehow. How, I cannot forecast at the moment. It is a very difficult problem, as any administrator of the Poor Law or of any similar fund knows, but we have to find a solution, and that we are endeavouring to do. What we have done in this Bill is to make the assessment under the Determination of Needs Act applicable to the childless widow. We could not, without a voluminous amendment of the Poor Law, which would have meant a good deal of delay, deal with the question of spinsters except on that basis. Therefore we have taken this step under the Bill, that if they apply to the Poor Law, their assessment will be on the same basis as if they were childless widows.' We have brought the two as near together as we possibly could without going into the whole ramifications of the Poor Law. That is a big step in advance.
  The question of widows with children is far more simple administratively. There we propose a transfer. I very much regret that my hon. Friend for whom I have great respect, the hon. Member for Abertillèry (Mr. Daggar) has done me the injustice—I regard it as a personal injustice—of referring to the Determination of Needs Act as the household means test. That really is misleading to the country. The household means test went with that Act. I am not saying that the means test has entirely gone, but all the worst features of it went with that Act, and I think my hon. Friend will agree that that is so. To keep on talking as if nothing happens under this Bill is not, I think, doing us justice. It is doing an injustice of which I am sure my hon. Friend would not be guilty if he really thought about it.
  What is the vital argument to-day? Where a person remains under the Poor Law the Determination of Needs Act is so superior, as against the family test, that we have applied it for the Poor Law person. This is a very limited Bill—I have never pretended that it is anything else—but I suggest that any hon. Member who votes against" it will not be thanked by the widows with children, who would be

  1373
  kept under the Poor Law if it was defeated. If Members went to their constituencies and 'said to the widows with children, "We had the chance of transferring you to the Assistance Board as against the Poor Law but we did not do it," I do not believe they would get a vote of thanks.
  Mr. Stokes: That is a Tory argument.
  Mr. Bevin: It is not a Tory argument; it is common sense. [Laughter.] That only demonstrates the independence of the Labour Ministers. I was glad to have confirmation of what I am saying by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who has given a lot of time and attention to this problem over many years. I do not mind revealing that it was he who, with his knowledge, showed us the effect of the "cat and mouse" position. Many Bills have been amended in this House. I have seen errors in their first drafting, but, after all, what are hon..Members for if not to call attention to errors? My hon. Friend called attention to this matter and I thank him for it. I am not bringing in Sir William Beveridge. One of the reasons why it has crept in was an attempt to follow Sir William Beveridge too slavishly. If you look at the paragraph dealing with widows you will find the "cat and mouse" procedure referred to in his Report. I think the Parliamentary draftsmen followed that a little too slavishly and I thank my hon. Friend for finding out Sir William and putting our Bill right.
  The other point, about the transference from the Poor Law, arose out of a strong deputation which was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) to my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. That deputation asked whether, if we could not transfer people from the Poor Law, we could apply the Determination of Needs assessment, or get as near to it as we could. We set to work in this Bill to try to give effect to the request of that deputation. Some may say that we have not done it very well. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not done it at all."] Oh yes, we have done it. Not only so, but we have gone rather further than we were asked to do originally. We have really tried to get over an interim period before carrying out the pledge I gave on behalf of the Government.
  1374
  It is said that we have treated the old age pensioners very badly, and that we have paid only £1 per head per annum. We are, however, paying a little more than that for supplementary pensions alone. That does not bring in the old age pensioners over 70 and it does not bring in the 10s. a week to which we contribute over the wider field. It is thus quite misleading to say that we are contributing only £1 per head to the old age pensioners. It is far more than that. When we come to deal with this thing finally, it is the unanimous view, whatever may have been thought of the Government speeches, that it has to be a contributory system, and universal at that. While the clamour for pensions may rise, when you come to pick up how much you are going to carry on contributions, there may be a violent storm the other way. I have had some experience of increases in contributions, and I have not always had unanimous resolutions. We have unemployment, pensions and all kinds of things which have to be brought within this scheme, and when we bring it in, we really have to measure how much these contributions, or social service tax, which is what it will amount to, will be. We cannot quite measure the ability of the wage worker, or how much he can carry in the circumstances of the moment. We shall be back to normal hours, to standard wages and to a different standard, since overtime and the rest of it are involved. When you come to work it out and put too much on one and not enough on another, you do not get a balanced scheme. Then there is the amount that the State has to carry.
  I make bold to declare, what Sir William Beveridge has to admit in his Report, that I cannot see a contributory pension carried which would entirely wipe out supplementation in some form and still give a standard of life necessary to meet the needs of the people. I think it is better to state that. Therefore, this Bill and the Regulations that will follow, have to be designed to fit in, administratively, with. the general scheme that will have to be evolved. Speaking for the Committee which is handling this problem I may say that the changes we are making administratively, with regard to these widows, as far as we can make them, bring a good deal of order out of chaos. We transfer, for instance, the widows with children from 200 local authorities, and put them under the Assistance Board. Anyone who

  1375
  has a knowledge of State administration knows that if you get your contributory pensions, your old age pensions and your supplementary pensions gradually transferred to one Department, it makes it easier to carry out your final task. [Interruption.] I assure hon. Members you cannot do it all at once in the middle of a war—
  Mr. Messer: Is there any reason why widows without children should not go into it?
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, because the widow without children is very much in the position of the spinster, and it is very difficult to deal with one without the other, upon which the whole basis of this transference has to take place. I do not want the task—and I am sure the House would not like to impose it upon us—of going into the whole problem of the rights and the transference of all Poor Law officers at this stage. It was a difficult task enough when the transference had to be done under the Poor Law Act of 1929. It is simpler administratively to leave it, where you have like with like, under one administration, temporarily, provided that the basis of assessment is applicable to the two alike. Therefore we have taken the line, without having to increase the staff—which the hon. Member for Abertillery complains of—that we can now transfer these widows and children without disturbing the man-power in administration too much. These things have been gone into with very great care. This is only a small Bill, no bigger than the proverbial servant's baby. [Interruption.] I am not a judge. I leave it to my hon. Friend with his superior knowledge.
  Mr. Messer: Will my right hon. Friend make the point clear about the widows? I deal with a large number of widows who come to public assistance. Does he mean that for one widow to come to public assistance, and draw a pension as well as public assistance, is more complicated than a widow going to the Post Office and drawing the whole of her pension and supplementary pension?
  Mr. Bevin: No, because you are already assessing her at the Poor Law, and you will assess her in future on the new basis, and that is all.
  Let me put one other point which I did not want to raise. It has been said that
  1376
  we ought to give an increase to people who are not at work. I want my hon. Friends to think that out very carefully. All kinds of things come into the calculation of need. I have gone very carefully into this work test, and I am not too keen to introduce another form of means test in trying to deal with a comparatively small problem of this character. That will have to be hammered out in great detail when we get to the basis of the pensions which Beveridge recommends will only be paid on retirement from work, and I venture to suggest that when the Regulations under such an Act come out they will provide a very big opportunity for discussion on how they should operate. I have tried to_study this thing in all its bearings and its repercussions. I am not anxious to introduce new precedents singling out women particularly for that kind of treatment in contrast with men retiring from work. When the subject has to be dealt with on that basis, I am afraid both classes will have to be dealt with in the same set of Regulations. Therefore, we did not try to deal with that point in this Bill.
  Mr. Buchanan: A number of women with children have been left out of the thing, and I was wondering whether on some future occasion the right hon. Gentleman could not allow us to specialise on that point, which raises an important issue.
  Mr. Bevin: I cannot make any promise, because I am not clear what my hon. Friend means, but if he will put his point to me afterwards, the Government will certainly look at it. I cannot answer him offhand.
  Mr. David Grenfell: Is it not a fact that all supplementary pensions paid up to date have been paid only to men not at work?
  Mr. Bevin: But there are other factors which come into need besides inability to work, and I do not want to start upon the question of what is a work test, exclusive of every other test.
  Mr. Grenfell: I hope that my right hon. Friend is not making difficulties, because all we have asked is that some additional payment should be made to the man in need. What is the answer to that?
  Mr. Bevin: I think the settlement or the vote which was taken last year. The

  1377
  Government made their position perfectly clear. We had that out last year, and hon. Members voted then as they will probably vote to-day. The fact is that with the 6s. rent basis, the basis we have introduced in the last two years, we gave our answer last year, and I cannot give any pledge. [Interruption.] I beg the hon. Member's pardon; it is in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I made it perfectly clear, and the hon. Member who put the two points to me accepted that position and asked that those points should be dealt with in this Session. The remainder of the whole problem of pensions was then left to the bigger scheme, when the amounts will be determined by the contributions and everything else.
  Mr. Shinwell: Can I ask my right hon. Friend a question?
  Mr. Bevin: I cannot give way again. I have put my position quite clearly and if hon. Members look at the OFFICIAL REPORT, they will see what it is. I gave a pledge that this whole problem of pensions

  Division No. 20.

  AYES.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Critchley, A.

  Guy, W. H.

  Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

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

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.

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

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Hely Hutchinson, M. R

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

  Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Ammon, C. G.

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)

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

  De Chair, Capt. S. S.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Apsley, Lady

  Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.

  Hicks, E. G.

  Assheton, R.

  Douglas, F. C. R.

  Hill, Prof. A. V.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.

  Drewe, C.

  Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)

  Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Dunn, E.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Beechman, N. A.

  Ede, J. C.

  Hudson, Sir A. (Hackney, N.)

  Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

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

  Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Hughes, R. Moelwyn

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)

  Hulbert, Wing-Commander N. J.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Etherton, Ralph

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Bower, Norman (Harrow)

  Fermoy, Lord

  Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Isaacs, G. A.

  Brass, Capt. Sir W.

  Foot, D. M.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.

  Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

  Frankel, D.

  Jennings, R.

  Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.

  Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir Ian (Lonsdale)

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Brooke, H. (Lewisham)

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

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

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.

  Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

  Burden, T. W.

  Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.

  Keir, Mrs. Cazalet

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

  Gammans, Capt. L. D.

  Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's.)

  Cadogan, Major Sir E.

  George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'broke)

  Key, C. W.

  Campbell, J. D. (Antrim)

  Gibbins, J.

  Kimball, Major L.

  Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)

  Goldie, N. B

  King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.

  Cary R. A.

  Cower, Sir R. V.

  Lamb, Sir J Q.

  Cazalet, Col. V. A.

  Graham, Capt. A. C.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Channon, H.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Levy, T.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Loftus, P. C.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

  Colindridge, F.

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Oliver

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Mabane, W.

  Cook, Lt.-Col. Sir T. R. A. M.(N'flk, N.)

  Groves, T. E.

  McCorquodale, Malcolm S.

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

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)

  Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)

  was to be dealt with in a comprehensive manner, that the amounts and contributions and everything else had got to be settled. From the supplementary point of view that course was adopted then, and the only points left over have now been covered in this Bill, and the Government do not propose to withdraw it, whatever the protests may be. In the interests of the widows with children we propose to proceed.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does what the right hon. Gentleman has just said mean that until a comprehensive scheme is produced—and no time is stated for its production—there will be no further increase in old age pensions?
  Mr. Bevin: I never said anything of the kind.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 61.

  McEntee, V. la T.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  McKie, J. H.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Thomas, I. (Keighley)

  Making, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.

  Rickards, G. W.

  Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Ridley, G.

  Thorne, W.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Ritson, J.

  Thorneycroft, Maj. G. E. P. (Stafford)

  Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (Mitcham)

  Thurtle, E.

  Marshall, F.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Touche, G. C.

  Mathers, G.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Medlicott, Colonel Frank

  Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

  Salt, E. W.

  Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)

  Messer, F.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Walker, J.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)

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

  Montague, F.

  Selley, H. R.

  Waterhouse, Capt, C.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)

  Shakespeare, Sir G. H.

  Watkins, F. C.

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

  Shaw, Copt W. T. (Forfar)

  Watson, W. McL.

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

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Westwood, J.

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

  Silkin, L.

  White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)

  Muff, G.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

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

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Willink, H. U.

  Nicholson, Captain G. (Far ham)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Wilmot, John

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.

  Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.

  Paling, W.

  Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Wise, Major A. R.

  Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

  Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (Woolwich, W.)

  Pearson, A.

  Storey, S.

  Woodburn, A.

  Petherick, Major M.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Wragg, H.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Strickland, Capt. W. F.

  York, Major C.

  Price, M. P.

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

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Studholme, Captain H. G.

  Pym, L. R

  Summers, G. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Radford, E. A.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Mr. Boulton and Mr. J. P. L.

  Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.

  Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.

  Thomas.

  NOES.

  Acland, Sir R. T. D.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Mort, D. L.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)

  Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)

  Barr, J.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Foster, W.

  Parker, J.

  Bevan, A.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Gallagher, W.

  Roberts, W.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Granville, E. L.

  Shinwell, E.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Sloan, A.

  Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

  Hardie, Agnes

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Buchanan, G.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Stephen, C.

  Chater, D.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Stokes, R. R.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Loverseed, J. E.

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

  Cove, W. G.

  McGovern, J.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Dagger, G.

  Mack, J. D.

  Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  McKinley, A. S.

  Walkden, E. (Doncaster)

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  MacLaren, A.

  White, H. (Derby, N.E.)

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Wilson, C. H.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Dobbie, W.

  Maxton, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Silverman and Mr. Tinker.

  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill Committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

  PENSIONS AND DETERMINATION OF NEEDS [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to the treatment of capital assets and super-
  1380
  annuation payments for the purpose of determination of needs and with respect to supplementary pensions and to amend the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under or by virtue of Part II of the Unemployment Act, 1934 (as amended by the Determination of Needs Act, 1941), the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, or Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, which is attributable to the passing of the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to—

  (a) the manner in which money and investments treated as capital assets are to be treated under sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (d) of Sub-section (3) of Section thirty-eight of the Unemployment Act, 1934, or under that sub-paragraph as applied by

  1381
  Section ten of the Old Age and Widows Pensions Act, 1940;

  (b) the manner in which superannuation payments are to be treated under paragraph (f) of the said Sub-section (3) as applied by the said Section ten;

  (c) the payment of supplementary pensions to widows to whom an additional allowance in respect of a child is payable as part of a widow's pension, and the continuance of such supplementary pensions after the said allowance ceases to be so payable;

  (d) additions to a person's supplementary pension in respect of periods after an old age or widow's pension began to accrue to that person but before the person becomes entitled to receive weekly payments on account thereof;

  (e) the calculation of the means of a blind person or the husband or wife of a blind person, under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936;

  (f) the amendment of the last-mentioned Act in connection with the making of reciprocal arrangements thereunder with the Isle of Man. (King's Recommendation signified.) —[Mr. Ernest Brown.]

  Resolution to be reported Upon the next Sitting Day.

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Oakengates, a copy of which was presented to this House on 18th May, be approved.—[Mr. Peake.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House,Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.

NATIONAL WAR EFFORT
  Transferred Women Workers, Scotland (Billeting)
  Transferred Women Workers, Scotland (Billeting)
  Domestic Workers
  Domestic Workers
  Mineworkers (Prosecutions)
  Mineworkers (Prosecutions)
  Prisoners (Task Work)
  Prisoners (Task Work)
  "POLISH ROYALIST ASSOCIATION"
  "POLISH ROYALIST ASSOCIATION"
EDUCATION
  State Bursaries (Age of Applicants)
  State Bursaries (Age of Applicants)
  Youth Registration
  Youth Registration
  Education Bill (Religious Instruction)
  Education Bill (Religious Instruction)
  Boarding and Hostel Facilities
  Boarding and Hostel Facilities
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Tuberculosis Patients, Canterbury (Accommodation)
  Tuberculosis Patients, Canterbury (Accommodation)
  Milk Supplies (Medical Officers' Powers)
  Milk Supplies (Medical Officers' Powers)
HOUSING
  War Damage (First-Aid Repairs)
  War Damage (First-Aid Repairs)
  Agricultural Workers' Cottages (Roof Timbers)
  Agricultural Workers' Cottages (Roof Timbers)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  External Borrowings
  External Borrowings
  Musical Education (Assistance from Public Funds)
  Musical Education (Assistance from Public Funds)
FUEL AND POWER
  Petrol Rationing (Infirm Persons)
  Petrol Rationing (Infirm Persons)
  Stutley Colliery (Miners' Transport)
  Stutley Colliery (Miners' Transport)
ROYAL NAVY
  Seadromes
  Seadromes
  Dependant's Allowance
  Dependant's Allowance
  WAR CRIMES (CAPTURED ENEMY LEADERS)
  WAR CRIMES (CAPTURED ENEMY LEADERS)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (ITALY)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (ITALY)
  NIGERIA (PAWNING OF PERSONAL SERVICE)
  NIGERIA (PAWNING OF PERSONAL SERVICE)
  PROPERTY MAINTENANCE (LICENCES)
  PROPERTY MAINTENANCE (LICENCES)
  COMPANY MEETING REPORTS (SIZE)
  COMPANY MEETING REPORTS (SIZE)
  FOOD RATION BOOKS (DISTRIBUTION)
  FOOD RATION BOOKS (DISTRIBUTION)
  SIGN-POSTS (RURAL AREAS)
  SIGN-POSTS (RURAL AREAS)
  TRACTOR DRIVERS (AGE LIMIT)
  TRACTOR DRIVERS (AGE LIMIT)
  OMNIBUS SERVICE, LONDON
  OMNIBUS SERVICE, LONDON
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
  HOME GUARD DUTIES (FACTORIES)
  HOME GUARD DUTIES (FACTORIES)
  SHEEP (ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION)
  SHEEP (ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION)
  ALLIED GOVERNMENTS (NEWS PAPER ATTACKS)
  ALLIED GOVERNMENTS (NEWS PAPER ATTACKS)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Preamble
The House met, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:
URBAN DISTRICT OF OAKENGATES ORDER.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Munster, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UXBRIDGE, MAIDENHEAD, WYCOMBE AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1943.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CATERING WAGES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
General functions of the Commission.
2.—(1) The Commission—
(a) shall make such inquiries as they think fit or as they may be directed by the Minister to make into the existing methods of regulating the remuneration and conditions of employment of workers to whom this Act applies, and into any other matter affecting the remuneration, conditions of employment, health or welfare of such workers;
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in paragraph (a), after "remuneration," where that word first occurs, to insert "hours of work and overtime." The noble Earl said: I can describe the object of this Amendment in a sentence. I want to find out from the Government, if I can, what effect the Bill will have on the hours of work and overtime of those engaged in the catering industry. I think there is a strong case for a statutory limitation of working hours, as well as for provisions relating to wage-rates, holidays, and periods of rest, if we are to get satisfactory conditions in the catering industry both during and after the war. The principle of regulating working hours has already been accepted in the principal measures of pre-war protective legislation; I should like to remind the Committee of the Factory Acts, the Shops Act, and the Young Persons (Employment) Act, which prescribe the length of the working week and the amount of overtime permissible for different classes of employees. At the present time, however, there is an even stronger case for the control of working hours, owing to the longer hours of work in almost every occupation due to wartime conditions.
Information which has reached me suggests that there are many people employed in the catering business who are working at the moment for unduly long hours. I do not wish to weary the Committee with examples, but I should like to mention two cases to which my attention has been directed. They are, I think, particularly flagrant and alarming, because they relate to girls of eighteen—that is to say, not to adult workers in the accepted sense of the term "adult." The first of these cases is that of a girl working in a canteen in an aeroplane factory, who has an average working week of 61 hours. The second case is also that of a girl working in a factory canteen. She works for different hours in alternate

569
weeks; on one shift she works as much as 79 hours in the week, including the weekend, and her average hours are 67 a week. I am sure that those cases could be parallelled by many others if the information were available.
The White Paper which was published yesterday by the President of the Board of Education and by the Secretary of State for Scotland lays down a policy which is a very welcome advance to all those who are interested in the problem of hours of work. It lays down that for those of sixteen and seventeen years of age—that is to say, for "young persons" in the legal sense of the expression—there should be a maximum working week of 48 hours as a general rule; exceptional circumstances, of course, may justify the relaxation of that general rule. If the Government accept a working week of 48 hours for those of sixteen and seventeen years of age, they must surely try to bring about a not very much longer working week for those of eighteen and nineteen years of age, those young people who are only a little older than those who will come within the limits of whatever legislation or Orders the Government may produce to implement the recommendations of the White Paper. I hope that these cases of working 60 hours a week or more will be investigated at the earliest possible opportunity, and the working of such long hours prevented.
What I had hoped that this Bill might do would be, in the first place, to authorize the Commission which will be set up under its provisions to investigate and report upon hours of work and overtime in addition to the other subjects with which they have been empowered to deal, and in the second place to give the Minister power to limit working hours by Order whenever he considers that they are unduly long. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, after ("remuneration") insert ("hours of work and overtime").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: As I am one of the few lawyers present at the moment, I rise to say that the words "hours of work and overtime" are in all probability, I venture to think, within the words "conditions of employment." If it is thought that this should be made clearer, I suggest that the right form
570
would be to say "conditions of employment, including hours of work and overtime." That is a formal alteration only, but I should be very much surprised to hear that the Government do not intend the words "conditions of employment" to cover such a material matter as hours of work and overtime.
LORD SNELL: The motive of this Amendment will gain the sympathy of the whole Committee, for the desire to prevent young people working excessive hours is common to us all. The effect of the Amendment, however, would be to give the Commission power to inquire into the existing methods of regulating hours of work and overtime, whereas under the Bill as drafted they are empowered to inquire only into the existing methods of regulating remuneration and conditions of employment. The Minister has very carefully considered this matter, and quite designedly it has been decided not to include that in the purpose of the Bill. On the other hand, in so far as "overtime" is to be interpreted as an enhanced rate of remuneration for work done after certain hours, overtime is clearly included in the expression "remuneration." If that is correct then it is thought that the first part of the noble Earl's Amendment is unnecessary. The Bill, however, contains no provision that would enable the Commission or wages board to deal with the regulation of hours of work. The Minister made this clear in the course of the debate in another place, and stated that the Government had deliberately refrained from including in the Bill any such provision. That is a matter which is dealt with by other legislation, such as the Shop Hours Act, the Factory Acts and especially the Young Persons (Employment) Acts.
The existing statutory provisions relating to the hours of work, so far as they affect the catering workers, are the Shop Hours Acts, 1912 and 1936, and the Young Persons (Employment) Act of 1938. These Acts contain elaborate provisions providing for the regulation of hours of employment and meal intervals in the case of shop assistants, and by the definition in Section 19 of the Act of 1912 a person wholly or mainly employed in connexion with the serving of customers or the receipt of orders or dispatch of goods in premises where the sale of refreshments or intoxicating liquors is carried on, is a shop assistant. Therefore

571
to that extent the purpose of the noble Earl appears to be met. Employees in public houses, restaurants and cafés are subject to the Shop Hours Acts as being shop assistants under those Acts. I do not think I need elaborate that further, except to express the opinion of the Government that it would be inappropriate in a Bill dealing with remuneration and allied matters to bring in this question of the hours of labour. But in so far as hours affect remuneration, the conditions of health and welfare, the Commission are empowered to make inquiries in regard to the wages and so on. Those inquiries will enable them, indirectly at any rate, to influence hours. The purpose of the Amendment is, we believe, to some extent met, but the Government cannot agree to any proposal to extend the scope of the present Bill, and we therefore hope that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: If the position is as has just been stated on behalf of the Government, then I suggest that the drafting of this clause needs further looking into. The Bill says that steps can be taken with regard to the "remuneration and conditions of employment" of certain classes of workers. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, speaking as a distinguished lawyer, said that "conditions of employment" would naturally be taken to include hours of labour, and to a layman like myself that would certainly seem to be so. If a board has power to inquire into the remuneration and conditions of employment one asks oneself "What are the conditions of employment other than remuneration into which it will inquire?" The answer would obviously be "Of course, hours of labour and so forth." That would naturally be considered in ordinary phraseology to be a condition of employment. The noble Earl who moved this Amendment suggested that very likely the Government would reply that the point was already covered by the drafting of the Bill, but the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has just said "No," hours of labour are not intended to be included, and the Government give a reason why they should not be—namely, that the matter is dealt with in other Statutes. That may be a sufficient answer, but if so, and if the Bill goes to the public and the Courts in its present terms, there
572
is obviously an ambiguity which I think should be considered before the Bill reaches its next stage.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am in favour of this Amendment. I suggest that the noble Earl should withdraw it now and should see in black and white what the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has said and consider it with a view to moving an Amendment on the next stage of the Bill to cover the point.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord opposite for his very full statement in reply to my Amendment, and to those noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion and who have suggested that the clause might be improved if it were drafted differently. I therefore would like too fall in with their suggestions, that my Amendment should be dropped, and that I should be left free to propose another Amendment, differently worded, on the next stage of the Bill. I hope I shall have the assistance of the noble Lord who has raised this matter in solving the problem. There is just one question which I should like to ask the noble Lord opposite. The cases I mentioned were cases of girls working in factory canteens. There are, of course, now industrial canteens all over the country. May I take it that they are covered either under the Factory Acts or under the Shop Hours Acts? Are all canteen workers covered by the conditions of one of those Acts?
LORD SNELL: I think that is so, but I am not a lawyer and cannot be absolutely certain. But if there is any doubt about this we will clear it up at the next stage.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord will give me an answer on that point. It is perfectly certain that if all these people are covered by existing legislation they are at present working hours of work that contravene statutory provisions, and I suggest that the Government, through their inspectors, should make a very careful inquiry in order to see that these legislative provisions are in fact carried out in all the firms and factories to which they apply. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Establishment of wages boards.
4.—(1) If the Commission are of opinion, as respects any workers to whom this Act applies and their employers, that such machinery as aforesaid for regulating those workers' remuneration and conditions of employment either does not exist or is not, and cannot by any improvement which it is practicable to secure be made, adequate for the regulation thereof, the Commission may make a recommendation to the Minister (here after in this Act referred to as "a wages board recommendation") for the establishment of a wages board in respect of those workers and those employers.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1), after "thereof," to insert "or that there are no other means by which adequate remuneration and conditions of employment can be ensured as respects any workers." The noble Earl said: As we have already been reminded in the course of the discussions this afternoon, the main object of this Bill, broadly, is to establish a minimum standard of remuneration and conditions of employment in the catering trade and. to ensure the maintenance of that standard. "To fulfil this object several ways are evidently contemplated in the Bill—the setting up of joint industrial councils, the negotiation of agreements with representatives of trade unions, or the setting up of wages boards. These are the means by which it is proposed to attain that object. I do not think it is necessary for me to remind your Lordships that under the term "the catering industry" there is included an extremely wide range of trades and occupations, differing to a great extent one from another. It follows that in this industry remuneration and conditions of employment vary very much. But I can say this, that there are some sections of this industry at any rate in which rates of remuneration and conditions of employment are certain to be continually above any minimum standard which may be fixed. I would go further and say that they could be guaranteed to be maintained above that standard, indeed in some cases very much above that standard. Where such circumstances as these exist the main object of the Bill has already been attained, and consequently I suggest that the means of achieving it are not required.
The clauses dealing with the question of machinery for wage regulation are the
574
clause we are now considering and Clause 3. These clauses in the first place make the Commission responsible for ascertaining whether or not there exists machinery set up by agreement by organizations representing employers and employed which is at the moment, or which can be made, adequate for the purpose of regulating remuneration and conditions. If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, then the Commission may so report. If, on the other hand, the Commission are of opinion that no machinery exists, or that the machinery which exists cannot be made adequate, then the Commission may recommend the Minister to establish a wages board. These are the means designed to ensure that the objects of the Bill are achieved. In other words, as I put it just now, they are the means to the desired end.
If that end already exists without the means, is it necessary or even desirable to set up machinery that is not required? I know that Clause 4 uses the word "may" in referring to the recommendation for the establishment of a wages board, but it seems to me that the drafting of the two clauses does not leave the Commission any latitude even though they may find that excellent remuneration and conditions in certain sections already exist. In fact, the Commission appear to be placed in the position of having to have regard, not to whether remuneration and conditions are satisfactory and adequate, but whether machinery exists or not. I do not suppose for a moment that it is the desire of the Government to impose upon an industry by legislation unnecessary machinery or, to put it in another way, regulation simply for the sake of regulation. That at the moment is the point I wish to make. We naturally are all prepared to accept regulation to attain a desired purpose, but are we in love in this country with regulation merely for the sake of regulation? So it is that I rise to move this Amendment. If, as I trust, my noble friend Lord Snell is prepared to accept it on behalf of the Government, it seems to me, at any rate, that it will not impair or interfere with the objects of the Bill. Indeed, it cannot do so as it does not take away any of the powers possessed under the Bill by the Commission. On the contrary, it gives additional powers to the Commission so as to avoid the situation which the existing drafting seems

575
to create—namely, the setting up of machinery even when it is not shown to be necessary.
There is one further consideration to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. Parliament hitherto has accepted the principle that where remuneration and conditions of employment are not satisfactory, and cannot be improved by voluntary machinery, then the State must intervene. This principle is at the root of the Trade Boards Acts by which, when it is found that remuneration and conditions are unsatisfactory, to use the words of the Acts, they "accordingly require regulation" —"accordingly," not according to whether there is machinery or riot, but "accordingly" having regard to the rate of wages prevailing. "Accordingly" clearly is based upon the rate of pay, not upon the existence of machinery. The rates of remuneration must be unsatisfactory if there is to be intervention, and if under this Bill the Commission find in any section of the industry that remuneration and conditions are satisfactory, it is surely reasonable that the Commission should not be compelled to recommend the establishment of machinery such as a wages board for a purpose that already obtains. The Amendment I am moving seems to be o quite plainly in conformity with the principle hitherto accepted and adopted by Parliament for many years. Before I sit down I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Snell a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he would be prepared, in the course of this or some further stage of the Bill, to state the position of hospitals under this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, after ("thereof") insert ("or that there are no other means by which adequate remuneration and conditions of employment can be ensured as respects any workers").—(The Earl of Bessborough.)
LORD JESSEL: I hope the Government will accept the Amendment which has been so clearly put by my noble friend. Some of these great businesses are so well conducted that it seems quite superfluous to set up machinery to inquire into their conditions. It seems to me that if this Bill comes into operation there will be plenty to do without going into and giving a lot of trouble to these businesses
576
which it is well known are conforming to the principles of the Bill. No doubt it is very inconvenient for a well-conducted business to be overhauled in the manner in which it would probably be by some official without experience. If, later on, it is necessary the Government can do it, but I suggest there will be plenty to do with businesses that require looking into. There is a considerable feeling growing all over the land that we are over-regulated by officials. I do not want to attack civil servants in the least. Everybody recognizes how efficient they are and, on the whole, their good sense. At the same time, to bring in a lot of officials who are not necessary does not seem to be a very profitable method. It will involve extra cost to the country and, above all, it will cause a good deal of annoyance. I therefore hope sincerely that the Government will take into consideration the weighty arguments which have been put forward by the noble Earl, who represents a great body of industry in this country, and will accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Bessborough because it is necessary in the circumstances of the case, if this Bill is likely to be used as a method of causing trouble for no advantage that can be conceived so far as the workmen themselves are concerned. My noble friend has called attention to the wide words in Clause 1, subsection (2), of the Bill as to the workers to whom the Bill applies. My noble friend Lord Snell has been asked to say whether hospitals are included in the undertakings there mentioned. For my part, speaking without having had the advantage of hearing the matter argued before me, I have no doubt that hospitals are undertakings within this clause and that all the people whom the hospitals employ in the supply of food or drink to the persons who are within their gates, and for other activities incidental or ancillary thereto, are included.
And there are a lot of other institutions which are, as far as I can see, also included in this subsection. There are all the members' clubs in the country, there are all sorts of institutions, such for instance as the Inns of Court of which I happen to be a proud member; there are such bodies as the City companies; there

577
are numbers of institutions which engage servants at a comparatively early age, keep them till they are quite unable to do any work at all and then give them a pension on their retirement. There is no reason on earth why those people should be interfered with in the least. But, as Lord Bessborough has pointed out, if there is a business this Bill is concerned with machinery for fixing wages. Well, without machinery at all the employees get far more money, as I know, than ordinary people who are in the wage market, so to speak, and are being paid just what the employers can get them to come for. They are favoured servants having all sorts of advantages; yet if you look at the Bill you find that they will be dealt with by the clause to which my noble friend has referred. Everything depends on there being a lack of machinery set up by agreement between organizations representing employers and workers adequate for regulating the remuneration and conditions of employment. There are any number of institutions in this country, any number of bodies, who are engaged in an undertaking within Clause 1, subsection (2) of the Bill and whose servants are getting, without any such machinery at all, wages at least as large as they would get by the setting up of machinery such as is mentioned here. Why should you interfere with them? I cannot understand quite why that should be the view of those who are supporters of this Bill.
Clause 3 speaks of there being machinery for wage regulations by agreement and then, as has been pointed out, Clause 4 says:
"If the Commission are of opinion … that such machinery as aforesaid for regulating those workers' remuneration and conditions of employment either does not exist or is not, and cannot by any improvement which it is practicable to secure be made, adequate for the regulation thereof, the Commission may make a recommendation to the Minister … for the establishment of a wages board."
There is no hint there that such a regulation ought only to be made if the conditions prevailing in that industry, or the conditions under which people are employed by the persons who are carrying on the undertaking, are unsatisfactory. In my opinion, it is very desirable, unless we are going to make, or cause to be made, some useless wages boards, to have either the words which are suggested by my noble friend Lord Bessborough or some other words to show
578
that a wages board recommendation ought not to be made unless in some way the conditions regarding remuneration in the industry, or the portion of the industry, in question are unsatisfactory. It is quite true, as the noble Earl has pointed out, the word "may" is inserted in Clause 4, so that the Commission which will be set up need not necessarily make the recommendation; but in a case where there is no indication to them that they ought not to act unless there is some need for their interfering between employers And employed, the great probability is that the word "may" will be treated as more or less imperative and will lead to a vast number of wholly unnecessary wages board recommendations.
VISCOUNT DAWSON OF PENN: I rise to say quite briefly what importance I attach to the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, which, in effect, I take it, imposes a prior duty upon the Commission to decide whether there is a case for saying that the conditions of wages and remuneration are not sufficiently satisfactory, and to take any further steps necessary. In my view, speaking as an amateur, one of the reasons why it is so important to introduce such an Amendment as this, is that Clause 4 involves the setting up of machinery which is very rigid and inflexible, and subsection (2) of Clause 1 is so all-embracing that one wonders where it will end, one wonders what activities in life could not be included in it. It seems pretty clear, for example, that hospitals would come under it, public schools would come under it, and, as the noble and learned Viscount has just said, clubs would come under it. One begins to wonder whether it would not embrace the whole world. If the provision is to be left in that all-embracing form it seems to me as a layman that is what it will do. Surely it is important to have a certain flexibility in the machinery to ensure that such activities and such institutions as manage the affairs of their workers well and satisfactorily shall be left alone and not be subjected to regulation and the action of machinery for machinery's sake. It is because subsection (2) of Clause 1 is drawn so broadly that it seems to me doubly important that there should be the kind of discussion that is provided for in the Amendment of the noble Lord.
LORD SNELL: The purpose of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, would appear to be to prevent the Commission recommending the establishment of a wages board in cases where adequate machinery and conditions of employment can be ensured by some other means, by the operation of machinery set up by agreement between organizations representing both employers and employed. Under Clause 4 as drafted the Commission are empowered to make wages board recommendations, subject to the fulfilment of the various requirements as to investigation and so on, where joint machinery does not exist, or, if it exists, where it is inadequate to do the work required of it. If the noble Earl will forgive me, I think that there is some doubt as to what is really meant by the words "other means by which adequate remuneration and conditions of employment can be ensured." The only obvious other means are by such statutory machinery as that of a trade board. In regard to trade boards, the agricultural wages boards and the Road Haulage Central Wages Board, special provision has been made in Clause 8 (7) whereby a wages regulation order cannot apply if and so long as jurisdiction with relation to the remuneration is exercised by one of the statutory boards or committees. It is recognized that duplication of machinery, which would result in some workers being covered by both a wages board and a trade board, for example, is undesirable. It might happen with this Bill in operation that those under one system might wish to transfer to the other, and this Amendment would make that impracticable.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, stated that some rates above any possible minimum could be roughly ensured in certain cases. But the Bill does not rest on the question of inadequate wages. Let us remember always that the present times are abnormal, and what is happening at the present time when there is a scarcity of labour might not prevail in other times when there was a surplus of labour. You cannot, in my submission, legislate either in this or any other matter for individuals or for groups of individuals. Legislation must be based upon certain principles which will apply in times other than the moment when that legislation is passed. Though it is true that there are many employers who would
580
do more than justice to their employees, that is not a satisfactory basis for legislation. I remember a case where it was said that a whole city might be saved if there were ten righteous men in it. I do not know whether you can spare a whole industry from the inconvenience of regulation because there are some particular groups in that industry who would do justice to the workers in this respect.
The Bill rests definitely upon Whitley principles of collective bargaining, the value of which has been proved over the last twenty-five years. It does not give the Commission the duty to inquire into wages. It assumes that if there is an adequate machinery representative of both sides of the industry, results will be forthcoming which will do justice to all concerned. My noble friend Lord Jessel rather made our flesh creep by suggesting that these highly honourable undertakings were to be overhauled in the sense that they would be subjected to an efficiency inspection. That, I suggest, is a misconception of how the Bill would operate. What would happen would be that a wages board consisting of employers and workers would make proposals which, when confirmed, would have statutory effect. A good employer would benefit by the existence of such statutory regulation and therefore no great evil would be done to him.
LORD MORRIS: Does not the noble Lord think it a little curious that employers do not take that view about this Bill?
LORD SNELL: I should not personally be startled at the fact that employers took objection to regulations. That is not a new thing in industry. If I may at this stage answer questions put to me by my noble friend about hospitals, the answer would be this: that the hospitals in so far as kitchen staff are concerned would come under the Bill like any other undertaking. That would also apply to the inquiry of my noble and learned friend Viscount Maugham about clubs. It would affect the kitchen staff. If noble Lords will refer to Clause 1 (2) they will see that the words are:
"The workers to whom this Act applies are all persons employed in any undertaking, or any part of an undertaking, which consists wholly or mainly in the carrying on … of one or more of the following activities,"

581
and then the activities are given. That would bring in the kitchen staffs of hospitals and similar institutions. I think there is nothing more that I can say in answer to criticisms which have been made by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, except that the Government have given this matter very close attention, that they feel it is unwise to load a Bill with exceptions, and that as the Bill generally rests upon the Whitley principle of collective bargaining, it is better to leave the Bill in that shape. I am sorry, although I have a great desire to please the noble Earl, that I cannot accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I was rather shocked to hear what the noble Lord said by implication—that is, that he does not trust the members of the Commission in regard to their discretion as to whether to create a board or not. Surely if they are men of repute, as they would be if the Government appointed them, it could be left to them to appoint a board if they thought fit.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I find it difficult—no doubt it is my fault—to understand the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, to my Amendment. He seems to suggest that I was asking him to excuse the unrighteous because there are a few righteous. I never suggested any such thing. I do not ask that people should be blocked together, and I am not asking the Government to load the Bill for individual employers. The case I tried to make out was that there are great sections of the industry, not individual employers but great sections—the great hotel industry is an example—which pay rates of remuneration and provide conditions which would be above any minimum standards that might obtain. There must sooner or later be a fixed minimum, and the moment that minimum is fixed, whether a section of the industry is above it or not is a matter of fact. My noble friend spoke of the virtues of machinery and regulation. I am afraid that I cannot follow him there. I see no virtues in machinery and regulation except to achieve a useful purpose. Where a great section of the industry can establish as a fact that its conditions are much higher than the minimums established by the wages board, why must machinery be set up and officials en-
582
gaged to do work which is already done? That is the argument that I tried to put, and having regard to the amount of support that my Amendment has received I do hope that I may be so fortunate as to persuade my noble friend to reconsider this matter on the Report stage.
LORD NATHAN: I think that perhaps my noble friend Lord Snell may have given rather too limited an application of the terms of the Bill, in answering the question put to him by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, when he stated that the provisions of the Bill would be applicable, for instance, to hospitals in regard to their kitchen staffs. Is not that rather too limited an application having regard to the provisions of the Bill? Would it not, and should it not, also apply to the service staffs, and, bearing in mind that many hospitals have nurses' homes and provide lodgings, accommodation and food, would it not apply to the service personnel at those homes? I mention this point, for I feel that my noble friend would, perhaps, not wish it to go out to the world that the terms of the Bill, having regard to his answer to the noble Earl, have a rather more limited application than, according to my interpretation of the measure, would seem to be the case. Subject to that, my noble friends support the Government in the view which they take as to this Amendment. I can put in one sentence the reason why they support the Government as against the Amendment. That is that in the view of my noble friends there is nothing in this Bill which should make any good employer fearful.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: May I claim the indulgence of the Committee to state that I am not in the least wedded to any particular form of words in regard to my Amendment? It is merely the argument that my noble friend and I have adduced that I would like to have put to the Government. I should be glad if they could see their way to consider, at some future stage, whether or not some words might be found to embody the point which I have endeavoured to make.
LORD SNELL: I will of course refer that request to the Minister and to the Government, but I cannot personally give the promise asked for.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Power to fix remuneration and holidays.
(3) Before submitting any wages regulation proposals to the Minister, a wages board shall make such investigations as it thinks fit and shall give such notice of the proposals as may be prescribed, stating the place where copies of the proposals may be obtained and the period (which shall not be less than twenty-one days from the publication of the notice) within which written representations with respect thereto may be sent to the board; and the board shall consider any written representations made to it within that period and shall make such further inquiries as it considers necessary and may then submit the proposals to the Minister either without amendments or with such amendments as it thinks fit having regard to the representations.
LORD MORRIS LORD MORRIS had given Notice that he would move to insert after subsection(2):
"(3) In fixing the remuneration to be paid, the wages board shall take into account voluntary payments paid to the worker as a matter of common practice by members of the Public."
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move the Amendment standing in my name as I understand that later in the Bill an Amendment to the same effect will be moved by Lord Hemingford in a form more acceptable to His Majesty's Government.
LORD ILIFFE LORD ILIFFE moved, in subsection (3), after "fit," where that word first occurs, to insert "taking into consideration the convenience of the public, including visitors arriving from abroad." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. In view of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Snell, when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, as to the importance of the tourist traffic to this country after the war—which Lord Nathan on behalf of the Labour Party emphatically endorsed—I have no doubt that this Amendment will be acceptable to the Committee. I am moving at the request of the Travel Association, which will, in all probability, be charged by the Government, after the war, with the responsibility of doing everything possible to attract visitors to this country. The importance of our tourist trade cannot be over-stressed.
584
After the war we shall be a debtor nation, and if the various schemes of social welfare which are now being discussed are adopted, the responsibility for finding a considerable part of the money necessary must necessarily fall upon the export trade. It behoves us, therefore, to do all we can to increase our exports, both visible and invisible. There is no more important invisible export trade than that provided by visitors to this country, and we cannot hope to attract visitors in large numbers unless we make their stay in this country both interesting and enjoyable, so that they will wish to come again and will induce others to come also.
The Travel Association will have to consider this problem. It is a problem which has many aspects, but one of the most important is that our hotels all over the country shall be well run. The accommodation must be satisfactory, the meals must be attractive, and the staffs must be well-trained and willing. If this Bill when it becomes an Act will have the effect of attracting enterprising young men and women to the hotel and restaurant industry, it will definitely help to solve our invisible export problem. There is nothing at present in the Bill which stresses the need for considering always the convenience of the public, and particularly of visitors who arrive from overseas. It may be suggested by noble Lords that such considerations would always be present in the minds of wages boards, and that it is quite unnecessary to incorporate the few words which I suggest in the Bill. My own experience when visiting some of our great Dominions entirely explodes that contention. I remember an experience which befell me when visiting Auckland, New Zealand. Having left the ship I reached my hotel at 6.30 p.m. and was told that it was impossible to serve a meal as, according to the regulations, no meals could be served after that hour. It is clear that at that time—the regulations may have been altered since—the restrictions and regulations were too rigid, and they made it almost impossible for travellers to receive attention at certain hours of the day. On arrival at hotels, meals or refreshments often had to be refused, however weary the travellers may have been. If that were to occur in this country, then instead of doubling the number of our visitors after the war, which is really essential, they would become fewer, and we should be

585
making a present of a considerable invisible export to countries such as France and Switzerland.
I do not desire to speak on this Amendment at very great length, but I should like to give the Committee one or two figures to show how important this tourist traffic can be. About 1,900,000 people visited France each year before the war, and some 1,200,000 visited Germany, but Great Britain secured only 600,000, of whom 200,000 were British people coming from various parts of the Empire. In France during 1929—I have this from a report issued by the National Office of Tourism, and dated March, 1930—the expenditure by tourists from abroad reached the staggering figure of £100,000,000, which was equal to one-third of the total of the French Budget for that year. So far as this country is concerned, still taking the same year, I found that not only was the number of visitors very much less but the average stay of each visitor also was some days less. As a result of those two factors, the total sum spent by visitors to the United Kingdom in the year 1929 was £22,444,000; that is to say, in round figures, £22,500,000 was spent by visitors in this country, as compared with £100,000,000 spent by visitors in France. I have taken the year 1929 as an example merely because there happened to be comparative figures which were readily available. I believe that with enterprise and imagination we can correct that position, but that will be impossible unless our hotels and country inns are made more attractive, and good service is not the least of those attractions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, after ("fit") insert ("taking into consideration the convenience of the public, including visitors arriving from abroad").—(Lord Iliffe.)
LORD JESSEL: I should like to support this Amendment. I have always been interested in the Travel Association, of which I was one of the original founders. The experience related by the noble Lord in one of our Dominions is by no means an unusual one, as many will know who have had occasion to make these journeys, and I hope that it will not be possible for such a thing to happen here. The noble Lord made an excellent speech in proposing this Amendment, and produced some very convincing figures. I do not wish
586
to weary the Committee, but I do ask the Government to accept this Amendment as a measure of guidance. This is a very important matter. I hope that my noble friend Lord Snell will not be influenced by the fact that if an alteration is made the Bill has to go to another place. As a rule the Government say that they cannot accept an Amendment because it would delay the Bill going through, but in this case there is plenty of time, and this is a small but very important Amendment. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not be as adamant on this as he has been on previous Amendments moved in Committee.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: I was greatly interested to read in the Press, when this Bill was introduced, that it would have a considerable effect on the tourist traffic. I was very interested in that question in Canada, where we introduced measures which made available a substantial sum of money for promoting the tourist traffic. The result was amazing. We established a sub-department under the Department of Railways and Canals, and we increased the tourist trade very considerably indeed. When I tell the Committee that in the year 1938 the value of the tourist traffic to Canada was $269,000,000 it will be realized how important that item had become. In addition to that, we ourselves spent in that year about $120,000,000 in going abroad as tourists, so that the net balance in our favour was something like $150,000,000, which is equivalent to export trade from Canada of $150,000,000 in a single year. In one year the amount was nearer $200,000,000 than $150,000,000, and as a matter of fact $187,000,000 was the net balance in favour of Canada.
I trust that in view of our experience and of my very confident belief that no trade will give a greater return to this country after the war than the tourist trade, the Amendment will be accepted. First, you must see that your hotels are very well run, but it is even more important that those who come here should know that they can obtain accommodation at those hotels. There are certain legal obligations which attach to innkeepers, and I trust the proposed Amendment will enable hotels to make reservations for overseas guests even though at the time it may seem to be inconvenient for members of the community. If that

587
were established and understood, it would be a very great help. We arranged on the great ocean liners for the sending of a message without charge asking for accommodation at a hotel on arrival, and that served a very useful purpose; but when people from abroad arrived at Southampton, Glasgow, or Liverpool there was a rush to send a cable reserving accommodation. If the Travel Bureau set up proper machinery—as I am sure that it will, from what I know of its activities—it will be able to assist greatly, but these regulations to be proposed by the wages board will have to deal with this problem as well, so that there may be certainty that the accommodation will be available for those who have not gone to the trouble of sending a cable from America before they sailed.
When one looks at the figures for France as compared with the figures here, it is a tribute to the activity of the advertising agencies and the promoters of visits in France, as against what has been done here. I trust that I shall not be misunderstood in making that observation, but I feel certain that with a little effort the invisible export item which can be created by tourist traffic in this country can be stupendous; and we certainly need it, and need it very badly indeed. If we could get £100,000,000 out of tourist traffic, we may well ask ourselves to what item of our export trade we could look to secure £100,000,000. When it is put in that light, it seems to me that there is a very excellent reason for adopting this Amendment. Those responsible, as the wages board will be responsible under this Bill when it becomes law, should always have in mind the convenience of the public, and particularly of those who come from abroad, so that we may secure in the most ample manner the benefit of this invisible export.
LORD GIFFORD: I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, because I know that they feel very strongly the necessity of fostering our tourist trade after the war. The tourist trade is a very delicate thing. The tourist is very easily frightened away and nothing frightens him away more than gossip that the hotels do not give good service. As noble Lords have said, that has occurred in other parts of the Empire, and I hope that this Amendment will be accepted,
588
because it calls the attention of all those who have to administer the Bill to the vital importance of the tourist trade from overseas.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I want to mention in this connexion what I may describe as a comparatively modern institution, known to most of us as a road house—those inns of a modern type which have been built all over the country by enterprising people on main roads, very largely for the accommodation of motorists and tourists. Road houses are of course liable to be very much affected by this Bill, and they are certainly one type of catering establishment which almost more than any other will have an effect in determining whether visitors to this country find their stay here congenial or not. Most of your Lordships know how in the early days of motoring it was very difficult if you had to go a long journey by car to find places where you could get a decent lunch, much less a decent dinner, and less still a decent place where you could put up for the night. But British enterprise has risen to the occasion, and now all over the country there are these well run and very well managed inns or road houses of a modern kind, which are I think of the greatest importance to us in the matter of the tourist traffic, and Lord Bennett in his powerful speech has shown us that that traffic is a matter which requires the gravest consideration by the Government in connexion with this Bill. I hope therefore, that the Government will accept this Amendment.
LORD SNELL: In so far as the desire is to promote the tourist traffic from overseas in this country we are all agreed. The importance of the tourist traffic is fully realized by the Government, and it is one of the declared aims of the Government to use this Bill as a means for encouraging the tourist traffic. The Minister has given a specific undertaking that one of his first acts will be to ask the Commission to inquire into this matter, and it can be regarded as certain that the associations interested will have full opportunity of presenting their views to the Commission. The Amendment is limited to the wages boards, and in the view of the Government it would be too restricted in its effects, and any Amendment so far as the Commission are concerned appears to the Government to be unnecessary.

589
The effect of the Amendment would be to require a wages board, when making such investigations as it thinks fit before submitting wage proposals, to take into consideration "the convenience of the public, including visitors arriving from abroad," that is to say investigations would need to be directed with this in mind. It is of some interest to recall that during the course of the debates in another place a new clause was proposed which had for its object the placing of a statutory obligation on the Commission and the wages boards, in exercising their respective powers under the Bill, to have regard to the public interest and the importance of ensuring that the persons for whom accommodation and refreshment are provided by the catering industry are adequately served. After very full debate that Amendment was rejected, and it was declared by the Minister that the public interest and the interests of those employed in the industry are synonymous terms.
No objection can, of course, be taken to the view that, particularly in the catering industry, wage regulation proposals Should be framed with full consideration for the convenience of the public, including visitors from abroad. The industry exists to serve the public, and if it does not serve them there will be no public for it to serve, because the public will avoid the industry. One of the reasons for bringing forward this Bill is to enable post-war problems to be dealt with, and every additional person that the industry can employ will be an aid to resettlement after the war. Obviously the more the convenience of the public is met and the more visitors from abroad that can be attracted by the efficiency of the service provided, the more the interests of both management and workers will be secured. The wages board will be representative of both employers and employees, and it can therefore be safely assumed that full account will be taken of these factors at all stages of the board's deliberations. But the Government feel that it would be wrong to single oat the investigation stage as being the only one where such account should be taken.
I tried on the Second Reading of the Bill to express how keenly I personally felt about this question of tourist traffic. I said then, and I repeat now, that we do not make the most of what we have to
590
show to the world. We have very much to offer, but at the same time in the art of receiving visitors we have very much to learn from other lands, and I cannot help feeling that this discussion will help very much to show the need for our doing our best in that respect. It cuts me to the heart to be accused of heartlessness in regard to your Lordships' wishes, but as the Minister has stated that the question of the tourist traffic will be referred to the Commission for immediate inquiry I am very sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD HEMINGFORD: May I ask one question? The noble Lord made a reference in the early part of his speech to the fact that this Amendment only dealt with the wages boards. He has made a most powerful speech really in favour of the intention of the Amendment, and I want to ask him whether he will give us some hope that he will at a later stage accept an Amendment to the earlier clause—Clause 2, I think it would be—to the same effect. He has told us much of the anxiety of himself and the Ministry to help the tourist traffic, and stated that it is one of the main objects of this Bill; but if we turn to Clause 2 we see that foreign tourists are not mentioned in any way, and the aspirations of the Government expressed on the Second Reaching about aid to the tourist traffic would carry more weight if this clause contained some words designed to help that traffic.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: Perhaps the noble Lord would not mind saying where "tourists" or "visitors from abroad" occur in the Bill. I have looked through it and cannot find any trace of these words. It was when I read in the Press about tourists that I was induced to read the Bill. I happen to be interested in this matter from this point of view, and as far as I can recollect there is no mention of tourists or visitors from abroad in the Bill.
LORD ILIFFE: I must confess that the speech of the noble Lord was really unsatisfactory. It cuts me to the quick to say so, but unless the noble Lord is good enough to give us some sort of assurance that the Government will introduce an Amendment on the Report stage to cover this point, I shall be compelled to press the matter to a Division.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): I wish to add a material piece of information which I have ascertained from the officials but which could not in the circumstances have been made quite plain in the debate hitherto. Of course it will be obvious to your Lordships that, on any view, the place to introduce this topic is not the place where this Amendment has been moved because this is about wages boards. It is very difficult to see how in discussing what the rate of wages should be the subject of attracting visitors from abroad comes in. It seems a rather odd place to put it, though we are not concerned here with matters of form but with matters of substance. The place where this sort of topic properly comes in is Clause 2 which deals not with what the wages board has to consider but with what the Commission have to do.
My noble friend Lord Bennett may be right in saying that the word "tourist" does not occur in the Bill, but he will take it from me that Clause 2 (1) (c) is in such wide terms that there can be no doubt that it covers this topic. The words are that the Commission
"shall report to the Minister on any matter which he has directed them to inquire into and shall annually submit to him a general report on their proceedings."
The information I give to the House specifically is this, that in another place the Minister gave a firm undertaking that he would, as soon as the Bill was passed, refer to the Commission under this subsection this very question and ask for a report upon it. You may ask, why not at a later stage put that particular reference into Clause 2 (1) (c)? I asked that question because, like the rest of us, the Government want to get this Bill right. There is a good answer. The answer is that there are, in point of fact, half-a-dozen things that the Minister would regard as very important matters into which the Commission should inquire—matters of quite a different character. For example, the rehabilitation of hotels in order that they may be ready for visitors, the getting back of furniture which has been taken away and put elsewhere—all sorts of things dealing with the revival of the hotel trade as soon as possible.
Your Lordships will see that it is not a technicality, but really a matter of
592
good sense, that you should not in a subsection put in one particular thing because all experience goes to show that, if you do, it may very well lead to misunderstanding as to the general width of the clause. I would not myself have thought that particular answer sufficient if the Minister had not given that undertaking. I am entitled on behalf of the Government—my noble friend Lord Snell will agree with me—to say that on this particular matter of how best to revive and promote our hotel trade with a view to attracting visitors and securing this invaluable addition to our resources and reputation, the Minister has assured the House of Commons that that is the very first thing he proposes to refer to this Commission under that general provision as soon as the Bill is passed. I hope my noble friend Lord Iliffe will feel that that does make a difference. I hope he will also feel that what he is now proposing in any case comes in the wrong place and could not be accepted, and that he will reflect whether that specific statement which I now repeat on behalf of the Government is not the appropriate way of dealing with the matter.
LORD HEMINGFORD: The Lord Chancellor, like Lord Snell, has obviously been very much in favour of the idea that is at the bottom of this Amendment. Might I suggest to him that if Clause 2 is taken as a whole we might very well put in a reference not merely to tourists but to the patrons of the industry? I suggest that an Amendment should come in Clause 2 (1) (a) instead of in Clause 2 (1) (c). That subsection, it will be observed, deals entirely with the workers. My plea is for an Amendment which would specify that the Commission should make inquiries from the point of view of the customers or patrons of the industry as well as from the point of view of the workers.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The Lord Chancellor has said that half-a-dozen things ought to be included besides the matter under discussion. If this Amendment is put in there would be nothing to preclude the Minister from dealing, with the other five by regulation.
LORD JESSEL: May I ask whether this matter could not be reconsidered—we do not want to have a Division—on the Report stage? I have always been under

593
the impression, which long Parliamentary experience has confirmed, that what a Minister says is not always borne out by the Act. I have known of undertakings given on behalf of Ministers which were not included in the Bill, and. nothing happened. It would satisfy us, on behalf of the public as well as this particular industry, if these very harmless words were put in on the Report stage. It is not a question of time. Very often the Government come down here and say that such-and-such a Bill roust he passed now, and that they do not want to send it back to the other House in case the Bill should be lost. There is really no excuse in this matter whatsoever except a certain amount of obstinacy on the part of the Government. Therefore I hope this matter will be reconsidered in the light of the very strong feeling which has been expressed, and that some words may be put in on the Report stage to satisfy the supporters of the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: On the question of drafting I feel compelled to state that I can see no difficulty whatever in inserting some such words as are suggested in Clause 2 without precluding the Minister from directing a number of other matters to be inquired into. It is only a question of a few words. You might perfectly well say that the Commission shall report to the Minister on any matter which he has directed them to inquire into, including in particular the tourist traffic, or something of that sort. That would he perfectly easy to do. I would add this, in order to make my position clear, that my noble friend the Lord Chancellor is undoubtedly right in saying that the words in question are not very appropriate in the place where they have been proposed. Clause 2 is quite an appropriate place for their insertion. I would add that I have no doubt he is right that the Minister can ask the Commission under Clause 2 to report to him with regard to the tourist trade, but having said that I would point out that he is not bound to do so under the Bill as it stands, that the promise given in the other House, which will no doubt be is one which only relates to the existing Government, which may or may not be here when the question comes to be a practical one. Finally, I would say that if one of the main objects of the Bill is to help this country with regard to the tourist trade, it is very unfortunate
594
if nothing of the sort is mentioned in the clauses which we have been discussing to-day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am greatly obliged to my noble and learned friend. I felt sure he would agree with me on the two points which I mentioned, first that, as sometimes happens in the best regulated House, this Amendment has really been brought forward on altogether the wrong clause—that is very easily understood and easily forgiven—and secondly, that the clause on which this question might well arise is Clause 2. I will venture to say that this is a matter which the Government will be glad to look at before we take the Report stage. It will be clearly understood that I am not taking upon myself to give any assurance, but it is quite obvious that there is a feeling, a very natural feeling, as to the importance of this matter which I entirely share, and, speaking for myself and looking at it as one who has had some acquaintance with drafting, I do not dispute Lord Maugham's proposition that it is possible to put such words in and still avoid the unfortunate consequences that do sometimes happen when you put in the particular case which is in your mind at the time. Whether it should be done by one set of words or another I do not know, and if it is clearly understood that no assurance has been given but that a genuine reconsideration will be given to the point, then I should hope my noble friend would be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not wish to be indiscreet but it looks to me as if there is not to be a Report stage because every Amendment has been summarily rejected by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. If we do not have an Amendment on this Bill now and there is no Report stage—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Lord Cecil): An Amendment can be put down on Third Reading.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: That is true, but if there is a Report stage it will give us more time to think it over. If this Amendment is put in now that will give us a Report stage and a Third Reading. Therefore I suggest that the noble Lord should press his Amendment and have it put in the Bill now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the Committee will not think that, in the circumstances, that is a reasonable way of dealing with what I have ventured to say. It is obvious we are endeavouring to find the best way of meeting the views that have been expressed and I should hope the Committee would regard with repugnance the idea of putting in an Amendment in a wholly wrong place in the Bill as the best contribution it can make for promoting the tourist trade.
LORD ILIFFE: I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment if I get an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Snell, in charge of the Bill that he entirely agrees with the views put forward by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and will undertake to give this matter consideration before Third Reading.
LORD SNELL: We stand together.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My only object in trying to get another stage of the Bill was to give us more time to consider this matter. On Third Reading you have not only to put the Amendment in exactly as it stands on the Paper but put it in the correct position, and it might be awkward to have to do that. I remember that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, told me once that he had got an Amendment in the wrong place on the Third Reading and that because of that there was no remedy.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I suggest that what has been said in the debate shows we are very much in favour of passing this Amendment now because, by doing that, we shall ensure a Report stage, and we can then have an opportunity of putting right any mistake which we may be making in this Amendment. I quite agree that this is not the proper place for it but I suggest that in the circumstances the only thing for us to do is to pass this Amendment now.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I make a suggestion with great deference? I think we are very anxious not to have any difficulty about this and there is no doubt that it is intended that this matter should be discussed on Third Reading if there is not a Report stage, but could not we agree to do this—amend the present Amendment by altering the language in which it
596
is printed so as to make it apply to Clause 2?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Clause 2 has been passed already and you cannot go back.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We all mean the same thing. Nobody is trying to take advantage of anybody else. I quite see the point that if an Amendment was put clown only at the last moment the Third Reading is to be taken it is possible that examination might show it was not a satisfactory Amendment. I would suggest, and I think my noble friend Lord Snell would agree, that if there is any suggestion of an Amendment on Third Reading the Amendment should be put down in time for others to see who may wish to have a different form of words, so that they may be able on Third Reading to put down their version also. If that is done it is quite within the rules of order.
LORD ILIFFE: I accept the suggestion made by the Lord Chancellor, to which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Snell, also agrees. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Computation of remuneration
(2) Notwithstanding anything, in subsection (1) of this section, wages regulation proposals arid wages regulation orders may contain provisions authorizing specified benefits or advantages, being benefits or advantages provided, in connexion with the employment, by the employer or by some other person under arrangements with the employer and not being benefits or advantages illegally provided, to be reckoned as payment of wages by the employer in lieu of payment in cash and defining the value at which any such benefits or advantages are to be reckoned.
LORD HEMINGFORD LORD HEMINGFORD moved, in subsection (2), after "employer," where that word occurs for the second time, to insert "or received by a worker in cash by way of gratuities." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see a second Amendment down in my name. That is purely consequential to the one I am now moving. The point is covered by this first Amendment. The idea of it is that

597
the wages board should take any tips into consideration or should be allowed to take tips into consideration in settling the wages. I am very glad to have the opportunity of healing Lord Snell's heart which was cut so badly, because I give him an opportunity here of accepting an Amendment and also of saying that your Lordships, by passing the Amendment, will be carrying out the intentions of the Government. If Lord Snell has not before him the explanatory memorandum which was published with the first print of the Bill he will, at any rate, remember that it stated on page 3 that wages boards—I ask your Lordships to note that particular phrase—will be free to deal with tips in any way they consider necessary and practicable having regard to the varied conditions of the industry.
If you turn to Clause 10 of the Bill your Lordships will see that it deals with what the wages boards are to do. I think it is a correct interpretation to say that the wages boards are precluded from taking tips into consideration. There was a long debate on this matter of tips when an earlier clause was being considered in another place, and I foresee that a possible defence against this Amendment may be raised by saying that tips could be taken into consideration under Clause 2. But that is the business of the Commission and not the business of the wages board. The memorandum to which I have referred stated expressly the intention of the Government that wages boards should be free to deal with tips, and indeed one would think that no one who drafted this Bill could have done otherwise than try to arrange that tips would be taken into consideration in proper cases. I am not asking now for any difficulty to be put in the way of wages boards by saying they must take into consideration tips or must arrive at the amount of tips; but for wages boards to fix a standard of wages without reference to the a mount of tips received by particular classes of workers seems to me to be quite absurd.
I have heard on what I believe to be thoroughly good authority that there is at least one case of a well known establishment in London where the head cloak-room waiter receives in tips as much as £40 a week. I am also informed on similar good authority that there are two servants of a hotel or restaurant doing similar work who receive in tips not less
598
than £5 a week. One has only to consider those cases to make one's mouth water, and it may make some of your Lordships wish that you could take a position of that kind. As a matter of fact I believe the position in which men receive these very large tips are to a great extent the reward of past employment for old and trusted servants who, after a long course of service, are promoted to positions in which they get these very big tips. I base this Amendment in the first place on the absurdity, if that is not too strong a word, of saying that a wages board in fixing a standard of wages shall not be able to take into consideration the fact that a certain number of employees, though it may be a small number, receive as part of their remuneration tips amounting to about £1,500 or £2,000 a year. That is a bit of simple arithmetic, which I think the noble Lord will find is arrived at if you take £40 a week. My second reason for moving the Amendment is that it is stated to have been the original intention of the Government that wages boards should have this power, and my third reason is my anxiety to save my noble friend Lord Snell from having any more of the distressing experience he has had to go through of refusing Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 23, after ("employer") insert ("or received by a worker in cash by way of gratuities")—[Lord Hemingford.]
LORD NATHAN: My noble friends and myself hope that the Government will stand firm in resisting the Amendment. My noble friend Lord Hemingford's speech appeared to me to be an argument in favour of the abolition of tips altogether. This is a Bill for the regulation of the payments to be made by an employer to his employee. A tip is not a payment made by an employer to his employee. It is a payment made by a third person to somebody else's employee. I ventured on the Second Reading of this Bill to express firmly, but I hope without over-emphasis, the feeling that the whole practice of tipping should be brought into disrepute. This Amendment proposed by the noble Lord would on the contrary legitimize tipping by Act of Parliament and give it the status of a practice explicitly approved by Parliament. It seems to me that would be a retrograde step and I hope no such thing will be done. Before I came here to-day

599
I looked at the Oxford English Dictionary and I found this definition:
"To tip is to bestow a small present of money upon an inferior, especially upon a servant or employee of another, nominally in return for a service or in order to obtain an extra service."
I think that definition not only puts clearly the meaning of the practice of tipping, but makes equally clear the reason why tipping should be brought into disrepute. I do not believe tipping can be abolished by Act of Parliament, but I believe a public opinion can be created, and I think it should be created, starting in your Lordships' House, which would show disapproval of the practice. We hope that the Government will stand firm against this Amendment, because its acceptance would mean that Parliament approves a practice which in our view, if it cannot be abolished by Act of Parliament, should be abolished by the common sense of the people.
LORD GIFFORD: I rise to support the Amendment, because I feel strongly that the practice of tipping cannot be abolished. Whatever is done it will go on. It goes far outside the hotel and catering business. I venture to think that many noble Lords have in their time received tips. I certainly have. Starting as a schoolboy I received golden sovereigns from my godfather as tips. At Claridge's in the last war I was tipped as a midshipman mistaken for a page, and in this war I was tipped at Victoria Station as a ticket collector. Tipping is universal and will go on. As the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, has said, it is evident the Government realize this because it was stated in the memorandum that wages boards should be free to deal with tips in any way necessary. Yet as this clause is drafted it prohibits wages boards taking into account any sums which are so received by the employee. If this Amendment is not passed it will mean that a service charge will be put in force universally. I think that would be a great mistake.
Tips are given for personal service. Instances have been given to-day of large incomes received by certain hotel employees. Those are freak cases and I do not think we should take them into account. In every class of the catering industry tipping takes place because the employee
600
concerned gives real service to the customer. It may be Mary, the little waitress in the small café, who remembers that the clerk who comes there every day likes buttered toast for his tea, and it is because of that individual personal service that the custom of tipping exists. If a service charge were forced upon the industry it would mean that the good man, the man who deserves tips most because he gives the best service, would be treated on exactly the same basis as the man who is inefficient. And there are certain branches of the industry where a service charge would be impossible to put into force. Take, for example, the cases of cloakrooms and bars, or that of the small inn or hotel in the country, where the business is run by a man and his wife with a staff consisting of two or three persons. How are the people running such places going to manage if they have to do complicated sums in order to work out service charges? The tip is given for personal service, and the members of the staffs of catering establishments would, I think, be the last people to wish it to be abolished. Therefore, I hope that the Government will frankly recognize this universal custom and agree to the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should like to say a word upon the consideration of the Bill in regard to this particular matter. I would begin by saying that I do not appreciate that the Government are, by some sort of implication from the Bill or by something secret in its design, intending to deal with the matter of tips in one way or the other. I understand that there has not yet been any such inquiry relating to the people who are interested in tips and such knowledge obtained by the Government that they are entitled to come before Parliament at the present time and say: "We are abolishing tips in all catering establishments in the future." Until they do that—and they cannot do it at the present time—surely the right course for the Government to pursue is to keep a perfectly open mind and put before Parliament the terms of this Bill which are directed not to abolishing tips but to "regulating the remuneration and conditions of employment of catering and other workers and, in connexion therewith, for their health and welfare." If that is so, let me just point out that the Bill is really, in my opinion, defective at the present time because there is no power under its terms,

601
as I read them, to do anything beyond ascertaining the remuneration which a worker obtains from his employer. There is no machinery and no inquiry directed to ascertaining what a worker gets, not from his employer, but from the customers served in the catering establishments.
To see that that is true you have only to look at Clause 10, where it is asserted that:
"For the purpose of determining whether the remuneration paid or agreed to be paid to a worker to whom a wages regulation order applies is less than the statutory minimum remuneration clear of all deductions, the not remuneration obtained or to be obtained by him in cash from his employer after allowing for his necessary expenditure … shall … be deemed to be the remuneration paid or to be paid to him,"
Then there follows a part of the clause which is concerned with deductions. What I wish to point out is that in the case of people engaged in all establishments such as tea-shops, restaurants, hotels and so on, if the inquiry is to be how much they are paid in salary by the employer, and if, in such inquiry, those making it are not entitled to inquire what is the amount of tips ordinarily received from the public, you get nowhere. It would be ridiculous, for instance, in the case of a girl who customarily receives £2 a week in tips and only £1 a week from her employer, to have an inquiry to determine whether she gets £1 a week, that being her statutory minimum payment, and not to be aware of what she is obtaining from the public. This makes the whole thing ridiculous, in my opinion, so far as cases of this sort are concerned.
I am only desirous, on this occasion, of helping, so far as I respectfully can, the Government to make this a workable measure in its application to the large number of catering establishments where a proportion, or a large proportion, or, in some cases, the whole of the remuneration consists of tips. If you omit that from the Bill you make it, in my opinion, perfectly unworkable as regards these establishments. For that reason I think that what is suggested here with such force and eloquence might well be accepted and then my noble friend Lord Snell would be able to sleep happily to-night.
LORD SNELL: The wording of my noble friend Lord Hemingford's Amendment
602
is, in the view of the Government, not at all clear. Whatever the intention of it may be it is felt that the actual drafting of it would need to be very closely scrutinized. The object of the Amendment appears to be to enable the wages board to recognize tips as a benefit to be applied in reduction of the statutory remuneration; that is to say, to allow the employer to reduce the amount of remuneration by the extent to which the worker receives tips. The Amendment is certainly free from the criticism that it would make the worker's remuneration dependent upon tips, because, in one way or another, he would receive not less than the statutory minimum, but the contribution of the employer to the income of his servant would be that which the public did not pay in tips. Now even supposing that were a satisfactory solution of the problem, it leaves the customer's grievance entirely untouched. Charges, at least in these days, are more than adequate to enable the employer to pay his servant proper wages, and the employers' and workers' representatives are the best people to judge how to deal with this difficult problem. In any case, it is very difficult to calculate how much is actually received in tips; only the worker himself can know that.
My noble friend Lord Gifford asks us to regard tipping as one of the eternal inconveniences of life, and said that all your Lordships had at one time or another been tipped. I believe that there may be an exception; I have lived a long time now, and I cannot remember a time when I was tipped for any service, but I can remember hundreds of times when I paid for the privilege of giving the service which was required. In any case the situation is, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, explained, that the Government do not impose any condition in this matter. It is left to the wages board to deal with this matter as it chooses, and the wages board is fully representative. Dealing with this matter on a broad basis, I should like to say that the arguments against the tipping system are that the worker has a right to an adequate wage, irrespective of any gratuities, and that it is humiliating for a worker to have to receive tips in that way. On the other side, it may be urged that tipping provides the customer with an opportunity for showing his appreciation of services ren-

603
dered, that the worker expects it, and that the employer very generously provides the worker with opportunities for so increasing his income.
LORD HEMINGFORD: Will the noble Lord kindly tell me where that appears? He says that the board has power to consider tips; will be show me where?
LORD SNELL: The whole matter is remitted to the board, which is composed of representatives of employers and workers, and the board is free to deal with it or not to deal with it as it pleases. That is my reading of the matter.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: What clause is that? I cannot find it.
LORD HEMINGFORD: The board is directed as to how it shall do it.
LORD SNELL: In the end, the position taken is that the worker must be entitled to a statutory minimum remuneration; he must have a wage, and that wage must be adequate. I am very sorry that I am not able to accept the Amendment.
LORD GIFFORD: As I see it, this clause as it stands allows any benefits provided "by the employer or by some other person under arrangements with the employer" to be taken into account, so that we already take into account the service charge in this clause. I understand that the Income Tax authorities take into account officially the ordinary gratuities received by certain people, so that the practice is officially recognized by the Government.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I do not feel inclined to drop this Amendment unless I can have a perfectly definite answer from the Government to justify what was stated by Lord Snell just now. If it is the case that the wages board has power to take tips into consideration, then my Amendment is totally unnecessary; but I have studied the clause very carefully, and I have been advised by far better draftsmen and lawyers than myself that under Clause 10 the Wages board is not permitted to take tips into consideration. The noble Lord says that it is, and he uses some very general words in saying that that is so; but I ask him specifically to tell me how, in the face of the words in Clause 10, the wages board, which the
604
Government stated in the memorandum to which I have referred was intended to have that power, has any power whatever to take tips into consideration.
LORD SNELL: I am advised that the wages board can fix remuneration under Clause 8 (1), and that it can, in so doing, take account of the existence of tips as a general rule.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am surprised to hear that stated. Clause 8 (1) says that
"any wages board shall have power to submit to the Minister proposals (hereinafter in this Act referred to as wages regulation proposals')—

(a) for fixing the remuneration to be paid, either generally or for any particular work, by their employers to all or any of the workers in relation to whom the board operates."

I think that the statement which has just been made by Lord Snell must have been made by inadvertence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With the approval of my noble colleague Lord Snell, and with great regret at not agreeing with what has last been said, I really cannot sec any difficulty at all. Clause 8 (1) (a) confers power on the wages board to fix remuneration, to fix the amount of pounds, shillings and pence which will be paid by the employer.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: And Clause 10 says how it will be done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We will begirt with Clause 8 (1) (a), which Lord Maugham thought had been misconstrued by my noble friend. I should have supposed that the wages board, in fixing that remuneration, was at liberty to consider the circumstances. I should have thought, for example, that if there was one form of service which attracted this particular addition, and another which never did, it was open to the wages board to have that in mind. But at any rate so far as Clause 8 (1) (a) is concerned, there is no limitation on their discretion in fixing the remuneration.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM rose.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is not that right?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: It is right in the sense that I suppose, as a matter of drafting, the proposals may be for fixing

605
remuneration having regard to any conceivable circumstance; if the person concerned is a lady, to the question of whether she is a blonde or a brunette. There is nothing in the clause which prevents the board from considering that. But if you are going to say that in fixing the remuneration to be paid by employers you may consider also how much they get from the public, I venture to think that, according to the ordinary rules of drafting, and in order to make the legislation clear, that should be stated.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is quite a different point.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Pardon me, it is not a different point; it is precisely the same point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is quite a different point. My noble and learned friend, I think a little hastily, interposed to tell Lord Snell that he was shocked and surprised—
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I did not say shocked; I said surprised. Do not let us exaggerate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is nothing to be surprised about, because the advice which my noble friend received is perfectly right. The advice is, as I am sure that may noble friend will see, if he will just look at the Report to-morrow, that Clause 8 (1) has not the effect that it is not open to the wages board to take tips into consideration. That was the precise question which my noble friend Lord Hemingford asked and to which he was given an answer. My noble friend said, "If I can be assured that it is open to the wages board to take tips into account, then I am content," and my noble friend Lord Snell proceeded to say that that is the position, and, with great respect to anybody who takes the contrary view, that surely is correct. In regard to the question which Lord Bennett interposed to ask, I did not think that Clause 10 said anything to the contrary, but frankly I have not looked at this very closely.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: I refer to these words:
"For the purpose of determining whether the remuneration paid or agreed to be paid to a worker to whom a wages regulation order Applies is Jess than the statutory minimum remuneration clear of all deductions, the net
606
remuneration obtained or to be obtained by him in cash from his employer.…"
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is not a very easy clause to follow, but I really think there is a little misapprehension. Clause 10 is for the purpose of making sure that what is received as remuneration from the employer shall not be less than the statutory minimum remuneration which is to be obtained in cash from the employer, and there are provisions which bring in the Truck Act and which deal with illegal deductions, but it does not in the least affect the proposition that when the wages board determines in its discretion, under Clause 8 (1), what in a particular case the remuneration should be it is not debarred from considering the receipt of tips. I must insist with very great respect that my noble friend Lord Snell was perfectly right in what he said, and I think probably most members of the House would think so.
LORD HEMINGFORD: It is with the very greatest deference that I differ from the Lord Chancellor, but if he will read Clause 10 a little more carefully I think he will be bound to admit that it is absolutely contradictory to what he stated just now. It forces the wages board to have regard only to the wages paid by the employer. This remuneration in question is not paid by the employer, and therefore cannot be taken into consideration. Lord Maugham raised the further point just now that really this House will be doing a great service to the country if in cases of this kind it can make appeals to the Court on the wording of Statutes a little less frequent. If what has been said as to the wishes of the Government is correct, surely this Amendment would only be carrying out those wishes and making the matter perfectly clear, and thereby avoiding a perfectly certain reference to the Courts, seeing that we have the great legal authorities in this House differing on the point.
LORD GIFFORD: With the greatest respect to the Lord Chancellor, the clause as I sec it allows account to be taken of wages, it also allows account to be taken of benefits paid by some other person under arrangement with the employer—that I suppose is remuneration received by means of a service charge on visitors—but it seems to me that at present it takes no account of

607
tips received direct by the employee from the customer.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: Having the great regard that I have for the legal opinion of the Lord Chancellor, may I, as a very insignificant lawyer, suggest, with very great deference, that the language of Clause 10 precludes absolutely consideration of tips—negatively and in terms it precludes it? I will read it again:
"For the purpose of determining whether the remuneration paid or agreed to be paid to a worker to whom a wages regulation order applies is less than the statutory minimum remuneration clear of all deductions, the net remuneration obtained or to be obtained by him in cash from his employer after allowing for his necessary expenditure, if any, in connexion with the employment shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be deemed to be the remuneration paid or to be paid to him.…"
and then the clause mentions the deductions which may be made, and tips are not one of them. It refers to cash obtained "from his employer"—not from the public or anyone else but from one person only, his employer. And that sum can only be diminished by what? By those things that are named, including the Truck Act and things of that kind. I have not any doubt as to what a Court would understand that to mean.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Let us try again. Of course, when people say they are absolutely positive it is very difficult to get back to the neutral position. My noble friend has no doubt observed where "statutory minimum remuneration" comes from. It comes from Clause 8 (8). That provides that
"Remuneration"—
which means remuneration from the employer and nobody else—
"(including holiday remuneration)"—
from the employer and from nobody else—
"fixed by a wages regulation order is hereafter in this Act referred to as ' statutory minimum remuneration.'"
Supposing it was £3 a week. That £3 a week has all to come from an employer, however the wages may be paid and whatever holiday period comes into it. Clause 10 provides—these are the words which made my noble friend so sure:
"For the purpose of determining whether the remuneration "—
608
now that is from the employer—
"paid or agreed to be paid to a worker"—
perhaps it is a cheque for £50 sent to him at the end of so many weeks—
"to whom a wages regulation order applies is less than the statutory minimum remuneration clear of all deductions"—
that is, from the employer—
"the net remuneration obtained"—
from his employer—
"or to be obtained by him in cash from his employer after allowing for his necessary expenditure, if any, in connexion with the employment shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be deemed to be the remuneration paid, or to be paid to him"—
The words that follow do not affect the point.
I am sure the Committee will see that every word I have read has to do with remuneration to be paid by the employer. Now, let us get back to the relevant question, which is whether the wages board under Clause 8, when it fixes the remuneration to be paid from the employer, may in deciding on its £3 a week consider whether or not the service of that class of person already attracts a considerable additional subsidy from people who are not the employer. My proposition is an extremely simple one. I do not like o to say I have no doubt about it, but my proposition is that there is nothing whatever in Clause 8 to say that the wages board may not do so, and when you are deciding what the remuneration from the employer should be it may very well be—though it is not essential—that the wages board may do so, and that is why my noble friend and I said that in this matter we propose that the wages board should not be instructed either to do it or not to do it, but it is left to the board's discretion. Unless I have for the moment gone off my head, I regard that as an entirely simple proposition.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should like to make clear to the Committee what I think, and particularly I should like to explain the nature of the difference between me and the advice given by Lord Snell, as I understood it, in regard to Clause 8 (1) (a). I thought Lord Snell was asked by Lord Hemingford to tell him where in tile Bill was to be found the clause authorizing the deduction, or the consideration, of tips. I agree, and I have already stated that I agree, with the Lord Chancellor that under Clause 8 (1) any

609
mortal thing, relevant or irrelevant, might be considered by the people who were fixing the remuneration to be paid by the employer, but what I was concerned with was that there was nothing in the Bill to show that that would be done either in the normal case or at all. It was therefore open to the Minister to propose that nothing of the sort should be considered.
That, I thought, was probably contrary to the intentions of the Government in proposing this measure. But when it comes to what the natural meaning of the Bill is, I confess, without perhaps saying that the matter is so certain that it ought not to be discussed, I have a very strong feeling that my noble friend Lord Bennett has expressed the ordinary meaning of this measure. You will observe that Clause 10 goes out of its way, so to speak, to assert that the amount paid in cash by the employer is to be deemed to be the remuneration paid to the workmen or to be paid to them. Deemed for what purpose? I cannot for the life of me understand what the object of all this machinery is, and all the trouble that is going to be taken to determine the statutory minimum remuneration of the young women, say, employed in the teashops, whom we have all met in our day, if you are also not going to inquire how much they are receiving day by day from the generosity of the public. Why ascertain that some, it may be vile inadequate, sum is paid to them by the employer, if you do not also ascertain that they receive three or four times as much from the public? It does not seem to me you are any wiser when you ascertain the one and riot the other.
Having regard to Clause 10, which states that the amount paid in cash by the employer is to be deemed to be the remuneration paid to such a young woman, read in conjunction with Clause 8 (1) (a), I come to the conclusion that it was not intended that any inquiry was going to be made with regard to the remuneration paid to the employee in question by the members of the public. Having regard to the importance of that, my strong opinion is that what is now uncertain under the Bill ought to be made clear, if for no other reason than that legislation on such a topic as this, involving the interests of many tens of thousands of people, ought to be made
610
quite obvious to anybody of reasonable intelligence.
LORD MOTTISTONE: We have listened at length to disquisitions on this subject, and finally from the Lord Chancellor we have heard a very clear statement of the case. I have consulted my noble friends here, and they think there can be no doubt whatever—in their case they have no doubt—that the Lord Chancellor has made a very clear explanation of the case. As no word has so far been said from here, I speak on behalf of my noble friends when I say that should the noble Lord, who has broken a long-imposed silence to-day, proceed to a Division, we shall unhesitatingly support the Lord Chancellor and the Government.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: The threat of the noble Lord cannot deter me from once more directing attention to this clause. It is an ordinary case of the use of language, and everything the Lord Chancellor has said with regard to it I must accept at once. I ask the noble Lord, has he looked at the clause at all?
LORD MOTTISTONE: Yes.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: Look at the first few lines of Clause 10:
"For the purpose of determining whether the remuneration paid or agreed to be paid to a worker"—
that follows Clause 8—
"to whom a wages regulation order applies is less than the statutory minimum remuneration.…"
Let us take the statutory remuneration as £3. Let us say that they decided that the employer pays in cash only £2. Let us assume that. According to what has been said, he would have to find another £1 because no deduction could be made for the £5 in tips which were received. Let the noble Lord read that clause again, so that there can be no misunderstanding about it. It is for the purpose of determining something, and then it says that
"the net remuneration obtained or to be obtained by him in cash from his employer after allowing for"—
allowing for what? Tips? No:—
"for his necessary expenditure, if any, in connexion with the employment shall, subject to the provisions of this section, he deemed to be the remuneration paid or to be paid to him."
There you stop, as the Lord Chancellor

611
properly observed. The sum the employer pays to the worker is deemed to be the sum he receives. The clause says that in plain words. It therefore excludes deductions of tips or any sums whatever. I ask any noble Lord to read those first six lines and put any other construction upon them. There is first the purpose, secondly how it is to be arrived at, and thirdly what it is deemed to be, and there you are.
LORD MOTTISTONE: As I understand it, it is a very clear issue. Do these six lines which I have read with care mean what my noble friend Lord Bennett has said? The Lord Chancellor stands here and says, "You have got to take into consideration the remuneration." That is the remuneration from the employer. It says quite clearly that, under this Bill, in the view of the Lord Chancellor of England, they could and should take into consideration sums received from other sources. It is a very nice point between the two. I may say I was called to the Bar, too, and so were some of my noble friends here. On this occasion we are prepared to support the Lord Chancellor.
LORD HEMINGFORD: My noble friend Lord Bennett said he was not going to be deterred by any threat by the noble and gallant Lord opposite. That makes me more determined to press this to a Division in order to show that at least the noble and gallant Lord and his friends have violated one of the leading Liberal principles, which is that the law should be made clear beyond a doubt.
LORD NATHAN: It seems to me that Lord Mottistone put into the mouth of the Lord Chancellor rather more than the noble and learned Viscount actually said. Turning to the observations of the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, the deduction, if there is to be a deduction in respect of tips, would not arise under Clause 10 at all. It would arise under Clause 8 (1) (a), and the deduction, if any, would already have been made before Clause 10 comes into operation at all. That is the view I submit for the consideration of the noble Viscount (Lord Bennett). My object in rising, in the light of the discussion that has taken place, is to state that if Lord Hemingford takes the matter to a Division, my noble friends will support the Government.
LORD GIFFORD: As a layman with little legal knowledge, may I ask the Lord Chancellor one question? Is it his view that the Bill as at present drafted asks the wages boards to take into consideration both the remuneration received from the service charge and also remuneration received by tips direct from the guest or customer?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Bill does not direct the wages board to do so. The Bill leaves the wages board to fix the figure which the employer should pay according to the best of its judgment. If the case is one in which the wages board thinks the figure the employer should pay is reduced because of tips, they can act accordingly. That is the point, I think, at which the matter arises.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MORRIS LORD MORRIS moved to add to the clause:
"(4) For the resolution of doubts it is hereby declared that servants in boarding houses, hotels and public houses, kitchen staffs, cleaning staffs, waiters and waitresses in cafés and restaurants are domestic servants within the meaning of the Truck Acts, 1831 to 1940."
The noble Lord said: Whatever may be the fate of my trite and humble observations to your Lordships, I do hope, before the House rises to-night, your Lordships will receive from the Government some form of apology for the shameless ineptitude which has marked their handling of the Committee stage of this extremely important Bill. The Amendment in my name is, or I thought it was, purely declaratory in character and not a matter that would have led to any opposition at all, but, having been warned in advance that the Government, as has been their custom throughout this rather long and dreary sitting, will not receive the Amendment but will reject it, I am corn-polled to ask your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments while I explain just what the object of this Amendment is.
It has been drafted with some care and in drafting it the words are taken from the speech of the Solicitor-General at the Committee stage in the House of Commons. If I may I will read to your Lordships a very brief extract from that speech. This is what the Solicitor-General said:
"The position with regard to the Truck Acts is this: First of all, it is only a very small problem in regard to the catering industry. The Truck Acts do not apply to domestic

613
servants, aril the decisions as to what is a domestic servant have brought the position to this stage, that servants in boarding houses, hotels and public-houses, would be clearly domestic servants and therefore clearly outside the Truck Acts. With regard to cafés and restaurants, the kitchen staffs and cleaning staffs and waiters and waitresses would also be within the definition of domestic servants, and would, therefore, be outside the Truck Acts."
Mr. J. J. Davidson, the honourable member for Glasgow, Maryhill, asked:
"Is the honourable and learned gentleman very definite that waiters and waitresses in cafés—in big and small cafés—are defined as Comestic servants?"
And the Solicitor-General replied: "Yes." Now with this exposition of the law those for whom I speak this afternoon are more than content, and therefore I put down this Amendment, which I repeat is purely declaratory in character.
I ask the Government, if they have faith in their Solicitor-General, to agree that there can be no serious objection to this Amendment going into the Bill. It merely states what the Solicitor-General suggests to be the law is in fact the law. But unfortunately the matter does not rest there, because I am advised—and I have looked into the matter in the last few days with very considerable care—that the law, as declared by the Solicitor-General, is not nearly so clear and so susceptible of simple statement as we have been led to believe. If I may refer to two cases, the cases of Pearce versus Lansdowne and the London County Council versus Perry, they make it clear that a domestic or menial servant—which is the unfortunate designation given to these people—is a person who must be judged to be, or not to be as the case may be, a domestic servant not merely according to the nature of the work that he does but according to the establishment in which he does it. I know of no authority which says that some of these large catering concerns up and down the country can be said to be domestic establishments at all. So far as I know the point has never been decided.
I am troubling your Lordships this afternoon at such length because I am advised that unless this Amendment is passed in its present form, or unless some very clear statement of the law on this subject—namely, the domestic servant in relation to the Truck Acts—is incorporated in the Bill, the entire catering industry of this country, which affects all the employees
614
concerned in it, probably about half a million people, will be thrown into chaos, and it is of the utmost importance, before this stage of the Bill is concluded here, that some statement should come from the Government. I hope we shall get one. We have had nothing this afternoon that has contributed anything to indicate what they are prepared to do. Otherwise I am told that great difficulty will arise, particularly under this Clause 10 of which your Lordships have already heard so much to-day. I am told that the performance by the wages board of their duties under subsection (2) of Clause 10, authorizing benefits and advantages, such as the provision of meals, will be quite uncertain in their legality and scope unless something is done.
Your Lordships will appreciate that if these people are in fact domestic servants—I mean waiters and so forth—it is quite in order for these large catering houses, which control restaurants and large shops, to supply them with meals and other things without offending against the Truck Acts at all, but if they are not domestic servants then immediately an offence is committed entailing severe penalties. It. is for that reason and in order that the position may be clearly defined and confusion avoided, that the catering industry—and I speak here on their behalf and with their authority—are particularly anxious that the Government should either accept my Amendment or, alternatively, give some very clear assurance that they will make the law on the point far clearer than it has been up to date. The Truck Acts from 1831 up to the last one in 1940 have given a headache to far greater brains than mine. As the Government can find time during a total war to introduce a highly controversial and thoroughly bad piece of legislation like this Catering Wages Bill, they might also, with advantage, I think, turn their attention to the Truck Acts, which are badly ill need of clarification, tell us what they mean, and particularly tell us their bearing on this Catering Wages Bill.
I do not think I need detain your Lordships any longer beyond again emphasizing the immense importance which is attached by the trade throughout the country to this Amendment. I can assure your Lordships that the one desire and intention of those engaged in the catering trade, although they have never asked

615
for this Bill, which they regard as largely unnecessary and to a great extent mischievous, is to make the Bill a practicable measure. They cannot do that if it is left in its present eminently unsatisfactory state. Enough has been said this afternoon by noble and learned Lords far better qualified than I am about the eminently unsatisfactory piece of draftsmanship that this Bill represents, and to show that it requires further consideration both now and at another stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 34, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Morris.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I want to say, before the Lord Chancellor addresses you on this point—unless he is going to make some concession, in which case I should wish to say nothing—that I cannot help observing, not for the first time, that Acts of Parliament ought to be clear in their meaning and ought not to rest on doubtful opinions of noble Lords, however eminent they may be, and however great their experience or the position which they occupy. I cannot believe that it is right in such a Bill as this, which affects the interest of many tens of thousands of people, to leave the question as to the effect of the Bill to be judged by the statements either of a Law Officer of the Crown or even of the Lord Chancellor. The point is whether these people are, or are not, domestic servants. That was admitted to be the point in the other place. The Solicitor-General had apparently looked up the reported cases and he had come to the conclusion that waiters and waitresses in cafes, big and small, and so forth, are domestic servants. I have been unable myself to find any real authority in favour of that view. I have consulted a number of my noble and learned friends and everyone that I have asked so far thinks the question is one of doubt. For my part I am in the same position. I am not prepared to say they are not in domestic service, but I am not prepared to say that they are.
The point which I put before the Committee with the greatest respect is that it is suggested that a wholly artificial meaning exists under the Truck Acts or the Amending Acts which makes all sorts of people, who are not in domestic service in the least, domestic servants for the
616
purpose of the Truck Acts. If it is a Question of doubt why not resolve it? Can it be right to leave a question of such importance as that to rest upon the statement of a Law Officer of the Crown or anybody else? I strongly oppose the notion that statements on doubtful points by people even in such eminent positions should be allowed to deflect the House from what I regard as its duty—namely, that of seeing that the Bill really represents something which everybody of reasonable intelligence can understand.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the simplest way of dealing with this Amendment of the noble Lord is, in a couple of sentences, to state what the Trucks Acts do. The Truck Acts provide that in the case of certain classes of employees the wages that they receive must be paid in cash and no part of their wages can be paid in any other form. The question in connexion with the catering trade is not a very important one because people in the catering trade are usually not within the Truck Acts at all. There are not one, but two, large exceptions to the general proposition. The first exception is that the prohibition of the Truck Acts only applies to people who are employed by way of manual labour. If they are not employed by way of manual labour the Truck Acts do not prevent payment partly in kind. The second proposition is that the Truck Acts do not apply in the case of domestic or menial servants. There is no doubt at all that the interpretation which has been put on that second provision is a wide one and most people employed in hotels and restaurants and the like would unquestionably, as the result of many authorities, be regarded as domestic servants,. But it is not the case that every servant in a boarding house or hotel is necessarily a domestic servant.
I was not quite clear whether the noble Lord, Lord Morris, quoted the Solicitor-General because he accepted what he said or doubted what he said, but the fact is that if you take the cashier at the desk of a hotel or the accountant of a hotel company, I at least should find it very difficult to think that anybody would regard them as domestic servants. You might think that because they are not domestic servants the Truck Acts would prevent them receiving part of their wages in the form of meals. It is not so because

617
the other limitation applies to exclude them. They are not people employed in manual labour and their remuneration is therefore not affected by the Truck Acts. That is the substance of the matter, and it was so explained with sufficient clearness, I think, in another place, by my colleague the Solicitor-General.
What is the attitude of the Government in regard to this admittedly complex question, which no doubt does at times raise difficulties? It is simply that the Catering Wages Bill is not a Bill which need affect the application of the Trucks Acts one way or another. I could not accept an Amendment which says that for the resolution of doubts all servants in hotels are domestic servants, because it is not true. No servant in a hotel would be, I imagine, classed as a domestic servant if simply doing the work of a clerk. No one responsible for the Bill could accept that statement as made for the resolution of doubt. I think it would lead to confusion. When the explanation was given in the other House—and there must be spokesmen of the catering trade there—everyone accepted it. We are not altering the Truck Acts. This is a Bill for regulating wages and not for altering the Truck Acts. That is the short answer, and with due humility and apologies to the noble Lord for the "shameful ineptitude" of the proceedings, I must decline the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
House resumed by The LORD CHANCELLOR.

HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL POPU- LATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Alness, I desire to move the Second
618
Reading of this Bill. It is an entirely non-contentious matter. The Bill is introduced merely to continue in operation Part II of the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938, which would otherwise expire this year. The object is to continue those provisions in full force. It is not expected that any great amount of house building will take place as a result, but it is thought that it would be unwise to allow the provisions of the Act to lapse. Therefore it is desired to keep them in being pending the development of the new housing policy which is now being worked out by the Government. I hope there will be no opposition to the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2. —(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question Bill read 2, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MEDICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the special conditions obtaining in Wales, they will take steps to appoint a Welsh Health Services Medical Advisory Committee following the recent creation of similar committees for England and Scotland.]
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the Minister of Health is responsible for the health services in Wales no less than in England, and the Committee appointed in November last to advise him on the medical aspects of problems affecting the health of the people is equally concerned with both countries. The Committee, accordingly, includes two members with special experience of Welsh conditions, and no separate committee appears to be necessary.
House adjourned.