asked the Minister of Health the number of isolation hospitals in agricultural parishes and where they are situated.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on the 9th instant to his questions on the subject of the proposed additional subsidy for houses built in agricultural parishes.

Can the hon. Member give me any guidance as to where I can obtain this information, as it is very vital to a great many rural parishes under the Housing Bill?

It is almost impossible to do so. This is a matter which must be dealt with in debate.

Why cannot the Department concerned with hospitals give an hon. Member of this House information which is so vital to the housing problem? I must press for an answer to my question.

4. The Hon. Member further asked the Minister of Health the number of sanatoria for tubercular diseases in agricultural parishes and where they are situated?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on the 9th instant to his questions on the subject of the proposed additional subsidy for houses built in agricultural parishes.

These questions are really of great importance to the rural parishes of this country. Hundreds of which will be cut out of the new Housing Bill because these institutions happen to be situated in those particular parishes. I have repeatedly asked for this information, and I do not know where to get it without studying the whole of the directories of England, and a Member of Parliament has no time to do that. Can the Parliamentary Secre- tary not give an hon. Member who is trying to do duty to his constituency an answer to a reasonable question of this kind?

I have no power to compel the Minister to answer this question.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to see the particular Clause dealing with this question held up when the Bill comes before the House.

I beg to move,

"That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a matter of urgent public importance, that is to say:—

(1) The existing Law and administrative machinery in England and Wales in connection with the certification, detention, and care of persons who are or are alleged to be of unsound mind;

(2) The extent to which provision is or should be made in England and Wales for the treatment without certification of persons suffering from mental disorder."

The object of this Resolution is to give the Royal Commission set up to inquire into the administration of the Lunacy Laws the power of summoning witnesses and of hearing their evidence on oath and also to give to the witnesses themselves the privilege enjoyed by witnesses in courts of law. Ordinarily a Royal Commission has no power of summoning witnesses or hearing evidence on oath and the privilege enjoyed by witnesses who voluntarily come to give evidence before a Royal Commission, so far as actions for libel and slander are concerned, is at most a qualified and not an absolute privilege. To remedy this state of things the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 was passed with a view to securing those powers for a Royal Commission. Section 1 of that Act provides that:

"where it has been resolved by both Houses of Parliament that it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter described in the Resolution as of urgent public importance, and in pursuance of the Resolution a Tribunal is appointed for the purpose either by His Majesty or a Secretary of State, the instrument by which the Tribunal is appointed or any instruments supplemental thereto may provide that this Act shall apply, and in such case the Tribunal shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court, or in Scotland the Court of Session, or a Judge of either such Court, on the occasion of an action in respect of the following matters:—"

Those matters include the summoning of witnesses and their examination on oath. The Chairman of the Commission on Lunacy Laws has represented to the Government that in his view it is essential that they should be vested with the powers conferred by the Act of 1921, and accordingly I move this resolution in the hope that the House will agree to those powers being given.

I would just like to ask a question with regard to this Motion. I understand it has been put down at the instance of the Chairman of the Royal Commission which has been instituted to enquire into these matters. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what is the exact effect of putting this resolution down? Does this body cease to be a Royal Commission and become a tribunal under the Act of 1921?

No, it becomes a Commission when it is set up.

I beg to move in page 1, line 7, after "1908," to insert the words

"as amended by Sub-section (1) of Section two of The Old Age Pensions Act, 1919."

This is purely a drafting Amendment. I think it is an unfortunate matter regarding this meagre Bill that we are simply referred to the paragraph of the original Act which has been superseded by a paragraph in the Act of 1919. Obviously a person reading this would be confused, and I think my Amendment elucidates the matter.

I think this point can be quite easily ex- plained. The Section in the Act of 1908 lays down a limit of £31 10s., but in the Act of 1919 there is substituted a limit of £49 17s. The effect is that in a later part of this Bill it is provided that the two Acts are to be taken and read together, and therefore there is no necessity for this Amendment because that has not been altered and it remains exactly as it was. Accordingly, the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is unnecessary and there is no difference between them. I suggest that after this explanation he may find it unnecessary to press this Amendment.

I quite agree that this would make no alteration whatever. I merely suggested it for the purpose of making the matter clearer for ill-informed people, and I think it might be accepted without doing any harm.

I hope the Government will reconsider their decision. It is very important that ordinary people should be able to understand Acts of Parliament, and, while admittedly this Amendment makes no difference to the Clause, it does make it more intelligible to the ordinary person.

I should like to support what has fallen from the two hon. Members opposite. Personally, I think it is extremely difficult to understand this Bill, which is full of references to other Acts of Parliament, and it is a great pity that the Government could not have consolidated the Acts and made a simple Bill. Although I quite agree that my hon. Friend's Amendment makes no difference, I do maintain that it makes it much easier for an ordinary person to understand, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept it.

It is quite clear that every Member of the Committee is agreed that the insertion of these words would make no difference whatever to the law. When I first considered the Amendment, it did seem to me that if the words proposed were inserted they would make the matter clearer to the ordinary person; but I have taken the best advice that is at my service, and I am assured that they are unneces- sary. Of course, it would have been quite impossible for us to have done what the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) proposed, because it would have provided the opportunity at any rate for a long discussion of the measure. I am somewhat in a difficulty. I am always anxious to meet hon. Members when I can do so without involving any additional national expenditure. There is, of course, no money involved in this Amendment, and, seeing that it will not make any difference at all, I think I can accept it.

I have no desire to prevent the hon. Member from saying what he wishes on this Amendment, but I suggest that it clearly increases the charge. The hon. Member's Amendment would take away the phrase "other than earnings," and that would add largely to the charge. I suggest that on that ground the Amendment in out of Order.

I anticipated that objection but I would like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman is quite satisfied that this Amendment, if accepted, would in fact increase the charge?

I was not sure, owing to the acceptance of the last Amendment, and that is why I called on the hon. and gallant Member. But, in the circumstances, I think this Amendment is out of Order. The remaining four Amendments on this Clause—

(1) in page 1, line 10 after the word "words" to insert the words

"save in respect of the yearly value of any property which is invested by the person which shall be taken to be the actual income received during the preceding year, and;"

(2) in page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "other than earnings";

(3) in page 1, line 13, at the end to insert the words

"Provided that the word 'earnings' shall be held not to include the earnings of the husband or wife of an old age pensioner if the husband or wife is under the age of seventy years;"

and (4) in page 1, line 13, at the end, to insert the words

"(2) For the purposes of this Section earnings includes wages, salaries, or other remuneration gained in any regular trade or occupation, but does not include receipts in respect of casual or occasional work—"

are in the same category. They would increase the charge.

Does that include the last Amendment, standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon)?

Yes.

Then may I make a submission to you on that point? The question before the Committee, I submit, is not whether this Amendment may or may not increase the charge, but whether it is within the terms of the Resolution which was introduced in Committee? The charge may be increased, I submit, if the terms of the Amendment come within the Resolution, and I suggest that this Amendment is merely a definition of a word which appears both in the Bill and in the Resolution, and that therefore it cannot be ruled out on the ground that it increases the charge. I submit that the standard that determines this matter is the terms of the Resolution, and not the question whether the Amendment does or does not increase the charge.

May I make one further submission? There is surely a distinction between Amendments which attempt to strike out in effect the word "earnings" and substitute for it something which obviously cannot on any view be a fair meaning of it and a definition which says that the word "earnings"—which is not a word which always means the same thing—is a word which, for the purpose of this Sub-section, is one of the perfectly legitimate meanings of that word. If the word "earnings" were a word which had a precise definition in an Act of Parliament for the purposes of that Act of Parliament, then I quite admit that it would not be possible, with- out increasing the charge, to cut down its meaning and thereby put more burden on the Treasury. But the word "earnings," as you doubtless know, is a word which has no fixed meaning in an Act of Parliament, and, as long as the Amendment is one which does not attempt to make nonsense of the word or attempt to turn it inside out, but merely attempts to lay down the boundaries within which the word may be fairly understood to apply, I submit that it is entirely within the rules of order. May I give one illustration? No doubt you are aware that the question of earned and unearned income is defined in the Income Tax Act, in which there are express words saying that "earned income" means this and this, giving a list of the meanings. I respectfully submit that if the Committee had passed a Resolution with respect to earned income without defining it, it would have been perfectly in order for the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to have introduced into the Finance Bill a definition of earned income, and that is all I am asking to be done by my Amendment.

Really, I am amazed at the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Simon). Both the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman have omitted to make any reference to the concluding words of the Amendment. The Amendment is a definition of earnings, and the last part of it says:

"but does not include receipts in respect of casual or occasional work."

I respectfully submit that by altering the earnings in this way you make no difference. I take it that the purpose of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to exempt from the calculation for the purpose of Old Age Pensions occasional earnings. The fact that they are occasional earnings does not take them out of the category of earnings, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not alter the position in the slightest degree by calling them receipts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's contention is equivalent to the argument of the workman who said to his employer, "I very much prefer that my wages shall be called salary." "Very well," says the boss, "we will call them salary; but why do you want them called salary?" The workman replied, "My experience shows me that wages are always going down and salaries are always going up." That is precisely the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and, if I may say so without offence, it is perfect nonsense to try to draw this distinction between receipts and earnings. The point, however, in which I am particularly interested is whether this Amendment goes beyond the scope of the Resolution. Most undoubtedly it does, and if that be so then these occasional earnings, or receipts as they would be called under this Amendment in the future; would not come into calculation for the purposes of the Old Age pension and thereby a very large additional burden would be thrown on the Exchequer. That is a decisive reason against this proposal.

May I say one word. So far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is expressing the view of the Treasury this will really mean a substantial addition to the number of old people receiving the pension, but that I submit is not a point of order at all, and I am quite willing to accept the right hon. Gentleman's rebuke in the best of tempers. But I do suggest his decision will not be regarded as satisfactory by a number of old people. It is entirely within the competence of this Committee to accept, if it thinks fit, a definition of the word "earnings" so long as that definition is fairly considerate of what the word may be supposed to mean. I am not suggesting that anyone could propose a definition of earnings in this section to mean everything that is not earned, because that would be nonsense, but it is not nonsense to say that, for this purpose you are not going to take into account as earnings any earnings when a man may get other than as a result of regular labour, and that you do not mean that the words shall cover money which drops into his hands, as the result of an act of mere benevolence in order to give the old man something to do. If we keep to this point of order, the Treasury view is going to make a great deal of difference, and it is going to penalise a large number of old people. I most respectfully submit that it is plainly within the rules of order that the Committee should adopt a definition, be it in wider or narrower terms, so long as it does not contradict the plain substance and meaning of what appears in the Resolution.

May I point out that if you rule it is out of Order to define the words in this way, that ruling will act as a precedent in the future in regard to other attempts to define words in financial resolutions. For that reason I hope the Chairman will consider very carefully the point which is under discussion.

Is it not practically certain that unless a definition is adopted in the passing of this Bill that question will arise within a comparatively short period as soon as the Act comes into operation. Let me cite a case which will bear out my point. An old man in the country has a couple of pigs. Inquiry is now made as to what he gets from those animals, and some return is included in the calculation of his pension. As soon as this Act is put into operation will not the question arise whether or not the small return which the old countryman gets from these two pigs shall be reckoned as earnings, or shall it be reckoned as some part of the allowance for which he can claim exemption in the calculation of his means? Certainly the necessity of defining the word "earnings" will shortly arise, and I submit it is within the competence of the Committee to anticipate what will undoubtedly come under review later on.

The Old Age Pensions Act in which the term was originally used has now been in operation for about 16 years. The hon. Member who last spoke seems to have assumed that something new is going to be needed when this Act comes into operation. The point is this. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) told us there had been no difficulty whatever experienced in the past in defining what is meant by the word "earnings."

Is that a point of Order?

Yes, I think it is. The Resolution in the form in which it has been passed makes no alteration in the system of law, but it will take out of the calculation any income which is not derived from earnings. The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes in his Amendment to divide earnings into two kinds, and to say that for the purpose of this Act earnings shall be income de- rived from a regular occupation, and that income derived from casual work shall not be treated as earnings. I suggest that that is simply playing with words, the purpose of which is quite clear. Then I have a further point of Order. If we accept this Amendment it will bring these people within the category of those whose means are now included in the calculations. The right hon. Member has suggested that this is penalising old people. It does extend the benefit of this method to people who may consider that they may have some claim to have their condition taken into consideration. That I admit. The point is that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to establish an arbitrary and impossible distinction between two things which are the same, namely, earnings from work; because income from casual work is just as much earnings as income from regular work; and there is the further point that this will impose an additional charge beyond what was contemplated and what was passed by the Committee when the Resolution was agreed to.

I think the Chancellor is somewhat unfortunate in arguing this point. On the question of Order, it is not relevant whether this is a good or a bad Amendment. I am dealing with the point that I raised originally. Whether this is a good or bad definition does not concern us. It may be playing with words, as the right hon. Gentleman says; it may be intended to extend the number of beneficiaries; but the sole question, I submit, is whether this Amendment, good or bad, is capable of discussion by the Committee as being within the rules of Order. There is, I submit, only one limitation upon the Committee, and that is the limitation imposed by the terms of the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it may increase the charge, but I submit that the Committee is not bound in that respect. If we were on the Report stage, it would certainly prevent the Chair from accepting such an Amendment, but while we are in Committee the sole question is whether the Amendment is within the terms of the Resolution. I submit to you, Sir, that, as this Amendment is merely an attempt to define a word which is common both to the Bill and to the Resolution, it is in Order for the Com- mittee to consider such an Amendment, irrespective of its intrinsic value or of its effect. On these grounds I would very respectfully submit to you, Sir, that the Committee should have an opportunity of dealing with the merits of the Amendment.

I think the word "ridiculous" has been used in this discussion, and, surely, in the first instance, it does seem ridiculous that the House of Commons should not be able to define what meaning it intends to put upon a word in its own legislation, unless there be some express reason against it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has apparently put forward the reason, if I understand him aright, that the word "earnings," for the purposes of Old Age Pensions, has already been defined in practice by those who have been concerned in the working of the old Act. I venture most respectfully to submit that, if the word "ridiculous" is to be applied to anything in connection with this argument, it is the suggestion that the House is to be limited in its definition of its own meaning by a practice which has grown up in connection with an administrative body.

May I say that I applied the word "ridiculous" to the attempt to discriminate between earnings derived from regular work and earnings derived from casual or occasional work?

I apologise for interrupting again. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put his point very clearly, and I am obliged to him for being so full in his statement; but, surely, as regards a portion of what he has said, he is under a real misapprehension. I speak subject to correction, and I shall be glad to be corrected, but am I not right in saying that the word "earnings" does not occur anywhere at all in the existing Old Age Pensions Acts? You can read every Section of every Old Age Pensions Act that has ever passed the House, and the word "earnings" is not in it. In these circumstances, I submit with great respect that surely, it cannot be right to say that the House of Commons is not at liberty, for the first time, in an Old Age Pensions Act, to define fairly what it means by it. If the Chancellor were right in what he said just now, if he were suggesting that the word "earnings" was a word which existed in the Old Age Pensions Acts, and that, at some time or other, it had acquired a particular meaning which had hitherto been understood, and that this was an attempt to alter a statutory meaning, then, in my submission, it would be wrong. But the truth is that it has never up to the present moment been relevant to ask, under the Old Age Pensions Act, "Is this item to be called 'earnings' or is it to be called 'other income'"? Now, for the first time in the history of the Old Age Pensions Acts, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the Statute Book, is making it relevant to determine whether a particular sixpence which comes into a man's pocket is earnings or not. I think I see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury making inquiry in the proper quarter, and I venture most respectfully to ask for information from the Government bench as to whether I am right or wrong when I say that the word "earnings" has never yet occurred in any Old Age Pensions Act at all, and as to whether, therefore, it can be out of Order to define it when it is first put into such a Measure?

If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) will allow me to say so, I entirely agree with what he has said. May I urge another point in favour of allowing this Amendment to be put? That is the example afforded by the very next Bill we are to consider. There an interpretation was allowed to be inserted, without altering the object of the Measure, where the word "may" had been construed as "may", and not, as the House intended, as "shall". When the House allowed that suggestion to be made, without altering the object of the Pensions (Increase) Bill, it might undoubtedly in that case have been urged that the insertion of the word "shall" instead of "may" would involve an increased expenditure under the Measure, although it Might properly have been urged that in most cases—indeed with very few exceptions—the word "may" had been construed, as the Solicitor-General of that day said it would be, as "shall", but not in all cases. When it was pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that great hardship had been involved by the word "may", being treated as "may" and not as "shall", he did give effect to it by putting it beyond all doubt that what was meant was "shall" and not "may". In this case the meaning of the word "earnings" does require to be properly fixed, and, therefore, I submit that the Amendment might be allowed.

I desire respectfully to urge that there is a need for a definition, either somewhere in the Bill itself or in the Regulations under the Bill, because of the anomalous reading which has been read into the previous Act by various Pensions Committees. The question of some old woman having a few hens has been raised more than once, but a case was brought to my notice a short time ago which was even more anomalous. It was the case of an old man who was receiving an old age pension from which—

I do not think that that is relevant to this point of Order.

May I have an answer as to whether I was right in saying that the Statute law at present in connection with old age pensions never, as such, uses the word "earnings", but, on the contrary, uses the term "yearly means"—whatever those means may be—and that, therefore, this is the first time it has become necessary to make plain what is and what is not earnings for the purpose of old age pensions?

Might I just say one word on the point of Order, to emphasize the desirability of allowing this Committee to define once and for all "earnings" with respect to this particular matter. As a practical point, two days ago in the High Court, in a workmen's compensation case, the learned Judge, when asked to define the word "earnings", said it was utterly impossible for him or anyone else to give a watertight definition of the word "earnings". If this Bill passes as it is, and we do not define what we mean by "earnings", it simply means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to impose upon the local authority—

May I ask whether this is any more in Order than the remarks I was making?

I submit that I am in Order. My point is that, if this Bill be passed without our being allowed to put in any definition of the word "earnings," we are going to impose upon the local pensions committee or upon the local pensions officers the discharge of an obligation which a High Court Judge himself has found to be impossible.

In this matter I think the Committee will agree that we must confine ourselves strictly to the point of Order which has been raised, and, as far as I can make out, the point of Order was whether in fact the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman will increase the charge.

No!

May I ask you, Sir, is the question before you whether the Amendment increases the charge or whether it is within the scope of the Resolution?

The point of Order put to me was whether the proposed Amendment is within the terms of the Resolution, but it does not necessarily follow that the other point may not be considered.

As I understand the situation, if the right hon. Gentleman had proposed merely a definition of something which was already within our Resolution and in our Bill that would have been well enough, but there is no doubt whatever that he goes beyond that. It is clear that he and others intend to bring in people who think they will be excluded at present. There cannot be any manner of doubt that it would increase the charge. It seems to me to be more than a mere definition. I do not think there is any doubt that there will be an opportunity on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" for the discussion of the whole question of earnings, and I should imagine that with such information as we are able to give, a good deal of the existing misunderstanding will disappear.

I think the Financial Secretary is talking on the merits of the Amendment, and not on the point of Order whether the Amendment is actually in order. As I understand it, it is quite clear that the word "earnings" does not occur in any Act of Parliament at all. If it is merely a case of what has been the practice in the past, it is possible that the practice in the future will increase the ambit of the word "earnings." How, then, can you say that an Amendment which defines this word is out of Order when you do not know what the practice is going to be in the future? I submit that we are wholly now on the point of Order as to whether this Amendment is actually within the terms of the Resolution or not. When a Resolution is drawn in general terms, any Amendment is allowed which varies that Resolution, even if there is a possibility of an increase. The Resolution is in general terms so far as earnings are concerned. Why in that case should an Amendment be out of order which attempts to define the meaning of the word?

I wish to put a somewhat similar point in rather different words. The Financial Secretary appears to argue that this must be regarded as out of Order, basing that on the rather curious and, as I think, false premise that the word "earnings" in the Resolution is to have the meaning which he or the Government chooses to put upon it. We have the word "earnings" in the Resolution, and it is not for the Government, that proposed the Resolution, but for the House, which passed it, to say what is the meaning of its own Resolution. Therefore the House, in the ordinary way being entitled to define what it means by a particular word, is perfectly entitled to define the meaning of the word "earnings" not only in the Bill, but the meaning they choose to put on it in the Resolution they have passed, and to say that when they passed it they intended, and they do intend in the Bill, that the word "earnings" shall mean a certain thing. That would bring the Amendment, I submit, in order and within the scope of the Resolution.

I had considered before I came to the House what really would be the result of this Amendment, if carried. I agree that if it simply defines something without increasing the charge it would be my duty to allow it, but as this Amendment in my estimation increases the charge in excess of what the Resolution meant, I feel that I cannot accept it.

Is the Committee to understand that you now rule that the Amendment, which is within the Resolu- tion, is incompetent in Committee solely on the ground that it increases the charge? If that be the case I would ask for a precedent for such a ruling.

I did not say that.

As I understood your ruling, you ruled against the Amendment on the ground that it increased the charge.

No, I said if the Amendment was only a definition which did not increase the charge that was one reason why I should not rule it out of order, but I ruled it out on the ground that we are now in the position of discussing an Amendment which in my opinion goes beyond the scope of the Resolution.

I need hardly assure you, Sir, that I accept with complete loyalty, and of course with complete good temper, the ruling which you in the discharge of your duties have thought it right to give, and we are obliged to you for the care with which you have considered the submission we have made. I should like to point out what would be the effect of the Clause as it is now proposed to be passed, because it appears to me that, whether the difference is small or great, the Clause as it is now proposed to pass it is going to produce rather unfortunate contrasts. Let me take for simplicity s sake an instance in order to sea to what it is that the House under the Resolution, which was so very carefully limited by the Treasury, is committing the old people of the country. Take two old people who are alike in every other respect, both over 70, neither of whom has any trade or regular occupation, neither of whom is in the least in any ordinary sense a person following a trade or occupation and each of whom has total means amounting to 20s. a week. Let me admit at once, gratefully, that the Chancellor's proposal whatever its shortcomings, is going to improve the lot of both those old men. I am heartily glad it is so. A, we will my say, gets 10s. a week by way of allowance from a grown up son or from a benefit club or by way of a gift from an old employer. He gets another 10s. by way of purely casual gains. He will get an old age pension of 10s. in addition. To that extent the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be congratulated, because the Government has undoubtedly improved the position of that old man. I do not want to disguise the fact that that is an advance for which everyone ought to be grateful. But in contrast with that, take the other old man, B. He is of the same age and has the same total means, 20s. a week, and you might think he also ought to be entitled to 10s. old age pension. He is not engaged in any reguar trade or occupation. He is not attempting to invade the labour market or to do any injury to any trade unionist. He is an old man who only gets 8s. a week from his grown up son or from his old employer or from his benefit club and he makes the sum up to 20s. by earning 12s. a week by way of merely casual and occasional jobs. I do do not think he ought to be reproached for it. It seems to me probably very good for him that he should still feel that he can occasionally turn his hand to something. To many of these old people the continuance of life is almost dependent upon this ability and the desire to do a little something. In this Clause, for which the Treasury have fought so hard, "B," though he has no trade or occupation, and in every other respect he is like "A," is not to get the old age pension of 10s. On the contrary, there is to be an inquiry to find out exactly how much these casual earnings amount to. I should have thought that it was an unfortunate thing to have to ascertain whether or not he is getting as much as 12s. or more than 12s. by way of casual earnings. It seems to me that that is a very unfortunate result. We have to put up with it, because since the Resolution has been drawn in this way it contains no definition of earnings at all, except such definition of earnings as the Treasury mind thinks is right. Since that is so, let us face it, and let us say that what we are doing by this Clause is that we are making it a matter of distinction between two old people in every respect alike, and whereas in the one case one is 2s. short and what is granted by the son or the daughter and he makes up the extra 2s. by say occasionally sweeping up leaves in a street or in the case of an old woman she gets a little work a deduction is made from this small pension. I think it is most unfortunate.

I was very much surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his argument on the point of order, to say that the remedy would involve a serious additional burden on the Treasury. I should have thought that these cases would be comparatively few. Assuming that they are comparatively few, it is wrong, either on a point of order, or at any other time, to inform the Committee that such a thing will involve a great additional burden upon the Treasury. Be the burden small or great, it is a misfortune. May I refer to a less controversial subject? It appears to me a most desirable thing that ordinary citizens, ordinary men and women, should be able to get upon a piece of paper in an authorised form, a statement which anyone can understand as to what the position is. This Bill is a shocking example of legislation by reference. One would have thought that a Bill having the object which this Bill has, of amending the Old Age Pensions Act would have had such a title, but so nervous was the Treasury that somebody might be able, even by the smallest amount, to enlarge or alter the Bill, that the Bill which confers this boon is to follow in title:

"A Bill to Amend paragraph (3) of Section two of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908."

The First Clause reads:

1. Paragraph (3) of Section two of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908 * * * shall for all purposes have effect as though after the words "calculated under this Act" there were inserted the words * * *

To 999 people out of a thousand that is pure and unadulterated gibberish. [An hon. Member: "Legal phrases"] I hope the hon. Member will not join in the gibe, always cheap, that this is a case of the lawyers. The people who were so astute as to draw up the Bill in that form were not two lawyers but two Members of the Labour Government.

One of them is a lawyer.

I do not want to say anything against the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; he is one of the obvious successes, and he explains things so clearly that no one would sus- pest him of being a bachelor of law. By this excessively bad example of legislation by reference, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got his point, and has prevented the possibility of this Bill being extended. Might it not therefore be possible for him to have a White Paper printed which would state in accurate and complete terms, without reference to other documents, what is the situation as regards Old Age Pensions. He published a very useful White Paper before we had our discussion, which gave certain illustrations. I suppose they were illustrations which showed the benefits of the Bill but not the disadvantages.

The case which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave just now is one of the cases mentioned in the White Paper.

That is not what we want now. What a great body of the public would like would be a piece of paper, which could be bought for 1d. or 2d., printed officially but not as an Act of Parliament, which would state what exactly has been done. If the earlier part of our proceedings should happen to adorn any portion of the newspapers to-morrow—of course, that will depend on whether there has been in the twenty-four hours any incident outside of a more exciting nature; a baby's perambulator running into the Thames or some really important national event—I cannot think that it will be very intelligible. I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would be good enough to consider the publication of such a White Paper, giving a perfectly simple statement of the ease. I think I know some lawyers who could draw it up.

It would be a great satisfaction to me and to other people who, at any rate, do their best to try to make things plain in this House if it was once for all realised that there is nothing in the world so technical in the House of Commons or out of it as a layman trying to talk law. The law is capable of being stated as a rule, in quite simple terms, and it, is untrue that the, appalling state of our Statute Book is due to lawyers. It is due to the actions of Governments, not only this, but other Governments, for reasons which one can understand, because they want to save time, or because it is better to be unintelligible than to be plain, because they do not want their own followers to revolt as they would do if they knew what they were being asked to do. They are all alike. That is the reason why the Statute Book is filled with these extraordinarily elaborate provisions.

To anyone who wants to understand the thing, lawyer or layman, it is very regretable, and I wish that some method can be found by which the Government can protect the Treasury, which it is quite right to do, and get their business carried through, which it is quite natural to desire, without having to increase the number of cases in which the Statute Book contains these perfectly ridiculous elaborate formulas by way of reference. If an intelligent old man had the means to provide himself to-day with documents to find out what we have been doing in the House to-day, he would first have to buy the Statute of 1924, and then the Statute of 1920. Then he would have to buy the Statute of 1911 and probably also the Statute of 1908, and when he had collected this large library he would find out as a result of all his labour a quite simple change which ought to be capable of being stated in a few sentences.

May I draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as an instance of the hardships which occur under the existing method of calculating means, to the case which I have had brought to my notice of an old man who is an old age pensioner? His son, who is a poor man with a growing family of his own, said that he would like the father to come and have dinner with him four or five days a week, and as a result of the old man having dinner four or five days a week with the son he has had 1s. 6d. a week deducted from his pension. The dinners were counted as part of his income. That kind of thing shows extraordinary meanness and it ought not to be done. If the House does want to provide for aged people it ought to do so in a more generous spirit, and I hope that the Treasury will take into consideration the issuing of regulations under which anomalies and meanness of that description cannot possibly occur in the case of those who have the old age pension.

I am not a lawyer, and I am not sure whether that is an advantage or not, but I can say that, whether I am or not, there is a number of things in connection with this system which I do not think I should ever be able to understand. This is a Bill to amend a Section of an Act which is amended by another Act which is itself amended by a third Act. But I do not want this Clause to pass through Committee without voicing my protest against the fact that the Financial Resolution to the Bill has been drawn so closely as to admit practically of no Amendment. I had an Amendment on the Paper which sought to remove what is an injustice and an anomaly to a certain class of people. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he does accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) to consider whether it would not be possible before very long to bring in a Bill consolidating all the Old Age Pensions Act, and whether he could not see his way to amend this hardship, which I wish to put before the Committee?

Hon. Members who represent constituencies in great industrial centres know that there is a very large number of people who put their savings into trustee savings banks. Under the Act of Parliament of 1888 these banks are not allowed to pay interest on the capital which is deposited in them at a higher rate than 2½ per cent., but, in calculating means for old age pensions, the calculation is based on the assumption that the income is 5 per cent. up to £400, omitting the first £25, and after £400 it becomes 10 per cent. I may give one particular instance of how this acts. It is the instance of a man who has been able to save the sum of £1,000. Of course, there are many people who save smaller sums, and still deposit them in the trustee savings banks, but I give this particular instance, and if my Amendment were carried this man would be eligible for an old age pension.

Under the existing law the first £25 of the £1,000 is excluded from the calculation of means. The next £375 is calculated as bringing in an income of 5 per cent., that is to say, £18 15s. The £600 which remains is calculated as bringing in an income of 10 per cent., that is to say, £60; so that an income of £78 15s. is calculated as being received on the £1,000, whereas the income actually received is only £25. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he thinks it just that the man who receives an income of only £25 from these deposits should be assessed, as far as calculation of means is concerned, at three times that amount? I think it right to make this protest. I am very sorry that the financial resolution has been so drawn that the Bill cannot be amended to provide for this hardship, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will not consider this grievance at some future date and try to remove it.

I need not say that I sympathise entirely with the main object of this Bill, which carries out to a large extent the policy of my own party to remove discouragements to thrift, but it is interesting to realise that in an endeavour to carry out a laudable object the Government has gone to the opposite extreme of discouraging earnings on the part of old people.

I think that that is worth noting. The present Government have, unintentionally no doubt, produced a remarkable anomaly. Under the Income Tax laws earned income is supposed to be so much more meritorious than unearned income that a preference is given to those who earn their incomes over those who do not. If you take the smallest sum on which Income Tax is payable—an unmarried single person—you will find that an earned income of £150 is not taxed, while the same unearned income is taxed £2. Therefore, as regards the Income Taxpayer, a preference of £2 is given in the case of earned income as against unearned income, but when we come to the case of the Old Age Pensioner (who of course is not an Income Taxpayer), the Old Age pensioner with 15s. a week of unearned income is entitled under this Bill to a pension of £26 a year. But another person of similar age living next door, having no savings and therefore compelled to earn—we will assume that he earns exactly the same sum of 15s. a week—is allowed a pension of only 4s. a week, or £10 8s. a year. Therefore, a preference of no less than £15 12s. a year is given to the one man whose income is unearned over the other man who earns exactly the same income. That is a curious anomaly which has been created, and I think that it is hard upon a large number of very industrious and excellent people. I do not think it is quite fair to say to everyone who has no savings at the age of 70 that he or she has been thriftless. In many cases they have not got savings because they have been virtuous and unselfish and have perhaps, contributed out of their earnings at the time when they were young, towards the maintenance of an old father or mother. There was mentioned in the "Times" yesterday the case of a woman, a housekeeper, earning £1 a week. In order to keep her old father in a nursing home she contributed every penny of her £1 a week. That means, of course, that she is unable to save. She is compelled to go on earning. But such earnings will, under this Bill, be penalised.

I agree that it is desirable to remove this discouragement of thrift, but I cannot agree that it is advisable or necessary to penalise the earnings of industrious old people.

This Clause introduces into the law of England for the first time a very debatable and dangerous principle. For the first time it is Making a virtue of Idleness. [Interruption.] I always thought that that was an aristocratic principle, but it appears to be a Socialist principle, Perhaps my hon. Friends above the Gangway will bear with me. I do not suggest that it is desirable for old people to be compelled to work, but it is eminently un-undesirable to compel old people to cease work if that is the thread which binds them to life. This Clause introduces the principle for the first time that it is a harmful and wrong thing to work. The whole Clause is based on a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of the Debate a week or two ago, when he said that he did not think it right for old people of 70 to work. The effect of a statement of that kind, embodied in an Act of Parliament, is bound to have implications and involutions which have not been fully considered. The present system is anomalous enough; it is a perfect honeycomb of inconsistencies. Now you have introduced quite a new principle, without thinking out what the real effect of it is to be. First of all it will have a moral effect on old people If they have been in the habit of pottering about in a garden for a nominal wage, and one given probably out of the kind- ness of heart of an employer, it will have a decidedly bad moral effect for them to know that their pension is contingent upon their giving up that work or doing it for nothing.

The proposal will have also a very bad physical effect, because work is life itself, and if a man keeps up in his old age the habit of his youth he is more likely to remain healthy, and is certainly more likely to remain happy. Many people like work. [interruption.] It seems to be disliked very much by hon. Members above the Gangway, but there are people—

It depends upon what a man's youthful habits were.

If in his youth he lived on money derived from investments, it would, of Course, be difficult for him to begin to work in his old age. A man who has worked all his life may have become attached to it, and I think it is worthy of consideration that that man may feel it a great wrench to be compelled to give up his work. This proposal is also going to have a very disastrous economic effect. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered that this is a direct subsidy to wages in money. The whole of our social reform legislation is an indirect subsidy to wages. If you pay for the education of a man's children you are subsidising his wages. If you provide him with part of the rent of a house you are subsidising his wages. If you provide him with any of these services you are subsidising his wages. But this is a direct subsidy in money, and it re-creates all the vices of the old Poor Law system. Before 1832 employers discovered that it was profitable to pay bad wages and to subsidise them by the rates. In other words they discovered a highly original method of making the community pay what the employers should pay. That has given rise to the whole of our social reform. Here you are reviving that principle, and you are saying to an employer, "If you pay this man twenty shillings a week he is not going to get a pension, but if you pay him ten shillings a week he will get a pension, and the State will contribute ten shillings a week towards that man's wages." You are directly suggesting to the employer that he should employ a man of 70, because it is more economical than to employ a man of 65, and you will throw the man of 65 out of work, because the employer will have to pay him twenty shillings a week as against the other man's ten shillings. That is the principle which this Clause introduces. It is a thoroughly harmful principle, and I seriously hope that it will be reconsidered.

It is also penalising the wife's earnings, because if the wife happens to be under 70 she has to give up her work in order to qualify the man for the Old Age Pension. With reference to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said with reference to the issue of a memorandum in a comprehensible form, whereby potential beneficiaries can understand what they are entitled to, I hope the Chancellor is not going to reproduce the memorandum which he has already issued explaining the Financial Resolution, because it gives a misleading impression. For instance, it takes the case of a man deriving 20s. from earnings and 11s. from property, making a total of 31s., and says that under the proposal a deduction of 11s. per week would be made in calculating means, but the amount would still exceed the statutory limit of 19s. per week, and the pension would not be payable. The Chancellor has not given a single instance to show clearly and concisely that a man who is only earning 20s. and who is not getting any income from any other source, gets no pension. Why does he in the instance given first add on the 11s. derived from property and then take it off? What he should do is to make perfectly clear that if a man is earning 20s., irrespective of any other money, he is disqualified from pension. That is the principle which hon. Members are introducing, and it is harmful and dangerous principle which is bound to have a disastrous economic effect and a disastrous physical and moral effect upon the country as, a whole.

I do not propose to detain the Committee for long, because having been unable to get this Clause into a form which we should like better, I think hon. Members are now anxious to see it go through. I respectfully suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might slightly improve the Clause on the Report stage. I can confirm what an hon. Member said some time ago as to the expression of a High Court Judge the other day with regard to the difficulty of defining "earnings." It will be very difficult for Old Age Pensioners who are, quite rightly, looking for some benefit under this Clause, if they are to be kept in doubt for a long time and if they are to be harried and harassed by the different views of different Old Age Pension Committees and inspectors as to the exact meaning of earnings. In order to avoid that, and in order to avoid the necessity of this Clause having to be interpreted by the Courts, I suggest that the Chancellor himself should put forward on the Report stage a clear definition of the word "earnings." The Chancellor might in the ordinary way retort that if we thought it well to do so, we should take that step ourselves, but it is really not competent for a private Member of the House to do anything in this matter. It is really only the Government who know the extent to which we can go under the Financial Resolution, and it is only the Government who can give a definition of earnings not liable to be ruled out of Order is likely to extend the scope of the Bill beyond the limits of the Financial Resolution. I trust the Chancellor may be able to save Old Age Pensioners trouble by providing a clear definition of this word.

I desire to reinforce what has been said by the last speaker. If it is impossible to amend the Bill—and I understand the difficulty of bringing in Amendments on the Report stage—I ask him if he would undertake to lay a paper showing what the Government intend by the word "earnings" in this respect. No doubt the Old Age Pensions officers will require guidance in this matter and no doubt it is the intention of the right hon. gentleman to give them guidance and therefore I would ask him to undertake that before the Report stage a copy of the regulation defining the word "earnings" should be laid before Members of the House, so that when the Bill comes up on Report we may know exactly what is meant by this word. I do not quite share the views expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha) as to the encouragement of idleness but we think it a hardship that if an old man or woman earns something they should thereby be prevented from receiving a State pension. We do not want to drive any old person to work but if they do get casual earnings it seems a pity that such earnings should go towards diminishing their pension rights. Probably the Chancellor does not intend to include in the word "earnings" such things as the produce of an allotment or even the proceeds of an occasional article or an occasional sermon. Why not allow the House to see the Regulation upon this matter so as to enlighten hon. Members and assist them in their further deliberations?

On the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill I stated tolerably fully my objections to this Clause, and I have no intention of repeating them, but I should like to reinforce the argument of the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Lumley). I am sure that there is a real and practical grievance involved in the matter which he submitted to the Committee, and I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some concession in that respect on the Report stage. I agree that it is not Within the competence of private Members to propose Amendments which may involve an additional charge, but that in no way prevents Members of the Government from contriving to meet what I think they themselves will agree to be a substantial and legitimate point. The hon. Member for East Hull put the point very clearly indeed. A man with invested savings which, as a matter of fact, produce an income of £25 a year, is, for the purposes of this Measure, regarded as having a much larger income. There are not many of those who are professionally connected with the Stock Exchange or the City of London who can command interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, yet that is the interest assumed to be payable to these people on some part of their small savings. As a matter of fact, in the vast majority of cases these investments are in Savings Banks and so on, and the rate of interest is 2½ per cent. per annum.

They can get other investments at 4 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Co-operative Societies."]

Even if they were wise enough to follow the advice of the hon. Members opposite and invest their savings as he would advise them to do, that does not touch my point. I gather he suggests that they might receive 4 per cent. per annum, but, for the purposes of this Bill, even those savings invested in Co-operative Societies are rated as though they were receiving not 4 per cent. but 10 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think what I state is within the knowledge of the Committee. The point is that for the first £400 a deduction is allowed of £25, thereby reducing the capital to an estimated sum of £375, and on that £375 it is assumed that a man is getting 5 per cent. per annum.

It is not assumed to be 5 per cent. per annum, but it is calculated to be 5 per cent. per annum, which is an entirely different thing.

I will substitute the word "calculated," and say that it is calculated for the purposes of this Act that he is receiving an income on £400 of 5 per cent. per annum, but on the next £600 it is calculated, for the purposes of this Act, but it is not assumed—and it is very nearly as bad for the person in question that it should be calculated as that it should be assumed—at 10 per cent. I do not want to put the case too high; I want to follow the Chancellor's precise wording, and I will say that for this person it is no better that it should be calculated than that it should be assumed. On the calculation of his further £600, he is assumed, or, rather, he is calculated to draw interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum. I say that that is both ridiculous and unfair, and I venture to reinforce the appeal so clearly put by my hon. Friend behind me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is going to assume or to calculate, will at any rate take this point into consideration before he comes to the Final stages of this Bill. I would like also to say a word in reinforcement of the plea put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), who, if I may say so, made a very powerful plea for a clear statement of what this Bill is going to do for the benefit of rendering the Act intelligible to the recipients of old age pensions. May I make the appeal on behalf of Members of this House that the Act should be rendered intelligible to us, and not only intelligible to us, but may be stated so clearly that we may make it intelligible to our innumerable correspondents, who will most certainly appeal to us for informa- tion on this subject? I am quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to diminish the labours of his colleagues in this House, and I can assure him that, if he will listen to the plea of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, he will very materially diminish the labour of Members of this House who are called upon to explain the Old Age Pensions Act as best they can to their constituents.

When I go to my constituents I shall be able to tell them that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been at least five times more generous than I proposed to be in my election promises, for I am one of those, as a matter of fact, who think that the effect on the old age pensioners of an alteration of the law might have been better, even if less money had been spent, if it had been done in another way. I believe that one of the things that troubles the old people in the country—and I speak with experience of many of them—is the sliding scale deductions under the present scheme, whereby one man gets 9s., another 8s., another 7s., and so on, right down to 1s. a week, and I would rather have cleared out that sliding scale and fixed the definite amount, even at a less cost, and so done away with these anomalies. However, that cannot be done now, but I hope it will be taken into consideration in any future Amendment of the Act. These earnings are going to cause county Members more trouble than anybody else. It is so hard in this House to get in any plea for the villages from any point of view, whether in regard to housing or pensions or what not, but I desire to make this point, that it has been fairly easy to advise our constituents or friends in the villages as to what a total income is for old age pension purposes. Old people come to ask me about farms, stocks and shares, land, property, and so on, and I always end up by asking this question: "Have you any old hens?" When they say "Yes," I say, "Kill them and eat them, or they will take the value of the eggs," and this is done, but as to whether I can tell them that the value of the eggs will be earnings, I do not know.

I do not know if I am going to advise my constituents as to whether the eggs that come from their industry in their own gardens—not somebody else's garden, as has been suggested—will be counted as unearned or earned income, and from that point of view it is not only a question of hens and chickens, but a question of vegetables, and so on. I want to point out that rural Members of Parliament find many aged people not so near to co-operative societies as the constituents of the hon. Member for West Birkenhead (Mr. Egan). Some of them are miles away, and, although those organisations are doing a fine work throughout the country, there are many hundreds of villages which are miles away from their operations and which know nothing about getting four per cent. for their earnings. I would, therefore, heartily reinforce the plea of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) for a simplified statement as to what earnings will or will not mean.

I will not detain the Committee for long, but one or two very direct questions have been put to me, and it would only be right that I should make some reply to them. But, first of all, may I say how very much I appreciate the compliments that have been paid to the dexterity and ingenuity of the Treasury Bench in drawing a Financial Resolution in such a way as to prevent the House of Commons from making any Motion to increase the charge on the Treasury.

Even for the old people!

I think a remark of that sort comes with very bad grace from a Member of the party sitting below the Gangway. A good deal of the criticism that has been levelled against our pro posal seems to be on the assumption that this is the first time that any effort has been made to deal with questions of old age pensions, but I would like to remind hon. Members that every one of the restrictions in the existing Act was incorporated in the law by the Liberal party, and I would like to add this, that we have not been in Office yet for six months. In 1906 the Liberal Government came into power with a majority of 300 in this House, and they were in Office for three years before they made any attempt at all to redeem their election pledges in regard to old age pensions. [Interruption.] In view of the criticisms to which We have had to submit during the dis- cussion of this Bill, I think I am justifield in making the retort that I am making. In the third year of the term of the Liberal Government they introduced an Old Age Pensions Bill, but that was no redemption of their pledges. Until that Bill was introduced, there had never been a proposal in the country that the age for old age pensions should be more than 65 years. 65 had always been regarded as the age at which the old age pensions should be given, but the proposal to make it 70 years was a Liberal Measure, and that at a time when we had not a national expenditure of £800,000,000 a year, not an Income Tax of 4s. 6d. in the £and not a Super-tax of 6s. in the £but an Income Tax of 1s. in the £only, and at that time all those limitations were made in the Old Age Pensions Act, about which Liberal Members now complain in order to make political capital against a Government, who, by this Measure, are doing as much for the old age pensioners as was done by the first Old Age Pensions Act. It was estimated that the cost of the first Old Age Pensions Act would be £7,000,000 a year. I am giving £7,000,000 a year under this Bill, and I would like to remind hon. Members, too, that in the first Old Age Pensions Act the Poor Law disqualification was maintained, and the old man of 70 years of age who was getting a miserable pittance of 2s. 6d. or 3s. 6d. a week was not to have an old ace pension.

With regard to the calculation of means from invested property, I have not embodied that in my Bill. It was the proposal of the Liberal Government, and was carried into law by the votes of Liberal Members.

You promised to abolish that.

You promised to abolish nothing—only yourselves.

We are not in liquidation yet.

The calculation of the means from investments was not proposed in the first Old Age Pensions Act. It was introduced, I think, in the second Act. I remember Mr. Hobhouse, who is not now in the House, was the Financial Secretary at the time, and I, as a private member, criticized the proposal, and Mr. Hobhouse made no satisfactory reply. If he had given a satisfactory reply, I should have been satisfied. From that time, the real reason why this method of calculating means of income from invested property has not been given. I myself have denounced the proposal on public platforms, but I now understand it. It must be realised that there is a difference between income from invested property and a similar income which ceases at the death of the recipient of the pension. Take the case cited by the hon. Member of a man who has invested property of £1,000, which is bringing 'him in, say, £50 a year. For the purposes of the old age pension, the income is calculated at a much higher figure than that, and the fact that the property passes at his death, and the income continues to be derived from it, makes the essential difference between an income of that kind and an income which ceases at the death of the recipient. The calculation is based upon the value of an annuity, but it is extremely generous, because at 70 years of age the annuity calculation would be about ten per cent., but we are not taking it at ten per cent., because £25 is excluded, the next £375 is calculated at five per cent., and only the remainder at ten per cent. Therefore, this gives a decided advantage to the applicant for an old age pension. That is the reason for it. Let me touch upon one or two other points raised in the Debate, and to which, I think, the Committee is entitled to have a reply. Before passing to that, may I say that I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) would look into the case that he cited more closely because it is perfectly obvious the facts could not be as he said.

I probably made a little error, but what I meant was that it was very likely reduced by 18d.

That sort of thing might happen, though cases of the kind are likely to be very rare, indeed, under the provisions of this Bill, because if an old man went to live with his son, and the calculation of the value of those free dinners were as much as 10s. it would have no effect. But no Pension officer would assess the value of a meal at as much as 2.s.

Sunday afternoon tea has been calculated.

Under this Bill all that would be in effect excluded.

It is in the experience of many of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, who have been members of Pensions Committees, that these things have been done.

I say that that is done, but my point was that in the case of an old man living in the house of a son, a few shillings are not taken into calculation. I have been asked to prepare and circulate some paper which would be a sort of guide to an understanding of the Old Age Pensions Acts. I think that is a suggestion worthy of consideration, but, without any disrespect, I am quite sure it should not be done by a lawyer. If it is to be done, I think I would rather undertake the task myself. I think it is quite desirable and necessary that an Old Age pensioner should understand what his rights are, and I think we could supply a little explanatory paper, put in simple words, that would be within the comprehension of the Old Age pensioner. [An HON. MEMBER: "Even to a Member of Parliament."] Even to a lawyer. As regards producing a definition of earnings before the Report stage, I cannot promise that at the moment. I should have to make inquiries. Of course, certain instructions will have to be given to the local Pensions Officers, and possibly I can inform the House at a later stage generally what these instructions are going to be.

Before the Bill is concluded?

I hope so. Let me just add this because my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) quoted the case of a single old man who had 10s. per week from some benevolent source and earned Ws a week, and my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that under the provisions of this Bill he would be entitled to a full pension of 10s. per week. My right hon. and learned Friend hardly did justice to the proposals we are making here. That man might have had an income of 25s. a week, or a married couple of 50s. a week, and still the old age pension will stand. Then he quoted another case of a man with 12s. a week from earnings and 8s. from benevolence. I quite see his point there. He pointed out that in the second case the full pension was reduced by 2s. That is quite true, but I should like to remind him that under the existing law neither A nor B would get a single penny of pension. Under the present proposals they get the full pension.

Not the second one!

The one gets a pension of 10s. and the other of 8s. Neither would be entitled at present to a pension at all. With regard to some of the earlier observations I made, it is probably true that if I had been sitting below the Gangway and someone else had been occupying the Front Bench, I should have been as critical as some other Members—and I leave it at that!

With regard to the good natural concluding observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer may I say I merely ventured to make what seemed a perfectly innocent interruption which brought forth that eloquent outburst. I have never, let me say, at any time either here or in the country disparaged what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing. I have always paid a tribute to what he has done both in his Budget and in the present Measure, but I do not think we are to be blamed if we find there has been a reversal of rôles since 1908–11. In those years my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, sitting on the bench in front of where I am now standing, was pressing at the door, was banging at the door, for further concessions. Now he is holding the door. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not quite!"] Well, he has opened it in favour of some concessions, and he has closed the door against others. It is perfectly right that other individual Members now should be discharging the function which he discharged 16 years ago, and urging with perfect justification that we should be given something more.

1.0 P.M.

My complaint was not against my right hon. Friend withholding more at present, but against his limiting the liberty of the House of Commons. Let us take the example with which he dealt at some length in his speech. The way in which invested property is calculated. He says in the old days Mr. Hobhouse was incompetent in his defence of that Measure or proposal, and that he was unable to convince my right hon. Friend. However, since my right hon. Friend himself has been at the Treasury he has found it all out. He finds now that the Treasury officials have a perfectly good defence. My point is this: if there is a good defence, why was the Resolution so drawn as to exclude discussion in this House, where you could have had it, and where the right hon. Gentleman could have had presented from Members on both sides of the House their aspect of the case? There might then have been fair argument, and so we would have been enabled to form a conclusion and to give a vote upon the matter. I think it is not only in regard to this matter of invested property, but also in the matter of earnings that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a mistake. I believe a case could be put up, and if so, it is far better surely that the matter should be decided after discussion than on a mere technicality as it is now being discussed! We have been prevented by the rules of the House from dealing with a very important matter. Appeals have been made by hon. Members opposite that this matter should be reopened on the Report stage. I believe it is impossible to reopen it on the Report stage. I believe that if the Chancellor had been somewhat less rigid in making use of the forms of the House that the discussion of this matter might have been carried on in a more effective and more useful way to all concerned. I do not wish to blame the right hon. Gentle man for what he has not done, but I would suggest to him that there may be a little justification for some of us who, for example, agreed with the right hon. Gentleman before the General Election in regard to the increasing of armaments, and, like him, denounced—before the election—the building of cruisers, and who will continue denouncing it, that instead of making money which is thereby used for unproductive expenditure available for matters of social reform like this, it should be diverted to a new competition in armaments.

We have just listened to a speech by a Daniel come to judgment, who has concluded his speech by a com- plaint about a previous Daniel who has not come to judgment! He referred to armaments. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to get up in this House and to say that if other countries are not prepared to reduce their armaments we must voluntarily agree not to defend ourselves?

I do not think the hon. Member will be in order in taking that line.

But the hon. Gentleman has just said it.

No, no. I think my hon. Friend is under a misunderstanding. I did not refer to the reduction of armaments. I was referring to the increase of armaments, which the Chancellor was in agreement with me about at one time, and upon which we are now disagreed.

I am not so clever as a lawyer, but I can understand their implications when they make speeches in this House. We are members of the Labour party, and I happen to be one of the members of the party who does not believe in pacifism until everybody becomes a pacifist.

I do!

I think the hon. Gentleman is out of order in raising that matter on this Bill. He is misinterpreting the statements made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). That hon. Gentleman referred to expenditure in a certain direction, which he said might have been utilised for the expenditure likely to be incurred in this Bill.

That expenditure is not our responsibility. We are the victims of circumstances. The hon. Member knows that as well as I do. We cannot control our own destiny always. We are largely controlled by what other people do. If the hon. Member believes that we can do what we like he is making a big mistake. To come to the question of old age pensions. I happen to have been a, Member of an Old Age Pensions Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked in the part of the discussion which has taken place that it was not recorded against applicants when they went out to dinner or tea on a Sunday with their friends or relatives—that that was not entered against them in their application for a pension. I can disillusion the hon. Gentleman on that point, because we have had circulars issued to our old people informing them that every source of income is taken into account. If friends invite the old people to spend a week-end, or if the son-in-law or the daughter-in-law asked them to pay a week-end visit and give them food, it is all recorded against them and I have known cases in which even Christmas Boxes have been counted against these old people. Hon. Members above the Gangway may quibble about what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not done but can the hon. Member for Penistone justify the restrictions which the Liberal Government placed upon these pensions. I would remind the hon. Member that many of those restrictions have already been removed by the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hon Members above the Gangway made all these restrictions because they alleged that they wanted thrift, and yet the first thing they did was to place restrictions on thrift and now they get up here and with their tongues in their cheeks talk to us, who are not here to ask favours but to fight for principles, in this way. If you are now turning the other cheek to the smiter let the blood be upon your own head.

Having gone through 24 years of work as a local administrator I know what we have had up against us. Successive Governments, Liberal, Conservative and Coalition—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Labour!"] No, not Labour, because we have never had a majority, and you have had big majorities. Successive Governments have had the control of the country, and now you are coming along in sackcloth and ashes and saying "Please, Sir, it was not me." We know the baby is only a small one, but I think we have a right to tell you that we have had enough of your gammon. You may be able to win Lewes, but you cannot win the Dockyard constituencies or the industrial areas of the country. If you really want these restrictions removed we want you to go the whole hog, but when we come and ask for more money to do this then hon. Members below the Gangway are not prepared to go the whole hog. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Snowdon?"] After all, he is higher over your heads than Snowdon. I want, it to be realised that what you are putting forward to-day is simply political camouflage and you do not mean a word of it. The national exchequer has not got the necessary money at the present time, and we have made a start at any rate with what hon. Members below the Gangway promised and did not fulfil. Every proposal we make now as a Government in office though not in power the Members of the Liberal party try to stop them, and yet they come here with tears in their voice talking about what we have not done, and all we ask is why did you not do it when you were in office?

I have only once addressed this House, but I think it is desirable on this occasion that a protest should be made against the kind of speech which has just been addressed to this House. A great many of us are here for the first time—

And the last time.

That remains to be seen. We are here for the first time with one intention above every other, and that is to redeem pledges which we have given to those who sent us here. We are not tied either as to whether our party may be pledged, but if we made a pledge we are in honour bound to fulfil it. The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has just told us that we do not mean a word of it, but he certainly does not understand those about whom he speaks. Most of us in our constituencies did what the bulk of the Members of the Government did and that was to give a pledge to remove or increase the income limit with regard to Old Age Pensions and not deal with the matter in the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer deals with it in this Bill. This Bill fails to give benefit to a great many who expected that they would receive the help promised, and which would have been theirs if the means limit had been removed or very much increased.

It is not in accordance with the facts to say that other parties, and the Liberal party in particular, would say one word to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer so wording his proposal as to give the benefit to those who are deprived by reason of the manner in which it has been worded. Why should benevolent recipients secure that which is denied to some of those who do a little casual work? Benevolent allowances are deducted in arriving at the means. If a man has 15s. a week from investments or gratuities it does not count when he comes to his Old Age Pension, but if a man earns 15s. in casual work his pension is reduced. I remember an instance that came under my notice some years ago, and it is an illustration of what happens. An old man was unable to work all the week, and in the winter time very little indeed, but he would do such small amount of garden work as was required to be done and at such times of the year as it was available, and he earned on an average at Trade Union Rates about 15s. per week. That person and those similarly situated who do work have to suffer. I hold in my hand a letter from an old man over 70 in my constituency who is in the same position doing part work in a garden, and he wants to know how he will affected. He has a young wife, and he cannot keep himself and his wife on 15s. or £1 per week. Is he, because he does this little bit of garden work, to be deprived of the pension? I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to remove this disqualification, and I fear that the reason is to be found in the belief that in some way, this Bill will help workers in Trade Unions. I have advocated the removal of the means limit in my constituency, and I have advocated the removal of it up to the Income Tax limit, so that people with small earnings should get the full benefit of the Old Age pension. I do not advocate it with any idea of making political capital out of it, but in the interests of the old people for whom I should like to secure this additional benefit.

I should like to join in the protest just made, because I attach great importance to the fulfilment of pledges made at elections. I have heard what the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has said, but it does not in the least satisfy me. Am I to take it that hon. Members above the gangway are perfectly satisfied with the present Bill which does not do away with any inquisition and which, while giving some relief as to the means to be calculated for the purpose of Old Age pensions, excludes all earnings from that relief. Is there one of the Labour Members who would dare get up and say that he told his constituents that that would satisfy him? if not the "gammon" remains with them. Personally, I pledged myself to the abolition of the thrift limit, and I stand by it. Then we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer who gets up and is very kind to the old people. I seem to remember an old saying about the Greeks when they bring gifts, and I wonder what the old people will think when they are told that anything they may earn in the hope of providing little luxuries or necessities or anything which their wives may earn is to come off the pension. There is another thing to be remembered. I am not so certain that it is a good thing to discourage the old from working. All I can say is that my father died in harness doing a full day's work at 76. The worst thing for an old man probably is for him to feel that he has been put for ever on the shelf. Personally. I hope that when I can do no more work my life will come to an end. I have looked at this White Paper, but nowhere is there the slightest indication that the person who wrote it realised that if the wife, say, be 20 years younger than her husband so that there can be no objection to her working, her earnings will be counted towards reducing her husband's pension. I have not heard one word in justification of this either from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or from the Financial Secretary, and it is going to apply in a large number of cases. This Paper proceeds on the assumption that husbands and wives always become 70 simultaneously. Finally, I want to make a protest against the discrimination introduced for the first time by a Labour Government between earned and unearned income to the disadvantage of earned income.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out front the word "date" to the word "greater" in line 17, and to insert instead thereof the words

"no addition shall be made to his pension by virtue of the increased percentages authorised by this Section."

There are on this Bill one or two drafting Amendments, of which this is the first The House will recall that in the Act of 1920 there is no overriding maximum, but in this Bill we propose an overriding maximum, and it really means that anyone participating in the benefits under this Bill shall not be brought up to an amount exceeding what would be obtained by anyone in the service retiring with a similar length of service. This Amendment merely makes it perfectly plain that, those who have already got the increase are not to be subject to this overriding maximum which is only to operate from the date of this Bill. It is a drafting Amendment in the interests of the pensioners under the 1920 Act, and I trust that the House will agree to it.

I do not propose to oppose this Amendment, but I rise to ask the hon. Gentleman if he will explain another matter which is rather affecting these old pensioners. He will remember that under the Schedule of the 1920 Act there were two scales, one net exceeding £50 and the other not exceeding £100, and the second scale gave the equivalent in the case of married couples of £130. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the second scale in the schedule of the 1920 Act is to continue to operate, and, although in the Act the prescribed qualification is not exceeding £100, that £100 is only in reference to the single man and its equivalent for the married couple is £130? I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me it is an important point, as many of these old couples are in distress, particularly in those cases where the pensioner is an old inspector who has secured his position by loyal work in the past, and whose present position compares very unsatisfactorily with that of a man of similar rank to-day, the latter being of course very much better off although he has not contributed to the Pension Fund either so much or so long as the old pensioner. The older these couples get the more necessary it is that they should have as much as we can give them. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he cannot make it clear in the present proposal that the definition of the married couple under the Act of 1920 shall be extended so as to include cases where the wife of the pensioner has died and he has had to engage a housekeeper to take her place. Since this Money Resolution was moved I have had many letters from old men. I had one this morning. It represented a very sad case, because the man had just lost his wife. He is 76 years of age, he will have to get a housekeeper to look after him, and, of course, he cannot expect her, like the wife, to study economy in his household arrangements. She is bound to be far more expensive, and yet under the Act is to cease to reap the benefit of being treated as a married man in regard to his pension. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the Act should be so interpreted as to allow the increased scale to apply to that old pensioner as if he were a married man.

The position is that this Bill makes no change in the law with regard to the sum to be paid between £50 and £100. The provision we are making at the present time stops at £100.

When the hon. Gentleman says there will be no change does he mean that the married couple on the £100 scale will be entitled under the present proposal to get this increase?

I should imagine that the increase will stop at £100. That is the effect of the Bill. As to the other point of making provision for a housekeeper in the event of the death of the pensioner's wife, that would involve a change in legislation and we are not proposing anything of the kind at the present time.

I am not quite clear if it is possible to raise the point I desire to by the Amendment on the Paper, but it is a matter which should be considered by the Financial Secretary and by the Government, because obviously the intention of the Government is that the increases we are now proposing should be real increases, and that nothing should occur to prevent the pensioner getting the full benefit of them. Under the principal Act the means limit of a pensioner is subject to regulations. The word "means" is not defined in the principal Act, but there is a limitation by which a single pensioner will not get any increase where his income is over £150 or, if he be married, over £200. But there is no definition of means and the word "means" is to be dealt with entirely by regulation. Regulations were made immediately after the passing of the 1920 Act, which provided the way in which means were to be assessed and one part of the assessment of means included the annual value of any land or dwelling-house which was owned by the pensioner. Cases have occurred of pensioners living in their own houses, and for the purpose of arriving at means they have made a return each year of the annual value of the house, and that has been taken as part of his means for the purpose of limiting his opportunity of getting an increase. If it should happen that the assessment on that house is increased, then, while all the advantages he is getting are exactly the same, yet, by reason of the increase in assessment, his means are increased when it comes to a question of assessment under the regulations.

Perhaps I may take a concrete case which has actually happened. It is the case of a man whose income is said to be £195, and that includes the annual value of a house which the man owns and occupies. The assessment is put up by £7 a year, and the result of that, so far as the pensioner is concerned, is that he is out of pocket by seven times the amount of the rates in the £. Clearly, therefore, he is out of pocket by the assessment of the house being put up, and so has less for his sustenance. But the result of the increase in the assessment is that, when he comes to make his return of means at the beginning of the next year, he has to include it as though his income had increased by £7 as compared with his income during the previous year. The result is that this man, whose income the year before was put at £195, now has to return an income or means of £202, and is shut out from any increase of pension, although, in fact, the real position is that he is worse off than he was the year before, since, by reason of the increased assessment, although his house is the same house as it was the year before, he has to pay increased rates upon it. In these circumstances I venture to think the Government should take this matter into consideration, and, if it cannot be done in any other way, I suggest that it can be done by altering the regulations, which, as far as I can see from the principal Act, are entirely within the discretion of the Treasury.

These people, after all, are not in the position of people who have a house which may be said to have increased in value to themselves, through their having bought their house or built it at a time when things were very much less costly In the case which I am considering, the house is the same house, and, merely by reason of an artificial state of circumstances which increases the assessment, the man, although he is worse off, is shut out from the increase which he ought to have. I venture to think it is within the power of the Treasury, by altering the regulations, to deal with that matter, and if it can be dealt with in that way it would be far better than by a Clause in the Act of Parliament. We know that the process of increasing assessments is going on from day to day, and these pre-War pensioners are likely to suffer very much by reason of it.

I rise to reinforce the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant). When the Money Resolution in connection with this Bill was before the House we all expressed disapproval of it, and, now that I see the Bill before me, I have no reason to alter my view. I think the Bill as a whole is a contemptible Bill. We were all pledged to see to it that pre-War pensioners who had rendered distinguished service to the State should be looked after as well as possible during the remainder of their lives, but now we find a typical instance of the Government's attitude towards the pre-War pensioners in the later Amendment in the name of the Financial Secretary, in which he is seeking to insert the words "in Great Britain." There was no attempt in the Financial Resolution to insert these words. Why were they not openly put into the Resolution, rather than dragged in now in the Bill itself? The effect of the introduction of these words will be that distinguished servants of the State like the Dublin Metropolitan Police will, once and for all, have their case—and it is a good case —settled against them. If that be the intention of the Government, we ought to have been notified of it in the Money Resolution, but it is left for us to find out at the last moment, when we have no chance of getting it altered, that the Government are coming forward and for all time ousting that body of men.

I would ask the Financial Secretary whether he cannot now give us a guarantee that the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police shall be completely covered. I know that a good deal has been done for the Royal Irish Constabulary, although not as much as I should like, because, the moment their services were no longer required, these loyal men were left to look after themselves, and the Dublin Metropolitan Police are in an even worse plight. The pre-War pensioners of that service were definitely promised certain things by Government after Government. That promise has not, been fulfilled, and now, when the Free State has come into being, the Imperial Parliament tends more and more to forget these loyal men who served it in the past. I would ask the Financial Secretary whether he cannot now reconsider their case, and let them have, at least, a small increase in their pensions, so as to make it possible for them to live a life of more contentment and ease than is likely to be possible under present conditions.

I hope the Committee will allow me to support what hits been put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) in reference to the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary. There is no better authority on their needs than my right hon. Friend himself. I hope that the Amendment of the Financial Secretary will not be approved.

It is not in order to refer to an Amendment which we have not reached. That Amendment has not yet been moved, and we cannot argue it until we come to it. It is on another Clause.

Do the words "Great Britain" bring in Ireland at all? I understood that it was always "Great Britain and Ireland"?

I understand that the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) was referring to the Amendment to Clause 3, to insert, after the word "authority"—the words "in Great Britain." That was the reference which I said could not be made on the question that Clause I stand part of the Bill.

I only referred to that in passing. What I really meant was that I hope that that Amendment, when it does come on, will not be accepted. I think that this is a suitable time at which to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can answer the questions put to him when we were dealing with the provisions of the Money Resolution. He was asked as to the position of the Government in regard to their obligations to the pre-War pensioners of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and he said he was going to look into that matter and let us know. There are two points. The first is whether they could hand over the contracts made with the pre-War pensioners of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, without the consent of the other contracting party—that is to say, the police themselves—to the new Government; and the second was whether, if they could do that—which I very much doubt—they had taken steps to see that these pre-War pensioners would be treated in the same way as their colleagues the police pensioners in the rest of Great Britain, where any increases were allowed to them. I think the hon. Gentleman will remember saying that he was going to look into that question and let us know. These men are very apprehensive as to whether they can get any increase in their miserable pensions from the Free State Government, and it is very important to them that it should be settled whether provision has been made which will ensure their getting this small increase. There is no doubt that, in consequence of the work they had to do, they are not viewed favourably by the Free State Government, and, unless the Government of this country responsible for the Treaty took the necessary steps to ensure that they should be fairly treated, it is very doubtful if they will get the increase which they so richly deserve. I hope the hon. Gentleman, before this Clause is accepted by the Committee, will give us some satisfactory answer on these two points.

It may be convenient if at this stage I try to clear up two points which have been raised. First of all regarding the increase in the income of an individual which comes from the higher assessment of the property he occupies. I think the hon. and loyal Gentleman appreciates that the Clause which he has on the Paper at a later stage would increase the charge, but whether or not, he took occasion on this Clause to raise the matter and I think we can dispose of it now. After all, the difficulty is inseparable from a means limit of any kind and it is true that under the regulations by which the Treasury calculate the means limit it is laid down that the value that will be taken is the annual value of that property for the purposes of Schedule A of the Income Tax. It is true that on the face of it there is apparent hardship to the individual occupying his own house who by reason of this revision of the assessment is credited or debited—it is difficult to say which—with a rather larger sum, but quite clearly one cannot make an inroad on the principle of the means limit under that heading without giving similar concessions to very large numbers of other people. I could not say more on that at present because it all resolves itself into the abolition of the means limit. As I indicated when the Resolution was under discussion, the abolition of the means limit would be a very costly thing and we are not able to face that at present. I rather disagree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) when he said this was a mean and contemptible measure because after all we are providing in the present financial year in addition to enormous commitments in other directions, £300,000 for the scale increase, £250,000 for the retrospective effect and £60,000 to bring in people who reside over the seas. In other words we are providing more than £600,000 this year—not a bad beginning for people who are under the obvious handicaps from which we suffer.

The whole House would agree.

By handicaps I mean something very much wider than the balance of parties in this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has all kinds of claims upon his resources and it is fair to pat in this connection what we are doing under Old Age Pensions and what may be done later and what is being done for this class of pre-war pensioners, who after all got their contract and are now getting something ex gratia—I do not press it but it is the fact—in respect of increased cost of living and reduced purchasing power.

As regards the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan police, the position is perfectly plain. I shall show later with regard to the words "in Great Britain," that that Amendment is really to clear up a matter affecting local authorities. The Royal Irish Constabulary are clearly within the provision which is being made and I trust the House will accept that assurance. There can be no doubt whatever on the point. However, the situation is different as regards the Dublin Metropolitan Police, who fall now within the Irish Free State. All the arguments for and against the inclusion of the Dublin Metropolitan Police were very carefully considered by our predecessors in office but on high constitutional grounds, and keeping in view that this was a transferred service, they and we were compelled to the conclusion that there is no jurisdiction as far as this House is concerned.

Does that apply to the old pensioners?

It is a very ticklish problem as the hon. baronet knows, but as regards the Dublin Metropolitan Police I have no doubt whatever that we have no jurisdiction, and accordingly we could not include a provision in this Bill.

Can the hon. Gentleman teat me between whom was the contract made in the case of the prewar Dublin Metropolitan Police pensioners?

There was a definitely clear contract between His Majesty's Government here and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, as well as the Royal Irish Constabulary.

It is very difficult to make a definite statement on a problem of that kind to-day. There have been all kinds of adjustments as between the Irish Free State and the Government of this country, and I imagine much will depend on the views taken by the Irish Free State as regards any application from these men. More than that I could not say at this stage, but it is clear on constitutional grounds that they could not be included here.

I must pull the Financial Secretary up on one thing he has said. He said that this was not a bad beginning. We have had that out before. We have been told by him that this is only a beginning and we have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is the last word. If the Government say, as the Chancellor says, this is all that ought to be done and all that we need to do, I do not agree with him, but it is an arguable position. But do not let us have the hon. Gentleman continually saying this is a beginning. It is not a beginning. It is all the Government think can be, or ought to be done in the matter. Let us understand that clearly. I am very sorry the Financial Secretary has not been able to go further to meet my hon. and learned Friend who raised the question of increased assessment. It was never the intention of Parliament, and I think it was never the intention of the Treasury, that the re-assessment that took place last year should affect the position of the pre-War pensioners. I agree that a means limit is always a thoroughly illogical thing and you cannot make it logical, but that is no reason why you should refuse to make discriminations which are in fact, although they may not be in theory, reasonable discriminations. If a pensioner has an investment which has appreciated in the last two or three years, if his income from that investment remains the same, you do not take into consideration the increased capital value for the purpose of calculating means. Why should you take into account the increased capital value of the house he lives in?

Has not the Noble Lord confused the capital value of the house with the increased assessment? The latter is in fact a kind of increment of the annual value property occupied by the owner. I am afraid it is increment rather than capital value.

Your system of assessment is based upon annual value. In regard to a person living in his own house, his assessment on that house is increased. It is an increase in the assessment of his capital, out of which he is getting no income.

I do not think that I can permit this discussion. The point to which the Noble Lord is referring is in regard to the new Clause on the Paper, which is out of order. Clause 1 is simply altering the scale of pensions. I do not think that I can permit on the question that Clause 1 stand part a discussion relating to the means limitation contained in the principal Act.

I will not pursue that subject further. With respect to the position of the police pensioner, I know that it is a difficult matter. I hope the Financial Secretary will realise how very unfortunate it is that the police pensioner is precisely the class of pensioner who gets least under this Bill. It is a very unfortunate thing that every police pensioner, the Dublin Metropolitan Police pensioner and every other police pensioner should always be just the one person who cannot he dealt with by the Government. I do not want to go into the whole police question. To start with, there is a big gulf between the post-1918 and the pre-1918 pensioners. That creates a great deal of dissatisfaction. Then by the age limit which is fixed, the police pensioner is usually rather better off, and is more likely to be near the means limit, so that he does not benefit at all by the improvement of the old age pension. I do hope that the Committee will realise and that the Government will realise that you cannot go on, in the long run, dealing with pre-War pensioners in a way which appears to differentiate against one particular class of pensioner, namely, the police pensioner. While I cannot move an Amendment to deal with that point, I hope the Government will take steps to deal with it.

When this Bill at an earlier stage was before the House I spoke with regard to the police pensioner who had been badly treated by certain local authorities, and of the distinction that was drawn between the word "shall" and the word "may". The Financial Secretary to the Treasury promised that he would sympathetically consider the matter, but he pointed out that it had been dealt with under the first Clause, as from the 1st day of July, 1923, and that it was not advisable to go back further than that, because of the difficulties that would be created with local authorities owing to the period having gone by when they had levied their rate to deal with the matter. I understood from what he said that he intended between then and to-day further to consider the matter and to see whether anything could be done for that particular class of man. I do not know whether he has done so, but if he has probably we shall hear from him with respect to it. I do want to call attention to the position of that particular class of pensioner. Under the Act it was intended that he should have this particular increase awarded to him. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) distinctly stated on the part of the Government that the word "may" meant "shall." That assurance was accepted by the House and the House agreed to the word being left in the Bill. The majority of the authorities loyally abided by that, but certain authorities refused to accept it and said that the word "may"—

If the hon. Member will look at Clause 3, he will see that his argument applies to that Clause. That Clause makes it obligatory to pay these pensions. His argument would be in order on that Clause.

I noticed the Amendment to that Clause and I foresaw that it was possible you might raise that point. I should not have intervened at this stage but for the fact that I was afraid that if I waited until then I should not be able to deal with the argument that I wish to put before the Committee. It is true that this argument might be brought forward in regard to Clause 3, but in that Clause the only point that will be before the House will be the proposed Amendment by the Financial Secretary. We shall only be able to deal with it in that way.

I was not referring specially to the Amendment to Clause 3. The argument of the hon. Member is relevant to the question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. That would be the proper place to raise the argument that he is now making.

With the passing into law of this Clause, the hopes of thousands of men are being dashed to the ground. It is a question of supreme relevance as to whether this is only the beginning or the end of what is going to be done. If it is only the beginning, it would be far wiser and far fairer to indicate what the subsequent steps are to be, either as regards increases or as regards the removal of the means limit and other disqualifications. If we say that this is the end, it would be far kinder to let these old people know, once and for all, that they have to remain in the workhouse until they die. This proposal does not take a single man out of the workhouse. The type of person who is in the workhouse to-day is the type of man who has fought in every part of the Empire and in every part of the world. He is a person who looked to the Government to get him out of his sorry plight and to restore him to some kind of happiness in his old age by allowing him to live in his own home. These old men are still in the workhouse. I have seen them there.

Under this Bill, if a man now gets 1s. day, he is going to get 1s. I 3/5d.; if he gets 1s. 6d., he is going to get Is. 8d., if he gets 2s. 3d., he is going to get 2s. 5d.; if he gets 3s., he is going to get 3s. 3d.; if he gets 3s. 9d., he is going to get. 4s. 1d.; and if he gets 4s. 1d., he is going to get 4s. 5d. That is what the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench has described as niggardly and miserly in the extreme. They are not going to do anything for one single pensioner who has a low grade of pension, and it is only right that the Financial Secretary should tell us now whether this is only the beginning or the end, because these men are coming to the end of their lives, and they want to know if any further proposals are going to be made for them before they are put under the sod.

It is unjustifiable to play with the feelings of these people and to make pledges at elections to get votes and then do something which is quite niggardly and quite useless, and then for one hon. Gentleman to say that it is only the beginning, while his colleague says that it is the end. A pensioner who under the pre-War terms was getting £37 a year is going to get £42 10s. What is that going to do for him? If he gets £75, he is going to get £82 10s. What will that do for pre-War pensioners? In addition to that you are going to subject them to every kind of inquisition and inquiry, but you are not removing the principal disabilities. You are just giving them enough money to buy a few cigarettes, and enough hope to buoy them up a little longer so that if this is a sentence of death, I would be much obliged to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will have the courage to say so here and now.

I desire to associate myself with the words which have fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha). The very first year that I was in Parliament I moved an Amendment to the Police Pensioners Bill with the precise view which my hon. Friend has put forward. The position is particularly anomalous in the case of police pensioners. In many cases in which one man retired a few days before the other the difference in the pensions of the two men is out of all comparison. These matters have caused grave dissatisfaction. There are differences, for instance, such as that between 25s. a week and £4 a week in cases in which one man retired a few days before the other. These two men have been friendly with each other while in the service, and the amount of this difference gives rise to a feeling of real grievance. I cannot see why there should be any differentiation whatever between them. I do hope that the Financial Secretary will impress upon the Government a sense of the grievance which is felt, and which is causing grave discontent, especially in view of the promises which were made by the party opposite, which have not been carried out. In view of these promises, the matter should be considered more sympathetically. I cannot understand how hon. Gentlemen opposite, in view of what happened at the last, General Election, can come here and fail so completely to perform what they promised.

May I ask a question? The first provisions in Clause (1), which concerns those whose pension is one in which additional remuneration by way of bonus was paid on the 1st July, 1922, seeks to stereotype the pensions at the maximum figure at which they were on the 2nd July, 1923 Does this mean that a large number of men who would have got increases are not going to get them now?

No.

Are we to have no reply to what has been asked? Is nothing further to be done?

The hon. Member was not in the House.

I want an answer to my question. Am I not entitled to get some kind of reply. I solemnly protest.

The hon. Member cannot insist.

My sole reason for not rising again is that I am obliged to make so many speeches, and, in any case, I have already dealt at length with the point which was raised by the hon. Gentleman, and other Members of the Committee, on the Financial Resolution and on the Second Reading. I hardly think that hon. Members remember exactly the position of affairs in this case. The facts are that there are about 100,000 people, and by a purely voluntary effort in 1920 in respect of the rise in the cost of living, provision was made to increase the pensions according to certain scales, and this worked out in practice at an annual cost of approximately £1,000,000. We are proposing already within the financial year to give a further amount of about £300,000 by the improved scale prescribed in this Act. There would be £250,000 with retrospective effect, with £60,000 additional for the people overseas who are brought in for the first time.

On a point of Order. Are hon. Members entitled, even in Committee in this House, to get a re-hash of statements that have already been made?

I think that the discussion is developing into a Second Reading discussion.

Can I have an answer to my question?

The discussion must be on Clause 1.

Is provision being made under this Clause, in the case of the pensioner who died between the 1st July, 1922, and the passing of the new Resolution? In such a case, will the money which he would have had, if he had been alive at the passing of the Act, or any portion of the increase, go to his representative?

Quite frankly, I could not reply now on a point of that kind. As the hon. Member knows, the Regulations are very complex. There will be an opportunity between now and the Report stage to consider the matter, and then the point can quite easily be cleared up. I will undertake to look into the matter.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, after the word "authority," to insert the words "in Great Britain."

This is merely a drafting Amendment. This is the Clause which makes it obligatory on the local authorities to pay the increase as from 1st July, 1923. If hon. Members will turn to the first Clause they will see that we there refer to Great Britain. The words are absent from Clause 3, and in order to remove a doubt which might arise regarding Northern Ireland it is essential to insert the words, "Great Britain" in this Clause. Of course, the increases in regard to local authorities in Northern Ireland are a matter for the Parliament of Northern Ireland. It is true that in the last resort we have a kind of overriding jurisdiction in this Parliament, but that, of course, would never be normally exercised. The inclusion of the words of the Amendment clears the ground and brings Clause 3 into line with Clause 1.

I cannot see the necessity for putting in these words. They are not mentioned as such in the 1920 Act. Why, therefore, should we insert them here? I am afraid that any question such as those raised to-day, namely, our obligations and contracts entered into with the Dublin Metropolitan Police, would be put outside altogther. I am opposed to the Amendment.

If there is a Parliament in Northern Ireland whose duty it is to deal with local authorities, if they so choose in this matter, we can clearly have no power in this Parliament here, subject, of course, to the overriding authority to which I have already referred. I think that the words are necessary. I do not believe that difficulties will arise, but it is very important that the Bill should be clear.

Surely the contract with these old pensioners is with the British Government and not with any other Government which we have chosen to put into power in Ireland.

If the words are inserted they might do a great deal of harm, and they would not do much good. The Bill is perfectly clear without them, and if they are inserted we may find subsequently that someone has been left out who could have been brought in if words which seemed innocuous had not been inserted. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.

I am afraid that I must ask the Committee to pass the Amendment. I do not think there will be any interference with any existing contract, but we must be specific in this Act because we have no jurisdiction in the matter as regards Northern Ireland.

If these people were retired before the Northern Ireland Parliament was created, they would have a contract with the British Government, and the effect of inserting these words would surely be that the British Government would refuse to take charge of these old pensioners and they would lose this increase.

I take it that we can get an assurance from the Financial Secretary that none of the things suggested will occur. The contract has been passed over to the Government of Northern Ireland with various other things. Obviously the contract will stand, although the Northern Ireland Parliament is administering it

What the hon. Gentleman says would be quite reasonable but for what has taken place to-day when he was not present. I asked a question about the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and the Financial Secretary does not know the answer. There is no mention of Great Britain in the other Act.

I must try again to make myself clear. Surely the point is perfectly plain. The power over the local authorities has been definitely transferred to the Government of Northern Ireland. I do not think that the Amendment will interfere in the least with any contract We have no jurisdiction here as regards these local authorities. It is obvious that we must make that plain in the Bill It is a simple question of fact which admits of no argument.

The inclusion of these words, I hold, will have the effect that hon. Members fear. Quite clearly, if the Financial Secretary is correct in thinking that we have no jurisdiction with regard to Northern Ireland and the Government of Northern Ireland is not willing to make the thing operative so far as they are concerned, the Amendment would have the effect of depriving these pensioners of any benefit to which they may be entitled. This is a very bad Bill. Had I secured opportunity earlier I would have endeavoured to repeat the criticism I have made on previous occasions. I could have amplified my earlier statements with additional evidence. I have lost that opportunity, but I hope that in this small matter the House will see that no one is deliberately excluded by the insertion of these words.

There is a great deal of confusion and doubt on the point. Could not the Financial Secretary withdraw the Amendment and between now and Report consider whether it is possible to frame words that would meet the arguments raised to-day?

Let me make it perfectly plain to hon. Members that this has nothing to do with Government pensions. It does not affect Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin Metropolitan Police or any of the other Irish questions which have been raised. The position is simply confined to the local authorities. This is a Clause snaking it obligatory on local authorities to give the increases as from 1st July, 1923. This House has no power whatever over the local authorities in Northern Ireland. That power has been transferred to the Government of Northern Ireland, and accordingly it would be quite meaningless to try to interfere in any way. It would be unconstitutional and we could not do so if we tried. That is the position as plainly and as simply as I can put it. There is really no issue at stake; it is a plain matter of fact. Nobody will be prejudiced by the Amendment which only gives effect to what is the constitutional position as between the two Parliaments and leaves the Parliament of Northern Ireland to deal with the local authorities in that area.

May we have, an understanding that the people who retired before the Northern Parliament was constituted will receive the pension increases provided for in the Bill?

I cannot at this Box, say anything to bind the Parliament of Northern lredand in what it may do but no existing position is going to be prejudiced in the least. What the Parliament of Northern Ireland will do in regard to the local authorities in its area is a matter for the Parliament of Northern Ireland and would not in any circumstances be a consideration for this House.

If the Parliament of Northern Ireland do not agree to the provisions of this Bill, what is the position of the British Government which made contracts with these people for certain pensions?

May I make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman? I am genuinely in doubt as to the advisability of inserting these words, in case any of the people whom I have in mind should be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. I ask the hon. Gentleman to meet us to this extent. Do not let us divide upon the matter now; I do not want to do anything which would put the Government in a hole, but the hon. Gentleman has still the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Bill, and he can bring this proposal up again. If he will withdraw the Amendment now, we can go into the matter in the meantime and see whether we cannot agree upon it.

Will any harm be done by leaving the words out?

Confusion might arise unless these words are inserted, because they reconcile Clause 3 with Clause 1. I can only assure the Committee that there is not the least doubt as to the effect of these words being as I have indicated. I have gone into the matter and I am quite satisfied, myself, but if the Committee will allow the words to be inserted now so as to save time at a later stage, I will undertake to consult with hon. Members who are interested between now and the Report stage, and I think I will be able to satisfy them that there is not the least ground for the fears which they entertain.

Why not leave out the words?

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if any representation has been made on behalf of the Government of Northern Ireland in this matter?

There seems to be genuine confusion in regard to this question, and it is not confined to one side of the House. Everybody wishes to do the right thing by these pensioners, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman will prejudice the Bill in the slightest degree by withdrawing these words for the present and bringing them up again on the Report stage. In the meantime, hon. Members on both sides of the House who are in doubt will have time to study the question, and as long as the words are put into the Bill before it becomes law, that is all that the Government requires. I think the hon. Gentleman will be deferring to the wish of the Committee by postponing the matter.

I wish to emphasise the plea which has just been made by the right hon. and gallant Member. There is a great deal of doubt about the words which the Financial Secretary wishes to insert and many Members desire to know the exact legal effect of those words. We have not had the opportunity of hearing the advice of any of the Law Officers of the Crown and therefore I hope that the Financial Secretary will not press this Amendment now but will insert that words if necessary at a later stage.

I am willing to defer to the wishes of hon. Members if there is any real doubt on this matter although, for my own part, I have no doubt whatever. I will withdraw the Amend- merit now and propose the insertion of these words on the Report Stage. Between now and then I think I will convince hon. Members that their fears are groundless and I hope they will then agree to the insertion of the words.

I beg to move in page 3, line 2, at the end to insert a new Sub-section—

"(2) Any order made by the Treasury under Section three of the principal Act may contain such consequential and supplemental provisions as appear necessary or expedient for securing the effective operation of the order, and any such order may be revoked, varied or amended by an order made in like manner."

This Amendment is of a drafting character. As I have already indicated this Clause makes it obligatory on local authorities to grant these increases as from 1st July, 1923, but there is a very wide range of schemes of superannuation and it is considered necessary that the Treasury in making regulations should have this power.

I do not propose to repeat what I had already said on this point when I was called to order at a previous stage of the discussion. When I was interrupted I was saying that, following an assurance that the word "may" meant "shall," the Bill was passed. Certain local authorities accepted that view and loyally abided by it, but certain authorities refused to accept it, and said that the word "may" gave them a discretion. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who seemed to be sympathetic with regard to the matter, assured hon. Members, as I understood him, that he would give the matter consideration, although he pointed out that there would be some difficulty in dealing with the matter before the date in July mentioned in the Bill. I understood, however, that the hon. Gentleman was going to see if anything could be done. Apparently he does not now propose that anything should be done before July. I do not know if he has determined that this date must stand, but it seems to me to be very hard upon numbers of men, because the result will be that while certain of their comrades—perhaps living in the same street but serving a different authority—will be paid as from a date in 1920, they will have to be content with payment as from July, 1923. Further, even as from July, 1923, they are not very certain of their position. I ask the Financial Secretary whether he is thoroughly satisfied, and whether his legal advisers are satisfied, that as the Bill stands now pensioners are assured that if they have to accept the date, July, 1923, there is sufficient power under the Bill to see that that date is made effective.

The Bill in draft evidently was not considered satisfactory, and I take that to be the reason for the Amendment. I wish to know if, even with the Amendment, it goes far enough. It would appear that if the authorities do not obey an Order made by the Treasury under Clause 3, the Amendment makes it possible for another Order to be made by the Treasury containing such consequential and supplementary provisions as appear necessary. If that be the reason of it, I, for one, welcome it, because I think it, strengthens Clause 3, but may I urge that it might be as well, so that there should be no doubt about it, to make the word "may" in the Schedule "shall," because that is where the difficulty with the local authorities arose in the Schedule of the 1920 Act. If the Government are thoroughly satisfied, and if the Financial Secretary can give an assurance to these old pensioners that there is no question whatever that the Government can enforce and will enforce the "shall," and if they will take steps to see that they receive the pensions from the date in July, I do not think we shall have any difficulty. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand our doubt about it, bearing in mind that in 1920 the Government assured them that the word "may" meant "shall," and when they went to the Law Officers of the Crown and said they were assured by the Government that "may" meant "shall," and when they went to the Law Officers of the Crown turned round and left the old men on the rocks, saying that the Act must be taken as it stood. I should like the hon. Member's assurance that there will be no question as to the position of these old people.

I wish to add my plea to that of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Willison). There is a great feeling among some of the retired police pensioners over the wording of the Clause, and if the Financial Secretary could give us an assurance that the word "may" means "shall," I think it would do away with a great deal of misunderstanding and I would satisfy these pensioners, and I must say I think they deserve this assurance.

I think this question can quite easily be put beyond the shadow of a doubt. The two hon. Members who have just spoken, and more particularly the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Willison), referred to the Amendment inserted in the Bill dealing with consequential or supplementary powers which the Treasury proposes to take in order to make this obligation effective as regards the local authorities. Let me clear up that point by saying that that is merely to deal with the variety of schemes under the local authorities and in order to make it quite certain that the pensioners get the benefit of what the Act proposes to give them. It may be that the Supplementary Clause included in this Bill will help us also, but whether that proves to be so or not, there can be no doubt or difference of opinion between us on the major issue. It is true that when the Act of 1920 was passed, hon. Members believed that it was to be obligatory, but later investigation proved that that was not so. We have put it beyond doubt in this Bill, and as from the 1st July, 1923, it will be obligatory on the local authorities to grant these increases, so that the local authorities are now bound, when this Bill passes, by an Act of Parliament. What the hon. Member asks is whether the retrospective compulsory power will go back beyond the 1st July, 1923, and I want to make it plain to the Committee that after full consideration we believe that that would be an impossible course. The Committee will see at once that we are, up to a point, coercing the local authorities, and we are, retrospectively if you like, binding them to the 1st July, 1923, but as the finances of the local authorities have been made up, I think hon. Members will feel that we could not go back to 1920, and, moreover, on the facts, I do not think there is a very strong case for doing so or that it is very important. I think the new arrangement will be entirely satisfactory.

It is not of very much importance for the Treasury, perhaps, but it is of vital importance to the individual, who is the only person who really matters in this case. I would like to point out that this is not really retrospective legislation, because in 1920 it was prospective, and the local authorities which did not carry out the intended obligation of the Act were really morally in default, and to say that merely because they had closed their accounts they can get away from the obligation seems to me a very wrong principle to introduce into the law. It matters a great deal to these men. The legislation was intended to cover the local authorities, and it is not, from that point of view, really retrospective at all.

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

This Bill requires very little explanation, as it is in the nature of a hardy annual in this House. As the House knows, the Isle of Man enjoys a separate financial existence, and usually about May the Manx Legislature passes certain Resolutions regarding Customs duties, which require the assent of the Imperial Parliament. The Resolutions themselves have force for only about six months, and, of course, if they were allowed to expire, that would lead to considerable difficulty. In this case the Resolutions were passed about the end of May, and we have now produced the usual Bill to give effect to them in the Imperial Parliament. I need not detain the House by a longer explanation, as most hon. Members are familiar with the nature of this Bill that comes up from year to year.

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question which has puzzled me for some time, and that is as to why it is that the taxes in the Isle of Man, particularly Income Tax, are lower than in England. I understand that their Income Tax is 1s. in the £, as against 4s. 6d. here. Can the hon. Gentleman give us any explanation of that point?

That is not in order on this Bill.

Is this not one of those Bills which ought to have a separate day fixed for the Committee stage?

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

This, again, is a Bill which, I think, the House will agree does not call for very lengthy explanation. Like the Bill just dealt with, it is an annual Measure, which fixes the maximum amount that may be issued by the National Debt Commissioners to the Local Loans Fund for the use of the local authorities. In this case the amount fixed is £25,000,000, and that, of course, has regard to the demand which may be made on the Local Loans Fund for housing and other schemes with which lion. Members are familiar. As in past years, the provisions are substantially unchanged. Sometimes there has been a discussion in this House on the Second Reading of this Bill as regards the rate of interest charged by the Local Loans Commissioners, but, of course, that is very largely governed by the provision that has to be made for dividends on the 3 per Cent. Local Loans Stock, which has to be raised for this purpose, and to cover the cost of the administration and provide for certain expenses which arise when Stock is issued. When all these things are taken into account, the present rate of 4¾ per cent., which is, in the main, the governing base, becomes plain and, I think, wholly defensible. Of course, hon. Members must also recollect that the object of the Local Loans Fund, under statute, is to be self-supporting, because if any other principle were introduced, and if, in fact, the rate of interest were varied accordingly, I think the result would be something in the nature of a concealed subsidy to local authorities. If subsidies are to be given, that is, obviously, not the way in which they should be given, and to a large extent that explains the arrangement which is made.

The House may permit this further word of explanation. Last year, I think, some hon. Members raised the question of the allocation of half of the proceeds from the sale of National Savings Certificates into the fund for local housing and other schemes. That was the subject of investigation by a Committee presided over by Mr. Montagu, of which I happened to be a member, and, broadly, the result came to this, that the arrangement as to allocation was continued, but, rather greater freedom was granted in the use of the fund, and the House will agree, I think, that it is wrong that there should be a restriction on a fund of that kind, when it is in the interest of the taxpayers that greater freedom should be enjoyed. The only long Clause in the Bill is that regarding the somewhat unfortunate experience of the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees and relates to a loan of £10,000, of which, if I remember rightly, rather more than £6,000 has been repaid. It is provided that in any year in which the surplus falls short, we must provide for the deficiency; in other words, it is written off in terms of this Act from time to time. We do that this year, because we must ensure that there will not be a deficiency in the Local Loans Fund. The Clause in itself is fully explanatory but there is also the White Paper which has been circulated to hon. Members. I do not think there is perhaps any further explanation which I am called upon to give at this stage.

I apologise to the Financial Secretary for asking a few questions, after the heavy morning he has had, but there are one or two points I would like to put to him, especially as £25,000,000 is a very large amount. Am I to understand that amount is in pounds or in stock? Two or three years ago this stock was issued at £50; therefore, the point as to whether this is pounds or whether this is stock is an important one. I quite appreciate the necessity for having this loan, and that it should be large, but you are gradually increasing the amount year by year, as far as I can gather. In the old days, if I remember aright, I think this stock was issued by tender, and I wish the Financial Secretary would look into this matter, and see whether it would not be cheaper to issue this stock by tender. It might interfere with the Treasury Bills, but it might be worth seeing if it would be cheaper in that way, and to issue, perhaps, a smaller amount. I notice that in 1920, £15,000,000 was issued at the price of 50; in January, 1921, another £15,000,000 was issued at the price of 50; in November, 1921, £20,000,000 was issued at the price of 52; and in 1922, £30,000,000 was issued at the price of 57. The present price, I believe, is about 64. Might it not be much better from the nation's point of view not to issue this at this discount? Would it not be better to create new local loan stock, say, on a 4¾ per cent. basis? There is great advantage to the investor if he can buy stock at that discount, but when you think of the issue made in 1920 and 1921 of £100 stock at 50 which is to-day standing at 64, I do not think the nation has benefited very much in regard to that, although I realise money rates are very much cheaper than in those days. I also appreciate the fact that this stock is not redeemable. I wish the Financial Secretary will look into the matter as to whether it would not be more advantageous to issue a new stock nearer par than to issue this stock which would probably have to be issued in the neighbourhood of 60.

I can only speak a second time by permission of the House, but in reply to my hon. Friend's first question the amount, of course, is in pounds. As regards the issue of new stock I am afraid that without consideration I could not say very much this afternoon. My hon. Friend in his speech referred to stock which now stands at about 64. My right hon. Friend does not propose to raise what is really not a new but an important issue in this matter. I will undertake to make inquiries between now and the Report stage and see if what my hon. Friend has suggested can be done. Perhaps with this necessarily brief reply the House will now allow us to have the Second Reading of this Measure.

The object of this Bill is to raise a loan of £17,000,000 for the purpose of the carrying out telephone developments, which, it is estimated, we can carry out over two years. The last Act which was passed in 1922 authorised the raising of £15,000,000. The whole of that money has now been expended, and there is no money in hand to proceed with the programme for the remainder of the year. We, therefore, require that an Act should be passed this month to enable us to go on with the work during the year. I regret that when this matter was before the House on Tuesday, 1st July, I was not able to reply to certain questions put by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Major Moulton) put one or two questions.

3.0 P.M.

I should like at this stage to explain the position in relation to rural telephone facilities, a matter upon which the hon. Member asked for some information. I should like to tell him, and the House, that during the last two years rural telephone development has been proceeding at a pretty rapid pace. It is two years since the Treasury authorised a scheme for rural development, and under that scheme, in an area where eight subscribers can be obtained an exchange is established at a rental of £per quarter. The distance, for the minimum subscription of £2, has to be not more than 1½ miles from the exchange. In addition to that it is provided that rural party lines shall be established, and under that system farmers may have a telephone service for £1 a quarter, including local calls. Under the first arrangement, that is the telephone rural exchanges, we have already followed that matter up and authorised 600 exchanges, of which 500 have been completed. At the present time rural exchanges are being established at the rate of one per day or rather more. I may say that already very considerable loss is being incurred on these rural facilities, because for every exchange that is opened there is a loss of something between £60 and £70 per annum on an average. That the facilities already provided are being appreciated we have ample proof in the statement I have already made, that we are opening one of these exchanges practically every day.

One specific case was referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Salisbury. It was suggested that we should provide facilities for a gentleman which we have been unable to do. The complaint was on this occasion that the Post Office was not sufficiently generous in giving the facilities asked for. The case in point was this: The telephone facilities were asked for for a man who lives between five and six miles from the nearest exchange at Salisbury. He lives between two or three miles from a post office call office. He desired that he should be given facilities from that call office. We discovered it was quite impossible to do this without going to very considerable expense. To begin with, the call office was not at all suitable for providing an exchange service. Before it could be put in order it would be necessary for us to erect a mile and a half of wire. There was a switchboard necessary, and then we should be required to erect 2½ miles of poles and wires from the call office to this gentleman's house. The cost of all this would be several hundreds of pounds. I can assure my hon. Friend that if the Post Office adopted a policy of providing at the normal tariff rate telephone facilities where it would involve the establishment of a separate exchange for one subscriber, one or two things would become inevitable: either we should have considerably to increase what is already high, the cost for the telephone service, or we should require to subsidise the service from State funds—neither of which projects I am sure the House would tolerate or approve of. I therefore hope my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that it will be quite impossible, much as we desire to give these people facilities in rural areas, to pursue a policy which would enable us to give a separate exchange for every individual subscriber living so far away as this gentleman.

Another question was raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He pointed out that during the winter months the telephone subscribers in the whole area are very considerably inconvenienced on account of disturbances due to bad weather. He said that was largely due to the fact that overhead wires were in existence, and the remedy was to have underground cables He desired to know what progress was being made by the Post Office in the development of underground cables. May I point out that of the £17,000,000 asked for in this Bill between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000 will be devoted to underground work. At the present time telephone subscribers are being greatly inconvenienced by damage done to overhead wires in every part of the country, and it is the policy of the Post Office, as far as possible, to substitute underground cables for overhead wires. At the present time we have several big cables in course of construction, and we hope they will be put in use this year. We have also a number of other considerable schemes on hand, and hon. Members may rely upon it that, as rapidly as these underground cables can be brought into existence, the work will be completed by the Post Office.

Before the House consents to the Second Heading of this Bill. I think it is only fair that I should draw attention to one of two remarks which have been made by the Postmaster-General. The right hon. Gentleman painted a rather different picture of the telephone system in rural areas to that which I have had brought to my notice by those who have made complaints about it. He has told the House that it is the intention of the Department to spend between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000 on underground cables, and that statement was immediately succeeded by another in which the right hon. Gentleman said that the Post Office could not run a mile-and-a-half of wire and posts in order to secure one subscriber.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to pay a little more consideration to the people who so badly require telephone facilities in our rural areas. He spoke of 1½ miles being a long distance to carry wires. My constituency measures 36 miles long by 38 miles wide, and what is a distance of 1½ miles in an area of that kind? He told the House that people in rural areas could obtain a telephone service for a payment of £2 a quarter, but that applies only to services where wires are not required for more than 1½ miles. Take the average village in Oxfordshire, and you will find there are very few houses there likely to require the telephone within 1½ miles of the Exchange. I would remind the Postmaster-General of a case which came before my notice in which a constituent wrote and told me that in order to obtain telephone facilities it would be necessary for him to pay no less than £22 10s. 0d. per annum, which is equivalent to the rent that this particular person is receiving for four cottages. That is an extraordinary amount, and when this person had erected this system there would have been 10 subscribers on the same lines, and this person's number was to be number 9.

If anyone wanted to ring him up, he would hear his bell ring nine times, and then he would know that it was he who was wanted, and not any of the other nine subscribers who happened to be on that same service. That is nothing short of antediluvian, and I hope the Postmaster-General will reserve some of this £17,000,000 for putting that sort of thing right. He says that the demand is not very great. I do not wonder that it is not very great when one comes to consider the exorbitant charges and the antiquated system one is likely to get. I hope the Postmaster-General will give us an undertaking that he will really try and do something to better rural telephone communication.

After the courteous way in which the right hon. Gentleman has explained the Bill, I do not want in the least to oppose it, but I do want to suggest to him the possibility of considering whether in many cases it would not be possible to instal something which is not really an exchange but much more like the extension which one uses in an office. There may be a house or two wanting to be in the position to be connected with a neighbouring town, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not he possible to have for them an extension such as some of us have in our houses whereby we can be put through to one room or the other. I think too a good many subscribers, if they could get nothing better, would be perfectly content with a day service while the Post Office was open. In that way, you would be able to get the telephone into a district and see whether it would be profitable to extend the exchange. In one particular case, a farmer, one and three quarter miles from a village post office, wanted to be connected with Salisbury, and, whereas the subscriber mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite was asked £22, this farmer was told that it could not be done under £35 a year. It seems to me that in such a case it would be quite unnecessary expense to form an exchange, and I would ask the Postmaster-General in the most friendly spirit whether it would not be possible to instal as a first step something which is not a real exchange but much more like an extension such as you see in an office.

I notice that the Postmaster-General smiles, but I am not going to bother him again about the Holy Island. I want to ask whether something cannot be done for some of the rural areas where you can get six subscribers but no more. In one of the rural areas in my constituency, they have been trying for some considerable time but they cannot get more than six, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if it be proved that there are no others who can afford the telephone, and that it is going to be of some advantage to the area, he could not, in those circumstances, see his way to grant a concession and allow the six subscribers to have the telephone installed.

I am bound to say that the Postmaster-General in this matter always meets us very readily. He has met me on one or two cases in a very friendly way. Is it inevitable in a sparsely populated area to insist strictly on the guarantees, especially in cases where there is really a great need for telephonic communication? The main point I wish to raise is in regard to the half-holiday in rural areas. Usually in rural areas the half-holiday is taken on a Saturday, whereas most of the village post offices are closed on Wednesday or Thursday. This causes great inconvenience to many people, and they think that this closing of the post Ace should synchronise with the village half-holiday. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give that matter consideration.

I, too, have been left in a friendly way by the Postmaster-General. I have some applications still before him and I have a lively hope that they too will receive sympathetic consideration. I should like to support what has been said by several hon. Members with regard to rural areas. I have a very large rural area in my own constituency and I should like to ask the Department to apply something less than the present cast iron regulations to the applications for extensions of the telephone. I think there ought to be more elasticity and there might be a less stringent application of the stipulations to guarantees. Could the right hon. Gentleman not deal with this business as a commercial traveller would? Not long ago in my constituency there was a correspondence between the officials of the Post Office and some local people who were desirous of canvassing the neighbourhood in order to ascertain how many subscribers could be secured. They wrote to the Department to ascertain the approximate cost of the telephone extension, and they got a reply inquiring how many telephones were likely to be required. An answer to that was of course absolutely impossible. A man of local energy who wants to push a matter of that kind could not very well go to one of the potential subscribers and say: "Will you take the telephone, although I cannot tell you what it is going to cost?" On the other hand, the officials could name some sort of figure. We want something of that spirit. We want the Department to make a real endeavour to extend the telephone into areas where it is likely to be useful, and, if they could infuse a little more of that spirit, I think their efforts would be more successful.

I desire to join with the other rural Members in begging the Post Office to show real enterprise in the matter of the extension of telephones in rural areas. At elections, sometimes, I have had to talk about nationalisation, and hon. Members on the Labour Benches believe in nationalisation. I can assure my right hon. Friend, however, that one of the very arguments that I am able to use against nationalisation is the lack of enterprise that is displayed by the Post Office in carrying out what, after all, is a very simple business compared with many businesses which are carried on by private enterprise in this country. The work of the Post Office is comparatively simple, and it is a sphere in which my right hon. Friend might really show more enterprise in making new openings than has yet been shown. It is a difficulty of Government Departments that they tend to be most conservative in practice. The hon. Member for Down (Mr. Reid) urged that the commercial traveller method should be extended, and I think that might very well be done, because the need is really growing in the rural districts.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there should be a telephone in every local public-house?

I feel surely that every local public-house would avail itself of the telephone if it could be brought within its reach by an enterprising Post Office. If the Post Office woud display the sort of energy that private telephone companies have displayed in America and other parts of the world, this country would be better served in the rural areas, and I do not believe that in the end the Post Office would lose much by going ahead of the public demand—of the paying demand—and, with real enterprise, pushing this in the rural areas. In Germany, which I knew before the War, the villages were far better served with telephones than was the case in this country. I do beg the right hon. Gentleman, a Labour Postmaster-General, believing firmly that he is far and away the best person to administer the telephone, telegraph and Post Office services, to display even more enterprise than private individuals in carrying on the business of his Department. In order not to encourage him to useless expenditure, I should like to ask him in What way he is going to write off the £17,000,000 which is now going to be spent? After all, telephone and telegraph apparatus wears out very quickly, and has not a very long life; and, even though this, perhaps, is against my earlier remarks, yet I am a little anxious to know how far he has a sound financial scheme for writing off that sum.

I should like to join with other hon. Members who have referred to this question of rural telephones, because, in a constituency like mine, some parts of which are over 1,400 feet above sea level, people requiring doctors, and so on, have great difficulties, especially in the winter months, when, in some places, the snow is sometimes several feet thick, and it is a matter of great hardship that they cannot obtain telephone facilities. With regard to the point mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Salisbury (Major Moulton), I remember that, when Mr. Kellaway was Postmaster-General, he arranged with a local landowner in one part of my constituency to take over the local Exchange, and the local landowner guaranteed the whole of the eight telephones. The result of that arrangement has been that the whole of those eight telephones have been taken up, and a great many more besides. The mere fact that a telephone service has been installed in that locality has encouraged people to take the telephone who would not otherwise have done so. When their neighbours are on, they want to be on, and the result has been a great success. I am sure that, if that could be done in the village mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Salisbury, there would be a great request for the telephone there. I should like to refer to a matter which the right hon. Gentleman has promised to give me some information about. There has been a rumour in Macclesfield that the automatic telephone service is going to be put on in that borough at the new post office which is going to be erected. The right hon. Gentleman indicated on the Financial Resolution that he would look into the matter and I should be grateful if he could give me any indication whether any of this amount is for that purpose.

I should like to add my tribute to that of others who have spoken to the great courtesy of the Postmaster-General. The matter I wish to refer to is the backward state of our telephonic communications in rural areas. We are far behind where we ought to be. One hon. Member has spoken of the telephone system in Germany. Others, perhaps know the magnificent system they have in Norway, where every farm in the country is linked up, and you can get a through call. We want to see our system worked up to something like that. Of course, it will take time and money. The great thing we have to do is to get a large number of subscribers. We have to get as many people as we can on to the system. The question of the guarantee stands greatly in the way of poor areas coming in. There ought to be a much greater elasticity in asking for this guarantee. You may have an area which is absolutely unable to put down the necessary money, and is, therefore, cut out of the system altogether. In our general Post Office system it is the short distance letter that pays for the long distance letter, and we ought to work the telephone system in the same way and see that a poor area is not penalised because it is poor, and that the richer areas should bear a portion of the burden.

I should like to call attention to the system of recording calls. It frequently happens when you ring up the exchange that you find the number is engaged. The operator tells you that and leaves you sitting there for some five minutes, and you have no other course but, just to wait your time. You ring up again, and possible get through, with luck, and at the end of the month, when the statement comes in, you are somewhat staggered if you take the number of calls which have really gone through. I think very frequently, through some inadvertance on the part of the recorder, one is charged more than once for one call. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to look into that. I took the trouble a few months ago to get my secretary to take down the number of calls she put through, and when my bill came in it was largely in excess of what I expected I had to pay. One has no redress whatever. One has to pay. I have heard from all sides that the Postmaster-General is a delightful fellow and kind hearted, and looking at his face I am sure it is true. I would ask him to remember the poor subscriber and to take this point into consideration. There is another point I should like to put before him. When a subscriber in the country is a long way from the exchange he is charged to a large extent for the mileage. If a more universal charge could be made, more revenue would be obtained if the price were considerably reduced. There is another point to which I should like to draw attention. If one is in the country, for instance, on the South Coast, and the exchange is Portsmouth, if I want to call Southampton I have to go through Portsmouth in order to be connected up with Southampton. The result is that the charge is rather heavy. If a system could be brought about to enable one to use both exchanges, the cost would not be so heavy. I wish to join in the chorus of praise of the right hon. Gentleman.

I should like to draw attention to the fact that a very large number of country railway stations are not on the telephone. This operates rather hardly on farmers. Stock may arrive at the station and the station may be miles away from the village or the farm, and the farmer has no means of knowing whether the stock has arrived unless he sends a man to the station. The railway companies are wealthy institutions, and it would be an immense boon to the farmers and the people in rural areas if telephones were installed at the country stations. I can confirm what has been said by the hon. Member (Mr. E. Brown) with regard to the inconvenience caused by the closing of village post offices on days other than the local half holiday. In many cases when the village post office is closed there is no means of telephonic communication except for people who are fortunate enough to have telephones installed in their own houses. It would be advantageous in many cases if Saturday was made the closing day for the rural post office.

When this matter was before the House on the Financial Resolution I put a question to the Postmaster-General. Possibly the Financial Secretary ought to be here to deal with the point, but we all know that he has had a very heavy morning. The last Bill, the Public Works Loans Bill, with which we have dealt, involved a sum of £25,000,000. This Bill involves an expenditure of £17,000,000, making the enormous total of £42,000,000. I realise the necessity for the expenditure of the £17,00,000, but I hope the nation will get value for that amount. I notice that in Clause 1, Subsection (2), the Postmaster-General can borrow by terminal annuities, while Subsection (4) states:

"The Treasury may also, if they think fit, for the same purpose borrow money by moans of the issue of Exchequer Bonds."

There is a great difference between borrowing on terminal annuities and borrowing on Exchequer Bonds. The latter might be absolutely detrimental to a national debt if a flotation was made. I should like an answer on this point, even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot give an answer to-day.

I should like to make an appeal on behalf of the rural districts, particularly in agricultural areas. If we are going to give State assistance towards the development of agriculture, I know of no means that would assist it more, by getting into touch with markets, and at such a little cost to the community as the linking up of these districts by means of telephonic communication. It seems to me that with the general agreement of the House on all sides, the Postmaster-General ought to give careful consideration to the applications that have been put to his department. It has been my responsibility to put forward a case in the North Somerset section of my division where we have got a large community of farmers who are cut off from the Bristol and other markets, simply because they are unable to get a guarantee to instal the exchange. This is a heavy part of the whole cost, and it is extremely difficult to get a number of people to guarantee the amount. Last year we voted money for technical and scientific development and research in agriculture, but here is a practical way of helping the people to help themselves, because there is no readier or happier means of helping agriculture than by linking those engaged in agriculture up with markets of easy access. It would be better for the farmer to go to the telephone and to get in touch with the markets than to have to leave his farm day after day to keep in touch with the markets. The House should not look at this purely as a commercial proposition, but, looking at it as a means of developing our farming areas, we might well afford to put down these installations at an immediate loss in the hope that agriculture will get a great fillip from it, and that there will be a good economic return to the community at large.

I would like to reply as briefly as I can in reference to the important questions which have been raised. In the main, hon. Members have dealt with improved rural facilities, but one or two points outside that have been raised by the right hon. Member for Cambourne (Mr. Leif Jones). He asked about the financial conditions for the repayment of £17,000,000. I need only say in relation to that matter that the Post Office will repay these loans by annuities extending over 20 years. Already there has been an expenditure on the telephone of about £69,500,000, and £25,500,000 have been repaid. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) wanted to know whether any of this £17,000,000 is going to Macclesfield. I find that it has been decided to erect a new Post Office in Macclesfield, at a cost of £28,000, £11,000 of which would be for a new exchange. As far as that expenditure is concerned, it will appear as part of the capital expenditure. Another question was with reference to the half-holiday. Nobody would desire that the postmen or those associated with the telephones should be deprived of the half-holiday, and the Post Office, in arranging for the half-holiday, would desire to consult with the local authorities and arrange a day in agreement with them so as to cause the least possible inconvenience to the business community.

An hon. Member opposite referred to the question of overcharging for telephone calls. I have had some complaints on that score. Business men have said: "We keep a record and we find that we are overcharged." In each case of that sort I have said to the officials, "Put two persons on and let me have reports. Keep a record of every call and do not say anything about it. At the end of the period ask the business people to produce their record, and compare it." in every case, although it is a rather expensive business to institute these checks, where it has been undertaken the persons complaining have had to admit that they have been in the wrong and that the Post Office record is right.

Has not someone had an idea that the tests are being made?

I welcome complaints of a genuine character, because I am as anxious as anyone to remove real causes of complaint. It is only by having the complaints reported to us that we can find out where the difficulties are and remedy them.

The reason for the complaint in such a case as I have referred to is, I think, that when you get through to the Exchange, and the Exchange says that the number wanted is engaged, you then ring up two or three times, and the subscriber is charged excessively.

I have heard that complaint before, but under the test it does not stand. If my hon. Friend will give me instances I shall be pleased to institute a check in those cases too.

Let me know when the check is in progress.

On the general question of improved rural facilities I shall say only this. Whether the points raised relate to guarantees or fewer persons on an Exchange or reduced charges, they are all phases of the same subject. I am looking into this matter with very great sympathy, and with the desire to bring about as great an improvement as possible. But it is necessary to keep one fact in mind. The rural areas of Britain have not been developed as telephone areas, and this is a big undertaking. We are opening daily one new Exchange, all at a loss, and before we get too big a volume of this unremunerative return, it is necessary to go slowly. I agree that in relation to the telephone system it is absolutely essential, in the best interests of the community, that we should carry a certain fringe of unremunerative business. But we must take care that it is not too big. I am hoping that with the development of these Exchanges, as soon as there are 15 subscribers, the prices will be reduced from £2 per quarter to £1 7s. 6d. per quarter, and that as the telephone becomes more popular in these areas where we have established Exchanges, the loss will be reduced, and that we may allow more generous terms in those areas and bring in possibly an Exchange for fewer subscribers than eight. Perhaps for the moment the House will accept the statement that we have done all that we possibly can if we are to keep on the safe side.

Has the right hon. Gentleman studied this system of telephones in agricultural Norway?

I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Bill as it left this House gave the Pacific Cable Board the power to do telegraphic work without any geographical limitation whatever. When the Bill was going through the House of Lords, Lord Banbury thought that was giving them too wide a power, and an Amendment was moved limiting the geographical area to that area where they are operating at present and also the Caribbean Sea. We should have been glad to see wider powers, but we do not propose to contest this matter with the Lords.

I beg to move, "That the Lords Reasons be now considered."

It will be within the recollection of the House that certain Amendments to this Bill came from another place. This House returned them without any change, except one small verbal Amendment which has now been accepted. As regards all the other Amendments, the Lords insist upon them with the exception of the one relating to aliens. I regret very much that this should be so, especially as the Bill passed through the House with out any Division except on the one question of aliens. It is quite clear now that for the House to disagree with the Lords would necessitate very considerable delay and may well result in no Bill being put on the Statute Book this Session. In view of the general desire for a Bill dealing with evictions, it seems that the House, in the interests of the tenants, would be well advised, at this stage in the Session, to agree with the Lords Amendments.

It may be necessary and expedient at this particular stage in the Session to give way on these matters, but I feel that the weakening on the son and daughter question is very serious. It might seem to the uninitiated and to the Members of another place a very small and unimportant matter and it does not seem unreasonable on the face of it that the owner of a house should be allowed to give occupation to his son or daughter. Of course where there is a married son or daughter serious arguments can be put forward, but I know in practice what is actually taking place in East London, and there is no reason to believe that similar circumstances are not arising in provincial towns throughout the country. Owners are getting possession of dwelling-houses in East London by putting a boy or girl of 18 into one room in that house and as soon as possession has been obtained by nominal occupation of that kind the dwelling-house is converted into a factory. I have taken considerable trouble to investigate the matter and I can take Members to several of these factories which are converted dwelling-houses. It is causing terrible heartburning. I do not think hon. Members who represent rural areas realise the terrible state of affairs in East London, where it is quite impossible to get a house to live in on any conditions. The overcrowding, far from being less, is every day growing worse, and I get most pathetic letters from constituents complaining how they are getting comparatively good wages, but whole families have to live in one room because of the impossibility of getting any accommodation. Houses that have for centuries been used as houses are being converted into factories, on the excuse that they are required for a son or daughter, and, possession having been obtained, and a mere nominal occupation arranged, these houses are then converted into factories. This is a very serious cause of discontent, and it is bringing about much bitterness and heart burning. The other place, I am sure, when they made this Amendment did not do so realising the effect of their action, but the responsibility must be theirs, and I am afraid the Government are justified, at this very late hour, and with so many urgent matters contained in this Bill, in giving way. All that I can say is that, if bad feeling is created by this action, this House cannot take the responsibility, but I feel that I was bound to state the facts to the House so that the House would know the result of accepting these Amendments.

I wish to say, on behalf of those hon. Members who form the Liberal housing group, that we feel bound to accept the Government's decision in this matter, although we thought when the Bill was drafted that it was the very minimum by way of instalment to get urgent justice for a large number of people. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) that the inclusion of this Amendment seriously weakens the purpose of the Measure, but I regretfully concur in the Government's decision.