reported from the Committee on Group 2 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had further adjourned till Tuesday 8th June, at Half-past Eleven of the Clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

I have examined this Bill, and it appears to me to raise substantially the same question as the Representation of the People Bill which was discussed in the Spring, to which the House gave its assent, and which is now before a Standing Committee of the House. In my opinion, as it raises substantially the same questions as that Bill, it cannot be taken.

Upon a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether, in coming to your decision that the Second Reading of the Women's Franchise Bill cannot be taken, in consequence of the House having already given a Second Reading to the Representation of the People Bill, which is now before Standing Committee D, you have had regard to the fact that, on the 28th March, 1906, the Government of the day introduced a Trade Disputes Bill, which subsequently passed into law, and on the 30th March, 1906, Mr. Walter Hudson, who was then Member for Newcastle, moved the Second Reading of another Trade Disputes Bill, the object of which was more or less substantially the same as that of the Government Bill. I therefore beg to ask you, Sir, as a point of Order, whether, having regard to that precedent, you would be in Order in ruling out the Women's Franchise Bill. As my colleagues and myself see it, this Bill is substantially in the same position as the two Bills which I have quoted, and upon that principle I ask you to rule that this Bill is in Order.

The right hon. Gentleman has not given me sufficient notice. At one minute to Twelve to-day I got a notice from him saying that he was going to bring this matter to my attention. It was perfectly impossible for me to examine the Bills referred to. My recollection is that those Bills were different. The right hon. Gentleman says they were substantially the same, but if that was so what was the object of bringing in both? There obviously must have been a very considerable difference between the Bill introduced by Mr. Hudson and the Bill introduced by the Attorney-General. I have not had time to look at them, but I have had time to look at these Bills, and they raise exactly the same point. If it is discussed again to-day as it was on the previous occasion, it will occupy the whole attention of the House, and may place the House in a very awkward situation, supposing that upon this occasion the House came to a different opinion from that which it reached on the former occasion. The whole object of this rule is that the House should not be placed in that position. It has given its decision on the first Bill, and it is now asked to reconsider it. If it affirmed its previous decision, it would only be a waste of time. If it took an opposite view to that which it took on the former occasion, it would place the Committee in a very grave and difficult position, and the House also.

I apologise, Sir, for not having given you longer notice, so that you could have fortified yourself with the precedent. I do not propose to address myself to the argument in reply to your statement from the Chair, but in asking your ruling upon the point I founded myself upon that precedent, and I should like to ask, if upon consideration you find that the precedent entitles the House to take this Bill—

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly give me the precedent? Will he tell me what is in the Bills? He has seen them, but I have not.

It raised the whole issue of trade disputes. It was in consequence of the Taff Vale decision, and in both Bills the principle was the same.

May I point out that the earlier Bill deals with other subjects as well as those mentioned in this present Bill, and that therefore it is not actually the same Bill?

It is substantially the same. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member would not deny that if I were to permit a discussion on this Bill, the discussion would be practically the same as- the discussion we had upon the former occasion.

Last week in the Committee it was proposed to withdraw everything except the one Clause which is in this Bill now under discussion. Therefore, the two Bills will be absolutely identical.

The Bill before Standing Committee D deals with a lot of other matters, and therefore the House could pass that without being entirely in accord with the present Bill.

"Majus in se minus continet." The larger Bill contains the smaller Bill. The House has affirmed the larger proposition, and it is now asked to re-affirm the minor proposition. What is the use of that?

I am simply asking for the protection of the Chair in case upon examination you should find yourself in a position to say that a mistake has been made. I quite realise you cannot delay the House while you are looking up the Bills, but suppose upon examination it be found that the point of Order is a good one, is there any form in which we can redress what would be, if that be so, the grievance of a private Member?

There is no form. The Chair, like the Pope, is infallible.

Order discharged, and Bill withdrawn.

This Bill cannot proceed. The Bill has not been printed, and the House cannot take a Bill which has not been printed.

I should like to know, Mr. SPEAKER, what redress there is for promoters in a case of this description. The fault that the Bill has not been printed is not the fault of the promoters, but that of the Public Bill Office. If we find that carelessness has taken place on the part of the officials, and as a result we are not able to proceed with our Bill, it is very disastrous for any attempt to carry on legislation through Members, because their chance is taken away through the non-printing of their Bill.

I do not know on what date this Bill was prepared to be printed, but I take it that it must have been in the mind of the hon. Member who is moving it, because he obtained leave to bring in the Bill. Therefore, the Bill should have been ready in the first week of the Session. A great many weeks have passed, and apparently the hon. Member did not ascertain whether it was printed or not. He cannot blame the Department, when he himself has taken no pains to see that the Bill was printed.

About a fortnight ago I gave notice of this Bill and handed in a dummy copy at the Table, and took to the Public Bill office a copy of the Bill which was introduced last year, with the necessary alterations in the name. I said that I was introducing the Bill instead of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Lieut.-Colonel Burgoyne) and that he was supporting me. When I applied for copies of the Bill in the Vote Office I was told that they were not yet printed, but that they would be here to-day. I applied at the Vote Office to-day, and was told they had no copies. I then applied at the Public Bill Office, and the clerk there seemed to have forgotten the matter, for he took out of his drawer the copy of the Bill which I had taken, and said he was very sorry that it had not been sent to the printers. I assumed that I had taken all the necessary steps to get the Bill printed, and that copies would be available in time for the Bill to proceed.

From the statement of the hon. Member it is quite clear that the clerk was to blame, and I will see that he is reprimanded. At the same time the hon. Gentleman might have seen about the matter a week ago. He might have inquired then, seeing that the Bill had been put down as the Second Order for to-day. Therefore, I cannot altogether relieve him from blame.

I would not think of questioning your ruling on the general matter of principle, but it seems to me that this question is a little out of the ordinary. Apart altogether from the fact that the clerk, as you admit, was to blame, I would point out that this Bill is identical with the one I introduced on the 21st May last year. Not a word has been altered. Under the circumstances, as there are certain copies of that Bill available, could we not pro- ceed to the Second Reading, seeing that the two Bills are absolutely identical, and that you agree we are not entirely to blame?

I quite admit the hon. Member is not entirely to blame, but I should be entirely to blame if I allowed in this case an exception to a well-established rule. Nobody in the House would know where they were. A member takes up the Orders of the Day, and sees that certain Bills are down. Then he looks through the Bills, and finds that a certain Bill is not printed. He knows that according to the rules of the House that Bill cannot come on, and consequently he does not come down. Subsequently he finds the Bill has been discussed, and passed in his absence. Where am I under those circumstances? I should be very much to blame. Therefore I must keep to the rule.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Select

I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert a schedule of birds prohibited from importation."

That is not correct as an instruction. That can be done by the Committee itself without any instruction. It is open to the Committee to take such a course, and the proposal is out of order, because you cannot have a mandatory instruction to a Standing Committee.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This is a short Bill which has for its object the repeal of the Corn Production Act of 1917 and the Amending Act of 1918. The Act of 1917 was passed during the War with the object of increasing the production of food within the Empire, and one of the methods by which it was proposed to carry out that object was the giving of a bounty on the cereals grown. Although I gladly admit that I have been a Tariff Reformer ever since the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain introduced the question of Tariff Reform into practical politics, and although I have in no way changed my views, according to which side of the House I may happen to be sitting upon, yet I have never held that a bounty was the proper way of carrying out Tariff Reform. The bounty is a very bad form of protection; it is the worst form of protection that can be introduced. It has to be paid by the taxpayers as a whole, and nothing is returned or comes into the pocket of the State. On the other hand, a duty brings in revenue and does not trench upon the taxpayer. I, with a few Members, I think all Liberals and Radicals and not Members of the Coalition, voted against the Second Reading of the 1917 Act. My friends were rather annoyed with me for doing that. There was an idea amongst the farmers that they were going to get something out of the Act. As a matter of fact, they have got nothing out of it. Let me remind the House of the minimum prices fixed in the Act. The minimum price of wheat for the years 1920, 1921 and 1922 was 45s. a quarter, and the minimum price of oats for the same years was 24s. a quarter. Now it is somewhere between 60s. and 65s. a quarter, and the price of wheat is 77s. a quarter. I sold some at that price only last week. Therefore, from the point of view of the bounty, the provisions of the Act are now of no use at all. Another provision in the Act was that the Government might interfere with the cultivation of land. My experience, and I believe it is the experience of nearly everyone, is that the interference by the Government in the cultivation of land has resulted in complete loss and in minimizing the amount of food produced. I got a letter only last week from a very large farmer in Berkshire who pointed out that the Government had taken some of his land into their possession.

There can be no question that the amount spent during the last two or three years by the Board of Agriculture upon attempts to cultivate other people's land for them has not only resulted in a very considerable loss to the taxpayer, but, in my opinion, has been disastrous to the production of food. A third point in the Act was the fixing of a minimum wage. I do not know that that has been a complete success, for no one to-day knows in the least where he is. The wage is altered from day to day or from month to month, and so are the hours. It may be held that the labourer was underpaid before. As a matter of fact, the labourer's wage was continually advancing long before the Act was introduced, and now, owing to the scarcity of agricultural labour, the labourer is perfectly well able to look after himself and to obtain proper pay for his work. I believe the vast majority of farmers would like to be left alone and to carry on their business in their own way without all this interference from the State. The hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Sanders) who sits in solitary glory on the Front Bench represents farmers and I am sure he would hesitate to deny that my view as to the present position of affairs is correct. I think it is advisable that this Bill should be repealed. The Government are going to do something with regard to the agricultural interest, and if this Bill is left as it is it will be an encouragement to the Government to fix a bounty to be paid under any Bill which is to come on. That would be a fatal blot on any legislation connected with any industry.

I beg to second the Motion.

I approve of the Motion but for different reasons. I was one of those Liberals who made strenuous objections, pressed through long debates, on this question. All the prophecies which we ventured to make have been fulfilled to the letter. The Bill was introduced by the Government during the war as a war measure, and the arguments in its favour were based on the necessities of a state of war, in consequence of the submarine menace. The encouragement which this Bill was to give to increased production in agriculture has now gone, by the natural existing state of the market, and nothing more will be required for the encouragement of agriculture, so far as one can see, for many years to come. Unfortunately the position with which we are faced is not a glut of food but a scarcity. That means that agricultural prices will rule high. The reason for the Bill is destroyed. Secondly, I object to the Act as being entirely unsound and artificial. The great basic industry of agriculture in this country under efficient management ought to be able to stand on its own feet. An ancient industry of this kind given a fair, proper and just land system should not require to be bolstered up at the expense of the general taxpayer. It is entirely artificial, even on the hypothesis put forward on the figures of the Act. It was intended as an Act to encourage the greater production of wheat, but instead of giving the advantage to the farmer for the production of excess over the normal, it took the basis, not of excess acreage, but the whole acreage under cultivation. That point was raised, and I also made the point that the Bill was thoroughly unjust to Scotland. It was mentioned how grave this injustice to Scotland was, because it was on the basis of wheat, which is hardly cultivated in Scotland at all. The food on which the strong and lusty population of Scotland has been raised is oats, which is a staple crop there. Dr. Johnson described oats as food for horses in England, and for men in Scotland, and no country has such fine men as Scotland, and none such fine horses as England. I think hon. Members will agree that an Act which is unfair to such a staple production of the Scottish farmer as eats, has something seriously wrong with it. The provisions of the Act were sought to be gilded by the Sections as to a minimum wage. The wage guaranteed as a minimum wage is one which would have been exceeded under any circumstances, and that was an attempt to secure the support of the Labour party for a thoroughly unsound measure. I think it is time these War measures were swept off the Statute Book, and that we should get into the region of sound economics and sound natural conditions; and be done for ever with the days of subsidies and subterfuges. It is because I share the views of the right hon. Baronet, and because I still feel strongly on this matter, that I support the Bill.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 6; Noes, 66.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

1.0 P.M.

This is a Bill to repeal the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and to alter the Trade Union Act, 1913. The first part is very simple. I remember when the Trade Disputes Act of 1906 was being passed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson) said to the House: "Why waste time over bringing in a Bill of many Clauses like this Bill. Why not pass a one-Clause Bill stating 'The King can do no wrong, and neither can the trade unions.'" The advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that occasion was excellent, because whatever may have been said about the Bill at the time, its working has shown that the result of it is to allow a trade union to do whatever it likes, and to put itself above the law. We were told during the passage of the Bill that it meant nothing but one nice mannered man going to another nice mannered man and saying, "Really, I think you had better not work here. Do you not think you had better come away and spend a pleasant afternoon somewhere else?" We know that that is very different from what really takes place, and that when there is a trade dispute going on threats of violence are continually used. When we had a railway strike last year, we had very great difficulty in getting our vans out of the yard; the horses were taken out and the vans turned back. I am glad to say I went down myself the next day and we got the vans out, but one man was seriously injured, and three voluntary workers who had been cleaning the horses, one of them being a lady, were attacked. The two men who were with her were thrown down, and she was assailed with cabbage stalks and a variety of things of that sort. The trouble of getting these women, who gave assistance only in looking after the needs of the horses, was so great that finally we decided we had better not have them at all. We got a large motor bus, I made a little speech on that occasion, and we sent them away. All that shows what is the actual result of peaceful picketing and persuasion, and I think there are a very large number of people in the country, and a great number of trade unionists themselves—because I do not believe the vast majority of the trade unionists are so anxious to do these things; it is only a few agitators—would be in favour of the repeal of that Act. The other part of my Bill requires some little explanation, because it is a clause by reference. Under the Trade Union Act, 1913, it in enacted that a ) in Section 3 says:

I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

I always agree with my hon. Friend when he is right, but I always disagree with him when he is wrong. I agreed with him when he was right, and was proud to be with him when I thought he was right, with half-a-dozen others, but I cannot agree with him in his present proposal. It is almost too farcical to consider. To come down on a Friday afternoon and seek to tear up the great Trade Union charter of 1906 is really not worth discussing. It is quite useless to point to the supposed benefits which would flow from Clause 2, which I think is just about as objectionable as the first clause which says, "The Trade Disputes Act, 1906, is hereby repealed." The results which would ensue would condemn the Bill entirely.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put and negatived.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House is well aware that a great deal of inconvenience has arisen in many ways owing to the postponement of the counting of votes at an election, and the promise was given some time ago that we would try to remedy this difficulty. The removal of the difficulty is not quite so simple as would appear at first sight, because I am quite sure everyone will share our anxiety that we should not disqualify any absent or naval or military voters, or in any way prejudice those who are now entitled to vote. That has been our difficulty throughout. As the case stands now, you have two sets of electors who are entitled to vote who are outside the United Kingdom, and therefore must appoint their proxies. I have endeavoured to induce the Post Office and other departments to make some arrangement whereby, without an alteration of the proxy areas, you could enable the voting to be done by post. But we have finally come to the conclusion that it would be quite impossible to do away with the interval between the election and the count unless we altered the arrangement as to the proxy areas. One is glad to know that the garrisons on the Rhine are now very small in number. Therefore, it is clear that there is no particular reason why so far as proxy areas are concerned, provided we extend our facilities, this particular region should not be in a proxy area any more than Gibraltar, for instance. Therefore, we propose that, outside the United Kingdom or outside the qualifications set out in the original Act, voting by proxy shall take place, and we extend the right to appoint proxies generally. At the present time it is limited to naval and military voters, merchant seamen, pilots and fishermen who satisfy the Registration Officer that there is a likelihood that they will be at sea or that they are about to go to sea. This distinction is quite arbitrary and artificial, and gives rise to all sorts of anomalies. It is felt desirable that we should enable anyone who is bonâ fide absent from the United Kingdom to appoint a proxy if he so desires I am sure that will meet with general approval.

We then had to determine what should be the minimum period between the nomination and the poll which would enable a letter containing the candidate's address, voting paper, and so forth to be sent by post to an absent voter in any part of the United Kingdom, and to be sent back again in time for the count. The Post Office have helped us a great deal in the matter, but of course we had to take the most extreme case where a voter might be in the most difficult part of the United Kingdom in one direction, and the election in the most distant part in the other direction. That would be the maximum period of difficulty, and that period we estimate at eight days. At present that period exists in county elections. Of course, it might be less than eight days if the place of the election were centrally situated. You might not need the eight days. Therefore, in borough elections, where the poll has to take place within practically from four to six days, we propose in the case of by-elections—it is not necessary at all in respect of General Elections—to extend the period between the nomination and the poll up to a maximum of eight days, and thus place borough elections on the same plane as county elections. That is done solely on account of the difficulties of postage. We want to give everybody an opportunity of getting a voting paper and being able to return it where-ever the election may be, and the minimum period required to ensure that is eight days. Of course, it may be as short as six. I know that it is a disadvantage to those who represent a borough constituency that they should have two more days—it is not a welcome extension to anyone who happens to represent a borough—but, if we want to give every voter in the United Kingdom an opportunity of voting, that is the minimum period required.

It will be observed that we have also extended the interval between the receipt of the writ and the day of nomination in the case of boroughs. It was understood, as the result of Mr. Speaker's Conference, that the days should be so arranged in the Representation of the People Bill that it would be possible to have the poll on a Saturday, if necessary or if wanted. Members will recognise, if the nomination were on a Friday or a Saturday, that it would be possible to have the poll on the following Saturday, but, if the nomination were earlier in the week than Friday, the period to the following Saturday would be greater than eight days. It is, therefore, necessary to adjust the period between the issue of the writ and the nomination, so that, if desired, the poll may take place on the Saturday. You have to allow for elasticity between the receipt of the writ and the nomination in order to provide for that contingency. Therefore, again in the case of borough by-elections, we have had to extend the maximum period up to as many days as it is in the case of county elections, namely, seven days, plus two. The eight days' interval between the nomination and the poll is necessary in order to allow every voter in the United Kingdom to get a letter and return it by post, and the interval between the receipt of the writ and the nomination must be extended a further four days in the case of borough by-elections in order that you may, if it be desired generally, fix a Saturday for the day of the poll. Those are the two considerations, and it was felt that we could not alter the one without still embodying in the Act the general understanding and agreement that was arrived at when the principal Act was passed. These are the main provisions of the Bill. I regret the delay in introducing it, but as soon as we got into it we found it exceedingly difficult to know how best to deal with it. These provisions standing together cause the minimum of inconvenience. We had to do it in this way. There is no other way out of the difficulty, short of disqualifying a number of electors, which nobody wants to do. There is the question of the increased cost which may arise in borough elections. We are discussing with the Treasury the question in respect of the increased postage charges, but in any case any proposals dealing with that matter will have to be brought forward in connection with the Finance Bill.

Obviously, this is a Bill which can best be discussed in Committee, but we want to be very careful about the extension of voting by proxy. I notice that in the second Clause this phraseology is used:

"If any person satisfies the Registration Officer that there is a likelihood that he will at the time of a parliamentary election be at sea or out of the United Kingdom,"

then he shall be entitled to appoint a proxy. Parliamentary elections are very variable; there may be two in a year, and the intervals between elections are very difficult to calculate, and if a practice grew up whereby large batches of votes might be left in the hands of a Labour or Liberal agent—I am not saying "Conservative"—further difficulties might arise.

You cannot do that; you have to appoint a proxy.

I am afraid that it could be done, judging from our experience of electioneering. I am not making a party point of it, but I think we are all agreed that we ought not to extend the lists of proxy voters. Sub-section 2 of Clause 2 says:

"A proxy paper, unless cancelled, shall remain in force so long as the elector continues to be registered in respect of the same qualification, and to be on the absent voters list."

I think we ought to make some provision with the object of dealing with the question of a proxy, so that it must be cancelled. I do not think it is wise to leave these votes, so to speak, floating in the air unless the man takes action on his own part. We are all glad of the opportunity of having the votes counted on the same day. If the extension of time presses somewhat hardly upon the representative of a borough constituency, at the same time it will save him having to return for the counting of the votes and the declaration of the poll, and, therefore, it is as broad as it is long.

I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words Clause 3, paragraph ( a ), makes it possible that the period between receipt of the writ and the nomination, shall extend to five days, and in paragraph ( b ) it is extended by two days, so that without making allowance for Sundays, it will be possible that the period of prolongation will be a whole week in the case of borough by-elections. I submit that this extension will increase the expenses and the labour involved, and could only be justified if it were absolutely necessary, in order to give effect to the first portion of the Bill. If we look at the memorandum accompanying the Bill, I think it will be agreed that it is to some extent uncandid. Everybody is anxious to give every possible opportunity to the Service man to vote. In the memorandum, the extension of the period is described as a corollary to the main purpose of the Bill. But I submit that, looking at Clause 3, paragraph ( a ), there is no connection between giving the service men the vote and the extension to five days. These five days are to elapse between the time of nomination and voting, and I do not think that that will help the service men very much, as ballot papers can only be posted after nomination.

We have, therefore, the extension of possibly a week in borough by-elections. If the Bill passes in this form, it will be extraordinarily hard upon candidates in borough by-elections. The strain upon the candidate, both physical and personal, will be increased. It is, moreover, very difficult to maintain the interest in a political contest for the three weeks which are possible under this Bill. It does not follow that the longer the election time, the bigger the poll will be. I think the converse is the case. It is very difficult to keep up the high strain of enthusiasm for that period. Even the enthusiasm which is always produced by the appearance of a Coalition candidate might wane after three weeks People with the greatest liking for such music will get tired of the big drum in three weeks. The main objection that we take to the Bill is, however, the additional expense that it involves. To a rich man the expense of contesting a borough election is a bagatelle. It cannot affect so much the Labour candidate who has the reserves of the trade unions and the co-operative societies to draw upon, but it will affect the man of moderate means, to whom a borough election is now the last refuge left. This Bill will tend to destroy the relatively favourable position which a borough election offers to him at present. I do not suggest that he would be necessarily a better or abler member than the rich man, or the trade union representative, but he would be more truly representative of the people, because he shares all their discontents and difficulties himself. These are the main grounds upon which we oppose the Bill. The extension of time is unnecessary, and is not in the interests of the service man, for whom the Bill has been provided. The increase in the expenses is oppressive on candidates for boroughs in conducting their electioneering if they do not happen to be rich, and from that point of view it is utterly opposed to sound policy.

Amendment not seconded.

I rise to support what has been said by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), with regard to Clause 2. To an old Parliamentary hand it is obvious that a scheme could be framed whereby these proxy votes could be made available. I am not going to say now how I think it could be done, but it is open to what might become a grave scandal, and an infringement of the free choice of the individual. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Addison) that it would be better if it provided that instead of a "person," it should be a "relative." That would help to prevent people farming these votes.

I think most of the points which have been mentioned could be discussed in Committee, and therefore I will not go into them now. I should like to ask a question about the costs of postage. The increase of the postage rate to 2d. will increase the expense considerably, and this Bill will further increase the expense of postage. The right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Addison) has said that it might be possible to deal with this in the Finance Bill, which is now before the House, by introducing a provision for an allowance in respect of the extra postage expenses which will be brought about by this Bill. Well and good. But I would like to ask him if it will be possible in the present Finance Bill to make a greater allowance for the increased cost of postage which will arise from the proposals in the present Finance Bill. I desire to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be possible, either in this or in the Finance Bill, to make an Amendment by which candidates should be allowed a larger amount in their election expenses to meet the increased cost of postage. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite who moved the rejection of this Bill complained that it would increase the expenses of borough candidates. That is so, and this more especially applies in cases like my own, a two-member constituency, where a most objectionable system prevails, where we only get one and a half times the amount of expenses allowed in a single-Member constituency; so that those who represent two-Member boroughs are hard hit by this Bill. My own constituency has over 71,000 electors, and the election expenses allowed are very much too small to do the work properly. Some Amendment of the present Bill should be made in order to allow us to expend sufficient money to meet the altered circumstances.

I desire to emphasise the point raised as to the proxy votes. It should be laid down at another stage of the Bill very clearly that the person who is to exercise the proxy vote is a close relative of the person who signs the proxy. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take particular care as to this point, for only by this means can we really get the true opinion and actual wish in voting of those people who exercise the proxy.

In reply to questions, I quite appreciate and agree with the point put by my hon. Friend (Mr. Seddon). As to the point raised by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Dennis) we are now discussing the question with the Treasury, and I hope it will be possible to deal with it in the Finance Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words

What is the position of a property held under these undertakings? It is a very peculiar position. The property in this country may at the present time be roughly divided into three classes. There is, first of all, what one might call free property—that is property the owners of which are able to take advantage of the rise in values, which is one of the principal results of the War. That rise in values, according to the evidence given before the Increase of Wealth Commission, was estimated by the Board of Inland Revenue at something like £4,000,000,000. Suggestions have been made that to meet the financial necessities of the country some form of levy should be made upon this increased value. It would, I think, be generally admitted that there is an increase of values and also that owners of property are not equally able to take advantage and to reap for their own benefit this rise in value. Those who possess what I call free property, that is, houses over a certain annual value, business premises, industrial undertakings, and land are, as we can very well see from the Press, able, at any time, through the medium of the market, to secure for themselves the whole of this increased value.

A man who had a house worth £400 or £500 before the War may now get £1,200, and we have been told of cases where £1,600 has been obtained. We have had before us during the last few months a very remarkable series of transactions in industrial property, such as cotton mills, shipyards and engineering undertakings, and the owners of those properties have been able to secure an enhanced value due to conditions arising out of the War. With regard to land very considerable appreciation in its value has taken place, more particularly in the case of agricultural land, and I do not think it would be inaccurate to say that, roughly speaking, agricultural land has appreciated in value by probably 40 or 50 per cent., and property which might have been expected to fetch from 25 to 28 years' purchase before the War now fetches as much as 40 years' purchase. Those who are owners of free property have secured the benefit of the rise in values, but there is another class of property which cannot be regarded as free, and the owners are not able to secure these advantages. This is property in regard to which the State has passed the Rent Restriction Act, which applies to houses under a certain annual value. With regard to these houses where vacant possession cannot be obtained and where they must be sold under the conditions of the Rent Restriction Acts, such property fetches little if anything more than its pre-war value. But if vacant possession can be given then the property will fetch its full post-war value.

After disposal of these two classes of property, we come now to that class affected by this Bill—namely, the property of statutory undertakings, which occupy a very peculiar position. Its whole value depends not upon its cost or upon what it would cost to replace it but upon the fact that certain charges may be made for the use and enjoyment of this property, and those charges are fixed by the State. It is apparent to everybody that charges fixed in pre-war times are not sufficient to meet the increased cost of management in connection with these properties and they are not sufficient to secure a return upon the capital invested. The position really is that this class of property is not in a solvent condition at the present moment I think that is generally admitted. There is at present sitting an advisory committee appointed by the Ministry of Transport to consider the question of increasing railway rates, and looking at the Report of the first meeting I find it was stated that the object of the committee was to fix such rates as would make the railways solvent, which is of course an admission that at the present time they are insolvent.

If this House were to take up the attitude that they would not sanction an increase of rates or charges, but hold the companies to their lawful statutes and prevent them charging excess on what was charged before the War, undoubtedly those concerns would have to go into liquidation because they would be unable to carry on. They would be insolvent and would become bankrupt, and if they were put on to the market under those conditions, they could be acquired upon conditions very advantageous to the State as a whole. I am stating the position at the present time. Such undertakings cannot be expected to remain in such a state, and naturally everybody interested wants to relieve them from that position and they come to this House and to the Minister of Transport, who is peculiarly interested, and they ask to be allowed to increase their rates and charges to put them back into the position in which they were before the War. That is the object of this particular Bill. It is a measure in respect of one class of undertakings, ports, harbours, docks and piers and it provides

On the former Bill hon. Members and myself took the opportunity of protesting against the differentiation which was made and asking why the Government took the view that concerns which are matters of public enterprise should be limited in such a way that they may earn no return more than sufficient to prevent them losing, while concerns which belong to private enterprise should be allowed to make a profit. The reply on that occasion was not of a satisfactory character, nor of such a character as to relieve one's mind from the idea that the Government is adverse to undertakings carried on by public enterprise, and is disposed rather to hinder than to assist them. We passed a Bill yesterday dealing with profiteering, and it might be assumed from that that the Government were desirous of limiting profits. It is difficult, however, to reconcile that view with their attitude towards public enterprises, and, in the case of the Finance Bill, towards co-operative societies. If profits are to be limited in this country it can only be effectively done in two ways, namely, by the extension of public enterprises which do not exist for the purpose of making profits, and by the extension of the cooperative movement. The policy of the Government appears to be to hinder and hamper as far as possible the extension of either or both. I move the rejection on the ground of the discrimination in this Bill, as in the former series of Bills, between public and private enterprise, which, we think, is a discrimination the Government should not adopt.

With regard to the provision, in respect of private undertakings, that the increases in charges which are to be sanctioned are to be such as to provide for a reasonable return on share capital, regard being had to the pre-War financial condition of the undertaking and its prospective development, we have had some discussion on that point, but neither the Minister of Transport nor the Parliamentary Secretary appear to have sufficiently cleared up the situation, and I desire to elicit still further information from the Parliamentary Secretary I have endeavoured to sketch the position of these undertakings at the present moment. It is a desperate position, I admit, and I have the greatest sympathy for the people who are interested in them and whose capital is invested in them. I sympathise with their very reasonable desire to get back to something approaching their pre-War position, but it is not clear whether it is the intenton of this measure, or of the Minister of the Government, to do more than that. If the Parliamentary Secretary refers to nothing else I may say, I do want him to make this clear, and to give us a precise and definite answer to the question I am now about to ask him. Is it the intention of this Bill, is it the intention of the Minister of Transport, is it the intention of the Government, to do anything more for statutory undertakings than to put them in the position which they occupied before the War? If his answer is "No," I want to put to him this further question. In considering the position of these companies before the War, will regard be had to the value of money at that time Does the view of the Government in this matter involve this, that in considering what is a reasonable return on share capital, the depreciation in the value of money must be taken into account? I can quite understand a shareholder in a railway company saying at the present time: "Every sovereign I get now is only worth 8s. 4d. I must get at least £2 8s. in dividend before I have an amount equal to £1 before the War. If I am to be put in the same position in which I was before the War, if regard is to be had to my pre-war financial condition, if I am to be no worse off than before the War, I must have an increased dividend. Even if my dividend is doubled, I shall not be in as good a position as I was in before the War." I can well imagine such a shareholder following the proceedings of the Advisory Committee dealing with railway rates, and the proceedings on these Bills in this House, with the most intense interest, and asking continually whether the rates and charges that are going to be sanctioned will be such as to provide, not only for cost of management, and for increase in cost of materials and of labour, but sufficient to pay, not only the prewar dividend, but such an increased dividend as will make him financially as well off as he was before the War. I think that would very naturally be the interest of the shareholder in these undertakings. His anxiety will be considerably alleviated if the Parliamentary Secretary is able to make a pronouncement on the subject on this Bill, and I would ask him to be good enough to concentrate on that point.

2.0 P.M.

I would put to him this further development of the situation. If it is the view of the Government that, in fixing these increased rates and charges, provision should be made, not only for the prewar dividend, but for such an increase in it as will counterbalance the depreciation in the value of money, I suggest to the Government that the result of that will be a considerable increase in the capital value of these undertakings; in other words, they will begin to share in the advantages that accrue to other kinds of property. I can understand that people holding this kind of property may say, "Why not? Why should we alone be debarred from securing the values that owners of other property are able to secure? Why should a man whose money is in land or in industrial undertakings be able to take an enhanced value, while we, who have put our money into railways, tramways, docks or piers, are restricted?" That is an attitude of mind that one could easily appreciate, and with which one could have considerable sympathy. I should like the hon. Gentleman to say whether it is that point of view that the Government intend to meet. In other words, are they contemplating the passage of a series of measures that will increase the capital value of all the statutory undertakings in this country, and will allow that enhancement in value to be appropriated by the persons whose capital is invested in them?

All of these undertakings have a certain value over and above that of the capital which is invested in them, cost of construction and the like, which is due to the fact that they enjoy the privileges of a monopoly, and what we are doing in such Bills as these is to confirm and to extend those privileges, and it might very reasonably be argued that we should take into account whether, in extending and confirming those privileges, any compensation should be paid to the community. That would not raise an unprecedented state of things. We have already established the principle that monopolies have a value, and that part of those values should go to the community that granted them. In the case of licensed property, where a person secures a licence which confers the privilege of selling liquor, the monopoly value of the licence is assessed and he pays some portion of it to the community. In the event of this measure having the effect of increasing the capital value of all these statutory undertakings, are the Government considering the point that they might perhaps be fairly asked to contribute a portion of that enhanced value to the State? It might be argued that it is a proper thing to do in any circumstances. It might be specially argued that in present circumstances, when the whole community is burdened with such a load of debt, some effort should be made to secure a portion of these enhanced, values. The Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated in his Budget speech that it would be his endeavour to do so generally with regard to increases of war wealth, and that he was considering how that could be done. If, as the result of the passage of these Bills and the increase of railway rates or harbour or tramway charges, there should be an enhanced capital value in those undertakings, that would be in fact an increase of war wealth. The Parliamentary Secretary might suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, with respect to this class of property, the passage of these Bills and the conditions that arise out of their passage might give him an opportunity of securing a very substantial contribution to the Exchequer.

The question of contribution towards taxation is scarcely relevant to the Second Reading of this Bill. This is a Bill to meet expenses which have now fallen on harbours.

The Bill provides that charges shall be made which shall yield a reasonable return on share capital.

"Having regard to the cost of labour and materials or any special circumstances." That is the basis of the Bill.

I agree that those are the circumstances which furnish the opportunity for the introduction of the Bill, but advantage is being taken of the opportunity which the increase in the cost of labour and materials has given to introduce a Bill which may not only have the effect of meeting that increase in the cost of materials, but under cover of this phrase, "a reasonable return on share capital," may increase the capital value of the undertaking. If that should arise it might be a very fitting subject on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might exercise his powers. How does that phrase come to be in the Bill? This interesting and somewhat instructive. First of all there was the passage of the Ministry of Transport Bill and the setting up of an advisory committee to consider railway rates. Then a Bill was introduced in connection with railways, and an instruction was given to the Committee so to amend it as to provide a reasonable return on share capital. The Bill was brought in late in the evening, and there was considerable opposition from all parts of the House. There was a most extraordinary coalition formed against it. The hon. Members (Mr. Jones, Mr. W. Thorne and Mr. Clement Edwards) joined together in an unexampled coalition to oppose it. There was also an extraordinary coalition in support of it between the Ministry of Transport and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomas), and after a very short debate, considering the determined character of the Opposition, the Closure was moved and the Bill was carried and committed with an Instruction to the Committee to amend it so as to provide for a reasonable return on share capital. The phrase was first used in connection with a Railway Bill, and I am inclined to believe that really this series of Bills are designed to establish a precedent upon which legislation in future may be based with regard to the great railway undertakings of the country.

Following on the London Railway Bill there came three private Bills dealing with London tramways in respect of which a similar instruction was given. Then we had the Tramway (Increase of Charges) Bill in which the same phrase was used and now we have this Bill. In our discussion on the Tramways (Charges) Bill I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a clear definition as to what was meant by this phrase, whether it meant the pre-War rate of return or something more. To put it in another way. Does the Bill mean that on pre-War capital a pre-War rate of return is to be made, or is the rate of return on pre-War capital to be based on the return which will have to be made on the new capital that is found: On the Profiteering Bill yesterday we had to consider the question of what was a reasonable profit, and we adopted the definition that a profit which should not be deemed unreasonable was a percentage rate of profit which was the same as that which obtained in pre-War days. The Government appears to be pursuing two entirely different policies. When they are dealing with profiteering they lay down a standard that the trader shall not make a higher rate of profit than before the War, having regard to the relative increase in expenses, but when they come to deal with these great statutory undertakings they give indica- tions that they are going to pursue an entirely different opposite line. The Parliamentary Secretary told me in the Debate on the Tramways Bill that they would not bind themselves to the interpretation of this phrase that it meant the pre-War rate of dividend. He said there might be some cases, but they were hardly conceivable, in which a "reasonable return" would be less, but in a great many cases he thought it would be more. When they are dealing with profiteering the Government say, "You are getting a higher rate of profit than you did before the War," but when they are dealing with these great statutory undertakings they are contemplating a return on capital greater than before the War. Can he reconcile that procedure? Can he justify a principle being applied to these statutory undertakings which is not applied to others? That brings me back to my original point. Will he say whether the phrase "a reasonable return on share capital regard being had to the pre-War financial position of the undertaking" means not only having regard to the financial position of the undertaking but having regard to the changed value of money, and that you are to allow dividends to be increased so as to compensate for the fall in the value of money?

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) I beg to second the Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend has so completely covered the points of opposition to the Bill that I shall only address myself to one or two points. I should like to call attention to what seems to me to be not only an unfair but an entirely unjustifiable discrimination between public undertakings and private undertakings in this Bill. The Ministry may have a very good reason for drawing this distinction. If there is one I shall be glad to know what it is. I ask the House to observe the nature of this discrimination, because it goes further than appears on the face of it. With, regard to public-owned under takings, the extra charges which they are allowed to make shall only be such as will enable the undertaking to be carried on without loss. It may conceivably be that with regard to these undertakings before the War they were making a very considerable profit. Probably in some cases that is so. I do not know. If it be so then you are putting these undertakings in a worse position than they were before the War. You are not allowing them to make as much profit as in the pre-War days. If you come to the case of a privately owned undertaking, they are to be enabled to make such further charges as shall not only cover the increased cost of labour and materials, but shall yield a reasonable return on the share capital, regard being had to the pre-War financial position.

These are matters which previously were under the complete control of Parliament. In this Bill we are delegating that power to the Ministry of Transport. It is the Minister who is to exercise the discretion: it is the Minister who is to make the Order. Before the Minister takes that power, and before the House gives him that power, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us exactly upon what principle he is going to act. In this Sub-section the expression used is very ambiguous. "A reasonable return." That may mean anything. In this case it is going to mean what the Minister of Transport is going to decide it shall mean. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to tell us—I do not expect he can tell us in exact detail what is in his mind—the principle upon which he is going to work, and upon which the Minister is going to work in framing these orders. The various contingencies that may arise have been dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend. The Clause is very vague as it stands, because not only is it quite uncertain as to what a reasonable return may be, but it is uncertain what is meant by the next expression "regard being had to the pre-War financial condition." If we use the expression "regard being had to the pre-War return on capital" one could understand what is meant, but as it stands it is difficult to understand. Will the Parliamentary Secretary let us know exactly the principle upon which the Minister is going to work in making these orders.

I will invite the House to consider exactly what this Bill is, how long it is intended to operate, how far it replaces existing powers, and to see whether there is anything at all in the fears which have been expressed. It is notorious, and that is the reason why I did not rise to move the Second Reading, that this Bill is urgently needed in order to deal with the industrial situation which arose by the application from the men engaged in these undertakings for what is known as the 16s. per day minimum wage. That application was submitted by virtue of the Statute passed by the House last Session to a Court of Inquiry, which was fortunate in having as its president no less a distinguished man than Lord Shaw. In the Report of that Committee of Inquiry this Clause appears: active part in getting that protection. The Minister of Transport had to confider whether he ought to coerce a dock authority into consenting to his taking control of their undertaking because of their poverty or because they were desirous of carrying out the report of the Inquiry. After full consideration my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that that would not be a fair and British thing to do, and therefore he does not act in that particular way.

What have we done? We have, by this Bill, as by the Tramways Bill, asked the House to re-affirm and modify an existing statute, namely, the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act of 1918. But there are limitations in that Act which make it impossible for dealing with the present situation. In answer to the criticism of my hon. and gallant Friend who seconded the Motion for rejection, let me mention that it was in that Act that the distinction was drawn between undertakings which are owned by public authorities, owned not for the purposes of public authorities making a profit, owned by public authorities for the public good and in order that there might be a minimum of profit, and that a district be developed to the greatest advantage, and other undertakings. The distinction is not one which we have introduced; it is in a statute of 1918. I doubt whether either of the hon. and gallant Members has the authority of a single corporation or public body of any distinction behind his Motion. I speak with some knowledge when I say that there is not a desire by a single corporation or public authority that the wishes of my hon. and gallant Friend should be acceded to.

I was informed by the town clerk of my own city that they objected to the provisions as introduced into the Tramways Bill, which affects them.

Of course, I accept that at once, but no such representation has reached us. The Municipal Corporations Association has been meeting since the Bills were before the House and it has expressed no diverse opinion whatever. I go further, and say that I think it would be wrong to give authority to make increased charges upon the public for the express purpose of enabling rate relief to be given to particular authorities. The end of the Amendment says that the action we are taking is designed to increase the capital value of undertakings and so to increase the cost of acquisition by public authorities. Neither of my hon. and gallant Friends told the House of any public authority which has got the right to acquire. I know of no case where there is such a right. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes) told the House that if we let these concerns become bankrupt and derelict, if we let the harbours and docks actually pass into the hands of receivers, then the State or municipal authority might buy them cheaply.

I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish to misrepresent anyone on that side of the House or on this. I distinctly said I did not welcome such a state of things.

I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend means by the Amendment unless he means something like that. There may be different views about nationalisation, but I have not yet heard anyone suggest that the State should wait until undertakings are made derelict and bankrupt and then pick them up at scrap prices. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend does not mean that.

My hon. Friend is doing me an injustice. What we say is that this will have the effect of increasing their capital value and the cost of their acquisition. He might direct his attention to proving that the capital value would not be increased.

The hon. and gallant Member must not be impatient. There is no power of acquiring in any public authority of which I know, and nationalisation by the process of making undertakings bankrupt would be a dishonest process. How do we propose that these increased charges shall be taken? The proposal is, as in the Tramways Bill, that there shall be an Advisory Committee and that the Committee shall consider what is fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. As you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have pointed out, an indication is given by the words with which Clause 1 begins, "Having regard to the cost of labour and material or any special circumstances of the case." The Advisory Committee will consider what they ought to advise the Minister that the charges should be. My hon. and gallant Friend has put a series of questions to me as if he had been an examiner in economics—a series of test questions to a very young candidate. I do not propose to fill up the examination paper and answer those questions. If you are asking an advisory committee to advise, obviously it is unsound to start by telling the committee what advice they have got to give Therefore we do not propose in any way to limit the discretion of the advisory committee as to the Hines they shall take in answering the questions which the Bill puts. When they have given their advice the Ministry will have to accept the responsibility of saying or not whether he will take that advice.

But my hon. and gallant Friend is falling into the mistake of thinking that the only persons to consider in this matter are the shareholders and the return which they may get upon their capital, and that you ought not to improve the conditions of these shareholders, but there is a much greater interest than that involved. For undertakings of public utility and necessity to be starved and unable to execute necessary repairs, maintenance, extension and developments is bad for the country as a whole, and it is not with the view of giving increased value to capital at all, but of giving some prospect to these undertakings of finding themselves in a position in which they can carry out their statutory obligations to the public by making the necessary improvements and paying the increased charges which come upon them and becoming solvent. And if, incidentally, there is an increase of dividend to shareholders, who shall say that that is unjust or improper. As to what is reasonable I am not going to attempt to prejudge or express an opinion. All I will say is, that for anyone to assume that you can have an increase of your capital value under the terms of an Act which limits the charging power to something less than three years is to show that one has not considered very closely the operation of the finances of this country.

If this were a permanent Act, then there would be more to be said on both sides with reference to basis on which these undertakings should be put. They cannot, as I conceive—but it is an individual opinion only—borrow money in future on anything like the terms on which they borrowed money in the past. They cannot carry out the improvements which are imperative in the interests of the State on anything like the same conditions. All those matters have to be taken into consideration, and they form a very difficult problem. But the Act is only a temporary Act. It is only intended to enable these companies to stave off their present difficulty. It is possible for the Government to have done nothing, but in that event we should have had these authorities unable to meet what on consideration a court of inquiry has found to be a reasonable demand upon the rates. The result of that would have been the breakdown of the system set up by Statute or authorised by a court of inquiry, and great industrial unrest throughout the country. It was possible to leave every undertaking to private legislation, if it could have got the suspension of Standing Orders to increase their charges, but there are 840 of these undertakings in the country, and that course would have been absolutely futile. In those circumstances I trust that the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill.

I hope that the House will not be led to believe that the speech of the hon. and gallant Member (Major Barnes) represents the opinion of Newcastle. He is not the Member for Newcastle, but the Member for a portion of Newcastle. But whether he represents that portion of Newcastle or not is entirely for himself to say. I am certain that Newcastle does not oppose this Bill. Like myself it regrets it. We all regret it because it will mean an increase of dues which were already increased by an Act passed last Session, and we very naturally ask, where is it all going to end? It is all very well to sanction an increase of dues, thinking that it is going to affect only the owners of the undertaking, but it goes considerably further than that. It affects the whole shipping trade and commerce of the country. It increases the charges upon ships and all goods carried by ships and handled by dockers, and it is an extremely serious matter. But I sympathise with the hon. Member (Mr. Neal) who represents the Government in this matter and tells us that it is urgent that such a Bill should be passed. About ten days ago I was in a very large and important port with a large number of ships in it, and they told me that they cannot pay their way. They cannot pay their debenture interest, and the receivers are in charge of the port which is practically bankrupt. While I recognise that the Bill is necessary I hope sincerely that the Minister of Transport will recognise that we are reaching rapidly a point when this increase of dues is becoming an intolerable burden upon the trade and commerce and shipping of the country and that the Government will be very careful as to the amount of increase they are going to impose and will give all those who have to pay these dues every opportunity of going into all the facts before the increased tolls are put in force.

We have lately seen the dockers get an increase of wages to a minimum of 16s. a day. Whether that is right or wrong I am not going to say, but it is an object lesson in this respect, that every increase, whether in wages of this description or otherwise, is passed on to somebody else, with the result that on all sides everything is increasing in price and still we find increased demands made for further increases of wages to meet the increase in the cost of living. It is will o' the wisp all the time. I sincerely hope that hon. Members will recognise in this Bill one of the greatest object lessons ever given to the country as to the effect of these continuous increases not only in wages, but in dues, and in everything pertaining to the necessaries of life and the means by which we carry on our business.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill is the result of the pledge given to the House during the very interesting discussion we had some time ago on a private Member's Bill. I was glad that on that occasion reference was made to what had already been d one by institutions for the training of bald persons and the generous assistance that had been given to those institutions. As a result of the work of the Advisory Committee on the blind, I am glad to say we have now got a complete survey of the existing methods of dealing with blind people. As I pointed out on the previous occasion, we have got to deal not only with blindness, but we have to take steps to prevent the recurrence of blindness. I promised that I would set up a special inquiry to see to what extent we could increase our preventive services, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Barnes) has undertaken to preside over this very important inquiry. The increase in the venereal disease service is important, as blindness is largely associated with those diseases, and it is quite hopeless to expect success until we cope with the causes. Apart from preventive services, it was quite clear that two main provisions had to be dealt with. The first is that the blind person should be given the opportunity of being able to learn some trade or other so that they could assist in their own maintenance. The Bill provides:

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what provision the Government have already made for the training of these blind persons outside this Bill?

We gave grants to approved organisations making provision for assistance to the blind. The total expenditure, if I remember right, would be about £250,000. altogether, on approved training and other organisations for the assistance of the blind.

Has the whole of that sum been spent?

I am afraid I could not answer that without notice. Finally, I would mention that we' find as the result of inquiries into the different organisations purporting to help the blind, that there are some of them which get money out of the public for the assistance of the blind, but are not rendering a commensurate service, and it is obvious that it is very undesirable to allow that kind of thing to go on. Therefore, we provide that the War Charities Act shall apply to charities purporting to give assistance to the blind. That is to say, that they have to be registered and approved before they can be registered, and I think it will, in many cases, save the public from making contributions to undesirable organisations. That is set out in Clause 3 of the Bill. Generally, our scheme is to develop the present highly qualified institutions that exist to train and otherwise help the blind, to enable local authorities, with our assistance, to give contributions to them, to improve their equipment and service generally, and where it is necessary, to group local authorities for the provision of workshops and other facilities, and in regard to the blind over 50 who are not able to be trained or to help themselves, to bring them under the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act, at the same time securing the registration of charities purporting to assist the blind.

I think it is a pity this Bill should come on late on a Friday afternoon, after hon. Members have sat till a quarter past six this morning. It would have been very much better had it been brought on at a time when it could be fully discussed, and we should remember that there are others besides ourselves to consider.

And the blind.

3.0 P.M.

I shall not occupy the House more than a couple of minutes, but I must say something because of the importance of the subject. We have already got through nine or ten Bills to-day. I think the right hon. Gentleman's speech is much more satisfactory than are the terms of the Bill, but apparently, from his speech, he is willing to accept in Committee some considerable extension of the principles of the Bill, as at present they are in a very restricted form. I cannot see why an unfortunate blind man should wait till the age of 50 before he gets his old age pension: That is an argument that need not be elaborated. Why cannot it be an actual fact that the blind shall not suffer at any age, but shall be allowed to have a decent and comfortable existence? It is not their fault, and it is a national duty that the blind should not be allowed to suffer, but should be kept in a state of ease and comfort. I hope in Committee the Government will be persuaded to alter Clause 1 so as to provide that blind persons may never be compelled to suffer want or privation. With regard to Clause 2, that is admirable, and the right hon. Gentleman's speech was also admirable, but what is the use of enacting Clause 2, telling county councils and county boroughs that they may provide and maintain hostels and workshops for the blind, and at the same time telling them to pay half out of the rates? The rates are so high now that it is almost impossible for local authorities to carry on at all. To my mind, the care of the blind is a national matter, and not a local matter. The fact that there are more blind in one locality than another is a matter of accident, and I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to amend the Bill in Committee—and the Government alone can do it—so that the expenses of these hostels and homes founded by the borough and county councils will be supported by the Exchequer. Then, and then only, are they likely to be made sufficiently numerous and comfortable to meet the needs of the situation.

The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has complained of the fact that ten Bills have been taken to-day, and he has made a complaint against the authorities on the Front Bench for putting so many down. I am rather glad they have put down ten, and if they could have made it a round dozen I should have been the more pleased. I think it is a very good time to put them down, and I speak with some inside knowledge as a Minister. I only rise to congratulate the Minister on having been the instrument by which this long-neglected problem is at last to be tackled. It so happens I have a few blind constituents, and I have been ashamed to face them. In 1918, I believe it was, we did get provision made at the Local Government Board to get power to grant money, and I thought in my innocence that, having got that power, the Local Government Board would have exercised it. I said so at an election meeting in 1918, and, to my astonishment, I was contradicted, and I found afterwards I was wrong, and my constituent was right, that up to that time, although power had been given a good time before, not a single penny had reached the blind men. Of course, a good deal has been done now, and I am very glad that daring the last few months there has been more sympathetic treatment of the blind. I am also glad this Bill has been introduced, and I hope it will have an easy passage through the House. With regal d to the points raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Denniss), I do not know whether we need bother much about the limit of fifty. I agree we should not leave the blind man to indigence, but it is infinitely more important that we should train the blind man than that we should keep him idle. The blind men do not want to be kept in idleness. They do not want even to be treated as outside the ordinary citizenship.

I did not suggest that. It is only those who cannot earn their living.

We must get them all, as far as possible, trained. I know a blind man—I have been accustomed to have him in my house occasionally on a Sunday—who is a patient at St. Dunstan's, and he had been down to Scotland to see his wife. On his way from the station an old friend met them, and began talking to his wife about him in pitying tones. He told me there was nothing which hurt him so much. Nothing, he said, hurt blind men so much as to be treated as if they were outside the scope of ordinary citizenship, and therefore I attach infinitely more importance to the provisions of this Bill which deal with training than with pensions. However, now is not the time to go into details about the Bill. I only rose to express my sincere satisfaction that the Bill is introduced, and to congratulate my right hon. Friend in being the instrument by which a long delayed relief has been brought to these men.

I am sure all hon. Members of this House will agree with the previous speakers in their congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman in being the instrument of bringing this ameliorative measure before the House. At the same time, in spite of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I should like to express my disappointment with Clause 1, and my hope that that Clause will be amended in Committee. To my mind, it goes to the whole root of the policy which, I hope, will be adopted by the Government, as it looks like being adopted. The whole economic system under which we live is threatened. It is a cruel system. It is a system of "everyone for himself, and the devil take the, hindmost," but, with all its defects, many of us think that, with certain limitations, it is the only system, and it is a system that we are prepared to fight for. But we do believe there must be certain limitations, otherwise it cannot be defended. One of those limitations, and one which has been recognised by the right hon. Gentleman this aftrnoon, is that we must carry our broken men. There is only one point in reference to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke, whom this House always so much likes to hear and to sit at his feet. It is just this point, that there are certain blind men who are unable to work. I agree with the limitation put in by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the fact that only such people as are unable to work shall come under this Bill, but I myself think most sincerely that any blind man who is unable to work should be accepted by the State in its collective responsibility. I feel that very strongly, and this policy of carrying our broken men is one that we can carry through with this Government —a policy which this Government has accepted as no other Government has accepted, and which I want to see extended. I do not want to quibble as to amount, but I must say I do not agree that the amount is enough. If a person is blind and unable to work and to support himself, the old age pension is not enough, and I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make some extension. It is an excellent Bill. It is the kind of Bill we expected from the right hon. Gentleman.

I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman in bringing forward a Bill which shows, at any rate, an intention on the part of the Government to do something radically for the blind. The Labour party has another Bill, which was presented in this House and discussed. We do not consider that the present Bill is adequate to meet the circumstances of the blind people. The Clauses of the Bill do not go far enough. They make the Bill too much permissive in its character. If all the sympathy, which I am certain Members really feel, is to be translated into benefits for the blind people, then, instead of the Clauses of the Bill being permissive, they must be made compulsory. It is no fault of those people that they are in that sad plight. There is not a man in the House, there is not a man or woman or even a child outside but turns round on hearing a tap, tap on the street, and seeing a blind man about to cross the road. Almost everyone stops and makes towards him to assist him across the thoroughfare. That being of itself a spontaneous action on the part of the individual, it demonstrates entirely the wide sympathy that is felt for those: people. Consequently I am convinced that were the Government to make these Clauses compulsory in character as regards the obligation to the blind, they would find no dissentient voice in any part of the country, because people throughout the length and breadth of the-land would agree that this question ought to be solved, and solved once and for all for the benefit of the people in this. condition.

The Labour party does not propose in any way at this juncture to hamper or retard the Second Reading, but we do intend, and I am convinced other Members will do their best in assisting the Government—I will put it in that way—to make this Bill stronger, not because we. consider the Government are wanting in sympathy, but because we believe the Government, in view of the many Bills which have already passed that are placing a financial burden upon the taxpayers, are afraid to go further than this Bill; but I am convinced that, no matter what Bill has been passed, and to which people may take exception, a Bill affecting the blind of the country, no matter how far-reaching it may he, would not, I am convinced, be in any way objected to by anyone who has to pay taxes. Consequently, when the Bill gets into Committee we shall do our best with the help of other sections of the House to so remodel and shape it as to incorporate in it the best clauses and sub-sections in the Bill which we have already introduced in the House and which places greater obligations and duties upon the local authorities.

Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I should like to congratulate the Government on having brought in a Bill to deal with very old, long-standing evil which urgently requires the attention of this House. I am glad to think that the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Addison), like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) regards the provisions dealing with the training of the blind as perhaps the most important part of the Bill. It is a form of self-help which will enable them to become self-supporting and to feel that they are part and parcel of our community, and in that object he will have not only the wholehearted sympathy of this House, but of the whole of the country. I have a special and personal interest in this matter owing to the fact that in the constituency which I represent, the City of York, we have a most admirable school for the blind It has existed for a very long time, and it did admirable work long before it received any help from the State. With the grant which I understand that it is now to get from the State, through the efforts of my right hon. Friend, it will be able not only to continue but to extend largely its most admirable work. I hope my right hon. Friend will not think that I disparage his Bill if I suggest that in one or two respects it is capable of Amendment. Clause 2 is purely permissive. It says,

"It shall be lawful for the council of any county or county borough to provide and maintain or to contribute towards the provision and maintenance of workshops."

I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether that is enough. I agree that the progressive municipalities—those who really have regard for their duties in providing for the poorer and less capable classes among them—will probably do their duty without any compulsion whatever, but there may be, and I am afraid that there will be, some municipalities who will not be so eager to discharge these duties if they are left purely permissive, and it is in those cases that the House is bound to make provision. Will it be any hardship on a municipality—the total number of blind is small and the municipalities are large bodies, being the county councils and the councils of county boroughs—to be told that they must bring in a reasonable scheme making this provision? They get a grant to the extent of 50 per cent. from the State, and the rest of the expenditure they must provide themselves. I hope that my right hon. Friend, when the Bill gets into Committee, will carefully consider Amendments having this object. Under Clause 1 a blind man totally unable to work will be able to get an old age pension at the age of 50, subject to the restrictions which now hamper the grant of old age pensions. There are two suggestions which I would like to make. First of all, is 50 the right age? If a man be blind and totally unable to work, why should he wait until 50? The theory of the existing old age pensions, broadly speaking, is that when a man arrives at 70 years of age and is unable any longer to work and provide for himself, the State shall come in and grant him help. The theory of this Clause is much the same, but the limitation that the blind man must attain 50 years of age before he gets anything does not seem to me to be reasonable. We all know that, owing to the restrictions upon the grant of old age pensions, many men who have lived thrifty lives and have put by something for their old age cannot get a farthing of the old age pension. Why? It is because they have been thrifty. If they had spent their money and had made no provision at all they would get the State grant. I have always thought that these restrictions are about as pernicious in certain of their aspects as you can well conceive, because they directly discourage thrift. Take the case of a member of a friendly society.

We cannot now discuss old age pensions.

I was going to suggest that these restrictions which hamper the grant of Old Age Pensions should not be applied to the grant of these pensions to the blind. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, in considering how these pensions should be granted, should remove some of the restrictions and disabilities which now prevent Old Age Pensioners from getting their pensions. With these remarks, I desire to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon his Bill, and I hope, when it gets into Committee, that he will keep an open mind and will accept any reasonable Amendments which may be put forward.

I wish to proffer my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the measure which he has brought before us to-day. I have had the honour to be associated with the blind for some little time, and I have carefully studied the bearings and intricacies of our Twentieth Century industrialism in regard to this great problem, not only so far as the adults and older people are concerned, but also as regards the poor blind children. It is right that full and proper credit should be given to the Government, and especially to the Minister who represents the Government to-day, for what they have done in this respect. A few Sundays ago I had the honour of speaking to a great mass meeting in Trafalgar Square on this question, and on that occasion I had as my colleagues a representative of the Labour party and a representative of the Nationalist Irish party. There was not in that vast audience that collective sympathy of all political thought in regard to this problem which to my mind is vital and essential. I would like to appeal more particularly to the gentlemen who sit on the Labour benches, and indeed to all Members of the House, that this question should be put outside of all political considerations. To show that this does not entirely obtain I will quote from one of the Lancashire journals the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). I plead therefore that this great subject be put outside all political considerations and political warfare. Everybody wants to deal with this great and grave question of the 34,630 people who are in this helpless position, and I ask the House and the Government to help us in Committee in improving this Bill. I would remind the Labour Members that there were Members of the Coalition Government who assisted to back the Bill which they brought forward, and we want them in return to help us to make this a better Bill and to mould and fashion it in such a way that it will deal with this question properly. If I may associate myself with the Minister for a moment, I hope he too will take part in moulding and fashioning such a measure for the blind as shall be an honour to our country in dealing with a great problem.

I agree with most of the Members who have spoken that the age of 50 for old age pensions for the blind should be altered. If a man or woman is blind the help should be given, and I would like to bear tribute to the magnificent self-respect which the blind people show. It obtains among them to a greater degree than among other sections of the people. Moving among them as I have done, I have been very much impressed by that spirit of self-respect, even among children of 16 and 17. I think there is a lack of co-ordination amongst some of the societies in dealing with the blind who are outside in private residences. These blind people require assistance not only in the way of a pension, but in other ways also, because they require more inside and domestic help and guidance. I should suggest that the pension should be enlarged, and should be given before the age of 50 to the blind. I am not quite sure that the machinery incorporated in the Bill is going to be strong enough, especially in dealing with institutions for the blind. I say, with all respect to them, that those who handle these matters are busy people, and kind-hearted, but they are not scientifically and academically efficient in dealing with the great institutions that they have charge of. I hope the Minister will give facilities for a clause which will take over these institutions without any option of permissibility so that these institutions may be conducted in a more efficient and economical fashion.

One of the clauses touches upon the powers of the Board of Education in dealing with blind children. I think the whole problem of the blind should be dealt with together, and not spoke-shaved into different measures. We know, for instance, that blind child life is exploited in a way that this Bill cannot touch. We ought to try to obtain proper employment for blind children, and provision should be made whereby they should be able to go from the elementary schools to the universities. I repeat what I said a few weeks ago, that there are practically no secondary schools for the blind. There is one for boys and none for girls. There should also be some form of technical training so that we could absorb the blind soldiers, sailors and airmen into suitable industries. This Coalition Government has done more for the blind than any other Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No politics! "] Yes, I agree, but do not let us let these afflicted people imagine that the gigantic instrument of government which we represent have forgotten them in their darkness. I hope that this Bill will be a still further help in the direction of industrialism properly applied by way of trade union co-operation. I should like to see more co-ordination between this Ministry and the Ministry of Labour. We ought to try to make use of their spirit of self-help in order to get the blind into some of the new industries. In America they are dealing in that way with the electrical industry; they are taking over all the blind persons, from the young to those of a more mature age, and introducing them into it in a way that will not jeopardise commercial or industrial interests. That is a wonderful outlook. We want to make provision whereby the blind can enter professions and take a part in a higher and larger scope of life. I hope that in Committee facilities will be provided in the Bill, as far as human ingenuity can make it possible, to achieve the high purpose of eliminating the hardships which fall upon these afflicted people, and will enable them to take their share in the great world of industry, science and education.

I would supplement the appeal made by the hon. and learned Member for York to the Ministry of Health in regard to the grant of pen- sions. Members of Pensions Committees know the harassing conditions of their work and the uncomfortable questions that they have to put to old age pensioners, and would-be pensioners. I would suggest, as this is only a matter of 20,000 persons, whether it would be possible to abolish entirely the meant qualification, and also the other restrictions, and simply make the pension a general pension to all blind persons if they chose to take it. I think we might take it that persons who did not require a pension would not apply for it. But in the interests of the people themselves and of the Pensions Committee I would make the suggestion I do to make a general pension for all.

I would like to make one or two observations, firstly, in regard to what has been said on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Miles Platting. May I remind the House that in the history of Parliament it has often taken a very severe shock at times to awaken the social conscience of the legislators of this country. Those of us who have read and tried to understand what led up to the scenes of violence that followed when Samuel Plimsoll championed the cause of the merchant seamen can realise somehow just exactly what was in the mind of the right hon. Member for Miles Platting when he addressed an open air meeting. What other interpretation could one put upon the sentences of the Leader of the House a week or so ago in regard to private Members' Bills. It is to be assumed, on a declaration of that character, that private Members' Bills, however much they may have the support of the House, will go the way of all the other Bills, which are already condemned to death in infancy.

I have met the Minister of Health in other circumstances and I congratulate him on bringing forward a Bill of this character. I think he will agree with me that on his first direct meeting with representatives of that awful hybrid, the shop steward, he found that in close contact of the administrative mind with the practical mind in the workshop that there were some vicious principles in administration without real knowledge. Consequently, we submit that, although the men on these Benches do not always possess the legal and statistical mind, the mind that is capable of drafting a Bill which will meet all the criticism of this House, yet, speaking generally, one can say that the proposals that do come from the Labour Benches at least come from practical minds. It should, therefore, be the duty of those who are endowed with the statistical and the legal mind, those who have had opportunities of serving some sort of apprenticeship to this method of drafting Bills, should come to the help of private Members' Bills in instances like these rather than come in with another Bill, because as hon. Members below the gangway have said, this Bill is permissive. The present position is handicapping county councils who are prepared to shoulder their burdens. Incidentally, no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that the proportion of blind people in this country to-day is far excessive in the poorer districts compared to the wealthier districts. This is due not only to very bad housing conditions but to the state of education of the average housewife. I agree that my right hon. Friend has been largely responsible for the very great improvement in the knowledge and qualifications attaching to midwives. I desire to pay him that tribute. Still we do know that to the ignorance associated with child-birth, especially in the poorer districts of this country, there are a preventable number of cases of blindness.

I think that the proposals—I do not want to go into details—of the hon. Member for Salford in his private Bill went to the whole root of the matter. There ought not to be any age limit in blind persons in the matter of a pension. I have met blind people who are professors of music, who were able to tune pianos, and to do all sorts of things, but I have never yet met a blind person who did not feel that in an honest endeavour to do something useful there was the chance of forgetting the greatest affliction that ever beset humanity. It is because of that that we would rather see, if it were possible, a clause which will compel the Government—because, after all, one admits that the War has brought this problem more to the front than otherwise would have been the case, and mixed up with the whole question that of training the young men who have been blinded in the War, mixed up with it the whole question of meeting our obligations towards the mass of this unfortunate humanity—to deal with the subject. Previous speakers have told what has been done in the United States. In very many respects one would not desire to copy their institutions, yet in regard to the blind they are miles in advance of our legislation. I hope that the practical proposals which are contained in this private Member's Bill may be given consideration to in Committee.

I am sure every private Member of this House, and not the least my hon. Friend who is responsible for this Bill, must have sympathised most deeply with the speech of my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Sugden). His name will always be honourably associated with the movement for the amelioration of the condition of blind people. I know from conversations with many of them that they regard him with affection, as their guide, philosopher, and friend. I do not know that he need at all distress himself because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting has invaded his Division—

I am not!

and in doing so, made the occasion an attack upon the Government. I hope my hon. Friend has had enough experience of public life to know that it is the business of the Gentlemen in opposition to decry the wares of the Government. He may take to himself this satisfaction, if he desires, that the real interest of the right hon. Member for Miles Platting in the welfare of the blind, is sufficiently indicated by the fact that he is not in his place to-day.

I wish to join in the congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman. I speak with feeling which I hope no other Member of the House has. It was my deep misfortune to sit in the blackness of physical blindness for many weary weeks, and the terrible reflections of that period make me realise what must be the misery of those hopelessly condemned to the same thing. Anything that this Government can do to ameliorate the condition of such persons it is their duty to do. I note the two outstanding provisions of this Bill. The first, set in the forefront of the Bill, desires to make these wretched people realise that they have a real interest in life, and that they can take their place as self-respecting members of the community, and earn, so far as may be, an honest livelihood. I welcome that proposal. I would join, not in any sort of acrid criticism, but in the appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman that the true test in respect of pensions should be not that of age, but as to whether the person who seeks the pension is or is not capable of earning, in a certain degree, his own livelihood.

Secondly, where the circumstances of his or her life are such as to entitle them to a pension if they are of pensionable age they ought to be able to secure it. I agree with the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) that in many cases you will get these great corporations and councils actuated by a due sense of what they owe to these wretched people, and they will be willing and ready to shoulder the responsibility. Nevertheless the burden of local taxation has been steadily mounting up, and we have seen public institutions seeking to escape their liabilities in this respect. What is to be done for the helpless blind under such circumstances? Their need for treatment is just the same, and if my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to make this duty obligatory on the public bodies affected, he can at least introduce a provision that where such public bodies have failed to assume their responsibilities in that respect the State shall do it, and then, as to one-half of the total expense incurred, he could make it a charge upon the local body to find the required financial support.

That would bring about the same treatment and amelioration to the blind living in those areas where the public bodies do not discharge their duties in regard to the blind and make them do it in the same way as in other districts where they do carry out their duties. The right hon. Gentleman has been much criticised in this House and I regret rather than on some occasions I have joined in denunciations of the right hon. Gentleman. congratulate him, however, upon this Bill. It is not his business to move in such matters unless the public desire it, but I think it is the duty of this House to press the Government on matters of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman has done much in regard to this question, and the duty to which he has addressed himself to-day, I am sure, will secure for him, from the whole public, unqualified praise and appreciation.

I want to extend to the right hon. Gentleman my appreciation of the fact that he has introduced this measure, and also to say a word of congratulation that at last this great problem is receiving the serious consideration of the Government. I have been in this House since 1906, and this problem has been with us the whole time. The party with which I was originally identified took an active interest in this problem. I was very closely associated with the part that they have played in regard to this question, but we very soon found that we had not a monopoly of interest or sympathy in regard to this question, because we were able to receive assistance from every party in this House. I wish to say to the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden) how much I appreciate the great work he has performed, and I listened with intense interest to the speech which he delivered to us to-day. I used to regard a blind man as the most tragic individual in the community. To me they were always a very pathetic sight.

During the War Sir Arthur Pearson, whose name will always be honourably associated with work for the blind, persuaded me to address a gathering of the blind at St. Dunstan's. I confess that when I have enjoyed a good dinner I am generally in a very soft mood. After I agreed to accept Sir Arthur Pearson's invitation to address this gathering I rather shrunk from going, and I remember that on the day of the engagement I left this House with extreme reluctance. I was, however, very soon disillusioned, because I found the blind people were the happiest part of that great gathering. After all, the real thing is not to disburse charity, but to enable these men or women to become self-supporting and self-respecting citizens. Undoubtedly the work carried on at St. Dunstan's does achieve that great purpose. I presume that genius simply means that if a person is capable of concentrating on one great purpose his brain becomes developed abnormally, and so it is with the blind. When the brain ceases to operate in one particular direction there is a greater reserve of strength which can be devoted in other directions, and therefore it appears to me from what I was able to see at that gathering, and judging from the intellectual development which I saw there, that they had lost in one respect and had gained in others, only because of the fact that opportunities had been placed at their disposal.

For these reasons, I welcome most cordially the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend, and I say that this is one of the problems that ought to be lifted out of the political arena. I know the term "Coalition" is misunderstood, and is capable of much criticism, but this is a problem in which all parties may sink political difficulties, and coalesce for the single motive of helping one of the most deserving sections of the community. I want to say that throughout my experience of this House, this problem has never been approached from a partisan point of view, and the sympathisers with the blind have never been drawn from any party or section in this House. I do not mind how we achieve our object, but if a person is totally incapacitated, whether through blindness or from any other cause, I think it is incumbent upon the State to maintain them decently. I think that will be commonly accepted, and if it be that there are blind persons in the community who, even when you have been able to provide them with proper methods of training, are still unable to earn a livelihood, then I say they are fit subjects for State maintenance. I am not going to quibble on that point. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher), that there are certain anomalies attached to the Old Age Pensions Bill and its administration, but that is not a line of thought that I want to pursue here. I accept with gratification the modification which has been made in this case by reducing the qualifying age from 70 to 50, and if it could be reduced still lower I personally would support that. The problem is, however, something wider than a modification of old age pensions. There are cases where, even from birth, the individual is doomed to inability to earn a sufficiency, and I feel that in that case the individual ought to be a State charge; there ought to be no taint of charity about the problem. The question goes a great deal deeper than this Bill contemplates. It goes into the wider functions of my right hon. Friend, and touches the question of birth. I believe that, with proper attention at birth, the number of blind persons may be largely diminished. Allusion has been made to a statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes). I have read that statement, and, having regard to my own experience during the past fourteen and a half years in this House, in the course of which, as I hay., said, I have found that sympathy with the blind was not the monopoly of any one section, I rather felt that my right hon. Friend had been led into making a party point. I am sure that if he were here, he would be speaking in the same sense in which I am myself speaking now, for I know he is not lacking in sympathy with the blind. We have to recognise that something more has to be done, and I agree with much of the criticism that has been advanced by my Friends of the Labour party. I do not think this ought to be a permissive matter. It is a public duty, and I should be prepared to make it mandatory on local authorities. If we are going to recognise a public obligation to the blind, it should be of a national and not of a local character, but I think it would be best interpreting the sense of the House to suggest to my right hon. Friend that it might be made obligatory on local authorities to provide for the maintenance of the blind, or at any rate for the support of Institutions which will enable them, as far as practicable, to become self-supporting citizens. I am aware that, if fresh claims are forced upon the ratepayers, there is likely to be some natural resentment on their part against having what they rightly consider to be a national problem thrown upon them. I have been privileged latterly to gain some inside experience, and I am able to bear testimony to the ability and persistency with which my right hon. Friend has pursued this question, and I know that sympathy is not lacking in the Cabinet, although there may be difficulties owing to the claims of public business. I think, however, he would further the purpose he has in mind if he could persuade the Treasury to undertake a larger liability in this matter. This is a national problem and a national liability, and as far as I am concerned I would do my best to persuade my right hon. Friend to increase the amount borne by the National Exchequer, to the relief of the local ratepayers, in this connection.

4.0. P.M.

I want to refer to another point, which is one of some delicacy, particularly to a person in my position. When we have trained these men, we must bring them into association with the great trade unions of the country. There is always in the minds of the trade unions the apprehension that any section of the community suffering from any incapacity may be exploited to the general detriment of the trade. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden) that in the electrical industry there is always an unlimited source of employment for blind persons. I believe, and indeed only a week ago I myself saw, that a process like armature winding can be done very efficiently by blind men. I know the cause of the apprehension to which I have referred, and I sympathise with it. The blind man must not be utilised for the purpose of depressing the trade union standard. After this Bill has got through the House of Commons, it would be desirable to enlist the cooperation of the trade unions in this regard, in order to secure that the blind man, if he be efficient, shall receive the trade union rate in his particular industry. In certain industries I know he is efficient enough to do that, despite his limitation -due to lack of sight, for he develops in an abnormal degree other qualities which compensate for that. I believe that that point is worthy of consideration, and I am sure the views that have been expressed here to-day will be reflected throughout the whole country, the great trade unions not excepted.

It is not necessary for me join in the chorus of congratulation addressed to my right hon. Friend on this Bill. I rise rather for the purely business purpose of asking him to reconsider, before the Committee stage, an important part of the Bill which has not been commented upon this afternoon, namely, the system for the registration of these charities. By Clause 3 of the Bill, the War Charities Act of 1916 is continued for the purpose of charities relating to the blind, and it is made illegal for any appeal to be issued for such a charity unless it is registered in accordance with the Act of 1916, as modified by this measure. Under the two measures combined, the war charity must be registered by the. county council or the county borough. An ordinary war charity could be registered also by a municipal borough or urban district. When the Act of 1916 was introduced, it provided for registration only by the county council or the county borough, but I pointed out that that would be extremely inconvenient for people who happened to live a long way from the county town, and a provision was introduced, at my own suggestion, for registration by a municipal borough or an urban district in the case of a charity within its borders. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider whether that system of registration could not be continued with regard to these charities for the blind.

Where you have large institutions, especially large institutions of a permanent character, it may not be a very serious thing if you have to go 20 or 30 miles to register it once for all, but the phrase "charity for the blind" under this Bill has a very wide application, and includes any fund having for its object the provision of assistance in any form for blind persons. The result would be that no local fund for the benefit of the blind would be allowable, unless it was in connection with a charity which had been registered at a county town, and I think a good many local efforts of a small and transitory character, perhaps applying for the benefit of the blind people of some small town or urban district, would be entirely prevented by this Clause as it stands, because people would not, as a matter of fact, back them up, knowing they would have to make perhaps several journeys or conduct correspondence with the county town with regard to them. My right hon. Friend will perhaps say the reason is that it is only the county councils and the councils of county boroughs which have the right under the Bill to contribute to the expenses, but I do not think that is at all a reason why they should have a monopoly of registration, because it certainly does not cover the point I have made as to small local efforts for the few blind people in a particular town or village. Moreover, I see no reason why the right to contribute should be confined to county councils and the councils of county boroughs. I do not see why an urban district council or the municipal council of a town of 50,000 people should be prohibited from contributing something to the expenses of an institution which may have been established in its midst. I do not see why, if an agricultural institution for the blind is established with the district of a rural district council, that council should be prohibited from contributing anything to it. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider these questions before Committee.

I congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill. I realise that it is only a beginning and that probably in a few years something more will have to be done. But it is not a question of getting more grants from the Government. That is a mistake many people have fallen into through not reading the Bill carefully enough. Its object is to make a man independent and when he is past 50 years of age to give him a pension. It would be a great pity that pensions should be given from childhood. It is much better that the lines of this Bill should be followed and that a man should be taught self-reliance, which many of the blind have, and be made to realise that he is an important citizen of the country rather than be given a pension for life. It is true that there are hard cases of men under 50, and those will require to be dealt with. Hon. Members' who have read the Bill carefully will see that the institutions for helping the blind are to be subsidised, and I should think that the money they already have, and the subsidies they will get, will enable them to fulfil the duty of giving assistance to people who are not able to work before the age of 50, and to give it to them outside any institution in the form of a regular allowance it necessary. On the whole that is better than to make a general pension.

There is another question which was brilliantly dealt with by the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden), and that is the proper carrying out of the work that these institutions have to do, the control of these institutions. The whole of their work ought to be controlled, and I think it will be necessary that an inspector or inspectors should be able to see that the work is properly done. That is a most important thing. These institutions will have considerable funds, and these funds will be added to, and in a rare case where they do not cover the ground, the councils will probably do it. But I do not think that in many counties there will be any enthusiasm for taking up work where they have to find 50 per cent. of the expense. The right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Roberts) suggested that a larger amount should be provided by the Government. I should agree with him so far as the incentive goes, but it must be remembered that whoever manages the business must have some concern in keeping down the expenses. You cannot say that the local authorities shall manage it and that the Government shall find the whole of the money. It is a very nice theory. That the Government should do everything and somebody else should spend the money, but it is not a proposition that could be worked properly. Therefore the local authorities will have to put their hands in their pockets to a certain extent and do something if they are to manage the business. How are they to be compelled? Certainly a larger grant would be a greater incentive, but even then if it is found that this Bill does not work universally, compulsion will have to be introduced, if not in this Bill, next year. This Bill has a great many friends in the House. I am afraid it has too many friends. I think it has so many friends that some of them may manage to kill it in Committee. I make an appeal to those hon. Members who are anxious to see this work carried through, that in their efforts to make the Bill perfect they shall not try to get all they want at once, and in so doing delay this Bill, or, it may be, kill it altogether. It is important that we should realise that it is impossible to have exactly our own way, and that we should do all we can to carry this great measure of reform at the earliest possible moment.

Like other speakers, I cordially welcome this Bill, but regret that Clause 2 is for the time being only permissive. I hope the Minister of Health will take powers so that he may, where necessary, compel a local authority to provide training and maintenance by means of workshops and hostels.

Clause 2 begins

If that were altered to read

and so forth, that would give the Minister power to compel the local authority to take action. I agree cordially with other speakers that the burdens on local authorities at present are very great, partly owing to the automatic increase of prices and partly owing to the demands of the Ministry of Health and other central bodies now working under the authority of Parliament. Consequently, the rates throughout the country are very high. We find that especially in Scotland. The education rate in Scotland is even heavier on the local authorities than in England. I need not go into the reasons now, but we are paying our teachers more highly than in England. The effect will be that unless either the Ministry or the Civil Government is given power to press the local authorities to take action, or that you give them more money, some local authorities, in Scotland especially, will, I am afraid, find great difficulty in putting Clause 2 of the Bill into operation. It has already been stated that the care of the blind is to a certain extent a national obligation and that there was a precedent for a larger grant than 50 per cent. of the share of expenditure in the Ministry of Pensions. The House will recollect that, under the Ministry of Pensions Bill, the Ministry paid 75 per cent. of the total administrative expenses, and the local authorities paid 25 per cent. That 25 per cent. was considered sufficient to prevent the local authorities being unduly extravagant in administration. I hope that the Minister of Health will in Committee consider either the taking of compulsory power or the giving of larger grants to local authorities, or rather, I hope that he will think fit to do both, so that this work may be carried out properly. the Debate he will reply on that point, and will assure Scottish opinion that this Bill will be as applicable in Scotland as it is in England.

Attendance in this House being, like other things, a habit, it is probable that most of those present, like myself, left the House only in the early hours of the morning. If that is so, it is creditable to all concerned, and shows the spirit of Parliament in this matter, that they will come back here to deal with a measure for the benefit of the most afflicted of our fellow citizens. I heartily agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Roberts), that this is no party matter. It was a shock to me to observe that it was so used on certain occasions during electoral contests. I believe that in all parts of the House there is equal sympathy with the blind. I do not accept the description of an hon. Member opposite of the blind as helpless. The greatest poet of antiquity was blind. One of the greatest poets of later times, Milton, was blind, and wrote the greatest poem about a blind man that has ever been written. Mr. Fawcett in this House was Secretary of State and was blind. In our own time, Sir Arthur Pearson, with whom I have been proud to be associated, is also unfortunately blind, and has converted that affliction into a great benefit for all his fellow men. I cannot say that the blind are helpless. On the contrary, I think they are proving themselves able in large measure to overcome even their affliction. The other day I was at a meeting in the Midlands, and I can testify to the really deep sympathy which is generally felt with the blind, and to the desire, which is general, that their case should be taken up by the legislature. I cannot agree that this is as good a subject for treatment by a private Bill as by a Government Bill. The Bill before us I believe to be very well drafted, and I regard it as a great advantage that the treatment of the blind should be grafted to an already existing system.

It is the easiest thing in the world for a private Member, who has no responsibility, and who can offer any amount of money for any purpose because he has not got to provide any of it, to draft a Bill giving his sympathies full play without having to translate into actual and practical fact that which he endeavours to put down on paper. But a Minister is in a different position. He has to prepare a practicable Bill, and in this ease I think he has done it. I rather hope that the suggestion that an inspector should be appointed will be rejected. I think there are enough inspectors in the United Kingdom already, and I would rather see these duties attached to some of the many officers who already exist. I think it is obviously right that Clause 2 should be permissive and to have Clause I grafted on to an already existing organisation. It is very desirable to save the great existing charitable and voluntary institutions. There is, for instance, in the Midlands an institution for the care of the blind, with far-reaching functions, and I am sure no hon. Member would desire to see those functions curtailed or abolished in any way. I know that it is the opinion of Sir Arthur Pearson that the great voluntary institutions should be preserved, and that individual effort was preferable to a Bill which would place the case right away upon the rates and taxes. Because I sympathise as much as anyone with the blind I am glad the question has been dealt with in a Government Bill, and more satisfactorily than by a private Member's Bill. If all the private Bills ever introduced by private Members had never come on, the world would not have been much worse off. I wish the right hon. Gentleman every success in dealing with this subject.

The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health was, I am credibly informed, like Horatius, defending the bridge at six o'clock this morning, and I am sure, therefore, he wants to get away. There is one point in the Bill which gives me some little concern, and that is as to the age at which pensions will be granted. That will be a declining charge if the remedial measures are to have any effect in the immediate future. Why make two bites at the cherry. There is a large number of these people who are under the age of 50 and who are too old to start training and who for reasons of their own object to going into institutions. Those people are looking to this House after all the agitation to bring some little relief to them in their conditions of misery and despair. Why should not the Government consider the case of those proved to be unable to earn anything and give the pension not at 50 but at whatever their present age is. I am quite sure that small concession would be a very slender drain, even upon an overtaxed Treasury. With reference to throwing the responsibility upon local authorities, that conjures up in my mind difficulties for the Department in the days to come. It was stated by an hon. Member opposite that a large proportion of the persons treated in this country were resident in the poorer parts of the towns and cities, and I am sure that is the case. We all know that owing to the neglect of the past the increased burden of rates is falling more heavily on the poor authorities than on the richer authorities, and therefore I say that if there is a larger proportion of claimants in the poorer districts, something ought to be done to give those areas a greater advantage than the richer districts who have a smaller number of blind persons. Knowing the right hon. Gentleman's kindness of heart and his winning ways with the Treasury, I would make this appeal to him, to bear in mind the section of the community who are blind and physically incapable of helping themselves, but who may not be 50 years old, and to make this pensions provision apply to them.

The most important objection I have to the Bill is that it is in any sense permissive, and I wish it were mandatory. We are dealing with a class of people who have for a long time past been regarded as outside the pale of citizenship, and that should not be the case any longer. Let the Government assume the responsibility of making provision for them, not in any grudging or niggardly fashion, and I am inclined to believe that, if the Government act in a liberal way, they will have the sympathy of the Labour party to the full. It has been observed that these people are not clever people, but I am inclined to believe that they are clever and that they are not helpless either. Reference has already been made this afternoon to the poets who have been blind, and we all remember those lines of Milton:

"When I consider how my light is spent

Ere half my days, in this dark world and wide,

And that one talent which is death to hide,

Lodg'd with me useless, though my soul more bent

To serve therewith my Maker, and present

My true account, lest he returning chide;

'Doth God exact day-labour, light denied,'

I fondly ask: But Patience, to prevent

That murmur, soon replies, God doth not need

Either man's work, or his own gifts; who best

Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best: his state

Is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed,

And post o'er land and ocean without rest;

They also serve who only stand and wait'."

I welcome this Bill in its application to Ireland as calculated to operate for the, relief of people who are in many cases suffering at the present time from lack of assistance. These people, in a very manly spirit, are trying to earn their living, with a skill almost amazing, and we believe that if these training institutions can be provided, they will be even more independent still. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has seen his way to include Ireland in this Bill, and, as a representative of the working classes in Ireland, I cordially thank him for introducing the Bill.

With reference to the question raised as to Scotland, I have looked into the matter, and the Bill is merely applied to Scotland to make it operative in the same way, there being no Charity Commission in Scotland, and there are references to the Children Act in order to make it work in Scotland. It is merely a financial adjustment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Commitee.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes before Five o'Clock, till Monday next, 17th May.