House of Commons
Tuesday, May 19, 1925
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Peivate Business
Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [ Lords ],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Port of London Bill (by Order),
Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill [ Lords ] (by Order), Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Kilmarnock Gas and Water Provisional Order Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
Questions
Enemy Action Claims
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the claim of the vicar and churchwardens of Christ Church, Burton-on-Trent, for compensation for damage done by bombs during a German air raid in January, 1916; that the parish mission room was destroyed, the vicarage and the church were damaged, and the church is closed and the roof condemned as dangerous owing to the damage done by the bombs; that it has to be renewed at heavy expense; and that no compensation has been awarded by the War Damages Compensation Commission; and whether any compensation for the damages which were sustained will be paid out of the reparations recoverable from Germany?
A claim in respect of this damage was put before the Royal Commission on Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action, who recommended that no payment be made. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
I understand that the payments made by the Royal Commission are made out of funds provided by the British Government. Am I to understand that no efforts have been made to obtain payment from Germany?
The funds were advanced by the British Government out of money which it was hoped eventually would be recovered from Germany. It is obviously very undesirable for the Government to reopen the findings of the Commission.
Then if nothing can be recovered from Germany, are British subjects to get no compensation for the damage?
S.S. "Llanstephen Castle."
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the homeward voyage of the "Llanstephen Castle," which left Capetown on 26th January and reached London on 24th March, two of the stewards died on the trip; that one of these, a first-class steward, was allowed to go about his work for four days until pneumonia set in; that up till a very short time before his death he continued to sleep in a poorly ventilated cabin with 11 other stewards; will he state what regulations are in force with regard to accommodation for stewards; and whether they were complied with in this case?
I have made inquiries and find that a bandsman died on the outward voyage of the "Llanstephen Castle" on 19th January, and a bedroom steward on the homeward voyage on 17th March, the cause of death in the latter case being abdominal influenza and heart failure. The steward was relieved from duty on 11th March when he reported sick, and was under the care of the surgeon of the ship till his death on the 17th. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the regulation relating to accommodation, and there is no reason to suppose these were not fully complied with; but the stewards' accommodation will be inspected and further inquiries about the case made of the surgeon on the ship's return to this country.
Motor Oaks (Export to Germany)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Italy and France, by means of their commercial treaties with Germany, have arranged for the delivery of a number of motor cars to that country while British cars are practically prohibited; and can he state what action he is taking in the matter?
An agreement was concluded between Italy and Germany in 1921 whereby the issue of import licences for motor cars, inter alia, was to be facilitated. I know of no similar agreement between Germany and France, but it is true that the numbers of motor cars recently imported into Germany from both France and Italy has much exceeded the number from this country. Representations have been received from makers of British cars as to difficulties in obtaining licences for their importation into Germany, and the matter has been taken up with the German Government. As the hon. and gallant Member will be aware, the Protocol to the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty provides that importation restrictions shall in general be removed within six months of ratification.
May we rely upon the Department taking the most energetic measures to see that our motor car exporters get the facilities enjoyed by others?
I have taken steps.
Italo-German Commercial Treaty
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information as to the negotiations for an Italo-German commercial treaty?
I have been asked to reply to this question. According to a statement lately published in the Italian Press, negotiations between the delegates of the two countries concerned continue in a friendly atmosphere and a satisfactory result is foreseen. In the meanwhile, some of the German delegates have returned to Berlin to consult with the competent authorities for the elucidation of certain points still in dispute.
Franco-German Commercial Treaty
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Franco-German Commercial Treaty, which has recently been completed, provides more favourable treatment for French traders than traders receive under the Anglo-German Treaty?
I understand that the negotiations for a commercial agreement between France and Germany are still in progress. The Anglo-German Commercial Treaty will, through its Most - Favoured - Nation Clauses, entitle goods produced or manufactured in this country to the benefit of any special treatment in Germany that may be accorded to French goods.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that without a tariff we can secure terms equal to those who are bargaining with the assistance of a tariff?
The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that our endeavour is to get the great benefits already accorded to those who have tariffs.
Passengers (British Ports)
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of persons entering the ports of Great Britain during the last complete year for which figures are available?
The number of passengers who arrived at ports in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1924, from ports in other countries, was 1,762,607. In addition, there were 9,563 passengers who arrived by air from the Continent.
Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind the number of people who landed for business purposes and for pleasure?
I am sure that there must be some of both, but I was not asked for the exact numbers.
Has the right hon. Gentleman the figures the other way round?
Had I received notice I might have had.
British Army
Covent Garden Opera House (Soldiers' Stage Appearance)
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of soldiers in receipt of full military pay are being employed at the Covent Garden Opera House and appearing on the stage; whether this has been sanctioned with his approval; and whether, in view of the fact that by this action unemployed civilians are being denied employment, he will have the matter reconsidered?
I am not aware of the circumstances referred to. I am having investigation made.
Is it not against Army Regulations, as is the case of the King s Regulations in the Navy, that serving soldiers are not allowed to appear in uniform on the stage?
I do not think it is against the Regulations, but I think there is some protective provision made with regard to it. If the hon. and gallant Member puts down a question as to the conditions I can tell him.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on many occasions the War Office has been approached and asked for permission for serving soldiers to appear either on the stage or for the films, and that permission has been refused? Why has it not been done in this case?
I am not aware of the circumstances in this case, but I will have investigation made. I cannot add anything to that statement.
Can these soldiers appear without leave?
Service Pensioners (Disability Pensions)
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of Army service pensioners who are also in receipt of a disability pension issued by the Ministry of Pensions; whether these pensioners will have to complete a separate identity form and life certificate in respect of their service pension; whether separate orders will be issued to the Post Office in respect of service pensions; where the issue office will be situated, and what will be the cost to the War Office; and whether provision was made in the Army Estimates to meet the additional cost involved?
About 12,000 Army service pensioners are also in receipt of disability pensions from the Ministry of Pensions. Their service pensions are now issued by the regimental paymasters of the units in which they served. Separate identity and life certificates are used, and separate orders are issued, in respect of the two pensions, but payment is made at the same post office on the same day. The provision in Army Estimates for the cost of payment of the service pensions is now £1,200 a year. I am informed that there is no additional cost involved in the present arrangements.
Staff College
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any steps are being taken to investigate the question of providing further staff college accommodation, in view of the large number of candidates from the Army for the small number of vacancies annually available at the Staff College, Camberley?
An investigation is proceeding into certain questions connected with the Staff College, including the question of the number of officers required to be trained there.
Wazieistan Troops
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the field-service concessions now granted to troops stationed at Razmak have been made retrospective; and, if not, is it proposed to give any concession to units who were there between 1st June, 1924, and 1st April, 1925?
My right hon Friend has asked me to reply. Field service conditions have not been re-introduced in Waziristan. Certain special concessions are being granted which are considered appropriate to the conditions of Service, and retrospective effect is contemplated in one or two instances where this is practicable. I will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the details when they are finally settled.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to grant the North-West Frontier Medal to all troops stationed in the Razmak area up to 1st April, 1924?
This question is still under consideration.
Attaches, United States
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the appointment of an assistant military attaché in the United States, in view of the fact that France and Japan find it necessary each to have three military representatives at Washington, whereas at the present time there is only one such British representative?
The question of making such an appointment is already receiving consideration.
Meat Supplies
asked the Secretary of State for War what proportion of the meat supplied to His Majesty's Forces in Great Britain is home-grown, and is the remainder entirely produced from within the British Empire?
Of the meat supplied to the Army in Great Britain, a small proportion only is home-grown; practically the whole of the remainder is produced within the British Empire.
Singapore Garrison
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the proportion of the annual expenditure for the garrison of Singapore which is attributable to its equatorial climate?
Information as to the relative cost of units at home and in the Colonial and foreign garrisons will be found on pages 30–41 of Army Estimates. The differences of cost are, of course, due to a variety of causes and not solely to differences of climate.
What is the amount? That is what I asked for, and not the cost.
I think, if the hon. Member will read the answer, he will see that the differences of cost are due to various different causes, and it is not easy, or possible, to say the definite amount that is due to climatic conditions.
Scotland
Kelvin Valley (Floods)'
asked the Secretary for Scotland how many square miles of land in the Kelvin Valley were flooded during the April floods; if he is aware that miles of good arable land are going back to rushes as a result of these frequent floodings; that public roads in the area are being torn up and moneys spent in repair wasted; and if any suggestion or proposal has been made to him whereby unemployed men could be found employment in cleaning out the silted bed of the River Kelvin?
I have no precise information as to the first two parts of the question. The area subject to floods has been estimated at from 600 to 1,000 acres. No reports have reached me with regard to damage done to public roads by the floods in question. The answer to the last part is in the negative.
Have not the local authorities in the neighbourhood repeatedly drawn the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the public roads have been torn up by these floods, and have I not repeatedly made suggestions how to deal with them?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by removing an antiquated and useless Weir, and one rock from the bed of the River Kelvin, the river bed would clear itself without any further expense being incurred?
I am not aware of any representations made to my office by the local authority. With regard to the road, as I have stated, I will make careful inquiry. In reply to the latter question it is quite true that if anything is to be done in this matter there are questions between the riparian owners which can only be settled by compensation and I have no power.
Are we to understand that public bodies are to be put to expense because somebody has got a useless weir which cannot be removed without compensation?
Under the present law it is open to the riparian owners if they have any complaint to enter into negotiations.
Under the present Scottish law where a weir is causing damage to a road the local public bodies have the right to sue.
Old Age Pensioner, Edinburgh (Prosecution)
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether in view of the concern which is felt at the sentence which was imposed, and the demand for repayment which is now being made, on an old age pensioner recently sentenced at the Edinburgh Sheriff Court, he can make any further statement on the subject?
I am unable to add anything to the previous answers which I have given on this subject. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that I have no jurisdiction with regard to the arrears of pension.
Sheep Dip
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that under the Pharmacy Act the exception in regard to sheep dip was recently annulled, and that in respect thereof farmers resident in remote sheep farms, and especially in the Highlands, are unable to get to Glasgow, Berkhampstead, Manchester, or other places where sheep dips are manufactured, to sign the poisons register; and, as a result of this regulation it would be impossible for farmers to dip the sheep in case of an outbreak of sheep scab, will he take steps to forthwith have the exception in the above Act of sheep dip restored, with the free sale thereof?
I am informed that the position in regard to sheep dip has been modified by an alteration in the Schedule of Poisons recently approved by the Privy Council. Representations as to the effect of this modification have been made by agricultural interests, and I understand that they are being considered by the Privy Council Office.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that alcohol has been found to be a very good thing for the cure of scabies?
Coal Industry
Montagu Colliery Disaster
asked the Secretary for Mines what progress has been made with the pumping operations at Montagu colliery, Scotswood; and what are the prospects of recovering the bodies?
The main body of the water has now been pumped out, except in the two lowest districts of the mine, but exploration is being hindered by the presence of firedamp and blackdamp. Seventeen bodies were, however, located last night by the rescue brigade and are being recovered.
Durham (Pits Closed)
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware of the number of pits that are entirely closed, the number partly closed, together with a further number which are working short time in the County of Durham; and whether, seeing that there was an average profit of 1s. 0¾d. per ton over the area for 1924, and in view of the agreements made between the employers and workmen both as to hours and wages, he will have an impartial inquiry made into the whole matter?
I am aware of the present depression in the coal-mining industry both in Durham and in other coalfields, and while the figure of 1s. 0¾d. profit per ton quoted by the hon. Member is a correct average for 1924, the average profit during the six months ended the 31st March, 1925, was only a farthing a ton. As the hon. Member is aware, the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation are now investigating the whole position, and I understand that the Durham coalowners and miners' representatives are meeting shortly to discuss the position in that county. I do not think that such further inquiry as is suggested by the hon. Member would serve any useful purpose.
Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is an agreement between the owners and the workers which has been in existence for many years, and which has been broken by the owners, on this question of trying to get the pits working during the slump?
Nearly all these questions will be gone into at the inquiry.
Exports
asked the Secretary for Mines what was the quantity of British coal sent into Italy, Spain and Russia in 1913, and what are the corresponding figures for 1924?
As the reply involves a series of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The figures are as follow:
Exports of British Coal. 1913. 1924. Destination. Tons. Tons. Italy 9,647,161 6,706,198 Spain 2,534,131 1,499,038 Russia 5,998,434 37,650 *
* In addition, the following quantities of coal were exported in 1924 to countries which, or parts of which, were Russian territory before the War:
Tons. Finland 522,002 Esthonia 58,891 Latvia 395,575 Lithuania 135,449 Poland (including Dantzig) 75,717 Total 1,187,634
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of coal sent from Great Britain to Germany in 1913; and what is the corresponding figure for 1924?
The figure for 1913 was 8,952,328 tons and that for 1924, 6,824,071 tons.
Is the Secretary for Mines keeping the President of the Board of Trade informed, so as to prevent Him making false statements, as he did last week, in regard to the coal that is going from this country to Germany?
Southend Road (Workmen. Shelter)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that no provision is made for the shelter of the men employed on the new Southend road in inclement weather, and that men stood off owing to rain have to stand by the roadside exposed to the elements on the off-chance of being able to resume work; and if he will cause inquiries to be made as to the inadequate transport facilities that exist to enable the men to reach the section of the road on which they are working?
( for Colonel ASHLEY): As the work on this road has been practically completed, only about 50 men are engaged on the total length of 31 miles. These men are mainly employed in small travelling gangs and are supplied with tarpaulins. Where work is concentrated, hutting accommodation is available. The labour is local and no transport is provided.
Post Office
Facilities, Stamford Hill
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the establishment of a larger post office to serve the Stamford Hill district, as, owing to the growing importance of this district, there are many complaints of the inadequate postal facilities at present provided?
I find that the Stamford Hill district is served by a number of sub-offices which are distributed as evenly as possible, and the amount of business done at these does not suggest that the facilities would be improved as a whole by concentration in a larger office. If my hon. and gallant Friend will kindly provide me with details of the complaints to which he refers I will have them looked into.
Telephone Service, Middlesbrough
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the unsatisfactory telephone service in the Middlesbrough area, due to the age of the plant; and will he include this exchange amongst those where the automatic installation is to be next made?
As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of the 17th February last. In view of the age of the switchboard, special measures are being taken to keep the equipment in good working order. It has now been decided to provide, if possible, in 1928. an automatic exchange at Middlesbrough.
In view of the insufficiency of the service, which the right hon. Gentleman admits, is it not possible to expedite the installation of the automatic service without waiting three years?
I am doing everything I can, but like every other question it is a matter of building, and the difficulty of getting it done.
Telephone Circuits (Wire)
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that there is a shortage of wire suitable for making telephone circuits, and that this shortage is causing delay in the installation of new lines; and what steps he proposes to take to see that this shortage does not recur?
Where delay occurs in the provision of telephone circuits, it is usually due, not to any shortage of wire, of which there are ample supplies, but to the time necessarily required for the construction and laying of new cables or the manufacture of exchange equipment.
Deliveries, Galston, Ayrshire
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that great inconvenience is caused in Galston, Ayrshire, by there being no delivery of letters between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., and that when the English mail is late, business letters are received too late to be dealt with that day; and will he arrange for a mid-day delivery as in pre-War time?
The deliveries at Galston are due to commence at 7.15 a.m. and 3.25 p.m. When the English mail is late the first delivery is deferred so as to include letters received by that mail. I regret that the provision of a midday delivery would not be warranted.
Empire Wireless (Permanent Advisory Committee)
asked the Postmaster-General if he can inform the House of the personnel of the permanent Advisory Committee of Empire wireless communication; and what their duties and powers will be?
I am not yet in a position to announce the personnel of the permanent Committee on Imperial wireless services as several of the Dominion Governments have not yet nominated their representatives. The Committee will be of an advisory character, and will deal with such questions as the hours of working, routing of messages, tariffs and the classes of service to be operated by the beam stations.
Pre-War Postal Facilities
asked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that there is to be no reduction of postal rates, he will re-establish pre-War postal facilities?
I regret that I am unable to restore pre-War postal facilities in all respects. Certain improvements are at present under consideration; and any well-founded claims with regard to particular places will receive sympathetic consideration so far as circumstances permit.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of a 6 o'clock delivery in the evening in London?
If my hon. Friend will submit any representations I will look into them.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are no deliveries before 9 o'clock in the morning in Westminster?
I am not aware of that.
Pensions
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the recent decision in the case of Sutton v. Rex, the pensions of Post Office officials assessed on the percentage of bonus received at the time of retirement will now be reassessed on the new basis?
Directions were given to all Departments by Treasury Circular of 15th January, 1925, that when a payment of arrears of War bonus was made thereunder to a person to whom an allowance under the Superannuation Acts had been granted, the pension should be re-assessed on the basis of the revised emoluments drawn at date of retirement.
British Empire Exhibition
Souvenir Postage Stamps
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of their value as an advertising agent for the British Empire Exhibition, he will arrange for the souvenir postage stamps to be on sale at all post offices instead of, as now, merely at the post offices within the exhibition grounds?
I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on the 28th of April to the hon. Member for Moseley, of which I am sending him a copy.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making fuller use of the post mark, as has been done with great success in foreign countries?
That has been done for some months now.
Stadium (Admission Prices)
( for Mr. J. BECKETT)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that persons who pay substantial prices for seats at Stadium entertainments are further charged full price for entrance to the exhibition and 1s. for a programme; and whether he will arrange for reserved Stadium tickets to admit to the exhibition at certain time6, and for programmes at a more reasonable price?
I am aware that the facts are as stated. The prices fixed for the entertainments given in the Stadium vary according to the entertainment and are intended to yield a return upon the expenditure involved. It has also been found in practice that a large proportion of those going to performances in the Stadium spend some hours in addition in the exhibition itself. As regards the charge for programmes, I may refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Colonel Day) by the Parliamentary Secretary, Board of Trade.
Agriculture
Cultivable Land
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total area of cultivable land that has been taken over for building and other purposes during the last 10 years in each county in Britain; and the approximate percentage this represents in each county?
( for Mr. EDWARD WOOD): I have been asked to reply. As the reply to this question is in tabular form I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
The acreage returned in 1914 and 1924 by occupiers of holdings over one acre as under crops and permanent grass in each county of England and Wales is as follows:
— Decrease in Acreage of Crops and Grass. Percentage Decrease. ENGLAND. Acres. Per cent. Bedfordshire 3,969 1·6 Berkshire 17,577 5·0 Bucks. 16,097 4·1 Cambs. 4,798 1·7 Cheshire 18,009 3·4 Cornwall 2,184 0·4 Cumberland 21,965 4·0 Derby 20,669 4·3 Devon 65,248 5·4 Dorset 44,377 9·3 Durham 23,260 5·4 Essex 34,336 4·3 Gloucester 24,233 3·7 Hants 43,363 7·1 Hereford 11,853 2·6 Hertford 9,345 2·9 Hunts 6,519 3·1 Isle of Ely 4,986 2·3 Isle of Wight 3,285 4·9 Kent 41,536 5·7 Lancashire 39,261 5·0 Leicester 13,645 2·9 Lines. (Holland) 5,338 2·2 Lines. (Kesteven) 9,128 2·2 Lines. (Lindsey) 10,810 1·3 London 19,518 20·7 Middlesex Norfolk 43,841 4·1 Northampton 8,881 1·7 Northumberland 40,422 5·8 Notts 9,106 2·1 Oxford 9,294 2·3 Rutland 1,799٭ 2·1٭ Salop 15,850 2·2 Soke of Peterborough 1,522 3·4 Somerset 47,213 5·6 Staffs 20,718 3·5 Suffolk, East 7,440 1·6 Suffolk, West 5,719 1·9 Surrey 36,356 14·2 Sussex, East 38,307 10·3 Sussex, West 23,884 8·6 Warwick 18,532 3·7 Westmorland 13,348 5·5 Wilts 107,430 15·0 Worcester 5,812 1·5 Yorks., East Riding 8,851 1·3 Yorks., North Riding 21,504 2·5 Yorks., West Riding 62,781 5·4 County Boroughs — — WALES. Anglesey 6,270 4·2 Brecon 17,291 8·7 Cardigan 14,167 5·5 Carmarthen 24,421 5·6 Carnarvon 8,644 5·1 ٭ Increase.
— Decrease in Acreage of Crops and Grass. Percentage Decrease. Acres. Per cent. Denbighshire 4,294 1·6 Flint 4,161 3·3 Glamorgan 33,892 13·1 Merioneth 12,564 8·4 Monmouth 10,046 8·1 Montgomery 11,631 4·3 Pembroke 15,463 5·0 Radnor 5,045 3·1 County Boroughs — — Total—England and Wales. 1,237,207 4·6
The decrease between the two years is partly due to certain land formerly classed by occupiers as "permanent grass" now being more properly returned under the heading of "Mountain, Heath, Moor, Down and other rough land used for grazing," the latter heading having been more closely defined in recent years. The remainder of the decrease is attributable to land having been taken over for buildings, railways, roads, allotments and other public or private purposes. The position varies very much in different counties, and it is not possible to make any exact estimate of the area of agricultural land taken for buildings and other purposes.
For any similar figures relating to Scotland I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland.
Drainage Schemes
asked the Minister of Agriculture the approximate average acreage of land in Britain laid waste due to lack of drainage; the amount brought into cultivation through drainage schemes during the last three years; the total cost of these schemes; and the aggregate Government grants towards the same.
As the reply is necessarily long, and contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
I am afraid my right hon. Friend has no information as to the precise acreage of land laid waste on account of lack of drainage, but information as to the worse areas requiring drainage is in process of collection. With regard to the second part of the question, the policy underlying the Ministry's land drainage schemes for the alleviation of unemployment is not so much to bring derelict land under cultivation, as to improve land already under cultivation. It is estimated that the following acreage was improved by these schemes: 1921–22, 342,000; 1922–23, 913,000; 1923–24, 727,000. The figures asked for in the last two parts of the question are as follows:
Year. Total Cost of Schemes. Aggregate Government Grants. £ £ 1921–22 347,324 231,582 1922–23 371,410 253,198 1923–24 306,867 203,030 1,025,601 617,810 Complete figures for 1924–25 are not yet available.
Rating
( for Mr. RILEY) asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount realised by local rates on agricultural land in England and Wales for the year 1895–96, and the corresponding amount received in 1923–24?
My right hon. Friend is only able to give an estimate of the amount paid in respect of rates raised for the expenditure of spending authorities to which the Agricultural Rates Acts of 1896 and 1923 apply. For the purposes of these rates agricultural land contributed in the first year approximately £2,660,000 and in the later year £2,860,000.
Motor Cars (Reckless Driving)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the number of accidents occurring owing to the reckless driving of motorists, he is prepared to take any steps, by legislation or other wise, to further safeguard the public?
Clause 38 of the Criminal Justice Bill increases the penalty to which motorists are liable if they drive recklessly or are in charge of a motor-car when drunk.
Is it not a fact that the majority of these accidents do not take place owing to high rates of speed, and that consequently the present system of testing motor traffic on a measured distance has not the slightest effect in preventing dangerous driving?
That does not arise out of the question.
Licensed Premises (Disinterested Management)
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to appoint a Committee to inquire into the workings of the various systems of disinterested control of the sale of intoxicating liquors, and especially with regard to the Carlisle system; and, if so, will they take into consideration the advisability of appointing Members who have not already formed or expressed any decided opinions on the subject?
I have been asked to reply to this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to a question by the hon. Member for the Westhoughton Division of Lancashire.
How soon can the hon. Gentleman announce the personnel of the Committee?
They will be announced this week.
In view of the large number of women interested in this question, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be a wise thing to put a woman on this Committee?
I think that there is going to be one.
Unemployment
Engineering Industry
asked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to make a statement as to the result of his conferences with the engineering industry?
I received a deputation from the Amalgamated Engineering Union on 12th May when they discussed with me a resolution which the union had adopted on the subject of unemployment in the engineering trade. An official report of what took place was issued to the Press, and I have nothing to add to this.
Is the right hon. Gentleman going to see all the unions in the same way?
Not that I know of.
Insurance Fund (Deficit)
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the rate of interest at present being charged by the Treasury on the deficit of the Unemployment Insurance Fund?
The average rate at present is 4·9 per cent.; the last advance was made at 4⅞ per cent. These rates represent what the Treasury itself has to pay for the money so lent to the fund.
Juveniles (Insurance)
asked the Minister of Labour how many of the total of 8,480,600 male persons estimated to be insured at July, 1924, under the Unemployment Insurance Acts were juveniles in respect of whom a lower rate of contribution was being paid; how many of the 3,033,400 women were, similarly, juveniles; and how many juveniles in each group were at that date unemployed?
Of the 11,514,000 persons in Great Britain and Northern Ireland insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, the estimated numbers of juveniles of 16 and under 18 years are 547,730 boys and 382,660 girls. At 28th July, 1924, the numbers of insured juveniles registered as unemployed were 20,801 boys and 14,614 girls.
Juvenile Centres
( for Mr. FENBY)asked the Minister of Labour in how many places are juvenile unemployment centres at present in operation; is the attendance of unemployed juveniles a condition in all of these, upon the fulfilment of which the issue of unemployment benefit depends; what is estimated to be the aggregate attendance at these centres of boys and girls, respectively; and what proportions of the totals of boys and girls who are insurable and unemployed do these numbers represent?
Juvenile unemployment centres are open in 40 towns, and attendance at these centres, or at an approved alternative course of instruction, is a condition of the receipt of unemployment benefit in the case of all insured juveniles living within a reasonable distance from them. The average attendance at centres during the week which ended on 1st May was 7,360–4,513 boys and 2,847 girls; of these, 3,572 boys and 1,901 girls were claiming benefit. The total attendance of individual juveniles during the year which ended on 31st March last was 73,306. At 27th April the total number of insured juveniles, with current claims to benefit, was 29,505–18,183 boys and 11,322 girls. It will be seen, therefore, that, approximately, 20 per cent. of insured boys claiming benefit and 17 per cent. of insured girls claiming benefit are attending centres.
Contributions
( for Mr. FENBY)asked the Minister of Labour what have been the amounts paid into the Unemployment Insurance Fund in the form of contributions in respect of the employment of men, women, boys and girls, respectively, during each year since the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, came into operation; and what were the contributions made by employers, by wage-earners, and by the State, respectively, in each case?
An estimate of the revenue of the Unemployment Fund each year under the heads specified has been made, but as the statement is a lengthy one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFIICIAL REPORT.
Will it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to add the amount paid out of the Fund each year?
I think so. At any rate, if it be possible, I will have it done. It only means the delay of a day in circulating the statement.
Following is the statement:
— Period 8th November, 1920—July, 1921. Insurance year, 1921–22. July—July. Employer. Employés. Service. Dept. S. 41. Exchequer. Employer. Employés. Service. Dept. S. 41. Exchequer. £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Men … 3,326,000 3,326,000 1,357,000 1,101,000 11,822,000 10,617,000 820,000 8,260,000 Women … 908,000 908,000 — 322,000 3,472,000 3,037,000 — 2,242,000 Boys … 139,000 139,000 — 64,000 442,000 398,000 — 334,000 Girls … 82,000 82,000 — 50,000 296,000 261,000 — 222,000 4,455,000 4,455,000 1,357,000 1,537,000٭ 16,032,000 14,313,000 820,000 11,058,000†
— Insurance year, 1922–23. July—July. Insurance year, 1923–24. July—July. Employer. Employés. Service. Dept. S. 41. Exchequer. Employer. Employés. Service. Dept. S. 41. Exchequer. £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Men … 13,183,000 11,934,000 444,000 9,092,000 l4,739,000 l3,266,000 273,000 10,059,000 Women … 3,542,000 3,118,000 — 2,333,000 3,764,000 3,294,000 — 2,473,000 Boys … 565,000 511,000 — 439,000 509,000 457,000 — 394,000 Girls … 374,000 334,000 — 302,000 322,000 286,000 — 359,000 17,664,000 15,897,000 444,000 12,166,000 19,334,000 17,303,000 273,000 13,185,000 ٭ Exchequer grant for five months, 8th November, 1920 to 31st March, 1921. In addition £632,000 was received for the period 1st April, 1920 to 7th November, 1920. †Exchequer grant for 15 months, 1st April, 1921 to 2nd July 1922, including £1,151,000 for the period 1st April, 1921 to July, 1921 and £2,934,000 for the period 1st April, 1922 to 2nd July, 1922.
Note Currency
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any action is contemplated that will bring about the amalgamation of Treasury notes and notes of the Bank of England; and whether any such amalgamation, bringing about the single system of note currency, will leave the control in the hands of the Bank of England instead of the dual control as now existing, or whether the Government will continue to hold the balance of control?
I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the concluding paragraphs of the Report of the Currency Committee, whose recommendations, as I have stated in my Budget speech, have been accepted by His Majesty's Government. When the £l and 10s. notes are transferred to the Bank of England, the issue will, naturally, be controlled by the Bank.
Finance Bill
Income Tax
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated increase, in the receipts from Income Tax if the present concession to new businesses, whereby they may elect to be assessed for the first three years either on the profits of individual years or on the average of preceding years, were withdrawn and if such businesses were assessed for the first three years on the actual profits of individual years?
Statistics comparing the amount of the assessment with the amount of profits of individual years in the case of new businesses are not avail- able, and, in view of the fluctuations which take place in business conditions from year to year, I should not, I think, be justified in incurring the expense of their collection.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the estimated number of persons likely to be assessed to Income Tax for the present year, and the number of them likely to be relieved from liability to payment of tax by the earned income allowance and the personal allowances?
I regret that these Estimates have not yet been framed.
Abnormal Imports
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a list of the firms to whom exceptional quantities of goods covered by the Budget Resolutions on the new Import Duties and the Silk Duty are being consigned in anticipation of the imposition of these duties?
I am not prepared to furnish the information desired. If the hon. Member will refer to my previous statements on this subject he will observe that they relate to abnormal importations in the aggregate and not to the operations of particular firms.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether a number of these people are Conservative Protectionists?
I think it is quite unnecessary to embark upon an invidious examination at this stage of the accounts of particular firms. The Customs must deal with these matters in a general way. As a matter of fact, I am advised there is no remarkable or extraordinary importation.
Silk Duties
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to charge Customs duty on articles of silk and artificial silk in actual wear of passengers entering the ports of this country, or contained in the personal luggage of such passengers after having been previously worn by them?
Customs duty will not be charged on any articles bona fide worn by passengers arriving in this country; as regards articles contained in personal luggage, reasonable allowances will be made.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a very large amount of silk will come into this country, considering there are 1,750,000 passengers entering in the course of the year?
. Yes, Sir. We have allowed for that in the estimates we have prepared.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his reply means that a woman who buys her dresses abroad, wears them once, and brings them into this country, will be placed in an advantageous position compared with the woman who cannot afford to go abroad to buy?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many pairs of silk stockings will be considered a reasonable allowance?
I think it is much better not to fix in advance hard and fast numerical definitions or standards in these matters.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as artificial silk, being made with cellulose acetate, is already taxed under the German reparation scheme, it is proposed that the suggested duty should be additional to, or inclusive of, the existing tax?
The hon. Member has no doubt in mind, not the levy under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, collection of which ceased on the 10th April, but the duty chargeable under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921. As regards the latter, I would refer him to the provisions of Section 1 (2) of the Act, under which duty under Part I is only chargeable in so far as it may exceed any other Customs duties chargeable.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what stage of the process of its manufacture wood-pulp becomes artificial silk and liable to the new duty?
Wood-pulp would become liable to duty only when it has been converted into artificial silk.
Is that the best answer we can get? It is not an answer.
That is not a supplementary question.
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that nothing in this tariff will interfere with the free import of the material for paper?
No, Sir. I do not think it could have the slightest possible effect, which, I agree, would be most serious.
If wood pulp imported with a declaration that it is for paper making is actually made into artificial silk, what steps will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take?
There is no tax of any kind on wood pulp, and the hon. Gentleman is perfectly free to import any quantity he chooses.
Text of Bill
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill will be printed and made available for Members?
I hope it will be available for hon. Members on Thursday, but it may not be ready before Friday.
Shall we know when it is printed whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to include a Clause dealing with lace?
No, Sir. I do not think that will be decided at this stage.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister informed me that he would put into the Bill the duty on lace—that a decision would be come to in time for it to be put into the Bill?
A method of procedure exists by which a Budget can be reinforced by any further duty. It is only necessary to set up another Financial Resolution.
Mckenna Duties
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the imposition of the new Import Duties will relieve the dutiable article from the payment of any other Import Duty to which otherwise it will be liable?
Articles within the scope of the new Import Duties will not usually be liable to any other Customs Duty at present in force. In some few instances such articles may be chargeable also with Key Industry Duty and, under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, Key Industry Duty will not be charged in such cases, except in so far as the amount thereof exceeds the amount of the other duty.
If an article is partly silk, and is also subject in other respects to the new Import Duty, will it be charged 66 per cent. of the actual value?
No.
What will it be charged?
It entirely depends upon the rates for the different duties. The duties are merged. They are not duplicated. Whichever is the greatest will rule.
Sudan (Imperial Preference)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether goods imported from the Sudan receive the benefit of Imperial Preference?
The Sudan is accorded Imperial Preference under the conditions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919.
Irish Free State (Income Tax)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps, in conjunction with the Irish Free State, to remedy the system under which a person resident both in the Irish Free State and Great Britain is called upon to pay full Income Tax and Super-tax to both Governments before relief can be obtained?
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the grievance felt by English shareholders in limited companies in the Irish Free State in consequence of their having to pay Income Tax both in the Free State and in Great Britain, and of their being unable to obtain relief without much delay and many formalities; and whether he will take steps in conjunction with the authorities of the Irish Free State in the matter?
With my hon. friends' permission I will answer these questions together. I am aware of the difficulties to which the existence of double taxation between this country and the Irish Free State gives rise. A review of the whole position is now being conducted in conjunction with the Irish Free State authorities.
Will my right hon. Friend expedite this review of the case, having regard to the great hardship suffered by people who have these very large deductions made from their incomes and experience great delay in recovering the amounts?
Silverdale Provident Co-Operative, Limited
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the formation of a private company, registered on 31st March under the business title of Silverdale Provident Cooperative, Limited, for the purpose of purchasing and carrying on a private business to be conducted for private profit; and whether, in view of the fact that such a title will mislead the public, the Government will introduce legislation for the protection of the public on the lines of action already taken in certain of the Dominions?
I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the formation of the company referred to, which has powers under its Memorandum of Association to admit any class or section of those who have any dealings with the company to a share in the profits thereof. The question whether further discretion should be given to the Registrar to refuse to register companies under misleading names is one which will be considered by the Departmental Committee now sitting.
Housing
Single-Room Tenements
asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has any information respecting the existence of single-room tenements in England and Wales at present; and, if so, will he state the numbers and the counties where such tenements are situate?
I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a tabular statement comprising the information asked for by the hon. Member as shown by the Census returns.
Following is the table:
County. Private Families occupying one room or less apiece. Population in such private families. Rooms occupied by such private families. ENGLAND. Bedfordshire 331 599 331 Berkshire 1,049 1,676 1,049 Buckinghamshire 460 883 460 Cambridgeshire 360 604 360 Cambridge A.C. 266 449 266 Isle of Ely A.C. 94 155 94 Cheshire 3,495 7,644 3,495 Cornwall 424 647 424 Cumberland 842 1,840 842 Derbyshire 943 1,918 942 Devonshire 8,732 16,167 8,732 Dorsetshire 746 1,334 746 Durham 19,023 54,516 19,020 Essex 12,107 23,760 12,100 Gloucestershire 5,118 8,381 5,118 Hampshire 6,350 10,946 6,350 Southampton A. C. 6,166 10,686 6,166 Isle of Wight A. C. 184 260 184 Herefordshire 172 280 172 Hertfordshire 1,217 2,048 1,214 Huntingdonshire 38 55 38 Kent 6,036 11,488 6,033 Lancashire 24,607 52,834 24,577 Leicestershire 616 1,168 616 Lincolnshire 950 1,635 950 Holland A.C. 119 157 119 Kesteven A.C. 156 210 156 Lindsey A.C. 675 1,268 675 London 147,797 262,363 147,711 Middlesex 13,998 26,253 13,989 Monmouthshire 1,322 2,862 1,321 Norfolk 813 1,321 813 Northamptonshire 625 1,021 625 Northampton A. C. 504 841 504 Soke of Peterborough A. C. 121 180 121 Northumberland 14,086 41,719 14,086 Nottinghamshire 797 1,415 797 Oxfordshire 334 487 333 Rutlandshire 7 7 7 Shropshire 367 856 367 Somersetshire 1,444 2,030 1,444 Staffordshire 2,147 5,046 2,145
County. Private Families occupying one room or less apiece. Population in such private families. Rooms occupied by such private families. Suffolk 812 1,368 812 East Suffolk A. C. 653 1,151 653 West Suffolk A. C. 159 217 159 Surrey 6,442 11,445 6,441 Sussex 6,900 11,112 6,899 East Sussex A. C. 6,124 9,834 6,123 West Sussex A. C. 776 1,278 776 Warwickshire 5,396 11,604 5,393 Westmorland 25 54 25 Wiltshire 539 1,086 538 Worcestershire 743 1,409 743 Yorkshire 14,439 29,877 14 434 East Riding A. C. 1,602 2,890 1,602 North Riding A. C. 1,767 4,295 1,767 West Riding A. C. 10,478 21,617 10,473 City of York A. C. 592 1,075 592 WALES. Anglesey 68 131 68 Brecknockshire 43 91 43 Cardiganshire 67 102 67 Carmarthenshire 277 580 277 Carnarvonshire 552 1,104 552 Denbighshire 301 605 301 Flintshire 135 241 135 Glamorganshire 3,108 6,868 3,108 Merionethshire 13 15 13 Montgomeryshire 27 41 27 Pembrokeshire 168 322 168 Radnorshire 9 11 9 Totals 317,417 623,869 317,260
Of the 317,417 private families occupying one room or less—
144,387 consisted of one person per family. 89,727 consisted of two persons per family. 51,746 consisted of three persons per family. 19,868 consisted of four persons per family. 7,365 consisted of five persons per family. 2,663 consisted of six persons per family. 1,082 consisted of seven persons per family. 384 consisted of eight persons per family. 118 consisted of nine persons per family. 50 consisted of ten persons per family. 20 consisted of eleven persons per family. 4 consisted of twelve persons per family. 3 consisted of thirteen persons per family.
Building Trade (Hours Agreement)
asked the Minister of Health what action is being taken by the Government to meet the situation created by the refusal of the operatives in the building trade to observe the agreement which had been entered into for a working week of 46½ hours during the summer months; and whether adequate protection will be given to any operatives who are willing to carry out the terms of the agreement?
I have been asked to reply. Difficulties have arisen in the building trade in certain districts through the refusal of some of the operatives to work the 46½ hour week. I am informed that these difficulties are being dealt with by the normal conciliation machinery of the industry.
Is there no other machinery available whereby agreements entered into by people can be enforced?
The remedy of the Courts is always open for a breach of contract to anyone who wants to apply to them and who thinks he can get anything by it, but I think, in the first place, the best way is really to act through the ordinary conciliation machinery.
But if men in the building trade are willing to work for 46½ hours, will they be allowed to do so?
The fact is that a large and an increasing number are working for 46½ hours.
Rural Housing Loans
asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the establishment of a rural housing fund from which loans will be available to rural district councils at rates below the market rate or whether he is satisfied the facilities now offered by the Public Works Loan Commissioners are adequate for all purposes?
My right hon. Friend has considered this method, which, in effect, would provide an indirect subsidy, but it would not appear to offer any advantages over the method adopted in existing Housing Acts of providing for special grants together with facilities for loans from the Public Works Loan Commissioners at the ordinary rate of interest.
Smoke Abatement
asked the Minister of Health what action has been taken during the past 12 months to advise local authorities that are undertaking housing schemes of the importance of smoke abatement in the interests of public health; and what specific recommendations have been made as to the methods of reducing the volume of domestic smoke since the Housing Act, 1923, became law?
It has not been thought necessary to issue any advice or recommendations to local authorities on this question during the periods mentioned as there is no reason to think that authorities generally are not alive to the need of doing what is possible under their existing powers to reduce the volume of domestic smoke. As regards the question of anti-smoke measures in the construction of new houses, my Noble Friend is no doubt aware of the memorandum on this subject issued to local authorities by my right hon. Friend's Department in 1920. I may perhaps add that my right hon. Friend has the general question of smoke legislation under consideration and hopes to deal with it as soon as possible having regard to other commitments.
Proprietary Infant Foods
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the possible danger to infant life arising from the sale of proprietary infant foods consisting largely of starch and flour; and whether he will introduce regulations governing the sale of such foods, in view of the fact that he has issued instructions controlling the sale of dried milks?
My right hon. Friend is aware that misleading claims are sometimes made as to the value of infants' foods, consisting largely of starch, but he is not satisfied on the information at present before him that there is sufficient evidence of danger arising to public health to justify the issue of regulations at the present time.
Will the hon. Gentleman circulate through the medical branch of the Ministry of Health the names of firms who embody large quantities of starch in so-called foods?
I do not see that there is any necessity for doing so. I may say the consumption of these proprietary foods is decreasing.
As the hon. Gentleman admits that his Department is in possession of information that this practice exists, at what stage does he consider he will have sufficient evidence to enable him to take real action?
When there is sufficient evidence of danger, the Ministry will take immediate action?
What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "sufficient evidence"?
Patent Medicines
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the dangers arising from the unrestricted sales of certain patent medicines, where the manufacturers are not compelled to state the composition of the products bearing their labels; whether he proposes to take any action in the matter to further protect the public; and will he introduce legislation to compel all manufacturers of patent medicines to state plainly on the labels of medicines sold the ingredients contained in them?
My right hon. Friend fully appreciates the importance in the interest of public health of securing some statutory regulation of the conditions under which patent medicines are advertised and sold, but in the present state of business he does not anticipate that it will be possible to introduce legislation on this subject during the present Session.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these patent medicines contain injurious ingredients and that the public probably take them a little too freely, not knowing what they contain?
That may be so, but the difficulty is so to arrange business that the necessary legislation could be dealt with.
Has the hon. Gentleman ever been in the market place on a Saturday night and listened to these fellows selling patent medicines? It is very easy to chloroform people in this connection.
And in other connections too.
Territorial Rifle Range, Cardiff
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the rifle range for the use of the Territorial Army in Grangetown, Cardiff, is dilapidated and unfit for use; and whether a proposal has been made to establish a new rifle range in this district?
Proposals for the alteration and repair of the Grangetown rifle range have been submitted by the Territorial Army Association for Glamorgan. The plans require to be amended in certain technical particulars; otherwise, the proposals are approved.
Is it not a fact that the plans were submitted over five months ago, and is there any real reason for the delay in approving the plans?
I am not aware of the actual length of time, but the delay, apparently, has now ceased.
Casual Wards (Oakum Picking)
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that under Order A of 1882 the task for a one-night wayfarer in a casual ward was only 1 lb. of oakum; whether he will state to the House the circumstances recently necessitating the increase of the task by one-third; whether he is aware that the insertion of the words not less than a pound and one-third has entitled guardians to increase such tasks to 50, 60 or 90 per cent. above the pound; and whether he will instruct the various boards of guardians to limit such tasks to the maximum of 1 lb. or abolish such tasks altogether?
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a previous similar question put by the hon. Member for Oxford (Sir J. Marriott), of which I am sending him a copy
Is the Minister willing to set up a Committee of three Members of this House to carry out this allotted task?
Can the hon. Member say what is the result of the reconsideration which the Minister has given to this retrograde Order?
The undertaking given by the Minister was given only on Thursday last, so I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will allow a little more time to my right hon. Friend, having regard to the very many duties which he has to perform at the present time.
Is it not a fact that this question has been before the House, and that questions have been put about it, for the last few months?
Contributory Pensions Bill
asked the Minister of Health whether a widow in receipt of a widow's pension under the proposed Pension Bill, who is employed in an occupation insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, will be eligible, when unemployed, for unemployment benefit at the full rate in addition to her pension?
The Bill provides that the widow of a man who died after its commencement shall, on receiving a pension, be exempt from the liability to be insured under the health and unemployment schemes. She will therefore pay no contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and will not be entitled to any benefit there under when she is unemployed. The widow of a man who died before the commencement of the scheme will only be entitled to a widow's pension if at that date there is living at least one child under the age of 14, and her right to the pension will not continue after the end of six months from the date on which the youngest child attains 14. In view of the limited duration of her pension, such a widow will not be automatically exempt from health and unemployment insurance, so that, if she is employed in an insurable occupation, she may pay contributions to unemployment insurance and be entitled to benefit on the ordinary conditions.
asked the Minister of Health the approximate number of widows of insured persons without children under 14 years of age in the age groups 50 to 55, 55 to 60 and 60 to 65, respectively?
Information with regard to the number of widows without children under 14 years of age is only obtainable in respect of the total population, and then only at the Census date of 1921. No data exist for determining, in the case of the age groups specified in the question, the proportion of widows of insured men to widows of uninsured men.
also asked the Minister of Health the approximate number of persons known to be employed in national, municipal and private employment, respectively, under conditions providing for superannuation payments on retirement?
As the reply involves a considerable number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
According to the information available the approximate numbers are (excluding the fighting services) as follow:
Civil servants (United Kingdom) 200,000 Teachers (England and Wales) 184,000 Police (England and Wales) 62,100 Prison officers under special schemes (England and Wales) 2,200 Poor Law officers (England and Wales) 50,000 Asylum and mental deficiency institution officers (England and Wales) 28,000 Local government officers (England and Wales) brought under the Local Government and Other Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922 59,700
No definite information is available as to the number of officers of local authorities who are subject to pension schemes under local Acts, but the number in England and Wales may be very roughly estimated at 40,000.
American Dollars (Treasury Purchase)
( for Sir JOHN SIMON)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the amount of 166,000,000 United States dollars, which has been provided in advance for the liquidation of the instalments of the United States debt due this year, has been paid for, and to what extent; and where it has been charged in the national accounts?
Yes, Sir, in full. No final charge in the national accounts is made until the debt payment has been effected on the due dates to the United States Government, when the sterling equivalent is issued from the Consolidated Fund to an exchange account, through which the dollars are purchased.
Do I understand that these dollars are now in the possession of the Government?
Yes, Sir.
Trade Facilities Schemes
( for Mr. NEIL MACLEAN)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether applications for the guarantee of loans raised by, or for, Finland, Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland have been made to him, or his predecessors, under the Overseas Trade and Trade Facilities Schemes, or whether any such application has been made for trading with any, or all, of the above-named States; and, if so, whether he can state the sum, or sums, so guaranteed, and the nation or nations benefiting?
I assume that the hon. Member does not intend to distinguish in his question between guarantees to credits raised by Governments and guarantees for private trading. Applications for guarantees under the Export Credit Scheme have been made in respect of all the countries mentioned in the question and guarantees up to 9th May, 1925, have been given, in each case to firms trading in this country, as follow: Under the Trade Facilities Act the Treasury have expressed their willingness to give two guarantees of which Parliament has already been informed.
Is it not a fact that these progressive States are very anxious to trade with this country, and are they not well worth supporting?
Civil Service (Pay)
( for Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether all grades of civil servants are paid according to grade, or whether the remuneration of any grade fluctuates according to the pressure of work; and, if any sliding scale grades exist, can he say what Departments they are employed in?
Whole-time civil servants are generally paid the rate or scale of salary fixed for a class or grade, but there are some exceptions, such as certain sub-postmasters, in whose case payments are based on the volume of Post Office work done by them. If the hon. and gallant Member can specify more fully what he has in mind by sliding-scale grades, I will endeavour to obtain the information desired.
Mining Industry (Profits)
Personal Explanation
I claim the indulgence of the House in order that I may correct a misleading statement I made in the course of my speech yesterday. I quoted figures to show that the profits in the mining industry in the county of Durham in 1924 amounted to £11,000. The source of my information was one on which I placed the utmost reliance. I committed the grievous error of not checking the figures. I now find that the profits for the six months ending 31st March, 1925, were only a farthing a ton. They amounted to nearly £2,000,000 last year. I feel that the House should at once be informed of this fact. My informant had relied upon an article which appeared in a responsible London journal and which had been widely quoted.
Unoccupied Houses
I beg to move,
The Bill authorises local authorities to obtain possession of houses which have been empty for a period of more than three months. The houses so obtained are to be used for the purpose of providing accommodation for the people who are either homeless or living in very overcrowded conditions. The rent to be charged by the local authorities for such houses must be a rent of a working-class standard. Out of the rent so paid the local authorities will be entitled to make a deduction of 10 per cent. for the cost of administration and upkeep, and the money received, by way of rent, over and above that shall go to the owners of the property. The Bill also provides that in certain cases where the local authorities do not exercise their powers under the Act, it shall be competent for the superior authority to step in and work the Act in their stead. This provision is put in because there are certain local authorities like Kensington, Westminster, and others, where the large property owners are dominant. In those districts it is quite likely that the local authorities will not take advantage of the provisions of this very beneficent Measure. The Bill is a piece of emergency legislation, not intended to be permanent; it is proposed that it should only remain in force for five years from the date of its becoming law. The Minister of Health assures us that very rapid progress is being made in the building of houses. Those of us who know what a terrible problem the lack of housing accommodation presents will all rejoice in that fact, but we are quite certain that, however successful the present Minister may be in building houses under his own Act, or under the Act of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), it will be many years before the housing problem will be solved by the building of new houses; and, therefore, this temporary Measure for taking possession of houses which are at present standing empty ought to be passed into law.
Overcrowding is a great human tragedy, as those of us who know anything about the East End of London know full well. There is in Shoreditch at the present time a family of 10 persons living in one room, and it has been impossible for me, or the town clerk, or the other officials in Shoreditch, to find other accommodation for that family. Last week a woman came to me who had four children. She and her husband and the four children were living in a small back room. She said to me, "I would not care if only I could get a front room." The London County Council has certain slum clearance schemes, but ft is unable to remove the people from the existing slums in order to carry them out, and it has actually brought new people into an overcrowded place like Shoreditch because it could not find anywhere else to put them. At the same time there are large numbers of empty houses in Kensington, Westminster, and elsewhere. After having interviewed one of my constituents on this housing problem, I went to the West End of London to see if there were any empty houses available, and I saw in all the streets large house after large house standing empty. In one comparatively small square I saw no fewer than nine of these great empty mansions, and it looked as though they had been empty for a very long time.
Let me appeal to the feelings of human decency of Members of this House. On the one side there are large numbers of people living under conditions not fit for human beings, and on the other hand there are large numbers of empty houses not being utilised at all—their owners are not using them and they cannot get other people to use them. When we are faced with this terrible problem it is time for us to put an end to this dog-in-the-manger attitude on the part of these owners of property, take over the houses and give the poor overcrowded people some chance of living in decency. It is quite true that my proposition means an interference with the rights of private property, and if there is anything at all sacred in this House it is the rights of private property. During the War, however, the rights of private property had to bow down before that national necessity, and when there is such a tremendous national necessity for houses for the overcrowded people we cannot regard the rights of private property as being sacrosanct, but have to see that in the issue between private property and the ordinary elementary rights of our fellow citizens to decent housing accommodation the rights of our fellow citizens should be put first and the rights of private property come second.
Hon. Members opposite are said to be afraid of a social revolution. To my knowledge, nothing in this country is more productive of bitter discontent than the scandalous housing conditions of the people. If ever a violent social revolution does take place in this country it will be due in no small measure to the fact that, while a certain section of the people are living in houses which may be called palaces, great numbers of our fellow men and women have got to live under housing conditions which are more like the conditions of the pig-sty. Therefore, not only on the ground of human justice, but from the point of view of the safety of the social system for which hon. Members are concerned, I hope the House will give this Bill a Frist Reading, and I hope the Government will take it under their wing and see that it is speedily passed into law.
I rise to oppose the Motion asking for leave to introduce this Bill for two reasons. The first is that this Ten-Minutes' Rule seems to me, and I hope many other Members agree with me, to be very much abused at the present time. Like so many of the questions which are put in the House it is used, I am afraid, very often as a means of advertisement by the Members who take advantage of it. It has been abused to such an extent that more than once in the last few years we have seen several Ten-Minutes' Rule Bills put down on the same day, with a consequent waste of the time of the House. If we oppose Bills which are brought forward in this way, I hope we shall warn off some of those who make use of this particular provision, and that we shall see fewer of these Measures.
The second reason I have for opposing this Bill is that it seems to me to be an example of the cold, callous cruelty which is so characteristic of the Labour party when they are dealing with matters affecting the lives of the poor of this country. What does this Bill mean? It is another device to prevent the housing problem from being solved, another device warning people against taking any part in the financing of houses or building houses. Again and again I have noticed, and I believe other Members have noticed it also, that from those benches come suggestions which must inevitably accentuate the housing difficulties and the trials of the poor, suggestions which are brought forward, no matter what suffering or what misery they may cause, simply in order to promote some silly idea that happens to be in the heads of the Labour party. Such a Measure as this means one more added to all the other causes which deter people from investing their money in the building of houses and thus providing the only solution of the housing problem that there can be. The Bill will mean that if a man builds a house and is not able to sell it within a month or two of building it, it may be taken from him, taken away from him under conditions which will give him no return on his capital expenditure—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—no adequate return; and, therefore, a certain number of people who otherwise might build houses or finance the building of houses will prefer to put their money into other investments. That is really the chief reason against this Bill.
It has been represented to me already that the Government have no particular objection to seeing this Bill printed or to giving leave for its introduction. I would warn supporters of the Government that that is a very dangerous attitude to take up, because when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health sees a Bill of this sort in front of him he will be so pleased with the Bill, feeling it is so much in accordance with his housing policy, that I am very much afraid if ever it does get printed and he reads it, it will become the official policy.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thurtle, Mr. Broad, Mr. Lansbury, Miss Wilkinson, Mr. John Jones, Mr. Maxton, and Mr. Wheatley.
Unoccupied Houses Bill,
"to make provision with respect to the acquisition by municipal authorities of unoccupied houses for the purpose of relieving overcrowding," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 182.]
Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Bill [Lords]
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, not amended ( in the Standing Committee ), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next.
Bills Reported
Manchester Ship Canal Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Lloyd's Bill [ Lords ],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time.
Fylde Water Board Bill,
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill [ Lords ],
New Shoreham Harbour Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Selection (Standing Committees)
Standing Committee A
reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Brigadier-General Warner; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Cadogan.
further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee A: Mr. Attlee, Sir Henry Buckingham, Mr. Grant, Mr. Harland, Mr. George Harvey, Mr. Mardy Jones, Major Kindersley, Mr. Hye, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, and Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive.
further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Rating and Valuation Bill): The Lord Advocate, Mr. Sandeman Allen, Captain Brass, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Guinness, Mr. Harney, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Lansbury, Sir Frederick Rice, Mr. Riley, Major Ruggles-Brise, Mr. Solicitor-General, Colonel Wedgwood, and Sir Kingsley Wood.
Standing Committee B
further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Attlee and Mr. Thomas Henderson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Beckett and Mr. Palin.
further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Criminal Justice Bill): Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Cassels, Sir Henry Curtis Bennett, Mr. Rhys Davies, Sir Patrick Hastings, Sir Gerald Hohler, Sir William Joynson-Hicke, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell, Mr. Morris, Mr. Rentoul, Mr. Goodman Roberts, Mr. Saklatvala, Sir Henry Slesser, and Mr. Solicitor-General.
further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee B: Mr. Mitchell Banks, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Cove, Mr. Grotrian, Mr. Harney, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Mr. James Hudson, Sir Herbert Nield, Major Price, and Mr Rawlinson.
further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill): Duchess of Atholl, Mr. Campbell, Sir Henry Craik. Mr. Charles Crook, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mi-Ernest Evans, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Robert Hudson, Sir John Marriott, Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell, Mr. Robert Morrison, Lord Eustace Percy, Mrs. Philipson, Mr Somerville and Mr. Trevelyan.
Standing Committee C
further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Public Health Bill): Mr. Fenby and Sir Philip Richardson; and had appointed in substitution: Major Crawfurd and Mr. Vernon Davies.
Reports to lie upon the Table.
Orders of the Day
Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [ 18th May ] "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Which Amendment was: To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
"this House, while it would welcome a just and generous scheme of widowed mothers' and orphans' pensions with a reduction of the age of qualification for old age pensions and the removal of the means limit, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which exacts contributions from wage earners and imposes an additional burden on industry, makes no provision for a large number of widows and orphans and families where the father is incapacitated and, in the case of those qualified to become recipients, provides allowances which are wholly inadequate."— [ Mr. Wheatley. ]
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
Yesterday we had a most interesting Debate upon this most important Bill and we had from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) a characteristic speech, the opening and closing passages of which dealt with that which is so seldom absent from the right hon. Gentleman's speeches—namely, the alleged failure of the capitalistic system. In spite of his arguments, the right hon. Gentleman misquoted, or at least misrepresented, the sense of the Budget speech which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He represented my right hon. Friend as having said that 70 per cent. of the population would not be in a position to support themselves over a long vista of 80 years, and then he turned round to his supporters and said, "Could you have a more abject confession of the failure of the capitalistic system"? —[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear"!]— and even after a night's reflection we find that there is still one of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters who cheers that statement. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say? What he said was that he could not complete a system of national insurance in that way, but that it was necessary for the success of such a scheme to spread the risks over the whole community and call in a generous measure of State aid. Is that a confession of the failure of a capitalistic system? The truth is that this Bill, far from being a confession of failure of the capitalistic system is a proof of the success of that system and of its ability to fulfil its duty to the community. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) painted out yesterday how large were the sums which were being found annually for the ever-growing expenditure on social services, and I think it is worth while repeating the figures. In the last 15 years the sums expended on social services have increased from £73,000,000 a year to £338,000,000 a year. The House will note that that increase is out of all proportion to the increase of the income of the possessing and directing classes.
Are those figures taken from the Consolidated Fund?
Not entirely.
Can you divide them?
At some other time I will do so, but the figures I have given represent the total sum which is being provided by the triple alliance, the taxpayer, the employer and the employed. That is the sum spent in providing social services, including the taxes and the rates. The House will note that that is evidence of the greater and greater provision that is being made year by year towards those services, and far from it being evidence of the failure of the capitalistic system, it is proof that that system is able to bear, and is bearing, the burden that is placed upon it. If the Socialist State, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston was proclaiming in very general terms, was in operation, does he really think there would be produced year by year wealth out of which sums approximating to the large sums which are now being applied to these services would be available for that purpose? We are providing those sums under our system, but under the system which the right hon. Gentleman advocates no such provision could possibly be made. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite came to deal with the Bill itself, he said he objected to the contributory system, and he contrasted this Bill with another Bill which he thought his party was in favour of. It appeared that that Bill was a non-contributory Bill, but he was very vague about it, and he did not tell the House how the money was to be raised, or what the benefits were to be, but he did say that he had in mind, or that his party had in mind, double benefits for the widow and her children.
4.0 P.M.
I am glad to see the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is now in his place, because I want to know whether the double benefits for the widow and two children, amounting to 36s., of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston spoke, was really part of the scheme of the late Socialist Government? Was it part of the scheme? Was that what was actually proposed by them, or was it merely something which the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind for vote-catching purposes. He had to admit, on being pressed, that he had never seen the scheme, and I think it was extraordinarily curious that the Minister of Health had not seen the scheme which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said was ready. was this statement made for the purpose of putting it before the electors? It was made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in the preface to a book which was an instruction to the Labour candidates at the last election. Yet that scheme with the double benefits, was never shown to the late Minister of Labour. I wonder whether this is another rabbit. We had one, the cure for unemployment. That was also put before the people of the country. Is this another one? Perhaps, as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is here, he will tell us what that scheme was, and whether the right hon. Gentleman's description of double benefits for the widow and children was really the scheme which he intended to put before the House and the country. The right hon. Gentleman said that in his view the essence of a pension was something which was not paid for; it was something which was given free; consequently, on that theory he objected to the contributory scheme, I imagine that, in theory, pensions are in the nature of deferred pay, and, on that theory, it seems to me quite reasonable to ask employers to contribute to those pensions. But in practice—and this appeals to me much more—the contributory system offers great advantage. It has administrative advantages. The contributions are more easily collected by means of stamps, a principle which was established almost by general consent in 1911 when National Health and Unemployment Insurance were introduced, and which has become part of the everyday life of the country. The battle of the stamps in those days, which we all remember, was fought and won by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and, seeing how administratively simple it is to obtain contributions in that way, I think there is a very good reason why in practice it should be continued.
There is another reason which to me is more appealing. The contributory system is really the key to the solution of that problem which has worried everyone, namely, how to get rid of the penalty on thrift in connection with old age pensions You have got to apply some test of the right to an old age pension unless you are going to make the old age pension universal never mind what age it starts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, told us quite frankly that he could not make old age pensions universal on the ground of the cost, and every Government who has examined the matter has had to come to the same conclusion. It would, indeed, be a waste of public money to make old age pensions universal, and to thrust them upon large numbers of people to whom they are quite unnecessary. Therefore, if we were not going to make them universal, there had to be some test of some sort, and the test was an income limit. That is to say, those who had more than a certain income were not to have the pension. But we all realised, at least we on this side of the House realised, that that was an extremely bad test, because it was a penalty upon those who had endeavoured to help themselves. Is was a penalty upon those who had made their own savings.
In order to get rid of that test, I would go a very long way if I could find some other test which could be applied instead. We have found that other test, and it is that they should contribute towards health insurance, and, so long as they are of the class that are required to contribute to health insurance, then they should be entitled to their old age pension without any inquiry as to means, and without any penalty for their personal thrift. In order to get that test, it is necessary that there should be a contribution, but, if there be a contribution from the worker, is it suggested that there should not be a contribution from the employer? I cannot conceive any party bringing into this House a Bill which calls for a contribution from the worker and does not call for a contribution from the employer. I know the argument—I fancy it was worn threadbare 15 years ago—that the barrister who made £5,000 a year with the aid of two clerks ought not to be let off as against the manufacturer who makes £5,000 with the aid of 500 workmen. I know that argument; I used it lots of times. But if I am right that a pension is in the nature of deferred pay, then a quite different consideration applies. The employer is getting a contribution towards the pensions of the 500 whom he employs and from whom he makes his profit, and, if it is a contribution in the nature of deferred pay, then in theory there seems to be no objection to it.
I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs did not desert the principle which he established in 1911. He accepted the contributory principle, but again for a reason different from that which I have put before the House, the reason—and a very good reason—that there are enormous calls still to be made upon the State for aid in all sorts of extensions of social services. There are calls looming ahead of us—and not very far away I hope—for the clearance of slums and the other matters to which he referred, and I agree that it is very undesirable that the whole of the State resources should be pledged to one scheme, leaving nothing over for other schemes.
Yesterday, also, we had from various Members suggestions for different benefits. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs himself called attention to the desirability of assisting the incapacitated younger man, and he contrasted him with the active and vigorous man of 65, saying that the younger man, when incapacitated, required a pension much more than the vigorous man of 65. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) drew a harrowing picture of the fate of a wife whose husband was incapacitated There is not the slightest difficulty in making a very strong case for consideration on behalf of an incapacitated man under the age of 65, but I would remind my hon. Friend that those cases are to some extent at any rate dealt with under the two forms of insurance which are outside the scope of this Bill. If the incapacity be due to accident, the Workmen's Compensation Act makes provision for him. If the incapacity be due to ill-health, the National Health Insurance Act does make, not sufficient, but some provision for him. The standard benefit, it is true, is only 7s. 6d. per week, but most of the approved societies have already a surplus, and in many cases that 7s. 6d. has been already increased to 10s. a week.
Suggestions for variations in the benefits have been made. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Duff Cooper) wished that the position of existing widows should be taken into consideration, and the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough urged the hard case of the spinster who had formerly been in employment and went to the Employment Exchange and found that there was no work for her and no possibility of work being forthcoming. It was urged that some alteration should be made in the benefits so that those cases might be covered. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health promised to listen to the arguments that were advanced, and, provided that there was no greater charge upon the Exchequer, to do his best to meet those cases, and, of course, they can be dealt with when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, whom I regret to say is not in his place, because I wanted to ask him a question—perhaps someone speaking in the Debate will be able to answer the question—suggested that the approved societies might be made more use of in the administration of the Bill. He suggested that the 70,000 agents of the approved societies might be used to check the claims which will be made under this Bill. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough interpolated one short, sharp word "spies." The right ion. Gentleman disclaimed any intention of using the agents as spies, but he did not say how he did propose to use them, and it would be extremely interesting if he or someone speaking for his party would say in what way he does propose to use them. He made another suggestion. It was extremely interesting. He suggested that there should be added another benefit, a funeral benefit, or a life insurance benefit, and he enforced that suggestion by the argument that the people of this country have shown that they want such a benefit by the fact that £25,000,000 of premiums are paid voluntarily every year by the wage-earning class in order to get funeral benefits. At first sight that statement would appear to be, not an argument for including life benefits in the Bill, but rather an argument in the opposite direction, because it would appear that by voluntary effort the whole field had been satisfactorily covered, or at any rate, covered to the satisfaction of those who subscribe £25,000,000 a year. But, the right hon. Gentleman said, there were lapses. A great many of the insurances lapse. I think he said that up to £5,000,000 of policies lapsed in one year. Surely the figures which he gave were not the figures of to-day, because my recollection is that it is only a year or two years ago that we passed through this House an Act which was intended, at any rate, to remove the losses which had occurred owing to lapsed policies. My recollection was that we placed upon the companies the obligation to issue fully-paid policies instead of causing the policies to lapse.
Whether that be so or not, I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is put forward on behalf of the approved societies. Ho, apparently, was authorised to offer the assistance of the approved societies in the administration of the Act; did he also, on behalf of the approved societies, suggest that there should be a compulsory death insurance? I remember very well that, in the Debates in 1911, when that question arose, the right hon. Gentleman refused to include in the National Health Insurance Bill any death benefits at all, because he said he was under pledge to the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Prudential!"] I am trying to recall what he said. He was under pledge to some of the insurance agencies, or it may have been the trade unions for all I know to the contrary, not to introduce this into the Bill. Has he been relieved of that pledge, or what is the present position? I should very much like to know, if he, or someone speaking from the Liberal Benches, will presently answer. I say to all those who make suggestions about the benefits, to all those who really want to improve the Bill, " Be careful that you do not smother the Bill by your kindness." A Bill which rests upon contributions from the Exchequer can just as easily be killed by kindness as by the opposition of out-and-out opponents.
I will leave the consideration of benefits at that, and turn for a moment again to the speech of that out-and-out opponent, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston. He said that this Bill was a mockery of the hopes of widows, and that only a Tory Government could suggest that 10s. a week was enough for a widow. Where did he hear any Tory, whether Member of the Government or supporter of the Government, ever say that he thought 10s. a week was enough for a widow? Never has that been said. My right hon. Friend did not bring this Bill forward saying that that was enough for a widow. The right hon. Gentleman made that statement a little too soon. He will make it, no doubt, and his followers will make it, on the platforms in the country, but when he makes it in the House of Commons he must expect a contradiction of a statement which has not a vestige, of truth in it.
The 10s. a week is a start; it is a foundation upon which personal efforts can build. It is a relief to a husband to know that at least 10s. a week will be given in the event of his death, and it is an encouragement to him to put by, however small the sums, something which will add to the comfort of his widow and his children. I am told that in Birmingham alone 25 per cent. of the widows who are now on the Poor Law will come off the Poor Law as soon as this Bill is through and they become entitled to their pension. I will give another illustration. I am interested in the Services. In the Army and the Navy, every man of two years' service who is married will have an insurance for his wife. Is that nothing? It is better than nothing. It is a good deal better than nothing. Every soldier who has had two years' service will have had credited to him the 104 contributions which are necessary to entitle his widow, should he die, to a pension. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston had better not tell the wives of serving soldiers and sailors that this is a mockery. I think he will find that they will regard it as a great deal better than nothing, as a start in the right direction towards making their future more assured and safer.
That is only after they leave the Service!
What about the unemployed who are not qualified?
Then the right hon. Gentleman turned from the widows to the pensions, and he spoke about robbing the old man's poor-box. He is very good at making slogans; I feel certain that this will be on the posters before long—"Robbing the Old Man's Poor-Box." How did he support that? He said that there was an alteration in the basis of the non-contributory pensions, and that £26,000,000 a year was to be cancelled or confiscated. I wonder what he means by an old man? When is a man old? Is he old at 50?
Look in the glass!
I will take my own case in a moment. Is he old at 50? What do we do for the old at 50? We put 4s. 11d. a week into the old man's poor-box. We put benefit into his poor-box equal to 4s. 11d. a week. At 55—almost my own case—we put into his poor-box 7s. 8d. a week, and if he is old at 60, 16s. 8d. a week is put in, so far as the old man is concerned, at a contribution of 4d. Is that robbing the old man's poor-box, or is it not, in fact, making a large contribution, a very large contribution, towards giving him an old age pension at an earlier date! Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman means young men and not old men— supposing that he made a mistake, sup- posing that he revises his heading and calls it the young man's tax, or the young man's poor-box—he is equally unfair. He says that £26,000,000 a year is going to be cancelled or confiscated, but in 1965 —40 years hence, which is all the time we need worry out—the contribution of the State will be £64,000,000 a year, and, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the actuary's report shows a charge in perpetuity upon the State of a very large sum. The right hon. Gentleman went on to ask how many aged workers would reap benefit under this scheme—how many old men can live on, 10s. a week? Enormous applause from the back! Well, let us test that; let us compare for a moment the present and the future. At present an old man does get 10s. a week at 70, perhaps—that is to say, if he has not been thrifty on his own account, or if he is not earning wages on his own account. In future that test goes, and at 70—nay, at 65—he will get his 10s.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on a point of information which is very important? Will he tell us if it is not the case that an old man who is now 70 years of age and drawing his 10s. pension does not have his means limit disqualification interfered with in the slightest by this Bill?
If he has been in health insurance, he gets the means disability abolished.
If he is over 70 and drawing his money now?
Yes, if he has been in health insurance for the requisite time. My right hon. Friend reminds me that he is in receipt of medical benefit, and, therefore, is insured within the meaning of the Bill. Let me pursue my comparison for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman is anxious to know whether any old men will reap the benefit. There will be hundreds of thousands who will reap benefit almost at once, and more and more as each year goes by. Then he adds: Can they live on 10s.? Can they live on 10s. now at 70? No. Well, how do they live, and how will they live at 65? Not on 10s. This is not a device of the Tory party to make them live on 10s.—quite the contrary. They will have, as they do have now, children who help them, children with whom they live, and to whom they will bring the 10s. a week as an enormous benefit which enables them to keep the home going. They will have, as they have had before, the friendly society benefit, and they will have the benefit of their savings; and, now that gradually the thrift bar is removed, I venture to think that those savings will be continuously increased. So I answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions: Benefits under this Bill will be brought to millions of people; there will be a greater sense of security and stability in working-class homes, and a foundation well worth building on by all who desire to maintain their independence and who are willing to supplement the State provision by their individual efforts.
It is certainly extremely interesting to us on this side of the House to see the Secretary of State for War, whom we all recollect as a protagonist in fighting against the Bill of 1911, who built up his Parliamentary reputation by a long and sustained opposition to every part of that Measure, standing to-day at that Box advocating an extension of the principle which he then so strenuously opposed. We are glad to number him among the converts. It is nearly as interesting as hearing the Minister of Health proclaiming his filial piety in the successorship to the old age pension system, which his party had the power to introduce for 10 years and neglected to do so, and which was left for a Liberal Government and the Liberal party to introduce in 1908, with not much enthusiasm and not much support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. We may claim that the policy which was started then, and which we have followed in successive Insurance Acts, is now being extended by the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman introduced yesterday. Certainly, no one speaking from these benches is anxious to do anything except co-operate in this Measure, which is of such great importance and such great social value. My right hon. Friend, however, asked a few questions, which I am certainly not authorised to answer, but which raise one or two points which do require further elucidation.
I will deal with the first point, namely, what is going to be the function of the approved societies under this Bill. The Minister of Health yesterday, in his opening speech, adumbrated some function for the approved societies in granting certificates, but he did not develop what the position of the approved societies was going to be, or what exactly he meant by that phrase. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) meant to imply was, that in a Bill of this kind where you are not giving straight pensions, as in the case of old age pensions, where you have widows with dependent children whose ages vary, who come in and out under the scheme, the approved societies might do a service in assisting the Government, or whatever Department is going to deal with the pensions, in examining whether or not the applicant is entitled to a pension. Owing to their organisation, they will be able, to do it in a way I do not see that any Government Department could do it. I do not understand whether the widow's pension is to be drawn at the Post Office or the Employment Exchange, or where it is to be drawn. That is a point on which we should like information. With regard to funeral benefit, I must say the right hon. Gentleman raised a curious argument. He said, "Why should you assist insurance for a benefit which everyone wants? We want to assist benefits which people do not want."
They do not need it.
But they do want it. They make voluntary sacrifices for it. That is one of the benefits which they desire to have. Surely the logical conclusion is that you should come to their assistance if you want to give a class of people the benefits they desire to have rather than the benefits you desire to impose upon them. I will not elaborate the point, but surely there is something in it. If you can make it easier for the millions who subscribe to obtain these benefits it would be of considerable advantage. I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) as to the future position of old age pensions. I have not understood it in any of the speeches which have been made. Am I wrong in this? Anyone who enters into the scheme at the age of 16 will, by his own contributions and those of the employer, when he reaches 65 have provided his old age pension without any Treasury assistance whatever. Is that the right reading of the actuarial calculation?
They will have provided the pension between 65 and 70, not the pension after 70.
I see. After 70 it will remain a charge on the Exchequer as at present. It does not alter the position from that point of view. I should like to say a few words on what I consider a most important aspect of this question, which I am very disappointed the right hon. Gentleman did not mention at all, though we had something very vague yesterday from the Minister of Health. It is the question how the Government suppose in the present condition of British industry they can possibly impose the charges they propose to do either on the employers or on the workers. That is a fundamental question. The Government know perfectly well it is one which is deeply moving the industrial world from one end of the country to the other. The Minister of Health yesterday said the Government had not yet concluded their deliberations. I hoped that perhaps to-day their deliberations, which surely must have been lasting a long time, would have been concluded. I hoped the right hon. Gentleman, who is much occupied with this subject and is Chairman of the Unemployment Committee and must have a very deep interest in any legislation which will make that problem more difficult, would have been in a position to make a statement on behalf of the Government on this matter.
Let us take the condition as it stands to-day. What is going to be the cost on industry as a whole of the new proposals in the next financial year? In the first year it is going to cost £22,500,000. It is no use the Minister of Health trying to divide that into £10,000,000 for the employers and £10,000,000 for the employed. You have to treat the whole burden together. You have to treat it as one burden. This £22,500,000 will be the contribution of 10,000,000 men, in round figures, and 4,500,000 women. These contributions, of course, will rise in number and quantity as the scheme goes on. From what fund is it imagined by the Government that this money is to come? I need not tell the Minister of Health, who has himself been a business man, the fundamental difference between putting a burden on to standing charges and taxing profits. You are making an additional heavy levy on standing charges, and there is no man in business who would not gladly see the taxation of his own profits increased rather than his standing charges. We have been doing this now over successive schemes. They have grown like mushrooms. It has been assumed in an airy kind of way that after all industry merely acted as a kind of tax collector and you can hand it on to the long-suffering consumer either in this or other countries. I have never quite believed in the theory of passing on to the consumer being as easy a task as people imagine. It is not, as a matter of fact, true. At present, we all know there are schemes to reduce the cost of production, to subsidise industry and to compete with the foreigner, and at this moment the Government, for reasons which are entirely incomprehensible to me or to any other business man, or to any labour leader, insist on starting a scheme which is to add £22,500,000, on top of £64,000,000 of contributions of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that it is quite impossible for such a scheme to be carried out at present.
Why should the industrial investor always be singled out as the one person to provide money for all social service? The right hon. Gentleman tried to deal with it, but he did not. Why should the ground landlord, the investor in foreign securities, or in Government War Loan, or the man who does nothing at all to help British industry be left outside the charmed circle or come off with a very small fraction? It is not the employer, it is the industrial investor who is paying this money. The theory will not work with our present industrial system. It is really an unreasonable and entirely uneconomic method of dealing with this whole question. The landlord, the merchant, the distributing trade, the retailers, all of whom, it is common knowledge, are about the only prosperous people in the country to-day, are effected very slightly, on the principle that the more people you employ the more you ought to contribute. The whole basis is false. If anyone likes to analyse it he will find that those industries which are doing worst, like coalmines, employing about the largest number of people and paying the largest amount of wages per ton of products, have an enormous burden placed on their shoulders in relation to other industries which employ less labour and have higher profits. I sometimes wonder whether or not we have a Government that is living in Mars or one that is living on this planet here, or whether they are operating in vacuo entirely detached from mundane affairs, or whether they are really considering the gloomy economic state of this country.
The Minister of Health yesterday argued that it was a great advantage for employers to have contented workmen. Certainly, and no one feels more strongly on that subject than myself. But why a workman, receiving in many industries an inadequate wage, should consider himself more contented because you reduce those wages still further, for benefits which he may or may not enjoy at present, or why he should be pleased when he is told he is to go out of work altogether because the pit in which he is still working can no longer carry on, I entirely fail to understand. Surely the voice and the opinion of serious men in industry must by this time have penetrated even the ears of the Cabinet which is dealing with this subject. May I quote Mr. Hichens, who is a well known and rather progressive man in the industrial world: dividend on the ordinary shares, will have an additional standing charge of nearly £20,000. A firm like Henry Bessemer, which last year made a loss of over £6,000, will add 8d. per ton to the cost of their steel products. You can go right through the whole list of industries very much on this basis. Let me go into the question for a moment of the position of coal. South Wales and Monmouthshire will have an additional burden of £187,000; the Northumberland and Durham district, which is doing very badly owing to the depression in the export trade, £175,000; South Yorkshire, £102,000; Lancashire and Cheshire, £87,000; Cumberland and Westmorland, £8,000; and Scotland, £112,000. You can go through company after company with the same result. Do the Government really think they can possibly impose burdens like that on industries which today, we all know, are decreasing rather than increasing? I cannot imagine for a moment that the Government will really continue on a course of that kind.
I regret very much that the Prime Minister has not agreed to the suggestion I put forward in a question the other day, that they should set up a Select or other Committee to examine into the whole question of the economical result of these burdens. I asked: the Super-tax and the Income Tax. He comes down to this House, and in reference to industries which are making no profit and paying no Income Tax, and certainly no Super-tax, says, "Now I am really stimulating you to the utmost extent." That is not stimulation. It is more like drowning a puppy. It will not do; it cannot be done.
Let us look at the finance of the scheme. Never was an insurance scheme proposed to which the Treasury have contributed less. This year they contribute nothing. Next year they contribute the trifling amount of a little under £2,000,000. I cannot understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer arrived at the figure of £4,000,000 a year which he said that the Exchequer would contribute for 10 years. As I understand the scheme, he is to contribute nothing for 1925–26, £4,000,000 for 1926–27, £3,500,000 for 1927–28, and then to come down to £1,800,000 in 1928–29, and finally to £1,700,000 in 1935–36. Has anyone ever come across such a measly contribution to a scheme? The Chancellor of the Exchequer stood at the Box and snatched the scheme to his bosom as if the Government were presenting the people of this country with the greatest benefaction that any Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever conferred on the community. When in cold blood you examine the figures, you find that whereas under the National Health Insurance scheme 22 percent. came from the Exchequer, under this scheme at the best only 15 per cent. comes from the Exchequer. Then, finally, he gets most of his money not by any new effort, but by the automatic reduction of war pensions.
The Treasury will have to carry this scheme as long as the present trade depression lasts. I do not in the least advocate that the scheme should not be started. The remissions proposed in the Budget are sufficient and more than sufficient to carry this scheme for a number of years. As a matter of fact, when you look at Table VI, you find that the payments for pensions and allowances during 1925–26 are £2,400,000, and the payments in 1926–27 are £10,900,000. Contributions during 1926–27 are £22,300,000. In 1927–28 there is a distribution of £15,000,000, and a surplus of £7,700,000. It is quite an unnecessary luxury to re- duce the Super-tax when a scheme like this is on hand. I would much sooner not see the Super-tax reduced than see this scheme not carried out. It is impossible for the Government to argue that the money is not there. There are two alternatives before them. One is to postpone the operation of the scheme for a number of years, which I personally would very much dislike, and the other is to carry it for a number of years until Unemployment Insurance figures come down to a more normal total.
In that connection I would point out a factor which seems to have escaped discussion up to the present time. This scheme will affect agriculture; the farmer and the labourer will have to find their halfpence. But they are not under the Unemployment Insurance scheme. They are, therefore, not affected by the question of the unemployment deficiency being dealt with in one way or another. This is an entirely new burden on agriculture. This Government, like nearly every Government, is always going to help that very depressed industry, agriculture. The farmer is always hopefully anticipating that something will be done for him. Whether he will consider this scheme is helping him I do not gather. Whether the agricultural labourer, who has managed to get his wages up to 28s. a week through his wages board, is anxious to have 4d. per week docked from his wages, I do not know either. If this Government is anxious to help agriculture at all, let me suggest to them that they should reduce the contribution and give the same benefits to agriculture and carry the payments out of the general taxation of the country. That, at any rate, would do something. It would do something to reduce the burden on an industry which certainly is not in the most prosperous condition. If the scheme is to apply to agriculture it will be a burden of about £2,000,000 a year.
Many arguments which were used yesterday pointed to this scheme being made non-contributory. Personally, I think that that is a very evenly balanced question. I am certain that the nation's contribution to this scheme is wrong, and that the Treasury contribution should be increased, and although, of course, according to the forms of this House, it is almost impossible for a private Member to alter the financial provisions of the Bill, such a course will certainly be advo- cated, and I shall certainly support it. The whole scheme of these insurances puts too small a part of the burden on the general mass of the community and specialises too much on certain sections. You cannot get away from the fact that all such schemes tend to depress the wage level. That is an economic fact from which there is no escape. I am convinced that in this matter, at any rate, there will be a combination of those who are interested in industry and who consider that they are being treated in a harsh, unreasonable and unfair way in this Bill. In that connection I shall be interested to see what will be the action of the industrial group in this House. We have heard their bark very often, and it will be interesting to see how they can bite.
There are numbers of minor but important points in the Bill which it will be necessary to raise in Committee. Some of them were raised yesterday. In some directions the benefits appear to be too small. The question of the childless widow, in spite of what the Minister of Health said yesterday, will have to be dealt with, for his answer was neither satisfying nor conclusive. Is the Government prepared to take any steps to deal with the question of the 10s. a week payment to the man of sixty-five? The Government has introduced into the Bill in this connection a curious provision, a kind of penalty provision, affecting anyone who employs a man over sixty-five years of age. I imagine that that provision was inserted with the object of preventing the 10s. a week being used. But I think it will have the opposite effect. Is it seriously intended that an employer should say to a man of sixty-five who is hale and hearty, anxious to work, and earning good money. "You cannot go on to your place now. You have to take the 10s. a week, as otherwise I am going to be punished." Is that the argument; is it the serious intention of the Government? Before the Bill passes that point ought to be considered seriously by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. I do not say that I can give a solution, but some attempt at a solution will have to be found unless great difficulties are to be encountered. I read very carefully the right hon. Gentle-man's speech this morning, and I gathered that he had not really succeeded in satisfying his own mind, much less that of other people, as to the economic results of the proposed treatment of the man of sixty-five.
5.0 P.M.
I have been asked to raise one or two other questions on matters of detail. I understand that the local authorities are somewhat alarmed at the additional work which this Bill will throw on them, and they would like some statement as to where they stand in the matter. They consider that by this Bill they will have a great deal more work thrown upon them than they at present feel inclined to undertake. We also want to see the age of the child raised. If you are going to give a pension to the orphan child, you ought certainly to continue it to the age of 16. There is a dangerous tendency to stop these things at the age of 14. It is a tendency which causes people to employ children up to the age of 16 and then practically to throw them out of employment at a very critical time; or else it prevents their getting the advantage of that education which we wish them to have up to the age of 16. These are all points that I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will consider in the Committee, as he has very wisely said that he is accessible to argument. The fundamental question to be solved before anyone is asked to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill is the question with which I began and end, and that is, do the Government intend to put this scheme into operation on the 1st January, 1926, and place these burdens on the oppressed industries of this country, without modification, without additional money, without, in fact, taking charge of the finances themselves? If they do, can they expect those of us who want to support this Bill, who want to see it in operation, and to look on it as a great step forward —can they expect us to vote for or support a Measure which may produce much more harm than it will do good? You cannot always be blowing hot and cold, you cannot zig-zag, as we appear to be doing continually in our financial considerations. What is the use one moment sitting down seriously to consider unemployment, and then to create by your legislation more unemployment? What is the object of the Prime Minister calling conferences, and asking the employers and workmen to sit down at a table, with all their cards, not up their sleeves but squarely turned up, in order to explore the empty cupboards, and, at the same time the Government of the day put difficulties in the way, and intensify every problem that is being discussed?
You must make up your mind on some fundamental principles of this kind. There is nothing new in the state of trade in this country. The condition of unemployment, unfortunately, has been static for a very long period. These problems have occupied the attention of people for two or three years. Why, then, should the Minister say that the Government are considering this question, and have not yet come to a conclusion? I should have thought they would have considered it before the Bill was introduced, and not only considered it but come to a definite conclusion. Like the artificial silk taxes, it is really playing with the industries of this country. We are really not in a position that the trade and finances of the country can be made a kind of playball for the moment, and that industry should live in a state of uncertainty as to its future, without any knowledge of what burdens are being imposed or may be imposed upon it. I think before the Debate ends to-night, the Government ought to tell the House and the country —I do not think it would take very long consideration—exactly where they stand in this matter.
The right bon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) accused the Minister of Health of vagueness, but I think we can, at any rate, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that his statement was clear. If there has been any vagueness in this Debate, it has been a vagueness in the attitude of the Liberal party. We have had speeches from below the Gangway embodying arguments against the Bill, and in some speeches an indication, really, that the Liberal party is going to support it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Industrial Group. It is not for me to defend the Industrial Group. It may be true that its bark is worse than its bite, but the Liberal party in this House is in the same position on this Bill. It seems to me, when it comes to the point, they will refuse even to bark, much less to bite. I understand the Liberals are a united party on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and, it being Tuesday, apparently, we shall hear from the benches below the Gangway the views of two schools of thought with regard to contributory pensions.
The scheme which we are considering now was first put before this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who borrowed the Minister of Health's orphan baby for an afternoon, and is, presumably, part of the policy of broadening the basis of taxation, meaning the transferring of the burden from the well-to-do to the poorer classes of the community. For this year, as the right hon. Member for Carmarthen said, the State has to pay nothing. Next year, and for the nine succeeding years, it has to find £4,000,000 a year, or a good deal less than a penny on the Income Tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given away to the Super-tax payers 2½ times as much as this scheme will cost the State. Employers have to pay something over £10,000,000 a year, and proposals are being made for lightening that burden. The employers to-day, undoubtedly, cannot pay that additional £10,000,000, because of the state of our markets, but with the return of normal trade, that charge will be incorporated in the cost of production. It will be passed to the consumer, and will cease to be a direct charge on the industry. The workers who have to find nearly £10,000,000 a year, have no means whatever of passing on that charge. The contributors are not only paying £10,000,000 a year, but will pay their share of the £10,000,000 a year that passes to the general body of consumers, and they will pay their share of the £4,000,000 contributed by the State. This is really a contributory scheme. The working people are paying for nearly all of it, and no amount of juggling with millions of pounds in figures is going to alter that situation in the slightest.
The Secretary of State for War pleaded in favour of a contributory scheme, because it had administrative advantages. I am going to suggest that a non-contributory scheme has far more administrative advantages. I am going to suggest that it is infinitely easier to work the old ago pension scheme which is non-contributory than it is to work the contributory health insurance scheme or a contributory scheme for widows' pensions. It is adduced as an argument for a con- tributory scheme that it will get rid of the thrift penalty. That is a weak argument. You need only put the maximum income at £600 a year to get rid of the thrift disqualification. But perhaps the most astonishing statement of the Secretary of State for War was that pensions were in the position of deferred pay. If so, why does not the employer pay them all? Are we now to introduce into our social system a new principle whereby, at the age of 65, the workman has handed over to him deferred pay by the State? Are we going to be in the position that the working man, having contributed for 49 years to this scheme, is then going to get it back, and it is going to be called deferred pay? The suggestion that it is deferred pay is sheer nonsense. The scheme is a contributory scheme, the bulk of it being paid for by the workers of this country.
As regards the benefits, many Members have said that the benefits are inadequate, and the Minister of Health, in his speech yesterday, admitted quite frankly that the payment would not be sufficient of itself to maintain a grown man or woman, and he said there were two reasons for the figure being what it is, one of them being that
Are not the employers' schemes contributory?
I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to mean that. The position taken up by the Government is this: The pension is to be merely to encourage people to be thrifty. Surely that is the point of what the Secretary of State for War said. It is to be an encouragement to thrift. Let me say that the vast bulk of the working people of this country have always had to be thrifty. They are paying to compulsory insurance for health and unemployment. They are paying to sick clubs. They are members of co-operative societies and trying to buy their own houses. They are insuring themselves against death. What more does the right hon. Gentleman want? Another inducement to squeeze working people to sacrifice themselves a little more, in order to eke out an admittedly inadequate pension. But that has not always been the view of high authorities. There was published a year or two ago, a "Survey of Relief to Widows and Children (1919)." This embodies views which, in official circles, was thought worthy of publication before the War, but, because of the War, publication was deferred. In a paragraph dealing with "Sufficiency of Relief" to widows and children, this circular says:
This House has never suggested that the pensions of widows and children of ex-service men who lost their lives in the War should be so low as to encourage thrift in order to drive them, if I may say so, to find other forms of income. This House has never grumbled at the existing rates of pensions to War widows and children of deceased ex-service men. It has always held that the pensions should be adequate in amount. To-day, we are paying ungrudgingly, without and comment, without any asides with regard to the virtues of thrift, on a scale much in excess of what is suggested under this contributory scheme. The non-contributory pensions payable to the widow of a private killed in the War, if she has children, amounts to 26s. 8d. a week. For the first child she gets 10s., for the second 7s. 6d., and for each additional child 6s. Is it suggested that there should be a lower scale of pension for the widow to-day whose tragedy is just as great as the tragedy of the War widow? More especially when they are having to find the greater part of the money, is it advisable that we should have a lower scale of relief, in order that it may be an encouragement for these people to find relief in some other way?
What will happen will be that these people will inevitably be driven either to find work or go to the boards of guardians. I suggest that benefits in pensions should be sufficient to render those receiving them independent either of wage-earning employment or of Poor Law relief. In 1921, leaving out the people who were working on their own account, there were, over 70 years of age, 163,000 employed persons—employed persons, because for the most part the old age pension would have been inadequate. What will happen if you are going to give pensions at 10s a week, admittedly insufficient to keep a man or woman between the ages of 65 and 70? The plight of these people will be desperate. They are driven out of Unemployment Insurance. They will get no unemployment benefit if they are out of work. They will have their 10s. pension, and yet they must run the risk of unemployment and must seek a job because the 10s. is not sufficient. By 1927–28, as I understand the figures given in the White Paper, there will be nearly 750,000 new old age pensioners and widowed pen- sioners as potential subsidised competitors for employment in this country, all of them with 10s. in their pocket.
The right hon. Gentleman thought that if he made the employers of people over 65 years of age pay the employer's contribution and the workman's contribution, there would be no inducement to employ them. But with 10s. in the pockets of these people desiring work, the employer has a very strong inducement to employ them, if he can get them at a cheaper rate than he can get other people who have not 10s. in their pockets as a subsidy from this scheme. All that you are doing here is to give a new kind of subsidy to industry, in so far as these people are employed, of 10s. a week for every person who has a pension, whether she be a widow or a person in receipt of an old age pension. Of course, a number of them will go to the Poor Law.
It has already been pointed out, and I think it is perfectly clear, what the view of the Ministry of Health is with regard to the payment that ought to be made to widows and children. The Minister of Health pleads that boards of guardians should do justice to widows and orphans. He does not do justice himself, but he drives them to the rates again, and the boards of guardians will either have to make up the difference, or will have to reduce their scales. As the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) pointed out, in these circumstances the widow is no better off. If the Government had wished for a bold and generous scheme, it might have done something to ease the unemployment situation. If it had made pensions sufficiently generous to make wage-earning employment for widows and old people unattractive, we might have transferred from industry a large number of people, and that would have made provision for a large number of people who to-day are seeking work. But the scheme has not done that. It has not assisted the unemployment problem, but on the other hand it has done that which will tend to intensify the problem of unemployment.
Our objection is not merely to the treatment of the people who are within the scheme, but also as regards the people who are left outside the scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took pride in the fact that 70 per cent. of the population would be covered. Of the remaining 30 per cent. it is not an exaggeration to say that at least one-half need the scheme as much as the 70 per cent. Therefore, a very large number of people, Scottish crofters, shopkeepers, and so on, who have never been insured persons, who cannot become voluntary contributors under this scheme, will be ruled out of benefit, although their need of a scheme of this kind is every whit as strong as that of other people who are included in the scheme.
The Government have taken the arbitrary age of 65 as the age at which persons may qualify for old age pensions under the scheme. There are people who are 65 long before they have had that number of birthdays, and people of that kind ought to be helped just as much as people who are 65 years of age, and are well, hearty, strong and vigorous. Surely, the Government ought to have taken not the line of age but the personal quality and fitness for wage-earning employment. By taking the hard 65 line, they have ruled out of assistance a considerable number of men and women who are old before their years, who are living to-day on the brink of unemployment, and who once they are unemployed hardly ever succeed in existing circumstances in getting a foothold in industry again.
What seems to me a very serious omission is the omission of all assistance for women with invalid husbands. It is useless for the Secretary of State for War to come and say that there is the Workmen's Compensation Act. Everybody knows that that is grossly inadequate. It is useless saying that Health Insurance will provide something. The right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted that that is quite inadequate. The plight of these people is as serious as it is possible to be. The position of a mother with a bed-ridden husband and a number of children is infinitely worse than that of many widows, because she has cast upon her not only the support of herself and her children but the support of an ailing husband. I have already quoted from the document on the survey of relief to widows and children, containing wise suggestions to boards of guardians. I have quoted the section relating to sufficiency of relief. There is another paragraph, headed "Wives of Invalid Husbands":
The meanest of all the exclusions is that of children between the ages of 14 and 16. The Liberal party's spirit of unity appears to have broken on this point. Their unity has disappeared, and the party is not quite agreed. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke to-day for the Liberal party, and who really represents the left wing of the Liberal party, said he was in favour of raising the age to 16. The Leader of the Liberal party said that he thought, on the whole, there was something to be said for raising the age to 16, where children were receiving whole-time education. We stand for 16 as the age without any qualification. Children's allowances are to stop at the age of 14. Does the Minister of Health tell this House that he was advised that it is right in this year of grace to stop the allowances of the children of widows at the age of 14? Does he realise that he is stopping the allowances of school children, and not simply of people who are going out to work? The school-leaving age in this country is not 14 years. The school-leaving age is the end of the term in which the child reaches the age of 14 years.
This provision will mean that just in the very last months of a child's school life, when it is wearing its boots out the quickest, and when it is probably eating more than ever, the child's allowance is to stop dead. I do not believe the Government really mean that. I cannot think that their intention was to say that for the last three months of the school life of a child, no pension shall be received. If this Clause stands, it virtually means that every child of a widow is barred from the opportunities of secondary education. That is a monstrous thing. It is bad enough to rule out other people, but to rule out children who will have to maintain their mother of their opportunities of receiving secondary education, is about as mean a provision as there is in the Bill. We suggest that it is right that the pension and allowances should continue for a child until he has got a pretty firm footing in industry, and is really earning wages adequate to recompense the mother for the loss of the allowance in respect of the child.
This Bill bristles with anomalies, inevitable in the case of a contributory scheme, and with injustices, injustices to which attention will be drawn no doubt at a later stage. There is no body of Members in this House more anxious for a widows' pensions scheme than the Members on these benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are too late!"] but we regard this scheme as a travesty of a real scheme. A Government with the opportunities that the present Government have, that gave away gratuitously a sum of money which would have made it possible to put this scheme on a decent and generous basis and produce a real scheme, need expect no words of welcome from Members on this side. If the Government will at this stage show move generosity and a little more foresight and a little move cave for the National weal, they will find no more enthusiastic supporters than the Members on these benches.
The hon. Gentleman who just sat down has assured us that hon. Members who sit behind him are extremely anxious for a scheme of widows and orphans pensions, and I gather from his remarks that they would have welcomed any scheme except the scheme that is now the subject of the consideration of this House. It is very strange that any other scheme should be welcome and this particular scheme should be denounced with such fiery words and actions by the hon. Gentleman and it would be, I suppose, improper to attribute it to the fact that this scheme comes from this side of the House. The hon. Gentleman also told us that the benefits given by this scheme were different from the benefits given under the War Pensions Act and also from the outdoor relief given by various boards of guardians. I fail to see what that has to do with this Bill. It was never suggested that this Bill was the same as the War Pensions Act or had anything to do directly with the amount of relief given by the boards of guardians, but the hon. Gentleman's speech gave the House time to recover from the spectacle of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) mingling his tears with those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) over the state of British industry. Speaking only for myself, my heart went out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen looking for a better hole and being unable to find one.
It seems to be forgotten by many hon. Members taking part in this Debate that this is an insurance scheme, and many of the questions which have been put to the Minister in charge would not have been put if hon. Members had borne that in mind. Mr. Chesterton, in a recent-article, referring to social legislation of the type we are considering, said that it must be considered and put forward either as State Socialism or as a mild form of old Christian charity. Hon. Members can take their choice. If that were the only alternative I should myself choose a form of the old Christian charity, even if it were a mild form, but I suggest that if anyone looks on it as a form of insurance, which it is, one would be able to deal with the Bill more accurately than many hon. Members have dealt with it. If hon. Members opposite had looked at it as being in some sense connected with Christian charity, we might perhaps have been spared the speech, so pregnant with acidulated venom, as that which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston inflicted on the House yesterday.
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made a rather touching statement to the House when he referred to the unpopularity of his scheme of health insurance which he introduced in 1911. I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not here, because I should have liked to point out to him, very respectfully, what I believe to have been the reasons for the unpopularity of that Bill of his. I do not believe that there was any need for it to have been an unpopular Bill. I believe that its unpopularity arose chiefly from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman hawked it round as a Measure which was giving 9d. for 4d. If he had said, "It is giving 9d. for 9d. It is going to help you to get 9d. worth of insurance by paying 9d. for it," I do not believe that he would have excited either the cupidity of one section of the community or the apprehensions of the other.
Another reason why that Bill was unpopular was because of the ignorance of the right hon. Gentleman himself about his own Bill. It used to be commonly said that the draftsmen of the Treasury were sitting at that box to bring the Bill into line with the right hon. Gentleman's assertions about it in the House. I do not know whether that was true. Probably it was not, but it serves to show the opinion of many people who were interested in the Bill as to the extent of the knowledge which the right hon. Gentleman had of it. I happened to be a Member of his advisory committee. When things became warm on that committee the right hon. Gentleman used to be sent for to say a few soothing words, and he often came down and addressed us in a peroration. It will be within the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Snowden) defined a peroration the other day as a place where one makes statements which could not be substantiated. Therefore hon. Members can imagine that the advisory committee was not very much soothed by the perorations of the right hon. Gentleman.
But this Bill is not going to be hawked about as a clap-trap remedy for the ills from which the country is suffering. It is put forward frankly as a scheme of insurance. It does not pretend that it is going to give benefits to support widows or orphans or anybody else without some other help, either from themselves or other public sources or their own industry. Speaking for myself I regret personally the allusions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when referring to this Bill, made to giving 9d. for 4d. and to free gifts from the State. I believe that the State is not in a position to give free gifts to anybody, and I greatly prefer the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health in introducing this Bill frankly as what it was, as a scheme of insurance to mitigate to some extent the sufferings of those who are deprived of their breadwinners.
This scheme is put frankly before the country as a scheme to assist self-help and to form a foundation on which people can build up a better scheme of security for themselves. It does not need any hawking round, and I am certain that if the line which the Minister took in introducing it yesterday is followed up by hon. Members on this side of the House there is no need to fear for the popularity of the Bill. The only thing to be feared is if people try to boost it as something more than what it is. I welcome the Bill warmly on general lines, but I have one particular point which I would like to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with its effects on certain people.
Under this Bill old age pensions begin at 65, and in consequence of that those who are now members of approved societies for health insurance will not receive the ordinary benefits of their societies when they attain the age of 65. It seems to be doubtful whether they will obtain additional benefits for which they have qualified at the present time. I think that that will inflict hardship. It is true that the essence of health insurance is that people provide for contingencies that might arise. The case is somewhat altered when the insurance is compulsory and when the conditions under which any given person enters into insurance are changed, without consultation with him, no matter how much they may be changed in his favour. Therefore we get the situation that members of approved societies who have contributed to the ordinary benefits which the society are able to give, and have also built up surpluses which would be used to pay additional benefits, will not be able to take advantage of those benefits when they attain the age of 65. I agree that the Bill provides for those who are now about to enter into insurance because their contributions will be reduced. I am only concerned with the position of present members who are approaching the age of 65, and possibly have received very small benefits under the Act. I think that they will have a legitimate grievance, but it might be met, at any rate in the case of societies that have a surplus.
This grievance will weigh with particular heaviness on rural societies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and all the Members of his Government, informed people that if they joined societies of their own they would get the full advantage of their insurance, because they would obtain the additional benefits if their good administration and good health enabled them to build up a surplus. Therefore it seems to me to be a grievance if an agricultural worker, who is on the whole the poorest member of the community, is to be deprived of any of the benefits for which he has contributed, even though he may possibly be going to be helped in some other way.
I would call attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the way in which the sum available for additional benefits is arrived at. First of all they ascertain the surplus which belongs to a society after five years' experience of the Act. That is determined by valuation. That is the gross surplus which the society possesses. That is then diminished by provision made for a large number of contingencies, and is reduced by about one-third. I quite agree that under a system of insurance we ought to provide for every contingency, and I am not grumbling about that, but on behalf of these societies I complain of what happens next. The two-thirds of the gross surplus becomes the disposable surplus. It seems to me that societies are entitled to buy certain benefits for their members. There is a large list of these benefits, but the scale on which they can buy them is based on the experience of the low grade of society, and therefore in the case of a society in a rural district, where the standard of health is high and the standard of administration is good, and where usually everybody knows everybody else, and so there is no malingering, the society is really only allowed to dispose of about 33 per cent. of its real surplus.
I may give the Minister the example of a certain society which I know all about. The society had a disposable surplus of £155,000 at the last valuation. The society protested to the Minister of Health that the benefits which they were allowed to buy with this money would not amount to half what the experience of the society had shown them they could buy. The amount which they expended to January, 1925, was £49,000. The Ministry of Health allowed them to add certain additional benefits, which increased the amount actually spent, but their surplus after additional benefits, on the valuation now in progress, will be not less than £50,000, so that in addition to piling up a large surplus on the ordinary account for the administration of ordinary benefit, they are piling up a still further surplus on the administration of, and expenditure on, additional benefits, which apparently they are not to be allowed to spend. I therefore urge that the Minister should adopt differential scales for estimating the cost of additional benefit, so that a society may be able to give benefits commensurate with its position, and not restrict itself to those which are commensurate with the lowest grade of societies, both as to the standard of health and the management. I do not think it would be difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to have one or two different scales in the case of additional benefits, and it would to some extent meet the grievance I have pointed out. It would to some extent recompense those people who have qualified, who will pass out of the insurance at the age of 65, and who may not be able to take advantage of any of the benefits at present.
There is another reason why, in considering health insurance in connection with this Measure, the right hon. Gentleman ought to allow us to deal with our surpluses. Societies with fat surpluses are like fat lambs surrounded by birds of prey. There are birds of prey hovering about them even at the present time, some of these being eagles, while others may be regarded as vultures. It is not only that there are other societies who wish to pool their smaller surpluses with the larger surpluses, but the representatives of the great industries look with envy on those surpluses which are being built up by some approved societies and want to use them for the reduction of contributions. Therefore, quite apart from remedying a grievance felt by members of the societies, I think it is most important that these surpluses should be applied in benefits to the members of the societies to whom they belong. In that way, the right hon. Gentleman would implement the pledges given to the rural societies by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs made an interesting suggestion in connection with death benefits. I would like to urge that societies which have adequate surpluses should be allowed to give death benefit as an additional benefit, and thus possibly pave the way for death benefit being given all round as an insurance benefit. The industrial companies which were allowed to come in and work the Health Insurance Act grafted health insurance on to life insurance or rather on to death benefit, and it would be only fair to allow the friendly societies and trade unions to compete with them on equal terms, by grafting death benefit on to health insurance. In my opinion the industrial companies should not have been allowed to work the Health Insurance Act at all. I believe if it had been confined to friendly societies and trade unions it might have taken a little longer to get under way, but the country would have enjoyed the great advantage of citizens administering their own funds to their own benefit and acquiring a certain character and knowledge of affairs by doing so. It would have been much more satisfactory. I was going to suggest that under this new extension of the scheme the industrial companies should be left out, but I suppose they have come to stay. Certainly if any such movement were started it would have very warm support. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite who are pleased with these remarks should bear in mind that they are largely responsible for the strength of the industrial companies. If the representatives of the trade unions had not frittered away their time in fighting with the friendly societies we could have presented a common front to the industrial companies as we ought to have done. The blame is on them as much as on anybody else.
I have only one other observation to make and that is in reference to the childless widow referred to so often in the Debate. Had hon. Members borne in mind that this is a scheme of insurance I do not think they need have worried so much about the childless widow. When a man enters into insurance and takes out a policy for his wife, in the normal course, he does not make it dependent on whether or not he will have children in the future. So a man entering into insurance under this scheme should not be penalised if it should happen that he has not any children. This is the man's form of security against leaving his wife unprovided for if he should pass away, and it should not be taken from him. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House, however, would like to see the allowances to children increased if it were possible to do so. This scheme is not absolutely cast-iron and unchangeable. The right hon. Gentleman yesterday said emphatically that this was one of a series of Bills, dovetailed one into the other, which would endeavour to bring to worker more security than he now enjoys. There is nothing to prevent the State increasing the contribution at some future time in order to make better provision for the children and the widows. There is also no reason why there should not be some saving under this scheme—perhaps not so much as under health insurance, but still some—which would enable better allowances to be made to children. At any rate, I feel sure everybody who regards this Bill impartially and not with a strong political or other bias, will congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having had the privilege of introducing it. They will also congratulate him on the admirable manner in which he introduced it and on the spirit in which he is looking at it as being a piece of social insurance and not a panacea for all ills.
As a Unionist who cares more for social reform than for purely party gains or party politics, I desire to congratulate the Government on their courage in fulfilling their election promises and on doing what the country expects from them. I particularly want to congratulate the Minister of Health on his insurance policy. We all know that the Minister of Health refused a higher position in the Cabinet in order that he might look after housing and social matters. Those who know the right hon. Gentleman congratulated, not the party, but the country, on having secured a man of such character and experience for that position, a man who at all times puts the welfare of his country ahead of everything else I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has had this opportunity for which he has probably waited during all his public life. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who said yesterday that no insurance scheme is ever popular at the time it is put into operation. The right hon. Gentleman need not worry. Time will tell, and in the case of this scheme I am perfectly certain time will approve and will speak in terms of the very highest praise of those who have started it. Those of us who are deeply interested in the social aspect, of affairs realise that the Government have started their great attack on poverty, and we realise that this is only the first instalment of social legislation which is to deal with slum clearances, with reform of the Poor Law and Empire development for British trade. After all, our prosperity ultimately depends upon our trade, no matter what Government may be in office.
I do not wish to appear critical, and I realise what a big step forward the Government have taken, but I am certain from the speech made by the Minister of Health yesterday that he does not object to criticism so long as it is of a friendly and helpful nature. There are certain points which I ask him to consider. It may be said that they are Committee points, but they are important. The first is the scale of pensions for widows with children, which none of us on this side consider to be adequate. Whatever opponents may say, none of us who knows anything about the matter consider that scale sufficient. The second point is with regard to the age limit in connection with the allowances to the children, and the third is depriving a widow of a pension on account of any conviction in a court of law. Those of us who have worked for widows' pensions realise the importance of those matters. I may here remark that only since women came to take their proper part in politics has there been a proper realisation of the manner in which these widows were treated in the past. As I have said before, if women had had the vote sooner we would have had these pensions long ago, and there is no good in any party taking particular credit for them. It is because women are coming into their own that it is recognised that widows with little children must be a first care of the country in the future. The idea of those who have worked for this reform always was that the widow with little children should not be forced either to go out to work or apply to the guardians. That was the idea of all our work, and those were the only alternatives in the ordinary case. We know the difficulties which these women have no matter how thrifty they are, though I disagree with the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) who said that it was impossible for working people to be thrifty. I do not think the hon. Member can understand what thrift means. The definition of thrift is "industry, labour and economical management." You can be thrifty on 2d. or wasteful on 2d. But no matter how thrifty these women are I know it is almost impossible to save, in cases such as I have in mind, so as to provide against the eventuality of the husband's death where there is a small family. We hope very much that the Government will find a means of increasing the pension to the widows with children.
I am not saying a word about the case of the widows without children. As the last speaker has said, if the husbands of such women choose to insure, they have a perfect right to the pension, but I think a first charge on a community with a community conscience, is to keep these children, if possible, at home. I know the great sacrifice which I had to make by going into public life, in leaving children at home. It is bad enough when one leaves them under proper care and in the best circumstances, but it is 500,000 times worse when you have to leave them in the worst circumstances, and that is what it comes to in these cases. The widows in many cases do not like going to the guardians—we know how they loathe it—and therefore they have to go to work, which means that they have to get someone to look after the children. They have to get the cheapest person possible, and the cheapest person is generally one who lives in the worst surroundings. There are, of course, game crèches and I only wish there were more. But I am perfectly convinced there is no section of the community which wants to see the widow with young children compelled to go out to work. I hope that in Committee all parties will try to devise a way of making the allowance in respect of the children larger. We should concentrate on that, because that is really the important point.
6.0 P.M.
I know the Minister of Health agrees and I am certain that he knows the terrible loss there is in the child life of the nation. Only yesterday I was reading the report of the juvenile employment centres here in London, from which it appeared that 30 per cent. of the unemployed juveniles are below the normal, physically and mentally, and many of them are positively neglected, and a recent survey of London children gave 40 per cent. going straight into blind alley jobs. I know that one cannot say that they are all children of widows, but we all know that the children of widows are the first to have to go into these blind alley jobs. All of us who have dealt with these matters know that whenever you go down into these places you can tell at once the difference in the child of a poor widow as compared with the child of an ordinary working man. With the very best intentions in the world the child of the widow has not got the chance that the child of the ordinary working man has, and I am sure it would be responding to the real feeling in the country and in the party itself if somehow we could raise the allowance to the children of widows.
The second point is the raising of the age limit. One of the hon. Members speaking from the Front Bench opposite said that the Labour party favoured it. Well, a party that is out of power can always be in favour of all sorts of things, but in power they often change their opinions. I am one of those who have not taunted the party opposite for not bringing in widows' pensions. I realise how impossible it was, between February and April, to do so, but I realise also that they are absolutely dishonest when they say that the scheme they had in mind was not contributory, because it was, and they know it. [ Interruption. ] I think it is very misleading to the country, and it is a point which I shall never allow to pass. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know it?"] You know it yourselves, and if you ask the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think you will find that the scheme he had in view was a contributory scheme. I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman was in power to-morrow, and if he brought in an insurance scheme, it would be contributory.
It would be chucked out to-morrow.
I do not care what you political theorists think of the matter. Theories are very beautiful until you try to put them into practice; but they are quite different then. I am not dealing with theorists, but with people who have got to administer these matters. I am dealing with the Front Bench, not the back benches. I hope the Minister of Health will see his way to raise the age. I had a case the other day in Plymouth. There was a widow who came to me about one of her children, and she had a boy who was one of the most brilliant boys in the school. She worked hard to keep him in the school, but when he reached the age of 14 she could do nothing more, and she had to send him into what was practically a blind alley job. That boy is a loss to the State, because he really had brains, and he ought to have gone on. He is a loss from the point of view of the State, and if we say that the allowance is to stop at 14, we are simply encouraging widows to put their children into blind alley jobs, which I do not think is good for the country as a whole.
The other point, which I am perfectly certain the Minister will consider in Committee, is to recognise the harshness of the Clause which would permit a woman's pension to be taken away from her on any minor conviction in a court of law. I believe that at the present time we attach that condition to no other form of pension, and I urge that the only test should be whether or not she is a fit person to look after her children. There are many people who have got obvious weaknesses, but who, when it comes to looking after their children, are strong, and so I think that that ought to be the only test. A woman may have committed some minor fault, but it is so important to have a mother bring up her own children that we ought to look over it. Nothing in this world can take the place of a mother with her children, and I am sure the Minister will deal with that question in Committee. Yesterday there were many criticisms in the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough, and as a woman I am very proud of having so good a speaker for my sex in the House of Commons, even though she be on the opposite benches. The scheme was criticised because, she said, unmarried men and women are to contribute, although they will never benefit themselves. The whole basis of insurance is to safeguard you against a possible risk, and not against a certain risk. You take a chance. It you do not suffer for the ills against which you insure, you rejoice, but if you do, you benefit, and unless all contributed, no scheme would be solvent. I believe that we all recognise that the children are the first charge on the community, and It is just as hard for a man who does not marry to have to contribute as it is for a woman who does not marry. I hope, therefore, the Minister will not give way on that point.
First of all, I hope the scheme will apply to the widow with the children. I am an unrepentant believer in a contributory system. I do not believe that anybody can exist by what they get for nothing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Lessons are the test, and I believe that I have stood the test as well as many hon. Members opposite. I do not think it does anybody any good to get anything for nothing.
Go, and sell all that you have, and give to the poor.
Take the beam out of your own eye. That is another thing. I refuse to enter into a biblical contest with hon. Members opposite, but I do want to remind them that they have been most ungenerous over the whole of this Bill. When the party opposite enjoyed their brief and brilliant period of office—and they did enjoy office!— whenever they brought in a scheme for the good of the country, we really welcomed it, but the minute anybody else does anything, we do not hear one single word of generous support. Throughout the country you would have thought this was a plan of the rich to rob the poor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] You cannot expect people who have got that in their hearts to think well of anybody, but if I thought that that was the policy of the Minister of Health, I would not be here to-day praising him for what he has done. I think it is a tremendous lack of ordinary Christian charity on the part of hon. Members opposite, and it is astonishing to me how a party which says that Socialism is the best part of Christianity misses the whole essence of Christianity, which is to think kindly of someone else, to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Give us the benefit of it!
I have never doubted the hon. Member's heart. It is only his head; but we have shown both head and heart, and I think the country knows it. I am glad, as I say, that this is a contributory scheme. I know that a great many do not like it, but I do, and I think it is far more representative of the wishes of the ordinary working man and woman to have a contributory than to have a non-contributory scheme. I do not believe the average man and woman want something for nothing.
No, it is the likes of you who do that.
I am glad it is contributory. It can be made a better scheme, and I hope the Minister will let us have it in Committee on the Floor of the House. I think it would be better if we had it here, and I appeal to all hon. Members not to think of small party advantages. The party opposite have not got a look in for years to come, and if the Government go on in the way in which they are doing, they are done for a long time.
I would remind the Noble Lady that prophecy is a little different from insurance.
Yes, but they are very much the same, for they both look into the future. I beg of hon. Members to let us get together and try to see if we cannot make it an even better scheme, not for the benefit of a party, but for the country as a whole.
I am sure the House has listened, as it always does, with interest to the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor). She mixed up some admirable human sentiment with some prophesying, which brought her within the jurisdiction of the Chair, and she talked at length, as previous speakers in this Debate have done, about what the late Chancellor of the Exchequer might have done. She went in for some thought-reading in this regard, and declared that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the members of this party, if they had introduced a Bill to deal with widows' pensions, would have introduced it on a contributory basis. If there is one thing more than another that is certain about the opinions of the Labour party, it is that any proposal to introduce a contributory scheme of widows' pensions would have been thrown out holus bolus, without apology, and at once, by the Members of the Labour party, whosoever had the temerity to introduce it, and I know there is no justification whatever for the reiteration of the charge that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was in favour of a contributory scheme. What is the central fact about the finance of this Bill? The Noble Lady praised it. She was quite proud about it, and previous speakers have said it would redound to the credit of the Unionist party in the future. But what is the central fact about it? It is that the rich are relieved of their Super-tax. People who did not need the extra wealth, and were not asking for relief, many of them, and never expected to get relief, were handed over £10,000,000 as a. preliminary to this Bill. As the first step, £10,000,000 were given to the super-rich, to the people who have over £2,000 a year, and, in addition, £32,000,000 in relief of Income Tax.
I will not deal with that aspect of the question, because my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), whose figures were discussed in the House yesterday, will, I trust, go into these matters later on, but everybody knows that the super-rich and the rich were relieved to the extent of £42,000,000 as a preliminary to this Bill, and if any fact has been clearly established during this Debate it is that the parasite, pure and simple, gets off. The industrial magnate pays. The miner and others are going through difficult times. They have to pay. But the parasite, pure and simple, walks off and pays nothing. Whoever has invested his money in War Loans goes off. Whoever has invested any money in land and sits tight and waits for a rise, goes off. Every parasite, pure and simple, in the country walks off safe, and industry and the poor are compelled to pay. If in the days that are to be, the Noble Lady opposite, the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), takes some credit to herself for being a Member of a party that initiated widows' pensions on such a basis, then I am really sorry for her.
The difficulty that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to face in respect of the administration of this Bill will arise very largely, if not entirely, because of this contributory basis. Look, for example, at what will happen. You will have hundreds of thousands of working women who will contribute all their working life and never get a penny. It is not even decent insurance, because in insurance you do run the risk of getting something. Hundreds and thousands of these women are doomed, through no fault of their own, to receive nothing, but always to pay. It reminds me of the story of his ancestors told by Mr. Dooley to his friend Hennessy. When Dooley was talking about his ancestors, he said that one or other of them were not regicides not because they were unready or unwilling to become regicides, but because a king did not come their way. With some slight alteration Mr. Dooley's words might apply to some hundreds of thousands of women who have been brought in under this scheme, but who will draw no benefits, being only compelled to pay. They will be working side by side in the mills with women who become widows, and who start out on the Monday morning with 10s. in their pocket, while, on the other hand, the woman who is not a widow will be paying her twopence, and never get any benefit like her neighbour with the 10s. weekly. This contributory scheme leaves out, so far, at any rate, as I can see, the household with an invalid husband. I understand the right hon. Gentleman has been considering this problem, but for the moment that is so. The rentier gets off.
What, however, I have never heard discussed in this House is what is going to happen to the unemployed man. With two years' unemployment and the payment of 27 contributions you are all right. But pay 26, and the unemployed man, so far as I can see, the men employed in the shipbuilding industry, where unemployment may be endemic, the man unemployed for more than two years, drops out. There are whole classes of people—programme sellers, theatre attendants, ticket checkers—who will never qualify. Then we have classes which are outside the contributory system. Shore fishermen, their widows can never benefit; crofters, their widows can never benefit. There are thousands and thousands of crofters in greater need of benefit at this moment than thousands and thousands of industrial workers. There are the timber sellers who run contracts; they get nothing out of the Health Insurance scheme. There are the harbour porters, they cannot benefit. There is the clerk, for example, with £240 a year. He benefits so long as his wage remains at £240, but, if his employer raises his salary to £255, he and his wife are out. There are stone-breakers, fencers, ditchers, drainers, and hedgers, and all sorts and classes in the community who will still be outside this scheme, and were outside this scheme immediately the Minister of Health decided that it was to be upon a contributory basis.
The longer it goes on, the greater the amount of trouble and dissatisfaction there will be. Wherever you have-sections out, and other sections of the community receiving benefit and favoured, you will have trouble, and rightly. In my judgment, the central fact is this: That when the Government decided to allow the rich to escape, they were compelled to make this a contributory scheme, and they appeared to be forgetful of the point of view or the great amount of trouble to the working classes of the world where some are receiving benefits and some not. Whilst possibly it is too late now to get any change, I should like to call the attention of the House to this fact. To begin with, there are 196,000 women non-contributors to the scheme and 386,000 children who come in as non-contributors—a total of 582,000. Surely it would have been perfectly easy for this Government, but for the fact that they are hag-ridden by political and economic theories, to put the other half of the women on a non-contributory basis, and so save all the trouble.
There is only one other thing I want to say. There was a reference made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and others as to the possibility of this scheme developing into one for funeral benefits. There is no use bemusing the working classes. This cannot develop into a funeral benefit scheme. To begin with, there are the great vested interests which would drive the Government from power. There is the Prudential Insurance Company drawing last year £800,000 free of taxes for the shareholders on a nominal capital of £1,000,000, but a real capital of less than £6,000, paying 13,000 per cent. per annum on the real paid-up capital. Will these people support the inclusion of funeral benefits in a national scheme without trouble? Not at all. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs sought to include funeral benefits in his National Health Insurance Scheme, but the insurance companies objected. They are stronger to-day, and it is very doubtful whether they would not strive to drive the Government from power if the Government ever had the courage to bring funeral benefits into this scheme. It is no use humbugging the people. You cannot bring in funeral benefits. It cannot be done unless you are prepared to face up to the great financial vested interests which dominate this country. The Government opposite are not prepared to do that. That Government are spending their Budget money to relieve the rich.
Your party will not do these things either!
I trust the hon. and gallant Member will live long enough to see that prophecy disproved. As a matter of fact, there are many of us on these benches who, if we did not believe we should live to see the day when this party will grow strong enough, and be courageous enough, to face the financial and other interests which are so largely represented on the opposite benches, and which the present Government dare not attack, would not think it worth while to go on. That is my criticism of this scheme; that it is a rich man's scheme; a vested interest scheme. It begins by handing over 10 millions of public money in relief of taxation to the super-rich, and it proceeds to tax the poorest of the poor to make that up and for benefits which will practically be illusory.
I am very glad that the first time I rise to address this House it is on a question of such vast importance as the social problem we are dealing with to-day. Following precedent I may say that I know a sympathetic audience is always obtained here when a Member is making his maiden effort. I have been listening for six months to speeches in this House—to the various speeches, to the surprising rhetoric and interest of some of the speeches. One would have thought, to hear some of those to which I have listened, that this great country of ours had finished. I have heard tales of absolute woe concerning the industry and trade of the country. Each section of the House in turn has told its own story of unemployment, and of no prospects for the future.
We have been reminded a good many times by hon. Members that the War has been over 6½ years, and that there is no improvement yet in prospect. It all has sounded so very hopeless! We had the Labour Government in for some months. There was still no change in the prospect. We know that hon. Members in that Government had some hope, did indeed hope for bettor prospects, and these, they believed, would come from a bettering of the international situation. That is the one thing upon which they pinned their faith. They may have been right. I think they were wrong. But, of course, we are all entitled to our opinion. There is "Internationalism," upon which they so much pin their faith. I pin my faith upon something better; and even at the risk of putting forward a new word, may I say, I pin my faith on "Inter-Dominionism." The future of this country is not in the international field. The Government in this particular social Measure are not out to deal with the international workers. This Bill is to improve the conditions of the workers in our own country. Like other Bills, it has its defects. I myself welcome it as one who knows something about the workers of this country. Hon. and right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway opposite are fond of saying that they represent labour, and that they are the only people who do so. They also contend that they are the only people who know the conditions of the workers. What I am going to say is not what I have been told. It is not what I have read. I have been through it. The House will forgive me for making a personal reference; I only do it to illustrate my point. It is perfectly true. It is a matter of history.
I had to leave school at the age of 12½ and start as a worker. That did not leave me with a grudge against everything and everybody. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No; I had a determination to succeed. I have succeeded, and I am now repre- senting the constituency in which I was born. That is something to be proud of. I mention it, because I feel I should be ungrateful if I did not say something for the country that has given me my opportunity, in spite of the disadvantage of having to leave school at so early an age. Hon. Members must not think I am advocating that boys should leave school at that age at the present time. I am only pointing out that it is not always those who have had a secondary education or a university education who get on. I could not have-that advantage, and I knew I had to get along without it. I did so, with no grumbling at the state of affairs financially in my own home, and the fact that I had to go out to work at so early an. age.
I am speaking now as one who feels he truly represents the labouring interests in this country. What is the spectre before every worker from the time he starts work, whether it be at 12½ years of age, at 14, or 16? It is, what is going to happen to him in his old age? At the present time the pensionable age is 70 years. It looks a long way off to me, and it looked longer away some time ago. The worst period is the five years between 65 and 70, and I ask the House to think what that means to so many of the workers. They have not been able to stand the strain between 65 and 70, and have had to go into the workhouse— that just at the time when they wanted to feel as independent as a Britisher likes to feel. I think every worker must welcome the reduction of the age for pensions from 70 to 65. It is very easy for hon. and right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway opposite to go up and down the country saying, "If we had brought this scheme in, we would not have given you a measly 10s. a week; it would have been a £l, and not at 65, but at 60." My answer is that they were very slow about doing it when they had the opportunity. The Conservative party have been left to bring in the scheme, and that is why I am proud to belong to a party which stands for the interest of the workers.
Many people are anxious as to the effect this scheme will have on a great organisation that is a great credit to this country. I refer to the friendly society movement, which has done so much in the last 100 years for our workers. As one who has taken a very prominent interest in that movement for the past 18 years, I have no hesitation in saying that I do not think the scheme is going to injure it. This Bill is not a penalty upon thrift, as is the present old age pension system. The old system is a tax on thrift, and deals very harshly with people who have made provision for themselves. Under this Bill, pensions will be paid without the inquiries which were so very irksome and so much resented, and which friendly societies, good luck to them, have fought as hard as anybody to get amended. I do not think it will injure the friendly society movement, but that men and women will make some provision to augment their pensions, as they are now doing.
Many of my friends, knowing that I am interested in friendly society work, have asked me what will the position be. Will friendly societies and the approved societies make a claim to pay benefits? My answer is that they will not. The proper way to pay benefits is as they are paid now, through the Post' Office. I have never yet heard a complaint as to the payment of the existing old age pensions, when once they were granted. Friendly societies, of course, will give them the benefit, but the Post Office will pay out the money. The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Meller) stated yesterday that, on behalf of the approved societies, he could speak for some 6,000,000 of the assured population. I can speak for approximately 7,000,000 as representing friendly societies who are prepared to place their machinery at the disposal of the Government. If those two figures be combined, it will be seen that they make something like 13,000,000 out of an approximate population of 15,000,000 of insured workers. So that the Government will not be without support from these various organisations.
Seeing that I am president of seven, how does the statement of the hon. Member come in?
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of making any criticism at a later stage. Many statements have been made from time to time as to whether the surpluses of the approved societies should not be used for the purpose of pensions. Personally, I should strongly oppose that, as I did on a previous occasion not very long ago, when it was proposed to raid these surpluses on behalf of the doctors. As friendly societies and as approved societies, we claim that these surpluses are the property of those who created them, and should be used for their benefit alone. Although I know the surpluses that are accumulated would not pay for the pensions, we claim that if they were to be raided in any way, insured persons to whom they belong would have to go without benefits which we much want to give them. As approved societies we want to direct our attention not only to paying out benefit money to those who are sick but to taking measures for the prevention of sickness; by that, I mean dental treatment, optical treatment and so on. Therefore, we should strongly resist any attempt, and many attempts have been made in the past—I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman opposite who disagreed with me a moment ago agrees with me on this—to raid these surpluses, because we say that the balances ought to be used for the benefit of the people who have accumulated them, and be expended on preventive rather than on curative measures.
I have been here long enough to know that those are not admired the most who talk the longest, but this is a subject which must be fascinating to people in any stage of life, whatever be their political opinions. I give the scheme every possible support I can. I think it is worth while to record the extraordinary number of letters one gets praising it, and asking how soon it is possible for people to come under it. We are taking part to-day in legislation of which posterity will have the advantage, and of which this particular House of Commons can be proud to have brought into existence.
It gives me greater pleasure than any I feel in speaking to congratulate the last speaker. It is a well-known fact that a maiden speech always earns the sympathy of this House for the speaker, and I sometimes wish that sympathy extended to other than maiden speeches, particularly speeches from a frail, nervous-looking man like myself, who is not feeling nearly as cool as the hon. Member who has just sat down. In spite of the statements of the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) we on this side agree with the Minister's sentiments about the widow and the orphan, for their position is a lamentable one; but when we come to the question of giving expression to that sympathy it is quite another matter. We have been told that this pension is a wonderful gift to the worker. In all the speeches I have heard so far the Members on the other side have claimed that this is a great boon to the people. Speaking for the miners, I would like to say that we emphatically decry this Bill. This may be a gift, but we have first had to give. It suggests to me the case of a pickpocket taking my watch and presenting me with it afterwards and thinking he has done me a good turn in the process. We have to supply the money first, and then it is to be given to us, and the party opposite is to be credited with great generosity in looking after the workers.
I would like to ask the Minister of Health whether he has any idea what the deductions from the pay note of the miner means at the present time. Take Durham as an example. No one has done more in the way of promoting social activities than the miners of Durham. We have provided about 1,000 houses for our aged miners; they can go into them at 60 years of age, and we give them something like 8s. or 9s. a week; and some local collieries, through their local lodges, are giving them another 3s. as well. The number of aged miners' homes is not sufficient, I agree, but we are going on with them in spite of the depression. We are making the first sacrifice for them. However bad our trade is, we are looking after our old people first of all. In my own colliery we give them something like 9s. a week and a free house and firing; the owners, I must admit, help us with the firing.
I want to ask the Minister of Health about this charge of 7½d. We are going to have to pay 7½d., a fact which has not been emphasised as it ought to have been. Under the mining agreement costs other than wages are deducted out of the proceeds of the mine before we get a penny at all. All this is a very severe strain upon our people.
I do not want to delay the House, because I am not gifted with rhetoric— the only vocabulary I have I gathered at the street end and in the mine—but I do want to express the miners' view in this matter. At a great meeting in Newcastle on Saturday, representative of 10,000,000 people—[ Laughter. ] Well, there was a distinguished Conservative in the chair, and that ought to be sufficient for hon. Members opposite, because they believe that if anyone belonging to their political party is in the chair Heaven has come down at once. We will say that it did not represent 10,000,000, but I do know that it was representative of the miners of Northumberland and Durham, and that they are protesting against this contribution. We feel that we cannot afford it at the present time. The statement was made to-day that this scheme is going to cost us in the mining community in Durham something like £240,000, that is taking into account the supposed owners' 4d. and our 4d. I am far more interested at the moment in getting our industry on to its feet than in having to strain ourselves to pay more contributions and still leave our people dependent upon boards of guardians, as they are to-day. In Durham we are going to pay something like £140,000; that is what our share is supposed to be, and the owners' share is supposed to be similar. These payments come under the agreement, and that we are paying our share before profits or our wages are taken out, so that we shall be paying practically £240,000 in the county of Durham.
There are business men who know ten times more about business than I do, but I claim to know what strain is and thrift is, and I say that we cannot stand this financial strain upon our industry at the present time. When hon. Members on the other side talk of thrift it amuses me. What is thrift to the worker? It means the sacrifice of everything he has got. It does not mean merely the elimination of waste. I always like to hear personal reminiscences such as those we had from the last speaker. I have been in the same position as he. I have had to pawn my shoes in order to get my children something to cat. If the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth would come and try to do the work that my wife has had to do to keep her large family, making the eldest son's clothes go down through the family right to the youngest one, she would know what thrift was. I resent, and I believe other hon. Members opposite will resent, what the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth told us about thrift when we consider the position in which she is, because she is not qualified to judge of thrift as practised by ordinary working women.
What I was most amazed at was what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Health said about soldiers' pensions and reimbursing them. I wonder what the members of the British Legion think about the bringing in of a scheme of this kind. I honestly believe that this scheme which has been tacked on to the Budget would not have survived but for the effect of Hillhead gripe-water, and it would never have got to the christening but for the Welsh smelling salts which it received on this side. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) can always give them smelling salts which is guaranteed to cure anything but a Welsh sunrise. As a Durham miner I have not the slightest hesitation in saying, so far as we are concerned, that if the right hon. Gentleman would give us the 7½d. which he is going to take, we would give at least £l a week. I thank hon. Members for listening to my remarks.
I have listened to the last speaker with a great deal of interest and also with a certain amount of gloom. I have also listened to several speakers earlier in the Debate, and I have decided to inflict upon this very patient House a few of my conclusions. I have been under the delusion that we have been introducing during the last two days proposals the principal of which would have had the support of hon. Members opposite. I always thought that the main principle of this Bill had the entire support of members of the Labour party, and in consequence I had been hoping for a morsel of encouragement from the benches opposite, and I was confident that they would have given us their slight blessing at any rate now and again. I have, however, been very disappointed, because we have not received one word of encouragement, and hon. Members opposite evidently do not intend to support these proposals in any way.
I confess that I have been just a little puzzled in this respect, but perhaps it is because I am a young and somewhat inexperienced Member, and I have not realised before that the more social reform that is introduced into this country and the more it is likely to be of benefit to the people as a whole, the less likely are these people who receive those benefits to listen to the somewhat specious arguments of hon. Members opposite. I might put this point in a nutshell by saying that social reform of a beneficial character undoubtedly ruins Socialism. Now that I have realised the reason for the attack on this Measure, I am very relieved to see that we do not get from them more support, because in that case I should have been inclined to think that the proposals of the Conservative Government would not have a very great effect in the country, and would not be of very much use. It is for that reason that the more they attack these particular proposals the more I shall be pleased, because I shall then realise that the Minister of Health has introduced into this House proposals that are undoubtedly going to be very beneficial in character, and satisfactory in many other respects.
I have listened with interest to the speeches made to-day and yesterday in this Debate, and I have come to the conclusion that the criticisms of these proposals can be summed up and placed in two main categories. In the first place, there are those who say that these systems of insurance ought not to be on a contributory basis, and in the second place there are those who say that these proposals are going to place further burdens on industry. I would like to say a word or two about the contributory basis. It strikes me as being a little strange that the main criticism of this contributory scheme should come from the Socialist party, because I think I am right in saying that they owe their very existence to a system of contributions, and as a matter of fact they originally started this idea. I believe it is true that they get the greater part of their funds from trade unions, who in turn exact payment from their members; they also get extra funds by means of the political levy, and in many cases those who contribute in this way are not even of the same political persuasion as hon. Members opposite. Therefore, I think those who originally started this prin- ciple and found it so satisfactorily ought not to be the people to come forward now and criticise it when it is introduced by a Conservative Government.
Looking at this matter from a different angle, I am of opinion, leaving out unemployment insurance, that the various State insurance schemes in the past have proved to be eminently satisfactory, and they have all been of a contributory character, and it is mainly on account of this fact that they do not undermine the self-respect and morale of the recipients. Consequently, I for one submit that any future State insurance schemes ought undoubtedly to be on a contributory basis, and then there can be no question of charity, which is always abhorrent to the British working man or woman in this country.
Let me turn to the second form of criticism, that these proposals place a further burden upon industry. I have just returned from the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and it is one of the most important industrial centres of Lancashire. Whilst I was there I took the opportunity of interviewing some of the foremost manufacturers in that district, and I asked them what they thought about this new insurance scheme. I saw no less than five of these manufacturers, and they all gave me more or less the same answer, which was to the effect that they thought that this new insurance scheme would prove a little awkward for them at first, but sooner or later they were convinced that it would be to their advantage. They went on to say that they realised that the State was taking on liabilities which in the ordinary course of events had to be defrayed by local authorities, such as providing for necessitous widows and orphans, and such like. They also realise that in the end these proposals would relieve local taxation which at the moment falls very heavily upon industry. Therefore, they concluded that in the long run the temporary disadvantages of this new scheme would be offset by the advantages that would accrue in the future.
There is yet another point of view which caused me to smile just a little. I do not think that I have ever heard in the annals of the Socialist party that they have ever before attempted to protect industrialists. Now they suddenly come forward on a new front, and say in so many words, "Why should you place a fresh burden on these individuals, who already have too much to bear?" Never before have I heard them asking for protection for the capitalist, and this seems to me to be somewhat imitating the nimble weathercock. I think they are being just a little bit unreasonable; they ought to allow us our one little ewe lamb. Why should the party opposite attempt to take everybody under their wing? They do not now even allow us to look after, which, according to them, is our own pigeon, the capitalist. Having given these considerations a certain amount of careful thought, I have come to the conclusion that these are the presumed reasons why the party opposite are attacking this new scheme. I should like to know what is the real reason? I wonder if hon. Members opposite would candidly admit that the reason for their opposition is based on the fact that we have introduced a Measure which they had intended to introduce in years gone by?
Hon. Members opposite had the opportunity, but they preferred to use that opportunity in other spheres altogether, and they conveniently neglected those people to whom they were pledged. I know hon. Members opposite are not likely to admit that. One has heard a great deal of talk from the Socialists, and if the success of any particular Government could be judged by the amount of talk that goes on in the Government then many right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite may claim to be some of the finest statesmen this country has ever known. I consider that the proposals which have been introduced by the Minister of Health are part of a most excellent Budget. It is a Budget that provides for only one class, the whole of the British nation. I think the late Minister of Health was somewhat in a hurry when he prophesied that this would be a rich man's Budget. There is no more foundation for that prophecy than the Socialists' claim to represent the majority of the workers of this country.
7.0 P.M.
There are many observations I would like to make on this Bill, but there are also many other speakers, and I shall therefore confine myself to three or four which seem to me important. At the outset, I would like to make it clear that I am not one of those ungenerous spirits to whom the Noble Lady (Viscountess Astor) referred. I do recognise that the Conservative Government, even though they have framed themselves upon the past work of the Liberal party, have added to the structure of the old age pensions and the National Health Insurance which was conceived and initiated by the party of which I am a member. Still I am grateful to them for carrying it further. The first point I would like to emphasise is this. Though unquestionably those additional social services are overdue, we are only really keeping up to the pace with all other civilised nations. Still, as a matter of fact, in the way in which this contributory scheme is now brought forward, it is, unless something is done, likely to prove a disastrous burden upon the industry of the country.
Owing to the abnormal employment, it was necessary in the Act of 1920 to supplement the insurance system by a grant, and in order to keep alive the true principle which underlay the Unemployment Insurance Act a deficiency fund was created that was to be wiped out from year to year by reason of certain additional contributions. At this moment, having got it last year to £4,000.000, it is up again to £6,000,000. it would in my opinion be fatal to many of the prosperous industries of the country at this moment to add this additional burden to that deficiency in addition to the ordinary insurance. What is to be done? Suggestions have been made from I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) that the best way to deal with it is for the Government themselves to undertake those two four-pences, the employer's share and the employé's share, until the deficiency fund is worked out. My humble suggestion is that that is a bad way of doing it for this reason, that as long as your deficiency fund lasts, you are carrying on insurance unscientifically; you are creating a bad financial habit, and then who can measure the time when that fund is going again to be solvent? The right hon. Gentleman the late Minister for Labour (Mr. Shaw) last year told us that he thought it would be So, I think, about this time. Is it?
In connection with a Bill last year it was said that when we added some Clause in unemployment it was wiping out what was said to be insusceptible of calculation. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes forward with a new and novel scheme which he did not put with that usual tact which I have seen characterise him when he made that reference which gave offence to some Members below the Gangway. I do say this, that if you make this purge, take out those Scottish ghillies who were alleged to be wrongly getting benefit, you will be able to reduce it to the 800,000 or 900,000 necessary for it to come back to a state of solvency. Speaking for myself, I do not know what information is behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made the statement, but, whatever it was, I am quite convinced, and I believe everybody who knows the country is, that at best his purge will wipe out a few hundreds or a few thousands but not more. The abnormal unemployment that is in this way being connected with the new scheme is not the result of any ordinary aftermath of the War. It looks very like becoming normal. Under wartime pressure big key industries in this country were inflated with labour; the engineering and shipbuilding works. Now we have calmed down to our normal state, and we have this huge margin thrown on the streets who have acquired an occupation and who call themselves unemployed engineers, or unemployed shipbuilders. There is no cure for that, I am satisfied myself except either the system of gradual emigration or of increasing our trade abroad. It is a question of years. If the deficiency fund is to last until that is done, it will not be two or three but perhaps 10 or 15 years.
My suggestion is, wipe it out at one stroke. Make a grant straight away to meet the deficiency fund. Why are you not doing it? The £6,000,000 that you pay to make that deficiency fund solvent is paid from the taxpayer's pocket. Is industry more to blame for that abnormal state of things that brought the deficiency fund into being than any other member of the community? Am I less responsible for having to create that fund who never employed a man in my life except a clerk than men who employ 1,000 men in their factories? Therefore, it is a proper thing to be dealt with directly by the State. When that is done, you bring about a double blessing, because you say to those persons to be benefited under this Bill, "You have all those good things given," and you say to the persons who are paying now, "We will not ask you for another penny." That is my suggestion, which I make with all deference. It is purely my own, and I submit it is worthy of consideration.
There is another point. This Bill makes no provision at all for what I may call contracting out. The Minister of Health will remember that under the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920 you put in a Clause whereby bodies who were capable of carrying on the insurance system might, on satisfying the necessary requirements, contract out. One of them did, and we know that the contracting out was stopped temporarily while the deficiency period was running. One got a chance of getting through, and it did very well. Surely, it is common knowledge that you have any quantity of superannuation funds—local authorities, and big companies—that give far better benefits all round to their employés than the whole sum of the benefits contained in this Bill. I was handed one here, the Metropolitan Gas Company, a well-known one. Everybody that knows will agree with me that there is a system of superannuation there, of old age pensions at the same age—because they can afford to do it—that is infinitely better than what is given in this Bill. Is it a right thing to say, "You men, who have this to look for, have to make your choice—because this is voluntary— whether you will forego that and take the prospects of the Bill." They cannot forego what this Bill provides, because it is compulsory. It is either a question of paying both or foregoing this which is far the better.
We all know the very excellent and soothing speech of the Prime Minister about peace in industry. If ever there was an illustration of how peace in industry is to be brought about it is by the creation of this superannuation fund, and the methods by which it is carried on. Now, to smash them, is that the way to bring peace in industry—to bring in a Bill which says industries as between employers and employé must forget all their harmony, all their cooperative arrangements, their attempts at mutual assistance and consideration, and all come under the rigid discipline of the State? I submit that we ought in this Bill to have put in a Clause somewhat corresponding to what many Members will remember is a Clause in the Workmen's Compensation Act. There it was said, in the Act of 1906, and it has worked spendidly, that where there is a body that can give benefits by way of insurance or otherwise that satisfies the registrar of friendly societies, that it is all that it pretends to be, and gets his certificate, then it can carry out the giving of the compensation and assurance under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Something like that should be done in this Bill so that at all events superannuation societies, and those who give mutual help, industrial institutions who get an opportunity of carrying on their own harmonious and friendly methods of private relief, should not be compelled to put a man under this enforcement.
Another point that rather puzzles me is about the administration. It is a very curious thing that we had under that Act the approved societies treated as the framework on which it was built. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George) has been expending his eloquence in describing the result of its working for the last 10 or 12 years, while we have instances of allowing the approved societies to be continued. Under this Bill, though one stamp covers the services in respect of health, panel doctor, maternity—all those things—widows' pensions, and old age pensions, and though all those stamps are put on the cards, and the card is sent in to the approved society, the approved society does all the work, the amount of the contribution and the debts, and though the approved society sends that card into whatever Government department it is, yet the extraordinary thing about this Bill is that while they pay out all benefits in respect of three out of five things included in the sum, the remaining two are paid by the Post Office.
Where is the point? Take an illustration. A contributor becomes ill, goes to his approved society, and gets his sick pay day after day. Then be dies. What is the difference between the payment which should follow his death and the payments up to the time of his death? Yet all the payments to the date of his death are dealt with by the approved society, but, the moment he dies, someone has to go to the Post Office. And how does the Post Office get the information before it pays him? It goes to the approved society and gets it. It is duplicating the machinery, it is complicating the whole thing, and it is depriving the approved societies of that continuity of effort which they have discharged so excellently in the past. That is another suggestion that I would make. There are many other things that I should like to say, but there is one matter about which I must say a word. I do not join in the cry against giving the pension to the childless widow. It is very easy, of course, to give exaggerated and startling illustrations of what, in a far-fetched way, might happen in isolated cases. We see in the papers a very graphic description of the hectic few days' widow who, because of those hectic few days, is to get a pension for the rest of her life. But you can take it on the other side. What about the widow who is made such because her only child dies a week before her husband? Suppose her only child fell into the water, and her husband rushed in to save it. If the husband loses his life but saves the child, she gets a pension; but if the child's life is lost and the husband's, too, then she gets no pension.
You can give exaggerated cases, but the broad and sane view is this: Who are those who are going to get these widows' pensions in the bulk? They are not the hectic young widows; they are the hardworking, more or less middle-aged women who have given their time to looking after the house for 10, 15, or perhaps 20 years. They are no more unfit to receive a pension because they have not a child at the end of that time than if they had, and, as a matter of fact, the bulk of them, by the time the pension would be received, would have had all their children out to work. The real basis of the matter is, firstly, the legal basis—the husband has paid, it is in the nature of a contract, and they are entitled to it; secondly, if they are young women, they can marry again, and there is an end to the pension; and, thirdly, if they do not receive the pension, they will all the quicker, and to all the greater extent, be driven on to the dole, and what you save with one hand you will lose with the other. Why, then, when the thing is so balanced, create these irritating contrasts between the woman who has a child and the woman who has not? The fair and statesmanlike thing is to say that a man makes up his mind to pay weekly a certain amount in order that the woman who has tended and looked after him and his house will have something when he has passed away, and it makes no difference to that man's feeling, and it certainly ought to make no difference to the just sympathy that is echoed in this Bill, whether the woman is unfortunate enough to have no child or fortunate enough to have a child.
The late Under-Secretary for the Home Department said yesterday that it would be impossible for the approved societies to deal with this fund in the same way as they did with the health funds, without bringing about what he thought was an objectionable feature, though I do not agree that it is, namely, that some approved societies will have surpluses and others will not. He is under a misconception there as to the character of the Bill. It is not like the Health Bill at all. The Health Bill provided that all the money that came .to the approved societies in respect of cards which they sent in was their own money, and that is how surpluses arose, and properly arose, and they were told that they could keep them. In this case all the money that comes in goes into one pool, and if the approved societies dealt with it they would not be dealing with money that they were receiving on the basis of cards that they sent in, but on a basis of benefits, and, therefore, there could be no surplus.
I had not the advantage of hearing the speech of the Minister of Health in which he introduced this Measure to the House yesterday, but I have had an opportunity of reading it, and I desire to compliment my right hon. Friend upon the lucidity of his exposition, and at the same time to assure him of my support for the general principle of his Measure. I also wish to express my complete assurance that, so far from its being a Measure which is borrowed from the benches opposite, it is in the complete line of traditional Con- servative policy in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Upon a more favourable occasion I shall be prepared to defend that point. I should like to add that I had the privilege of serving under my right hon. Friend in the course of the War, and at that time he convinced all of us who worked with him of those very qualities of mind and heart which he has displayed so often recently to the admiration of the House of Commons, and which have never been more conspicuously shown than in his speech in introducing this Bill.
I am glad that he did not incorporate in this Measure any attempt to deal with the matter of Workmen's Compensation. In times which he may remember, when I had the privilege of consulting with him with regard to policy, I took the view, which I hold just as strongly to-day, that there are considerations affecting workmen's compensation which do not apply at all to the other measures of insurance under which we live in this country, and I am, accordingly, very glad that no attempt has been made on the present occasion to make that a part of his scheme. But while, as I have said, I am wholeheartedly in support of the principle of this policy, I must at the same time confess to a very great misgiving as to the effect of this Measure upon the fortunes of the industries of this country at the present time. I should, indeed, desire to have been in a position to express no doubts at all, because I regard this Government as one of the most valued possessions which this country has for the permanence of its institutions and for developing our social policy for the future, and the last thing I should desire to do would be to indicate any appearance of divided opinion on these benches. But I think I should be showing a lack of courage, and, indeed, a great neglect of duty, both towards this House and towards my constituents, if I did not make plain the forebodings which I cannot help feeling with regard to the present position. If the House will allow me, I will put my case first in a very general way.
At the present time, the scourge of this country is unemployment. Everyone desires to do something to help employment; everyone desires to do nothing that will embarrass employment. And yet the burden which is imposed by this Measure directly seeks out employment, and is imposed, sans phrase, upon it. The more men you employ, the more you pay; the fewer men you employ, the lees you pay. I can imagine that in good times the number of men you employ might be a fair indication of your ability to pay, because in good times you employ largo numbers of men in order to earn larger profits. But these are not good times; these are not merely bad times; they are the worst times in industry of which anybody in this country has any recollection. Even if you attempt to dive into history, and take the days following the Napoleonic wars, you will fail to discover a parallel to our present depressed conditions, if you look at the great complexity of our interests at the present time, and the greater danger which affects the artificial structure of our industries, built upon the narrowest basis of agriculture that any country can show.
These times, accordingly, give no encouragement to any party to put new burdens upon industry. I wonder what the effect is going to be upon those organisations, many of which are known to us in this House, that to-day are living from hand to mouth, and are struggling, with depleted resources, to keep together the band of workmen that they have. There are many instances, known, I am sure, to everyone who is an employer of labour, of men being kept on whom it would be far more economical to disperse. What is the effect going to be upon those establishments when you say to them that, for these men that they are employing, in addition to those who can be economically accommodated, they will have to bear the added burden of this scheme? You have this appalling contrast exhibited to you: You have instances of men who are earning thousands of pounds a year and employing at the most one or two clerks, and, against that, you have instances of people who are making a loss upon nearly every contract that they make, and are keeping together staffs of thousands of men in respect of whom they are now to be asked to pay an additional impost. I venture to say to the House that I do not think that is a method by which you are going to encourage employment and industry in this country at the present time. One of the contentions which was always made in defence of putting the burden of these insurance schemes upon industry was that an individual making a large income, with no staff, or a very small one, had no means of charging the consumer with the burden or putting the price on to the cost of the article produced. Who would be so cynical to-day as to say to the industrialists of the country, "you can put this burden on to the price of your article?" Could anyone have the effrontery to tell a coal-owner to-day, who is finding it impossible to compete in the markets of the world because his price is so much higher than that of the foreign exporter, that he can put this new impost upon the price of his article? Or can you tell it to the steel maker, who is finding his markets filched away from him by his competitors on the Continent? Or would you be so bold as to ask the shipbuilder, of whose contracts we have had many experiences in recent times, to add to the price he is going to charge for his ship because he has got to pay for these new burdens? I should like to review the position of each of these industries I have mentioned. I make no apology for referring to them because they are the great staple industries of the country without which you cannot imagine Great Britain occupying an important position among the countries of the world.
If there is anything that is important in this country it is coal. Our fortunes have been built up on the coal industry. It is not only important that we should have cheap coal for our own industry at home, but it is vital to us that we should be able to export coal. It has been one of the great mediums of exchange. Not only has it paid for the material and the food we have had to import, but it has also provided the freight for the shipowner and has enabled him to charge a lesser freight upon the stuff we must import. If we cease to export coal, undoubtedly and inevitably the price of everything we import must go up in consequence. Yet look at the figures of our coal exports for last year. They are down by £18,000,000 in comparison with the year 1923. You get no reassurance or encouragement from the figures of the present year because, although last year exhibited that appalling declension in our coal exports, the first three months of this year show that our exports are down by 2,000,000 tons even in comparison with the first three months of last year, which was a bad year. Accordingly this declension is not stationary. It is progressive. Everyone knows the paralysed condition in which the coal trade stands to-day. Between 70 and 80 per cent. of the collieries of the country are working at a loss. If you take the returns by the accountants who have to make reports for the purposes of the coal agreement, you will find that several of the most important coal districts are suffering, nothing but losses, and the disclosure that we have from day to day of the number of pits that are closing down is, I should have thought, sufficient to discourage any Government from putting any further burden upon these poor, distressed and harassed districts.
If you take the case of steel you have exactly the same picture exhibited. Last year our imports of steel were up by 200,000 tons as compared with the year 1913 and our exports of steel goods were down by over 1,000,000 tons. The first four months of this year show an even more distressing picture because the imports have gone up by a further 80,000 tons as compared with last year and the exports have gone down by a further 100,000 tons as compared with the first four months of last year. I do not require to refer in any detail to the shipbuilding industry. Everyone knows how vainly our shipbuilders are attempting to compete with their rivals on the Continent, and although by strenuous efforts, in which the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade have played a great part, a certain large contract has been obtained for this country within the last week or two, the conditions under which that contract has been got are such as not only to give no profit to the shipowners, but to result in an absolute loss, even although the aid of the Trade Facilities Scheme has been brought to bear upon it. In the cotton trade people are working three days a week instead of a full week, and yet the employer will have to pay for each of his operatives the same amount of impost, owing to this scheme, as he would if the men were working for a full week. In the woollen trade the industry has only been sustained in recent years by the profits the employers have been able to make upon the merchanting of raw wool which they had bought in better times, and were able to turn over at a profit. I think these conditions are such as would lead one to think that it requires great audacity, if not even temerity, to consider the imposition of further burdens. It is no good saying it is a very small burden. It amounts, merely taking the employers' side of the matter, to over £10,000,000 a year according to the figure given by the Minister of Health yesterday. If you had proposed in cold blood to come forward and add that to the burden on industry, I am sure everyone in the House would have scouted such a proposition, and yet it is not made a bit more bearable in the present distress because in the future you hope to reap a benefit from the scheme.
There are two more considerations I should like to mention. They are matters which, I think, have escaped public attention in connection with our present difficulties. Germany has undoubtedly become again a very serious rival to British industry. I do not know whether hon. Members recall what the condition was that was made under the Dawes scheme in dealing with German industry. It was perfectly obvious that a great burden had been lifted from the shoulders of the industrial organisations of Germany by the depreciation of the mark. They have got rid of what we ordinarily call their debenture debt, from which so many of our industries suffer. I know, for example, of one great works which has, like many others, a debenture debt to-day of £2,500,000, upon which it has to pay interest at 7½ per cent., and it has got to earn all the money to pay that interest before it begins to do anything for its shareholders at all. That condition exists widespread all over the country. Germany had just such a system before the War, and what the Dawes Committee provided was that, in respect that German industry had really been the section of the community which had most benefited by the depreciation of the mark, it should bear in future a burden different from that on any other body of citizens.
They provided that German industry should take upon itself a debenture debt, the interest of which would be represented by £250,000,000 a year. That amount is less than the actual debenture debt which German industry had before the War. But the thing that is forgotten is this. That burden is not yet fully imposed. The Committee provided that there should be first of all a moratorium of a year, then the full rate of interest should not apply in the succeeding year, but only 2½ per cent. instead of 5 per cent. In the third year it was to be 5 per cent. and in the fourth year 5 per cent. plus 1 per cent. for sinking fund. Accordingly what you have at present is this that this is the period when our handicap is greatest. Germany is to-day working under the easiest conditions she is going to have to face, and we are working under the very worst, and it might have been time enough, as it seems to me, to begin to think of imposing new burdens on industry if Germany had by that time been in some sort of comparable position to Britain. But to burden us at a time when Germany is in a position of the greatest freedom and can sell more cheaply than she will be able to do in the future seems to me to be a very bad stroke of policy if we are looking for prosperity for British trade and employment for our people.
That is one consideration. The second is this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided to return to the gold standard, I think with the consent and approval of very nearly every Member of the House of Commons, because I do not think even those who were vocal against the proposal were very confident in the point of view they expressed to the House. That return to the gold standard certainly has an effect upon industry. The only reason why there was any hesitation at all about adopting that scheme was that industry was going to suffer, and the conclusion that was reached was upon the basis that, although industry might immediately suffer, nevertheless in the long run it would be greatly to the advantage of the country and in fact that it would be disastrous if we did not take the course that was proposed. I supported the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the best of my ability in that course because he was faced with a decision that he had to make now, and it seemed to me that if he took the other decision the disasters which would flow from an erroneous conclusion would be worse than anything we should suffer in the interim. But now it is industry that is going to bear the burden of the dislocation that will take place as the result of the return to the gold standard. The man who is drawing interest from invested money is in the happy position of getting appreciated sovereigns instead of the depreciated currency we previously had. The industrialist, who has to pay the wages of the man he employs, is the person who is going to be confronted with the difficulties created, and I am sure, no one who has considered the problem, seriously thinks they are going to be small.
On all these grounds, while I support whole-heartedly the principle of the Bill and while I desire to put it into operation, I do not think at the present time industry can bear any new burdens whatever without great detriment, and in some cases extreme disaster. There are many people to-day who are only keeping their establishments together with great difficulty who will go down under any other imposition. I read very carefully the countervailing considerations which the Minister of Health put before the House yesterday. My mind was very open to be convinced. I confess that I found very little encouragement to be derived from them. In the first place, he said that many people at the age of 65 who were still in employment would give up that employment and let other people come in their places by reason of their now being able to get 10s. a week under this Measure. I can scarcely believe that that will be the consequence of this Measure. I do not imagine that many people will give up a living wage for the 10s. a week which this Bill would give them. Moreover, people at 65 nowadays, as the Chancellor of Exchequer very eloquently explained in the course of his Budget speech, are not so, old as they used to be at that age, and many people are continuing in employment far beyond the ages at which people used to work or were capable of working. I do not see that there is to be very much comfort to be derived from any anticipation of that kind. Then the Minister of Health said that the poor rates would be decreased. We have always been told that when every great scheme of social reform has been introduced. My impression, speaking from memory, is that when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) introduced his first old age pension scheme, it was to do away with poor rates altogether. In fact, we know that so far from the rates having gone down, they have steadily gone up, and to-day in most of the industrial areas the rates are three times as much as they were even before the War.
The Minister of Health also derived some satisfaction from the effect of the proposed new rating of machinery. So far as I have been able to master that Bill, in the main it applies in England modifications which have been in existence in Scotland for a very long time, and I do not find that Scottish industry is really in any better position than English industry. At any rate it certainly does not make the difference between death and life in industry. The position at the present time reminds me of an occasion in the history of a very great surgeon. He was a gentleman who was always very anxious to operate on the slightest provocation. On one occasion, after a display of skill before his students on a patient who had been brought into the infirmary, he said, "Gentlemen, the operation has been completely successful, but unfortunately the patient has died in the course of it." I am afraid that, although this is an operation which in the end should be completely successful and which I am sure will be a great panacea, when put into force, for many of the ills from which we suffer, yet to-day the prospect is that many of the people who are to be directly affected by it will be put out of business altogether.
I am speaking, not in any critical attitude, but with a feeling of profound conviction as one who is looking out at the industry and trade and commerce of this country through, perhaps, as many windows as anybody else, and as one who is engaged in these affairs. I have the profound conviction that it is the bounden duty of the Government, if this scheme is to be put into operation in January of next year, to devise some way in the meantime by which there shall be a comparable modification of the burdens which industry already has to bear. I do not presume in any way to suggest to the Government how that should be done. I would remind them that we are now in a state of great depression. They know just as well as I do that confidence has a great deal to do with the amount of business which people are willing to transact. I would beg them not to break the hearts of the people who to-day are struggling gallantly to save their businesses. I ask them, between now and 4th January, to use their utmost efforts in devising some means by which they can reconcile industry to these burdens, and bring some courage into the hearts of the people who to-day are conducting business under a sense of great responsibility and under conditions of almost superhuman difficulty.
Would the right hon. Member, before he sits down, inform the House n the maximum contribution of 17s. 4d. per annum per man by mineowners would increase the price of coal by even one-third of a penny per ton, and would this prevent the working of a mine?
I shall answer my hon. Friend, though there is no reason why I should be put into the position of having to reply to questions. It is not entirely fair to say that one-third of a penny per ton will be added. What will make a difference, where no profits are being made at all, is having to put upon a colliery a new impost which makes it not worth while to carry on the colliery. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has taken the trouble to read some of the letters which have been written by coal-owners on the matter. There was one only the other day from a man whom he knows very well, and for whom I am sure he has every respect, explaining that he is shutting down certain collieries now because he cannot any longer carry them on, and that for those which remain this Bill will mean a burden of £33,000 a year added. In these conditions what encouragement is there for him to carry on the collieries at all?
I am sure that we have all listened with great interest to the very useful speech delivered by the right hon. Member for Billhead (Sir E. Home). During his most remarkable speech I noticed the Treasury Bench. I have never seen such a sad-looking Front Bench in all my life. There was not a smile on a single face. Ministers seemed depressed and discouraged, and they are now just recovering from the terrific shock that they have received. If the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had been delivered from this side of the House, Ministers would have had smiles and jokes, and, probably, would have poured ridicule upon us. But as the speech came from one who knows the inner working of the whole question, and from one who has been in association with the Cabinet, it has come with tremendous force. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman's arguments have shattered the whole of the contentions brought forward in favour of the Bill during the last two days. It will be interesting to see how the Government will survive. They have sat for the last 40 minutes in absolute silence, dumbfounded. They are now recovering, and I hope that I am contributing to their recovery, because I have never seen a more depressed lot. Whether the right hon. Gentleman's speech will have an effect on the policy of the Government remains to be seen.
I followed the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman because I have had something to do, and am having something to do, with the difficulties arising from the depressed condition of trade. It is only a few days since I attended a very important conference in connection with the steel and iron trade, and the feeling there was very acute. The employers argued that they could not carry on without a reduction of wages, that they were compelled to do something because they were losing money. Everybody, they said, was losing money. Consequently, their only hope was for some relief. The men were equally determined not to consent to a reduction of wages. Now this added burden on the industry will only accentuate the difficulties of the position. I want to make it clear that, although we are criticising this Measure, we are not condemning it, because we fully believe in the principle of it. We had a good many sneers cast at us because during the wonderful few months of office without power the Labour Government did not introduce a Measure of this kind. I can visualise what would have happened had we done so. I can imagine the speeches that would have been delivered. The speech of the right hon. Member for Hillhead would have come with terrific force from this side of the House, and would have condemned the Labour party for ruining industry. We have been condemned because we did not introduce this Measure. But the position then was entirely different from what it is now. We had no less faith in the principle in- volved, and we have no less faith in the principle of mothers' pensions and orphans' pensions now than we had then and have had for many years.
8.0 P.M.
We believe in the principle. But we are against this Bill, because it is a contributory scheme, because it is only partial in its effect, and because the burden is placed upon those who are least able to bear it. On the other hand, if it were a non-contributory scheme—it could have been made so without any additional burden, because those who are exempted to-day are well able to pay and should have been compelled to pay—if the burden had been placed on the whole nation, it would have been indeed a great benefit to the community at large. It is only a partial scheme and applies only to a portion of the people. Also the cost of it is applied to industry. That makes it a two-fold burden. I recall that at the time when the National Health Insurance Bill was introduced I read that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said in reply to a deputation: "But industry can stand it." Industry could stand it then. The right hon. Gentleman would not repeat those words now, because industry cannot now stand it. As I listened to the remarkable speech made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for War, I thought it would do him good if to-morrow morning he would take the OFFICIAL REPORT, read his own speech, and then read the OFFICIAL REPORT of his speeches at the time when he was condemning and attacking the National Health Insurance Bill, and see how the two views can reconcile themselves. I want to make it very clear that we are agreed on the principle of widows and orphans' pensions, that we would agree to the Bill if non-contributory, and if it applied to all people entitled to come under it, and if all exempted had to pay towards the upkeep. I remember when in Australia the principle was applied there, and widows' pensions have been in existence there for some considerable time. There was 10s. a week paid out for the maintenance of each child, and if the mother was out of employment, she was getting 15s. a week. At the same time, we have to realise that there is no Poor Law authority there, and, consequently, this scheme of mothers' and orphans' pensions was the only means that then existed of doing anything for the relief of these people. But then the widow with three children got 30s. for them and 15s. for herself if out of employment. I have been wondering whether this is the beginning of a policy of doing away with the Poor Law authorities in this country. I believe it is going to lead up to it. So long as the provision is adequate, I do not mind. I do not want the Poor Law-authorities to survive so long as there are ample means of dealing with these people.
In conclusion, let me say that my constituency is rather a peculiar one in itself, because it consists of practically two industries. There are smaller ones, but the coal mines take up a large portion of the constituency and the remainder is given over to agriculture, and some tinplate and steel works. Take the coal industry. It is known as a poor district. They do not depend upon exports, but rely upon home trade. They have had the greatest possible difficulty in keeping the mines going. Fortunately all, or nearly all, the mines are working. There are low wages, short time, and all the other evils, but they are keeping the machinery going, and giving employment, or partial employment, to something like 5,000 to 6,000 miners. If they have been on the very verge, if they have been working at a loss, or on the very fringe of a loss, but have been able to continue up to the present time, and this additional burden is to be imposed upon the mines in that area, the fear is that it will close down, if not all, certainly the majority of mines throughout the Forest of Dean. That would be a serious calamity where everything is dependent on an industry from which they get their maintenance. From the statements one reads, and the number of letters one is bound to receive in a period such as that through which we are passing now, one is filled with alarm, and one is bound to echo the words of the right hon. Member for Hillhead, that this is absolutely the very worst period in the history of our industrial concerns in which to attempt to impose an additional burden upon them.
I have letters in my pocket, as all Members have had letters, from people employed in works, and they say, "I am a member of the Rechabites (or a member of the Foresters or the Oddfellows). My wages are down to less than £2 a week, and I have to contribute a further amount, which I do not need to do." So that the whole thing is about as depressing and despondent as it is possible to conceive, and I only echo the words of the right hon. Member, and say that I hope there will be some broader, greater scheme, that will place the burden upon all those people who are going to be relieved of millions of money, which will only be spent in luxury and enable them to carry on a career of greater pleasure while the great mass is suffering. If it can be so arranged that the expense can be spread over the whole of the non-contributive section of the community then the pensions will be a real blessing, and people will accept them with gratitude.
I consider myself very fortunate in being allowed a few moments to speak in this Debate. Realising that many members of the opposite sex are wishing to speak, and also that the women Members have had their fair share in this Debate, I promise not to speak even for 10 minutes. I feel sure that all Members who heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) yesterday, will agree that it contained some useful and helpful criticism—I cannot always say that of the Members who sit behind me on these benches—and it was given in the right spirit. I would appeal to hon. Members above the Gangway that when this Bill goes into Committee they will approach it in that same spirit, and bring forward useful and helpful criticism. The principle thing is that at last we have a scheme, and any scheme is better than no scheme at all. We cannot always satisfy everybody.
I have had many letters from elderly widows, and I certainly think these widows deserve some consideration. There are many young married men in the country to-day who find it a very hard struggle to help support a widowed mother. There are also many young people wanting to marry, and who probably find it very difficult, owing to the support they have to give to a widowed mother. I think, therefore, that any small relief in that quarter will certainly help them to get through their weekly budget, and be a relief to these small wage-earners. I know that I am asking a great deal from hon. Members above the Gangway, but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has stated that he is prepared to listen to any arguments which may be brought forward in Committee as to the distribution of the benefits. Because I believe many of them are really sincere in their desire for these social reforms, I want to appeal to them to withdraw their Amendment, and let us get on and thrash this out in Committee in the right spirit, and so help forward, as soon as possible, this Measure that is so needed. I appeal to them to withdraw the Amendment, and let us get to business, and help the Minister of Health, who, nobody can deny, has a real desire to help the struggling mass of people.
I want to put in a brief statement of the point of view which, quite apart from party, if one can dissociate himself from party, is the view of the public health world on this Measure before the House. Those of us who, from the first, have been devoting their attention to the work of public health, approach this subject of widows, orphans and old age pensions, as if it were holy ground. The mere possibility that one may be able to see here the beginning of dealing with these terrible subjects of trouble in our midst, is a kind of fulfilment of ideals, of dreams, that have been before one from one's childhood, and the words of Kingsley, of Carlyle and of George Eliot, that have eaten into one's soul, seem about to be coming home to the community and to the nation in this Measure, which it is the privilege of this Government to be in a position to bring forward.
It seems to me there are three points of view from the public health standpoint in this matter. The first point of view they must take is that it goes to the root of both health and housing questions, for both health and housing questions, in the main, are questions of poverty. If you look into questions of poverty, they are questions of health and infirmity, or of those who cannot fend for themselves. They are essentially widows, orphans and old age. Therefore, questions of health and of housing are mainly based upon these difficulties, because health and housing are the matters in which, if people are pinched for their means, they are the last to spend their money, and the first to economise. Health and housing, therefore, are the questions which are primarily made to suffer by the difficulties of orphanhood, widowhood, and old age. With regard to the second point, those who are trying to realise their ideals for public health, first of all have to recognise, that whatever Measures are brought forward, the first thing is to gather money for them. A friend of mine in this House was telling me to-day that until the recent reforms in India were brought in, there was a rule in the Legislative Assembly that no Measures could be brought into the House unless first the statement was made as to how the money was to be found. That is no longer the case. It is a very good rule. Although it may be a bad regulation for the House, it would be a very salutary rule for all social reformers.
Therefore, I feel very strongly the criticisms made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Horne) and others connected with industrial concerns. If they are right in sizing up the situation, it is a serious blow to the whole proposals. If they are right, as the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) seemed to suggest, then there is an end, not only of contributory schemes, but still more of those non-contributory schemes for which the Opposition is shouting. Therefore, their arguments defeat themselves; they cancel each other. You cannot have it both ways. If you have money for it, then it is not going to be a blow to industry. If you have money for it, you can provide these reforms. But I think it is perfectly clear to all of us that there is only a limited amount of money, and, therefore, surely we can say, as regards social requirements, that half a loaf is better than no bread. Criticisms that are rightly made as to the limitations in this scheme surely do not prevent us, and all those who work with us all over the country, from saying that this is a half loaf that is infinitely better than no bread. It is the uttermost that anybody can possibly expect at the present time.
The last point which I wish to bring forward is the small, technical point. It was referred to in general by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) yesterday in a speech which seemed to me to be full of hope. It has also been mentioned by one or two other Members. We are now proposing to reduce the old age pension age from 70 to 65. Why? On the general basis that at 65 people are infirm. But, as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said, many are infirm long before that age. Many men are worn out in industry, in the professions and in the work of this House, long before they reach the age of 65. Others remain healthy and sound at 65, and beyond it. If we believe, and surely we must believe, that we have to get the best value for a limited amount of resources, then we must tackle the subject which is most important and the grievance which is most severe. It seems to me that we are probably wasting a considerable sum of money by taking the rigid line of 65. Looking to the future it is much more important that we should take a more elastic line based on the tables prepared by the Government actuaries and those who study life tables for the last Census and preceding Census returns.
Unfortunately, the tables have not been made available to we ordinary mortals based on the 1921 Census, although I have seen the life tables made out for Glasgow for the 1921 Census, and comparative tables for previous years made out for London. Think what it means. The great point on which the actuaries have to go, looking to the future, is what the mortality rates mean. The mortality rates are diminishing every year and are likely to diminish for some time. The mortality rates are such, according to the tables based on the last two Census returns, that whereas for a man of 50 the mortality rate is only about four-fifths of what it was according to the Census return of 10 years before, at the age of 65 to 70 it is only nine-tenths of what it was before. Therefore, the improvement in health has actually extended the chance of life by one-fifth in ten years in the case of a man at 50, and in the later years by one-tenth. What will that mean in the future? It will mean a great extension of age. In the Glasgow table it is shown that during the last 80 years you have actually got a greater expectation of life at the age of 10 by 25 years. If you have that at the present time, what are you likely to have in the future, with this improvement in health? The Government Actuary shows that in the next 40 years the people between 65 and 70 years of age will have nearly doubled in number.
There will be another war before then.
The improvement in public health is not merely extending the age of people; it has extended their working age. It is not simply extending their dotage. It means that their working, happy, healthy life has been extended. I see a future in which we are going to have people living not to three score years and ten, but to 90, 100 and 150 years of age. What will the future be then? At the present time we are looking to a pension scheme in which we are permanently throwing people out of work at the age of 65. That is what this proposal will mean. I cannot develop the theme further at the present time, but I do say that the pensions scheme of the future ought to be a disability scheme. Just as you have after the war disability decided by a medical board, so in future I believe in civil life the disability ought to be decided, I will not say simply by members of my own profession, but by a medical board diluted with such other elements as may be required to constitute a professional technical board to decide the question of disability. I do not know whether that would mean more or fewer pensions. At any rate, in the future we ought not to be guided by the crude, mechanical age of 65, or any other age, but simply by the test of disability. Under these conditions, I support this magnificent Measure of social reform.
While for good reasons I cannot congratulate the Government upon introducing this pension scheme, I candidly admit that it was due to the working classes to have this Measure introduced in its proper form by the late Labour Government. There is not much doubt in my mind that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of providing for five cruisers or the £13,000 sanctioned by the late Government for the Prince of Wales' tour, should have introduced a pension scheme. That was their legitimate function. I do not think that the scheme was put off on the question of making it contributory or not. I suppose it became the legitimate outcome of great faith in the inevitableness of gradualness, but the gradualness was made more and more inevitable, and the inevitability of the relief of the suffering masses was made less and less inevitable. One thing has come out of this evil. Although it may be accidental, I think the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer has rendered a great service by forcing a Conservative regime to hurry up and introduce a scheme of pensions for mothers and widows. Perhaps it may be in future of great advantage for the Socialists of the future to remind the Conservatives of to-day that they were the party who did this and that and introduced this Bill and that Bill.
A further great advantage from the working class point of view, is that it has been possible for the electors of this country, as well as for the economic students outside this country, to see the vast difference between the Tory party's Bill and even a capitalistic Socialist party's Bill as it would have been in a case like this. The whole Bill is a perfect picture of what we can expect our Friends who are in power to do. We are told that they are doing it in order to keep their pledges. I do not believe that the electors would accept it in that spirit. If the Government sincerely believe that, and if they think they could dare to go to the country to-day for a referendum or an election on their Pensions Bill or their Budget, I believe there would be another fiscal Gallipoli. At the present time, there is a chance of avoiding any reference to the public, to whom they gave a false pledge, but there is a chance of manœuvring out of it by hushing up their own followers inside the Lobbies of this House, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer may come out with another victory similar to his great expedition in Sidney Street.
But speaking of the scheme as such the country has a right to study the wrangle between the two Parliamentary groups from the point of view of the working classes. In the first place we are quite assured that the whole scheme rests upon depriving very quickly, with an accelerated speed, the ex-service men of what miserable pensions they are getting even now. It is just the same story as we had the other day of extorting money from Egypt to finance charitable institutions in the Sudan. In a similar manner the ex-service men are to be told to go on suffering further miseries, and the widows and mothers are to take the consolation that they are going to flourish on the 10s. a week. I am not a war monger, but if this country were sincere in its expressed feeling towards the ex-service men it ought in plain honesty to have allowed their pensions to continue at the full rate at which they began for the period of at least 10 years after the War, considering the great hardships and the distressful times that are continuing to exist, and it could during those 10 years have declared a moratorium for the war loan interest earners.
The Minister of Health speaks of these pensions which are to be given, but we are not told of what will happen in the event of a second war, and this Government would have one to-morrow if they could rely on the working classes being again as foolish as they were in 1914. We are not told whether in future a War Minister is going to stop the Ministry of Health from giving pensions to widows, or whether the Ministry of Health is going to stop the future Minister of War from awarding pensions in the event of a second war. If the Government are confident that there is going to be no second war at least during the next 15 or 20 years, why have all these armaments and why not use the £140,000,000 or £150,000,000 which are spent on armaments which are not required, and why not provide comfortable pensions of 40s. a week out of that money? Then there is mention of old age pensions. This is another example of the inevitability of gradualness and the methods of evolution in the development of the social side of capitalistic legislation.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was very studious in leading everybody to believe that he was the author of old age pensions. Old age pensions, so far as one inquiring into history finds, were advocated quite 100 years ago by Thomas Paine, and he advocated pensions at the age of 60 and at the rate of 10s. a week, which, according to the present standards of value, would amount to about 40s. a week, but according to what we are told of the process of waiting and of the evolutionary methods of relieving social hardships and the inevitability of gradualness, after 100 years instead of 40s. at the age of 60 we are now discussing 10s. at the age of 65, and if we go on these lines in 100 years more we may be discussing what our forefathers discussed 100 years ago. The old patriarchial days are gone, the old family ties are gone, the old methods of social life and inter-relationship have vanished, and we have to look now to not only every man and every woman, but even every new-born infant finding its own level, and if any claim is made upon society, society has to ask the question where the money is to come from and how the provision is to be made.
The last speaker told us that that is about the best method of procedure. But what we are up against is this, that society, before it makes its further progress in its industrial and economic ventures has to ask itself where are food, shelter, comforts, education and medical attendance to come from for men. women and infants, aged ones and everybody. The other things of life may be considered to follow afterwards. I do not want to indulge in any detailed suggestions as to whether 8s. should be paid here or 10s. should be paid there, when all the time for the mass of society life itself is made burdensome and almost unliveable. We have heard the arguments as to contributory and non-contributory scheme. We have heard the argument regarding the burden upon industry. I put the view that it is futile to argue about burdens upon industry for the maintenance of human life. Industry has no right to exist, and has no justification for being brought into being, if it is not to bear the full burden of human life in the society in which the industry is carried on.
We are not arguing against the burden upon industry. At any rate, we in the Communist party are not. The main essence and sole purpose, the only justification for industry is to bear the full burden upon its square shoulders for the maintenance of child life, women life and man life, and the lives of the aged ones who can work no longer. We want to put that full burden upon industry, and the full evil has arisen at present because industry has shirked in the past bearing that burden on its own shoulders. While we talk about burdens at the present time we see clearly that we are in a cleft stick. As soon as we make the industry bear its legitimate burden, which it ought to have borne all along, those individuals throw the penalty upon society and shut down buildings, and these arguments and this Debate will open the eyes of the working classes to the fact that the real suffering of the nation is only the heritage of the arbitrary control of industry by individuals who try to penalise society when society places the legitimate burden upon that industry.
The hon. Member is getting some distance away from the subject of insurance.
What is essential to insure the workers for all time is, in the first place, to put an end to the individual ownership of industry, and then you can have any number of industrial schemes which you wish.
That could not be done by this Bill; it would require other Measures. The hon. Member must confine himself to the scope of this Bill.
I am submitting that on this account alone, notwithstanding all the arguments produced, this scheme in itself could not be made non-contributory. As I pointed out a few nights ago, under the present system we cannot succeed in making the scheme non-contributory, even if it were thrown on the Income Tax. The individual controllers of industry would immediately tell the men, as they have often told them, that they could not pay high taxes and full wages at the same time. They would immediately claim the right to reduce wages, and the scheme would thus become contributory again. In that respect the House and the public will see the justification for a Minimum Wages Bill. If we were protected by a minimum wage in industry, even under the capitalist system, and there was an attempt to throw such a burden as this on the general taxpayers, there would be some measure of protection for the worker. But under the present system no amount of argument and of dodging around the issue will make a contributory scheme any less contributory by trying to place the burden upon those who control the lives and wages of the workers who have full power and always exercise that power to transfer the burden to the worker in one form or another. As far as the working classes are concerned, they have the right to demand from society that the first call upon the wealth which they produce should be for the maintenance at a high level of human life, especially in that section of society which creates wealth. We cannot allow that it is satisfactory to have Measures like this, while the working classes are being robbed of all they produce, their lives are being made miserable and they are being made to pay the penalty of conditions of life which they do not produce and for which . they are not responsible. By such measures we are only pretending to show them charity in the name of social reform and of social progress and of conscience and of growing intelligence, and so forth.
We have been arguing with regard to women who will have to pay contributions though they will never marry and can never marry and with regard to persons who will contribute in a variety of circumstances but will not derive any benefit. Personally, I do not sympathise with that line of argument. I rather wish that the wholesome principle were established that nobody should contribute with a view to his or her personal benefit, but that everybody should contribute in the conscious belief that to aid the children, the infirm, those who are out of employment, not through their fault but through the fault of society, should be the care of all whether persons are married or unmarried, have children or are childless, or whether they are likely to die before the age of 70 or not. The spirit which we want to see grow in this nation and all nations is the spirit of realising that the care of the infants, of growing children, of the infirm and of the aged is the primary function and duty of society. It is on that account and on that account alone that the workers should be expected to produce wealth. I am glad personally that the Russian Soviet idea of children being made a care of the State, has now been introduced by our friends of the Conservative party, in spite of their growling against it in season and out of season. When they ask contributions from unmarried women who, according to the Census figures cannot find a husband apiece, they admit the idea and acknowledge the principle that the children ought to be the care of the State—even though as an election pastime they write long articles in their newspapers about the freedom of parents being taken away when the State provides for the children.
Where this Bill is wanting is that it pretends to act upon the principle that the burden should be borne by all members of society irrespective of any direct benefit to the individuals themselves, and yet it excludes from contributing money payments a section of society which is in the best position to pay. Those who live on the proceeds of land or on incomes from other similar sources are living upon the workers. Their lands would be of no value if they did not raise revenue; rents could not be paid unless industry was going on, and those who pay the rents, those who provide the revenue, even those who pay the interest on the War Loan, are workers in the first instance. Even though we did put a contribution upon what appears to us as a parasite class, that parasite class must first obtain its income from the work of the workers. This House and the country must see clearly that it is futile and vain to argue that anybody else besides the workers contribute a full 100 per cent. towards the upkeep of Society. What we protest against is that large slices of wealth, primarily produced by the workers, instead of being applied as the direct contribution of the workers, for the benefit of Society are poached upon by a few persons and reserved for their own use.
I am not saying that this argument might not be relevant on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill next week, but I do not see how the hon. Member is going to relate it to the subject of this Bill.
I was working up to the point. I wish to show that this Insurance Bill, in its miserable shape, with its narrow outlook, and with all the sham arguments that have been used in its favour, has become necessary, because in the past industries have evaded their obligations to society and the workers. All industries have earned surplus values of hundreds of millions. Our friends who control industries know how to set aside dividend, equalisation funds, and large reserve funds for the extension of works.
If the hon. Member's method of coming to the point were to be accepted, another hon. Member might go back and introduce the question of original sin. It is really not relevant for the hon. Member to go into all these matters and to say that he is arriving at the point.
I suggest to the House that, if all these industries were compelled, first and foremost, to bear the full burden of the life of the workers by paying them a minimum liveable wage, and, secondly, if all industries which are controlled by individuals, who carry away slices of wealth out of them, were compelled to set aside reserves for the benefit of the aged workers, as they are now set aside for the benefit of capitalist investors, and if all industries were compelled, after a reasonable profit to the shareholders, to set aside a wage equalisation fund, as they are now setting aside a dividend equalisation fund, there would be an automatic scheme within the industries to insure against bad times, against unemployment, and against old age in each industry, and I am submitting that this Bill is a last desperate effort to put the cloak of benevolence and saintliness upon a system which is in its essence hideous.
As one who has for some time taken a great interest in this question of social insurance, I desire to thank the Government most sincerely for bringing forward a Measure which will undoubtedly make a very great impression upon the social life of the people, and in the eloquent and conclusive speech to which we listened from the Minister of Health there was no portion to which I listened with greater pleasure than that in which he paid a tribute to my friend, Mr. T. T. Broad. I have long sat at his feet myself, and have always regarded him as a pioneer in this question. He was undoubtedly the first to see the desirability of removing the anxieties which inflict themselves on the working-class mind and the possibility of doing it, and it was very largely thanks to his untiring efforts, his speeches, and his writings, that so great a force of public opinion was aroused that it became a matter of certainty that, whatever Government came into power at the last Election, a scheme of such a character as this would be introduced.
I thank the Government for their Bill, and I consider it, on the whole, a good scheme, but I am bound to say, in all honesty, that I do feel that there is some force in the criticism that this scheme has been cut down to fit into the structure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the pursuit of his policy of broadening the basis of taxation, has been laying rather too great a burden on industry while he has been tender to the millionaire and indulgent to the Super-tax payer. That is not entirely my own opinion. It is an opinion which is, so far as I can gather, largely shared by the rank and file of the party which sits on this side of the House. Anyhow, I can assure the Government that it is the opinion of the rank and file in my own division, who are, perhaps, a little more democratic than the rank and file of most Conservative divisions. I am, as a social reformer, and one who has for some time belonged to the social reform wing of the Conservative party, glad that such a scheme has been brought in. I must say that I differ from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) in the view that in this matter half a loaf is better than no bread.
I have often been in disagreement with my leaders, and I am afraid I have sometimes got into unpopularity and trouble with them, but I have never abandoned the hope that we should see the leaders on this side of the House men who, by their broadness of character and by the sympathetic nature of their policy, would be able to attach the people of this country to the social institutions of this country so firmly that all desire for social revolution would be removed. If we are to realise this ideal, we never ought to be satisfied with the policy of the half-loaf. It will never do to be satisfied with the policy of the third best; it will never do, in other words, for a Home Secretary, when He brings in measures for factory reform or for the improvement of the health of the workers, to bring in measures which really do not meet the necessities of the case, but have been whittled down to suit the pressure of the employers' federations; and, also, it will never do for this scheme to have the criticism levelled at it that it gives too little and costs too much.
I wish to make it quite clear that I have no sympathy whatever with the demand for a non-contributory scheme. To make that demand at the present moment, with the finances of the country in their present condition, is, to my mind, merely, to use a vulgar expression, talking through one's hat. It is a demand which is made with all the liberty and all the irresponsibility of opposition. I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of hon. Members opposite when they say that a non-contributory scheme has been prepared by their leader, but I am afraid they cannot deny that that scheme has not yet been allowed to see the light. I associate myself with those who feel that some larger contribution should be made to this scheme by the taxpayers of this country. After all, are the contributions by the taxpayers so very over-generous? In the years 1926 and 1927, so far as I understand the scheme, only £5,000,000 will be contributed, and in 1935 £6,000,000. The Secretary of State for War, in his interesting speech, alluded to the triple alliance of the employer, the worker, and the State. Is it quite out of the question that each partner in that triple alliance should contribute an equal amount, and that one-third should come from the employers, one-third from the workers, and one-third from the State?
I submit that this scheme is a social insurance scheme in more than one sense. It is a good scheme of insurance for the poor, and it safeguards them against some of the risks and anxieties of life, but it is also a good insurance scheme for the rich. The rich should pay up and so avoid the dangers of the social revolution. If this does have the effect of identifying and reconciling the people to the social interests of the country it will be worth it. If I may put it in other words, it is that the rich ought to pay up and look pleasant. I do ask that if we are to have pensions for widows they shall be ample. If we are going to do anything at all let us do it absolutely and properly. Let the provision for the widows and maintenance for the children be adequate. Let it be enough to enable the widow to look after her children properly. Let it be enough to take them out of the Poor Law and out of industry. After all, the guardians are not reckless idealists or extravagant enthusiasts. They are practical men, and if they have given relief to widows and orphans on a much more generous scale than is really approved by the Government, it is because they have been brought to do it by the pressure of public opinion and by the absolute necessity of the widow and children.
9.0 P.M.
I also heartily associate myself with the appeal which has been made by the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor when she asked that the wife of a disabled man should receive a maintenance allowance. The wife of a man disabled in an industrial accident gets 30s. a week. That is not enough. It is true that the husband does get something under the Insurance Act, but the figure is ridiculously and preposterously low. I ask the Government to consider this. The hon. Member for Sutton also made a point of the fact of the woman, who never had any chance of marrying, and who, perhaps, had contributed all her life, getting nothing till she reaches 65. Is it quite out of the question that the single woman, certified by the Employment Exchange to be no longer capable of taking employment, shall receive some kind of alternative pension? I do ask the Government to turn these two requests over in their minds again. Before I sit down I do wish to enter a caveat against the policy of accelerating the deficiency period, which has been referred to, by removing large numbers of the workers from benefit. I think that will be treading very dangerous ground. I am absolutely sceptical as to whether there are any large numbers of workers drawing benefit who ought not to he drawing benefit. I have now for some time been connected with an Unemployment Exchange in the North of England. I have been Chairman of a Labour Advisory Committee. I challenge the Government to find more than one or two workers who are drawing benefits and ought not to be doing so. I do not really think that the critics quite realise how very strict are the Regulations, and how very honest and conscientious are both employers and workmen in carrying out and administering these Regulations. I have always regarded suggestions to this effect as to the abuse of the Unemployment Exchanges as being the product of the reactionary Press, and I must say I am somewhat alarmed to find that it is now one of the brilliant inspirations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the scheme may be made more acceptable by taking off a large number of the people who are in benefit from Unemployment Insurance. I would warn the Government that if they are going to adopt the policy of taking unemployed workers from the Unemployment Insurance and throwing them on to the shoulders of the ratepayers, they will find themselves in rather hot water. I represent a constituency which has been very hardly hit by the depression in trade. In order to cope with and provide work for the unemployed they have raised a sum of £750,000. The interest on that money means a burden of 4½d. upon their rates. If the Government contributions begin to drop off, in a very few years the rates, in this respect, will amount to something like 8½d. If it is the policy of the Government to take the cost of unemployment from State funds and put it on to the rates, I warn them that I for one will not be representing the interests of my constituency unless I give such a proposition an unhesitating opposition.
In conclusion, I hope that the Government will leave themselves open to consider any useful suggestions that may be put forward in Committee. I hope also that hon. Gentlemen opposite, now that they have fired their salvo of artillery against the contributory system, will settle down in Committee and endeavour to make this a useful and a workable scheme. I trust also that all Members of this House in Committee will work together, so that when the scheme is finished and the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, the people of this country may combine to say to those of us here, "Well done, good and faithful servants."
I do not know why it is hon. Members should lecture those on these benches. The object of the Bill, that of providing pensions for widows and orphans and for old age, is a Labour proposal. We are prepared as a party to foot the bill. We are prepared as taxpayers, and as taxpayers who pay the larger portion of the taxation of this country, to pay our quota towards the cost of this scheme. Our objection to this Bill is not to its main principles, but to the manner in which those principles are financed. This has been called a contributory scheme. It is not in a proper sense of the word a contributory scheme, for I find contributions are inequitably levied. I find that this will cost the mining industry somewhere about £1,600,000. Under the present agreement the workmen will pay about seven-eighths of that £1,600,000; will pay practically 7d. out of the 8d.
That in itself is very inequitable; but there is something worse than that in connection with the mining industry. The royalty owners take 6d. for every ton of minerals that is brought up. The output amounts to about 900,000 tons per day, so that 900,000 sixpences are taken by the royalty owners; but they are so sheltered by the provisions of this Bill that except for the modicum they pay to the State they will escape their obligations entirely. It is for that reason that we object to the way in which this Measure is financed. Not only will the royalty owners escape their quota under this Bill, but all the great financial interests—the banking interests and the other interests that take toll from industry by the hundred million—will be exempted from payment towards this scheme. This is grossly unfair to the workers. It is said that this old age pension is a gratuity to the worker. I say it is nothing of the kind. A man who has been toiling for the space of 50 years producing wealth for this country, and has been taxed throughout the whole of that time, can legitimately claim from the State the pittance that is offered to him under this Bill. To say it is a gratuity is an abuse of words. The worker is thoroughly entitled to whatever he can get out of this Bill, because of the great service he has rendered in producing wealth, a portion of which he only receives for himself.
The working classes are not in a position to stand any further demands upon their wages, which are already down, practically, to starvation level. They are paying 9d. a week for unemployment insurance on purpose to keep unemployed for the capitalists of this country, they are paying 5d. per week in health insurance, and now this Bill comes along and inflicts upon every miner under the present wage agreement another contribution of 7d. per week. It is for these reasons that we object to this Bill. If it were a contributory Bill in the real sense of the word all paying taxes ought to contribute their equal share towards the cost. That is the only way to have a really contributory scheme. It has been said we could not find the money. That is rather a stale story. In all our financial difficulties we have never yet failed to balance our Budget, and never yet failed to find a substantial surplus when it was required. We are wasting a large amount of money on useless armaments and upon such silly objects as the Singapore base, but we are told we have no money for a great, vital social reform of this character. I do not pay much attention to that kind of argument.
The underlying principle of this Bill is this: it is to make the working classes pay for their own aged poor, and to throw upon them the casualties of the capitalist system. The mining industry cannot afford this extra burden. We have 300 collieries closed, we have scores of colliery companies paying no dividends, and we have men only working three or four days a week in certain industries. How are our men and our women to find this extra contribution. This is the most inopportune time to levy further burdens upon industry.
The State as a whole is able to bear these burdens. In levying them on industries we shall be levying them indiscriminately on industries that are prosperous and can pay, and those which are just on the border-line of closing down. We have collieries closing almost every day, we have steel works and shipyards closing, yet the toll is to be levied upon these industries; it will probably drive more firms out of industry. The benefits of the Bill are entirely inadequate. The pension of 10s. a week for the widow, 5s. for one child and 3s. each for the other children is entirely inadequate. A widow who is left in those circumstances will still have to go to the guardians to get her income supplemented. For these reasons, amongst many others which I could bring forward if only I had more time at my disposal, I support the Amendment, and offer my strongest opposition to the provisions of the Bill.
I intervene in this Debate at this late hour to make a few observations on what I regard as the two principle criticisms directed against the Bill. The first point has been as to whether this scheme ought to be a contributory or a non-contributory one. I think all parties have had this scheme, similar schemes to this, under consideration for a long time past. Before the last Election the present Prime Minister, as he told us in his Election address, had appointed a committee to go into the question, and in his Election address he made it quite clear that if he were returned to power the scheme would be a contributory one. The manifesto said that the committee he had appointed clear that the Conservative party were returned with a promise that if returned to power they would introduce a pensions scheme upon a contributory basis. Therefore, I should be false to my election pledges if I did not vote in favour of this Bill.
The other chief criticism of the Bill is that the scheme imposes a great burden on industry, and I think that is perfectly true. Nothing, however, is to be gained by ignoring the possible reliefs, some small and some great. Take the first of them. If this Bill becomes an Act, one of its effects will be that there will be a great inducement for men and women of 65 years of age and upwards, who have saved a little money for their old age, to leave off work and get this additional 10s., or in the case of a married couple £l per week. That would enable many of these old people to retire from work and make way for younger people. It would give some relief to unemployment, and would also give relief to industry from another point of view, because it would enable younger men and women to take the place of the older men and women. Therefore, in this way, relief to unemployment is one of the advantages of the scheme.
Another advantage is the rating relief to the extent that old persons and widows will be relieved from the necessity of obtaining Poor Law relief, and that will constitute a great relief to the rates. There is one other relief which employers are going to get. Hon. Members who have had some share in industry as managers or directors must have come up against the problem of the employé who from bad health, sickness or accident is unable to continue his work, and yet has not been able to put aside provision for his old age. There is a similar case of the employé who dies leaving a widow insufficiently provided for. In such cases again and again employers are asked whether they can do something for those poor persons. Such employers are in this position. They sympathise with these sad cases but their duty is two-fold. On the one hand they have to consider the position of the employé, and on the other hand the position of their shareholders. It is not their own money that they are going to give away, but money of which they are custodians, and they can only make some gratuity to those employés if they are satisfied it is really necessary.
You have to consider in each case the position of the widow with children, or the employé who has had an accident, how far they are really objects of charity or deserving of a gratuity, and you have to go into these cases in order to find out the real position. If an employé is going to get an additional 10s. or £1 per week, or the children are going to get 5s. or 3s. per week each, that undoubtedly is a factor which a director or manager would have to take into consideration. It may be that under this Bill employers are going to get some relief in that way, but to my mind it is a great thing that tinder this Bill good employers who have treated their employés most generously in the past are going to be the people who are going to get the greatest benefit under this Bill. I hope the employers -will devote the relief they get in this way to helping their employés in some other way.
I think we have all come into contact with employés who are worried by the fact that when the time comes for them to retire they will not have sufficient to live upon. It worries men, and rightly worries them, that their widows will not be provided for. One effect of this Bill will be that those employés will be relieved of that worry, and will thus become more efficient workmen. Of course there is still a very big burden on industry under these proposals, and employers will get the reliefs in the course of time. They will not be immediate, although the burden will be immediate and the reliefs will only come gradually. I hope the Government will give some relief to industry during the period when the payments are the largest. Even when you agree that there is a burden on industry it is perhaps not so great as some hon. Members have represented. Still there is a burden, but in the long run I am satisfied as an employer that this Bill in the end will be a real benefit to industry and to the employers no less than to employés. Therefore, I shall vote for the Second Reading of this Measure as being the greatest Measure of social reform that has come to this House for many years past.
This Bill is full of blemishes, faults and blots. I would like to ask where is the scheme that is not. What we have to look at is not the imperfections but the benefits which it confers. It is always possible to criticise any beneficent Measure. In this case it is easy to urge that the scheme should be non-contributory. Personally I prefer the non-contributory scheme having considered the matter with greater depth since it became a practical proposition, and I have come to the conclusion that it is only by a non-contributory scheme that we can bring in every section of the community who are entitled to such benefits as those which this Bill confers. But after all I do not discern any great cleavage of principle between the non-contributory and the contributory proposals. There is no cleavage of principle but there is a cleavage of practical politics, and, surveying the finances of the nation as a whole, it is certain that had the scheme been prepared upon a non-contributory basis we should not have had it at all. It is possible that instead of conferring benefits upon young childless widows it would be better to give the money to widows with children. However, taking the scheme as a whole, I believe it to be a good scheme. Whatever the argument be in favour of depriving young widows without children of the proposed benefits, that argument cannot be sustained as the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) endeavoured to sustain it, by saying that these sums of money which are to be given to young widows will depress wages or, on the other hand, give them a subsidy which will be beneficial to them in comparison with those who do not receive it. There are about 300,000 War widows to-day engaged in industry who are getting larger benefits than this Bill confers. Has anyone suggested—has any member of the Labour party suggested that those widows should be deprived of their War pensions because they were depressing the rate of wages in the market? There are a thousand and one other criticisms to be made of this scheme. There is a case to be made out for the present widows who will be in a very unfavourable position compared with those who are to draw extra benefit. What we have to ask ourselves is this. Have we not, the Members of every party in this House, been advocating consistently for a period of years that a scheme of widows' pensions should be brought into operation? I am impelled to the conclusion that the real gravamen of the Labour objection to this scheme is that it is going to deprive them of their perorations. It is not so much the widows and mothers, as what they can say about the widows and mothers.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) is entitled to the respect of every Member of this House. He does at any rate say what he thinks. His speeches are a critique of the present capitalist system. There is no compromise, there is no milk and water, about the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston. Therefore, I say one must respect what he says. But is the working class as a whole going to credit him when he claims that this Bill is a robbery of the old men's cash-box, a stealing from an unfortunate and helpless population, and a fraud upon the hapless? One would think, to have listened to Ms speech yesterday, that his Government, when in power, had given 48s. a week to the widows of this country, and that the Conservative party were taking it away. His real grievance is the vindictiveness which one feels at the misuse of a great opportunity. It is incumbent upon us, who do not belong to the Conservative party, to protect them from their friends in this matter. They depend upon industry. Industry is getting a little annoyed with them at their proposed generosity, and if we who have consistently advocated these Measures in the country do not come to their support now, we shall merit the epithet of hypocrites. Of course, industry is crying out. It is one of its chief functions to cry out. It has an unusual type of advocate in the right hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the Front Bench. They write articles in the newspapers; they make speeches in this House pleading for poor industry. Do they realise that if this burden is to be taken off industry and taken off the working man, industry will have a very much greater burden to bear in the long run? It is absolutely insincere for right hon. Gentlemen on that bench to plead that industry is being injured by this Bill.
The Minister of Health has offered to be conciliatory in regard to this Bill. He has offered to accept every reasonable suggestion, and, of course, if he does not accept every reasonable suggestion, he may forfeit the support which I am now so generously offering him. I hope, as I think all hon. Members of this House do, that it will be possible so to amend this scheme that no additional burden falls upon industry having regard to the deficiency payments in regard to Employment Insurance or to the surplus funds of the Health Insurance system. In some way, it is to be hoped, the total contributions paid will not be in excess of those at present payable. For the rest, if one examines this scheme as a whole, if one considers the benefits actually given to persons who do not receive benefits at this moment; if one considers that it is but a first step and a promise of greater things, one cannot withhold, in justice to what one has said in the past, due credit to the Government which has actually taken the first step in this matter, and one cannot fail to attribute blame and condemnation to the Socialist party, the effect of whose attitude would be to deprive those people of the actual benefits that are offered to them. There is no other logical consequence of voting against this Bill, seeing that the Conservative Government is pretty safe for at yeast four years. There is no other logical consequence in voting against this Bill, but that you postpone the great benefactions you have in store for them for a large number of years. It will be to the everlasting credit of the Conservative party that they have carried out this great Liberal principle, and it will be to the everlasting discredit of the Socialist party that it failed to seize its great opportunity.
We have heard in the last two days varied criticisms on this Bill. Some have been constructive and useful; some have been destructive and vindictive; others have been tinged with a jaundiced jealousy which we feel perfectly certain many on this side quite understand. It must be a very galling thing for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side to realise that they have rejected the one opportunity that came to them to carry out the most wonderful promises they have made. The Tory party has been held up to vilification throughout the country, as the party who, we have been told, were the friends of the rich and the enemies of the poor, and we have been told this by those who neglected the opportunity to show that they were the friends of the poor and the enemies of the rich. It reminds me of the great football final. Those who saw it may remember how the little man from Cardiff hesitated for a moment with the ball at his feet, and a cleverer man came round from Sheffield and made the only goal that settled the destination of the Cup for another year. So to-night we stand proudly behind our Minister of Health, as the man who has settled the goal of the widows, the orphans and the old people for some time to come.
Stripped of all the criticism which may be levelled against this Bill, we come down to the bed-rock; of fact that the scheme must either be of a contributory or a non-contributory character. Last night, as a new Member of this House, I was a little disconcerted when I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) say that, although he felt, as I think some of us do, that the question of contributions should be delayed for a time, he had in his mind certain wherewithals from which the funds could be drawn to carry out this Measure, but the Rules of the House precluded him from mentioning them. If the Rules precluded him, they also preclude me, but, if they did not preclude me, I should say that, if I were Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should, like a good business man, close the cash book for a moment, knowing very well that in any circumstances we have to find £800,000,000 this year. I should turn up the outstanding accounts in the ledger and look at some of the moneys which are owed to us, and I should say, "Here is a place from which we may be able to draw some of the funds which would, at any rate, postpone, and, perhaps, eventually, cut out contributions altogether." I am, however, precluded from that, and, therefore, I will not go into it.
We have been told that we are about to place an enormous burden on industry. No one can have more reverence for the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) than I have. His outlook on industry is, as he says, through many windows, and he also looks out from one or two of the windows through which I have to look for my daily bread. I am not what most hon. Gentlemen opposite portray as the ordinary Conservative Member—I am not a bloated aristocrat who does not have to work for his living. I doubt whether there is another Member in this House who has, as I have to-day, been down to the docks in London and done a day's work. When I go down there and settle the matters which I have to attend to in my business, I find that wages are not ground down to the infinitesimal figure which some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would have us believe, and if I may, without trenching too far upon personal matters, I should like to mention some of the wages which are being paid in the docks. The average is £4 10s. 8d., so far as my knowledge is concerned.
Where?
If the hon. Gentleman would care to come with me—
I know more about it than you do.
No doubt, the hon. Gentleman who interrupts me has been down there to-day, and, like me, has done his day's work. I will quote, if I may, the actual figures for discharging two coal boats last week in the Thames. The hatchman who does that extremely difficult job of signalling to tell the man to wind up the crane when it should be done, earned in four days £7 7s. 6d. Tippers earned £7 8s. 6d., and crane-drivers £8 11s. 5d.—this is all in four days; while the men in the hold earned £15 8s. 2d. for each man. There has recently been invented a machine for discharging case goods. These are discharged at the present moment by gangs of men, each of whom earns on an average £3 11s. per day.
There has also recently been invented and perfected in London a coal bunkering machine. In the old days, men used to draw 31s. 3d. for loading 100 tons of coal—31s. 3d. per man in the gang. It used to take them about a day and a half. The machine which has recently been invented, and which is working, is capable of loading coal at the rate of 60 tons per hour, but the men still stand out for their 31s. 3d. per 100 tons, and they are at the present moment earning £5 12s. 6d. per man. There is another matter on the question of wages. Three weeks ago a boat came to London to discharge barley. The men started at 8 in the morning and finished at 3.30 in the afternoon, and for that each man received 22s. It was little enough, I admit, but each man received 22s. from 8 in the morning till 3.30 in the afternoon. Then the union came along and said that it was not enough.
I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member is getting rather wide of the terms of this Bill.
I am sorry, Sir, but I was explaining the wages which men earn at the present moment in order to show that these men do earn a very fair wage, and would be able, in certain circumstances, to pay a contribution of 4d. per week I will admit, however, that it is very difficult for them to pay 4d. per week if they are unemployed. If I may pursue the matter of these men who were getting 22s. per day from 8 in the morning till 3.30 in the afternoon, their union came along and said that they must have 30s. for that period. The consequence is that, while the 30s. was paid for one boat, there have been no further boats coming in to discharge at this price, and these men are out of work.
So far as I am concerned, and so far as regards the industry with which I am concerned, I am all for a contributory scheme. I believe that the people themselves would rather pay. I have spoken with many of my own men, and they say they would rather retain their independence for 4d. a week than they would subsist on charity. The women would like it, undoubtedly. The widows would prefer to know that they are living on the outcome of their husbands' investments rather than on charity, and as for the outlook of the children, who in after years will become voters in this country, they will be able to go out into the world with their heads in the air, knowing full well that, whatever they are existing upon, they are not existing upon charity, but upon the proceeds of a fund which has been laid aside for them by a provident parent.
I am sure hon. Members opposite will appreciate to the full the conclusion we have just heard on the merits of this Bill. It will be interesting to the public, if they are privileged to read the hon. and gallant Member's speech, to know that, while it is generally assumed that the average working-class wage is between £2 and £3 per week, it is all a mistake, and we have only to find Members of Parliament who work instead of those who talk to discover that they are getting £15 a day. As a matter of fact there cannot be a Member on that side of the House engaged in industry of any kind, and especially engaged in work in connection with the docks, but must know and feel, and ought to be prepared to say, the statement we have just heard is a travesty of the conditions obtaining there.
The right hon. Gentleman has inferred that I said men were getting £15 11s. per day. I said for four days' work.
I am content to let the OFFICIAL REPORT report to-morrow exactly what the hon. Member said. But it shows how intelligently he and those who support him have read the Bill, because he must know that it is only applicable to those with a salary of under £250 a year. In other words, all those who have been cheering the hon. Member's statement must have forgotten that this is based upon the national health insurance, which is limited to £250 a year, and I should like to know where the £15 a week people come in in the contribution of 4d. per week.
We heard a very interesting speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha), who accused all those sitting on these benches, not only of a desire to make perorations, but of insincerity. He spoke on behalf of a consistent united party, six members of which delivered six speeches in two days, each one contradicting the other. Curiously enough, I ask the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply not to attach too much importance to the benevolent support that is offered to him because, when you look at the Order Paper, this strong, united and collected party, in the name, I believe, of the chairman of one group, quoted by the acting-chairman of another, and four members of various other groups, puts down a Motion after the Second Reading of the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Pensions Bill: Measures of this kind for years and years, are delighted to give our blessing now." It is because you have supported Measures of this kind, which are such a fraud upon the community, that you find yourselves where you are now.
The right hon. Gentleman will, at any rate, do me this justice. In the first place, my name does not appear on the Order Paper, and, in the second place, I have said that personally I preferred a non-contributory scheme. But the main consideration was to get the widows these pensions, and provided they got them it did not matter by what scheme.
I am sure the hon. and gallant Member is consistent, because what he meant was, "If I can get any kudos for the party I will say 'we,' but if my party is tackled I take the responsibility myself." One cannot help but feel that you cannot discuss this Bill without attempting to understand its history, because curiously enough, whilst it is a Pensions Bill, whilst the Minister responsible is the Minister of Health, as a matter of fact it is part of this remarkable Budget. I can quite conceive the difficulty arising like this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "I am in a difficulty. I have only been in office six months. I am not quite sure of my friends yet, and they are less sure of me. I have got to do something which will persuade my old colleagues that I am just as Liberal as ever and which will convince my new colleagues that they have nothing to be frightened of. I must not forget that only a few months ago I was a party to making all manner of promises. Among the promises we said, 'The one thing that we guarantee, if returned to office, will be that if there is to be a revival of trade we are the people who can do it.' I have also to keep in mind that we told the electorate that these people who were in office just nine months on sufferance ignominiously failed to deal with the unemployed." What the hon. Member who followed the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport meant was that I wanted to blot out of my mind 1906 to 1916 and try to let the nine months substitute it.
"Therefore," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "keeping these things in mind, I have to do something in the Budget." The right hon. Gentleman reviewed the situation. He said, " Well, I am going to talk about silk, but they may discover that it is only pulp. Hops will do no good to me; the Super-tax will not get me many votes, and I am in a real difficulty in introducing a very dull Budget." He went on, " There is a Department at the other end of Whitehall that can help me out of my difficulty." He went along and he said to the Minister of Health, " I am in a hole. I can make a speech, and it will be a good speech, and I will guarantee it to be a long speech. But it will be dull even after that. How can I introduce a Budget that will at least look attractive? Will you lend me your baby for this afternoon? You can rely upon me to give it a good introduction into life. I will give it all the blessings of my personality, but, between ourselves, there will be very little Exchequer milk that it will get." Then he added, "After I have introduced the baby, I will leave you to nurse it."
10.0 P.M.
I am not going to admit that any member worthy of the name of representatives of any party, in dealing with a question relating to widows and orphans or unemployment, is entitled to concern himself primarily with getting capital for his party and exploiting the misery of the people. That sort of thing ought to be forbidden to Members of ail parties. I am not going to join anyone who says, on this or any other question, "I am going to view this matter from the standpoint of my party." If one man could be found work or if a widow or an orphan could benefit, it is our duty, regardless of party, to help them. I shah base my criticism on the Bill upon that broad principle. The first point I submit is this: What ought to be the object of widows' pensions? That is the first test. When the State accepts the obligation to the widowed mother, her first care should be the consideration of her children. In other words, instead of a woman being driven to work and the neglect of her children as well as of her own health, an opportunity ought to be given to her to look after her children. What ought to be the consideration with regard 1o orphan children? That they, having been deprived of the breadwinner, ought to be given a fair chance in life. What ought to be the principle with regard to old age pensioners? First and foremost that they should be able in their retirement to live in decency and comfort.
I have no doubt that Members of all parties agree that those should be governing principles. My fourth point is that, in making these provisions, there should be no differentiation between one class and another. If these principles be accepted, my first criticism of the Bill is that the very people who ought to be in the category of those who are first for consideration are the very ones who are first penalised by the Bill. Take the unemployed man. You are dealing with hundreds of thousands of them. The casual labourer, hammered from pillar to post, denied the opportunity, because of his casual employment, of qualifying under the National Health Insurance Act—there is no question of thrift in this, nor of neglect—having by circumstances been denied the right to qualify, having been penalised in that way, you say to his widow, if he dies: "You shall be further penalised because of the fact that you married a man of this kind." That is the first thing which we have the right to say is fundamentally wrong in the Bill. Secondly, what about the hundreds of thousands who are not eligible under the Bill—clerks and all those people who show capacity in their work? Here again is a test of efficiency. If a man gets £245 a year he is eligible, but if he shows himself efficient, and his employer says, "This is a worthy man and I will give him £260 a year," his widow, if he dies, instead of benefiting because of his work and efficiency, is the first to be penalised. Is that fairness or equality? Is that legislating on a national basis? It is not. Is it suggested or argued that the widow with two or three children, when the benefits become operative under this Bill, is given sufficient to enable her to look after her children?
A munition worker joined the Army. Under the stress and pressure of 1917–18, the War Office said, " You must come back, because you are a more efficient workman, and can do more, so far as the country is concerned, at home than by remaining in the Army." This man came back. Some other worker in the same trade, perhaps a fellow-craftsman of his, remained in the Army. Unfortunately, he was killed. In the case of the man brought back, he either dies a natural death, or is killed following his ordinary occupation. Is it fair, reasonable, or logical to assume that—in both cases there was a wife and three children— because of the peculiar circumstances I have mentioned, one woman is to receive £1 a week more than the other unfortunate woman? An hon. Member speaking from the other side said that one of the advantages of this Bill will be goodwill. I would say no word that could be construed as doing other than create goodwill, but I put it to this House, in the circumstances I have mentioned, is that the kind of thing that is likely to lead to goodwill? I could go through scores of other anomalies that could legitimately be argued as Committee points, but, incidentally, I have only got to say that we intend, whatever be the fate of this Bill on Second Reading, to give an opportunity to Members in all parts of the House to show their sincerity on these points with which I have dealt, and many others which, we believe, are vital to the success of any scheme.
The next point with which I will deal is this. Assuming the principle of pensions is agreed, the first test ought to be, how shall the burden be borne? I would again apply the test which, I believe, will be generally accepted. It is, that it is the duty of the Government to distribute the burden fairly and equitably amongst all concerned, and I would ask the House to apply that test to this Bill. When folk talk of 4d. per week, it seems a very small sum, but do let the House keep in mind certain facts in connection with the taxes already on the working classes. There is Health Insurance and there is Unemployment Insurance, amounting to 1s. 6d. per week. There is membership of their trade union. [An HON. MEMBER: " Ah! "] Someone says "Ah!" Is not that a legitimate object? When I say that membership of my own union has resulted in our contributing, up to now, three-quarters of a million pounds for orphan children, there is no justification for a "Ah!" in connection with that. Perhaps another illustration might help to bring home to Members that there is not this disregard of thrift that is generally assumed, even amongst the working classes. Did it ever occur to hon. Members that probably every hour, in some part of the country, there are funerals taking place, and, as I have known to my personal knowledge, you will find a wife paying 2d. a week for no other reason than that she will have a decent funeral for her husband. That is something which ought to bring home to Members the kind of sacrifice and independence of the working classes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed! "] If it be agreed, then it is time we stopped talking about the absence of thrift. There is a much fuller House than there has been all day, and if some of the hon. Members had been listening to the Debate, they would have observed what I have been dealing with. At all events, I submit that there is no justification for the assumption that the working classes neglect their obligations, or that their wives and themselves are not thrifty, but there is justification for saying that when they are meeting all the obligations I have indicated, and when large numbers of them are not only unemployed, but underemployed, working three or four days a week, and not earning a sufficiency for the common necessities of life, they are not justified in bearing an additional burden of 4d.
Turning to the employers' side, there, again, is it to be argued, is it to be suggested that this 4d. is equally borne under this Bill? Let me take any Member of the legal profession in this House, whether sitting on these or any other Benches, and apply the test of his income. It is not a personal matter. Take the income of any man up to £5,000 or £10,000 a year employing one or two clerks, and compare him with the employer earning precisely the same amount and employing 100, 500, or 1,000 men. Is it to be argued or suggested that you are applying the burden fairly when you say that the man earning precisely the same amount, and employing one clerk shall get off with 4d. a week, while an employer employing 1,000 men has to pay 1,000 fourpences? I am reminded, too, that his clerk would probably come under the category of earning more than £250, and, therefore, he even escapes that 4d. I put that point to the House as a clear indication of the unfairness of the burden. Anyone who heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Carmarthen and the speech of the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), could not be other than impressed with the burden of this Bill on industry. Take the coal trade. It is not true to say that every coal pit in this country is losing money. On the contrary, it is true to say that some are doing extremely well. But it is equally true to say that a large number of them are on the border line, and this additional tax, which would not affect those which are doing so well, is going to have the effect of closing down many of those in a desperate position. That is the contribution that the friends of business, and that is the contribution that the Government which came in to save the country make in their first Budget.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) said, earlier in the day, that we must take the responsibility for having voted against this Measure. We make no excuse and no apology for that course. One hon. Member opposite said that it will enable him and his friends to go to the country and to tell the people the exact situation. We shall welcome their availing themselves of that opportunity. If they fail to do it, we will do it for them. If they undertake the task themselves, I hope it will not be in the form of a repetition of what occurred six months ago. That is to say, I hope they will not do as was done then, say anything during the contest and apologise for it afterwards.
If they tell the people of the country, I hope they will make it clear, as we intend to make it clear, that we vote against this Second Reading and support our Amendment for the reasons stated on the Order Paper. We give them an opportunity to amend the Bill in Committee, and, above, all, we hope that they will be able to tell their friends and supporters in the country that the first act of the friends of the workers was to put a tax on industry—[An HON. MEMBER: "TO redeem a promise!"]— Yes, to redeem a promise, and the redemption of the promise was £10,000,000 for their friends, and a burden on industry.
My right hon. Friend who has just sat down, explained carefully to the House that he was not going to discuss this Measure in any way from the party standpoint. I am sure that those who listened to his concluding remarks will have observed how faith- fully he redeemed that promise. We have heard criticisms of very varying types during the two days over which this Debate has gone. We have heard criticisms, of which I may take the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) as an example, which accepted cordially the principle of the Bill, which promised loyal co-operation to try to make it a success, and which made suggestions which, in the right hon. Member's view at least, were calculated to achieve that end.
We have heard some criticisms from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which could not be called by any stretch of the imagination helpful; criticisms which were devoted to denouncing and very often to misrepresenting the Bill, and which were designed, if they could do so, to mislead the people of this country as to what it is that the Government intend. And we have finally some speeches which seem to oscillate between the two. They came from that type of critic of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) is perhaps the protagonist. He complained that the Government could not at once blow hot and cold. I suppose that he regards that as the monopoly of the Liberal party. But I have not to contrast the speeches by different Members of the Liberal party to find inconsistencies. I am content to take them from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He began by explaining that it was a great mistake to treat the contributions of employer, employed and the State as being in separate compartments. "All of them," said he, "directly or indirectly are a burden upon industry and," he said, "in the present state of industry it cannot endure these burdens." What is the logical deduction from that premise? Why obviously that the proposal must be postponed or cut down. But he went on to say that he criticises this Bill because it does not give enough benefits. Well, is that hot or cold?
I said nothing of the kind. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand the method of distributing burdens among different classes of the community, I am afraid that I cannot help him.
I have not any difficulty in understanding the different distributions of burdens. My difficulty was in understanding how it could be said that industry could not bear burdens as great as these, however distributed, and at the same time that we wanted to give more benefits.
I never said anything of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman is misquoting me and making an entirely wrong deduction.
I am within the recollection of the House. The OFFICIAL REPORT shall judge to-morrow. We have also from hon. Members of the Liberal party statements in which they declare their considered opinion that this scheme, although it has good points in it, was a mistake in that it was a contributory scheme. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last from those benches (Major Hore-Belisha) said, "I stand for a non-contributory scheme." I had the curiosity to see what the Liberal party said at the last election and this is from their official manifesto:
"Pensions for widows and allowances for orphans during their school life must be provided. This must be carried out by a comprehensive policy of contributory insurance."
The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. I did not say that at all.
I seem to be in adversity. With regard to criticism of what I call the helpful type, that is to say, of Members of whatever party who are honestly desirous of making this scheme as great a success as possible, the Government welcome criticism of that character. We are glad to have suggestions from any quarter of the House which are intended to make this scheme more practicable and more useful. We do not promise to accept all or any of the suggestions put forward. I do not think the critics themselves would desire or expect that. We do promise to give them our most careful consideration. Many of them relate to matters which we have already considered but which we shall be very glad to reconsider in the light of those suggestions. In order that we may avail ourselves as far as possible of the assistance of any friends of the Bill in any quarter of the House, we propose to ask the House to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, so that every Member may have an opportunity of taking part in the proceedings. I turn from that type of criticism to the type which I have described as purely destructive, a type of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) is undoubtedly a protagonist. That is a type of criticism which finds no good in the Bill, but which has this disadvantage in the mouth of the critic, that one generally finds his criticisms mutually destructive.
For instance—I take this only as an illustration, because I have not time to go through all the contradictions—I find the right hon. Gentleman telling us at the beginning of his speech that one great objection to the Bill was that the boards of guardians would use this standard of widows' pensions to enable them to out down the allowances which they give by way of Poor Law relief, and I find him at the end of his speech saying that the real reason why we introduced this Bill was because boards of guardians were such large-hearted, generous people that we wanted to prevent them giving the large sums which they did give. I find the right hon. Gentleman beginning by telling us that one great disadvantage of the Bill was that it imposed too great a burden on industry—I am sure the great industrialists represented in this House will be glad to have the right hon. Gentleman as their champion—but I found towards the end of his speech he explained the Bill as being, so he had ascertained, a plat by the industrialists to benefit themselves by reducing wages. He told us it had long been the policy of the Socialist party to give old age pensions at 65 instead of 70. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sixty!"] I will reduce it to 60 if hon. Members like. My argument is all the same. It will be 50 presently, I dare say. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman said it had long been their policy to give the existing old age pension at a lower age, and yet we find him saying it is a wicked fraud on the working class to tell them that they get any benefit from this Bill, because the only effect of giving 10s. at 65 instead of 70 will be to enable employers to cut down wages. Do hon. Members really think that this will be the only result, and if they do think so, is it honest of them to offer as a boon to the working class a reduction of the age limit from 70 to 65?
The same sort of inconsistency ran through the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon. We had the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) telling us that this Bill was no use and gave no benefits, and yet we found him sayings a little later on, that it would create great areas of trouble because of the thousands of people who were excluded from its benefits, and who would never be satisfied until they were included. We found him saying that it was an intolerable burden on industry because of the tax which the employer had to pay in regard to the man whom he employed, and yet we had him saying, a little later on, that this was a scheme of the rich man to get rid of any liability. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Some hon. Members opposite seem to think they can have the best of both worlds. One of the most amazing features of the speeches which we have heard from the opposite benches is not the speeches which have been delivered, but a speech which has not been delivered. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, in moving the Second Reading, called attention to a pamphlet which bore the imprimatur of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he assured the people of this country that he had ready for production a scheme of widows' pensions, and my right hon. Friend challenged the Opposition to say whether that was a contributory or a non-contributory scheme. The challenge was not taken up.
My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for War, this afternoon, in opening the Debate, wanted to know what were the benefits which that scheme proposed to give—were they the existing benefits, or were they the double benefits of which we were told by the right hon. Member for Shettleston yesterday? No answer has been vouchsafed. The only answer which we have got is from the right hon. Member for Shettleston himself, who assured us that he could not answer the question, because no such scheme for pensions at all had ever been before the Socialist Government. I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman said to his colleagues when he saw, in the official manifesto of the Socialist party at the last Election, this statement:
Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks I could not have prepared my scheme with as little notice as this scheme has been prepared by my successor?
The answer is, that the right hon. Gentleman did not. If he could have done it, and did not do it, well, I do not think it was quite fair to the widows and orphans of this country.
You were referring to the work of this Session. I was not there this Session.
Doubtless it is my fault, but I failed to understand that. What I was criticising, or trying to criticise, was the apparent inconsistency between the entire ignorance of the right hon. Gentleman of what was in the Socialist Government's scheme and the statement of the Socialist official manifesto that a Measure was being worked out in detail, and had reached an advanced stage, and the statement of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that the scheme was about ready for presentation. And I still think it is at least a little odd that the Minister for Health should be entirely unaware as to whether or not the scheme which had been worked out to an advanced stage, which the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was telling the people of this country they were going to introduce into the next Session of Parliament in order to make it law, was contributory or non-contributory, and as to what were the benefits it proposed to give. It does not become the less remarkable when in spite of the repeated challenges which have been flung out to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who at least, must himself know what was in the Scheme, he has never ventured to tell the House what it was. Again, apart from these denunciations, we have had from the least responsible members of the Socialist party fiery diatribes against this Bill on the ground that, as they put it, the rich man pays nothing. As the hon. Member for Dundee put it, the parasite—by which he was good enough to explain he meant those who had contributed to War Loan—
I am within the recollection of the House when I characterise that as pure misrepresentation.
Again, we can leave that to the OFFICIAL REPORT. But, in fact, it is pure misrepresentation for anyone to say that the rich man is exempt from payment—be he parasite or not—because, as every Member of the House, who has taken the trouble to look into the Actuary's Report, knows, the distribution of the burden is spread practically equally between the workman, the employer, and the State. The State pays its one-third—I am stating the figures which appear in last year's Report—of no less than 23·2 millions.
Is that all the rich man has to do?
That 23·2 millions is the contribution of the State, which includes all sections of the community. It is, therefore, untrue to say that the rich man is exempt from payment. Now that I am on this table, may I pass on to correct another mistake, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Sir A. Mond) who, I am sorry, has not waited for this. He told us that this was a mean contribution from the State, because, said he, "You will find that in the first 10 years the State contributes only 1·7 millions of pounds." Of course that is quite a mistake. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was at least an adept at figures, and had he studied this Report with the intelligence which I am sure he of all Members of the House has got, and with any attention at all, he would have seen that the figure he was quoting was the figure of the Exchequer payment to Treasury Pensions' Account, less relief in respect of health and unemployment insurance. To get to the State contribution in respect of the scheme he had to look at the preceding page, where he would have found the contribution is not 17 millions, but between 5 and 6 millions for each of the 10 years in question. In other words, he has omitted the whole of the additional cost of the old age pensions, which has been included in the scheme. That sort of fallacy somewhat vitiates arguments based upon inaccurate figures.
But however mistaken the right hon. Gentleman's figures may be, they pals into insignificance compared with those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston. We know his arithmetic, we heard of it in housing days, and we have another sample to-day. He has already explained to the House this afternoon, I understand, that his figure about the Durham coal profits which, he told the House, were £11,000, was a mistake, and that the real figure was £1,931,000. Well, we all of us make mistakes.
Would the right hon. Gentleman admit that my argument is not weakened by that, when I am able to state in the same sentence that the profit for the past six months, and presumably the period on which we are now working, was only one farthing a ton, whereas this Bill puts a tax of four-fifths of a penny a ton on coal for the employers' contribution alone?
I am glad the right hon. Gentleman had got that figure, because it was the one I was next coming to. In fact, of course, the burden upon industry which is undoubtedly imposed by this measure of relief for industry's casualties is a serious matter, and it is the next matter I am going to deal with. Nobody on this side has denied that a most serious consideration about this Bill is the heavy tax which it undoubtedly imposes upon the industrial and other sections of the community. But may I before I get to that just conclude with the right hon. Gentleman's figures, because the sample which he discovered for himself was a considerable discrepancy, and there are one or two others which I have discovered for him. He told us he had ascertained that it was quite possible to give double the widows' and orphans pensions which are pro- vided at a cost, for the nine years, of less than £21,000,000; I think, to do him justice, he meant £21,000,000 a year, although he did not say so. I have had those figures worked out by careful actuaries, and I find that at the end of the nine years the actual cost of doubling widows' and orphans' pensions, but not increasing any other benefits, would be to impose a total cost, first of all, of 556 million pounds. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he was including in his £21,000,000 savings which were anticipated from the reduced War pensions. I have had those tables worked out, and I find at that period the savings in War pensions would be estimated at 21·7 millions, of which 7·2 millions would be absorbed in the extra cost of old age pensions under the existing law making a net saving of 14½ millions, and a total cost therefore of 41 millions instead of the £21,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. He told us further that he would go on paying those pensions down to the last date on the table 1965, at a cost of £42,000,000. I have had the figures worked out for 1965, and I find that the total cost in that year would be 104·7 millions, against which you have an estimated saving of 569 millions in War pensions, of which 29·8 millions will be required for the extra old age pensions, leaving ,a net cost of £77,600,000 instead of the £42,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
I am assuming that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I asked him to take into account all the things for which credit is taken in the scheme before the House. That is not merely the savings in War pensions, but the present contributions, which he says will come in part from the rich, and which will go into the present scheme. I claim that I was as much entitled to take credit for those as he was. He has also given me credit for the savings in the case of the Health Insurance Fund on people between 65 and 70. I have the figures in my hand, and they are more reliable than the figures which have been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman.
I am glad to have it made clear that when he told the House that the cost would be £21,000,000 in nine years, and less than £42,000,000 at any subsequent period, he meant it would be £21,000,000 in addition to all the millions we are giving under the present scheme.
I think it is only fair to the House that the right hon. Gentleman should admit that I made the statement to-day which he says I should have made in my speech.
There is not much more time available, and I want to say a word or two, first of all, about the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who gave a most amusing account of the discussion which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had before he produced his Budget speech, and he suggested that that speech was going to be a dull one. That description does not usually apply to the speeches made by my right hon. Friend. I will, however, pay my opponent the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby this compliment that his speeches are never dull, but I would like to point out, that they are not always very accurate. On this occasion he picked out certain points, and he said that anybody over £200 or £250 was outside the Bill. He is quite wrong. Of course they are not. If they are manual workers, they are inside the Bill. It was manual workers of whom he was speaking. He said that the casual labourer who was from time to time unemployed was outside the Bill. If he had listened to the Minister of Health, he would have known that under Clause 8 he is inside. He told us that the widow with three children was worse off if her husband died at home, than if her husband had been killed in the War. Yes, but the comparison is not between those two widows, but between the existing state of the widow and her state under this Bill. He told us that it should be the object of any scheme that ultimately you should provide that the old age pensioner and the widow should be able to live in decency and comfort. I agree they should, but I do not agree that the State should necessarily have the whole cost of them. In fact, he himself provided the best answer, when he told us that in his own trade union three quarters of a million pounds per annum was actually provided.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir Robert Horne) in a very powerful speech, if he will allow me to say so, made what was undoubtedly the most serious criticism against the Bill. He pointed out—I am not saying in exaggerated terms—the serious state of industry to-day. He pointed out that the heavy burden which was imposed by those proposed benefits, and he doubted whether or not industry could bear that burden. It is a relevant and important consideration. I think the right hon. Gentleman was perhaps a little unduly pessimistic about the relief of which the Minister of Health spoke, for instance, the relief in respect of rates. I have had the figures got out, and I find that, in Birmingham, which interests, at any rate, the Mover of this Bill, the relief is estimated at just over 2d. in the £. In Glasgow, which I think the right hon. Gentleman knows something about, the relief will come to 6d. in the £. In West Ham, from which quarter certain interruptions came yesterday, the relief will be no less than 1s. 4d. in the £. These are no light benefits, and I think the right hon. Gentleman was perhaps mistaken also when he ignored altogether one of the factors which my right hon. Friend stressed, namely, the factor of the confidence of the workmen. Said the right hon. Gentleman: "Confidence in industry is vital to its success." I agree with him, but is it not also true that if workmen have confidence and a sense of security it is likely to have a very good effect on their work, in the quality and regularity of their output. Is not it going to help industry if the working classes feel that they are being provided for? These things may be treated with derision by the Opposition. To the Conservative party they are vital. I agree freely that with all those considerations the position of industry is a very serious matter, and the only alternative would be to postpone those benefits. The Government feel that although there is an element of risk to-day, we cannot longer postpone the reform. We are considering whether or not it may not be possible to achieve that by some means we may ensure that when the extra contributions are payable there may yet be no further burden that industry at present pays. These matters are being-investigated and anxiously considered, but meanwhile the widow and the orphan are not to wait.
The real truth about the criticisms and the varied attitude in different quarters of the House lies, I think, in this fact: Some Members of the House approach this problem with a real and single-hearted desire to see some benefit accrue to the widows and orphans, some security afforded to the husbands and fathers. To them, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), this Bill is a message of hope and good. But there are some Members also to whom the one great objective is the destruction of the capitalist system; to whom social discontent and social misery are merely levers to overthrow a system of society of which they do not approve; to whom, therefore, social reform, instead of being a stepping-stone to better things, is a postponement of the goal at which they are always aiming—people who have consistently told the working classes that from the capitalists and the Tories they can hope to get nothing; who have told the working classes that the capitalist state of society can never provide these benefits; who have one purpose in view, and that is to overthrow that state of society; who regard schemes of social reform, not in the light of the good they will do, but in the light of the burdens which they can be used to pile up on this existing state of society, so
that they may, by overburdening it, finally bring the whole edifice crashing to the ground.
To those who have that objective, like the right hon. Gentleman opposite, of course, this Bill is a matter of disappointment and, indeed, of execration. The Bill which is going to do this good, which is going to achieve this reform, must be anathema to them; but to us, whose one desire is to fulfil the promises we made, this Bill is a real instalment towards the better conditions of the people of this country. I personally should like, if I might be allowed to do so, to thank the Minister of Health for giving me the privilege of speaking even this evening, in order that I may find myself associated with a Measure, not popular, indeed—we have been told that insurance schemes are never popular— but one which in my humble judgment will in truth bring great benefits to the widows and orphans whom it is designed to help, and which will give to our working classes that sense of security, that sense of not leaving their wives and children unprovided for, which is one of the surest incentives to happiness, to contentment and to well-being.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 401: Noes, 125.
Division No. 108.] AYES. [11.0 p.m. Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Bethell, A. Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Birchall, Major J. Dearman Burton, Colonel H. W. Albery, Irving James Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Butler, Sir Geoffrey Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Butt. Sir Alfred Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Blades. Sir George Rowland Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Blundell, F. N. Caine, Gordon Hall Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Boothby, R. J. G. Campbell, E. T. Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Cassels, J. D. Ashmead-Bartlett. E. Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart Cautley, Sir Henry S. Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Astor, Viscountess Brass, Captain W. Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Atholl, Duchess of Brassey, Sir Leonard Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Atkinson, C. Briant, Frank Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Balfour, George (Hampstead) Briggs, J. Harold Chapman, Sir S. Balniel, Lord Briscoe, Richard George Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Banks, Reginald Mitchell Brittain, Sir Harry Chilcott, Sir Warden Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Brocklebank, C. E. R. Christie, J. A. Barnett, Major Richard W. Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Barnston, Major Sir Harry Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Beamish, Captain T. P. H. Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Clarry, Reginald George Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) Clayton, G. C. Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Buckingham, Sir H. Cobb, Sir Cyril Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Bennett, A. J. Bullock, Captain M. Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Cohen, Major J. Brunel Berry, Sir George Burman, J. B. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Cellins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Harney, E. A. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Cooper, A. Duff Harris, Percy A. Malone, Major P. B. Cope, Major William Harrison, G. J. C. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Couper, J. B. Hartington, Marquess of Margesson, Capt. D. Courtauld, Major J. S. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Haslam, Henry C. Meller, R. J. Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Hawke, John Anthony Merriman, F. B. Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Meyer, Sir Frank Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Crawfurd, H. E. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Crook, C. W. Henn, Sir Sydney H. Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Moore, Sir Newton J. Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) Morden, Col. W. Grant Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert Hilton, Cecil Moreing, Captain A. H. Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Morris, R. H. Curzon, Captain Viscount Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Dalkeith, Earl of Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Dolziel. Sir Davison Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Murchison, C. K. Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Holland, Sir Arthur Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Holt, Capt. H. P. Nelson, Sir Frank Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton) Homan, C. W. J. Neville, R. J. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Hopkins, J. W. W. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Hore-Belisha, Leslie Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Dawson, Sir Philip Horlick. Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Dean, Arthur Wellesley Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Doyle, Sir N. Grattan Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.) Nuttall, Ellis Drewe, C. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Oakley, T. Duckworth, John Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Eden, Captain Anthony Hume, Sir G. H. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Edmondson, Major A. J. Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Owen, Major G. Elliot Captain Walter E. Huntingfield, Lord Pennefather, Sir John Elveden Viscount Hurd, Percy A. Penny, Frederick George Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Hurst, Gerald B. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) Perkins, Colonel E. K. Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Perring, William George Evans Capt Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Everard W. Lindsay Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Fairfax, Captain J. G. Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Phillipson, Mabel Falle, Sir Bertram G. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Pielou, D. P. Fanshawe, Commander G. D. Jacob, A. E. Pilcher, G. Fenby, T. D. Jephcott, A. R. Pilditch. Sir Philip Fermoy, Lord Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Power, Sir John Cecil Fielden, E. B. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Finburgh, S. Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Preston, William Forestier-Walker, L. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Price, Major C. W. M. Forrest, W. Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Radford, E. A. Foster, Sir Harry S. King, Capt. Henry Douglas Raine, W. Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Ramsden, E. Fraser, Captain Ian Knox, Sir Alfred Rees, Sir Beddoe Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. Lamb, J. Q. Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Gadie Lieut.-Col Anthony Lane-Fox, Colonel George R. Reid, D. D. (County Down) Galbraith, J. F. W. Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Remer, J. R. Ganzoni, Sir John Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Remnant. Sir James Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Little, Dr. E. Graham Rentoul, G. S. Gates, Percy Livingstone, A. M. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Rice, Sir Frederick Gee, Captain R. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) Glyn, Major R. G. C. Loder, J. de V. Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) Gower, Sir Robert Looker, Herbert William Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) Grace, John Lord, Walter Greaves- Ropner, Major L. Grant, J. A. Lougher, L. Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. Greene, W. P. Crawford Lowe, Sir Francis William Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Greenwood, William (Stockport) Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Rye, F. G. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Lumley, L. R. Salmon, Major I. Gretton, Colonel John Mac Andrew, Charles Glen Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Sandeman, A. Stewart Grotrian, H. Brent Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Sanders, Sir Robert A. Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Sanderson, Sir Frank Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Sandon, Lord Gunston, Captain D. W. Macintyre, Ian Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Hacking, Captain Douglas H. McLean, Major A. Savery, S. S. Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Macmillan, Captain H. Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) Hammersley, S. S. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Shaw. Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) Hanbury, C. Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Macquisten, F. A. Shepperson, E. W. Harland, A. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) Tasker, Major R. Inigo Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst) Templeton, W. P. Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) Skelton, A. N. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) Slaney, Major P. Kenyon Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Wilson. Sir Charles H.(Leeds, Central) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Croydon, S.) Winby, Colonel L. P. Smith-Carington, Neville W. Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Smithers, Waldron Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Tinne, J. A. Wise, Sir Fredric Spender Clay, Colonel H. Tichfield, Major the Marquess of Wolmer, Viscount Sprot, Sir Alexander Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Womersley, W. J. Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Waddington, R. Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Wallace, Captain D. E. Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) Steel, Major Samuel Strang Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) Storry Deans, R. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. Woodcock, Colonel H. C. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Warrender, Sir Victor Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. Strickland, Sir Gerald Waterhouse, Captain Charles Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) Young, E. Hilton (Norwich) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) Styles, Captain H. Walter Watts, Dr. T. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Wells, S. R. Commander B. Eyres Monsell and Sugden, Sir Wilfrid White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple Colonel Gibbs. NOES. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Shiels, Dr. Drummond Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Sitch, Charles H. Ammon, Charles George John, William (Rhondda, West) Slesser, Sir Henry H. Attlee, Clement Richard Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Smillie, Robert Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) Barnes, A. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Barr, J. Kelly, W. T. Snell, Harry Batey, Joseph Kirkwood, D. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Lansbury, George Stamford, T. w. Broad, F. A. Lawson, John James Stephen, Campbell Bromfield, William Lee, F. Sutton, J. E. Bromley, J. Lindley, F. W. Taylor, R. A. Buchanan, G. Lowth, T. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) Charleton, H. C. Lunn, William Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) Clowes, S. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Thurtle, E. Cluse, W. S. Mackinder, W. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. MacLaren, Andrew Viant, S. P. Compton, Joseph Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Wallhead, Richard C. Connolly, M. March, S. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen Cove, W. G. Maxton, Jamas Warne, G. H. Dalton, Hugh Montague, Frederick Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Day, Colonel Harry Naylor, T. E. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney Dennison, R. Oliver, George Harold Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah Dunnico, H. Palin, John Henry Welsh, J. C. Gillett, George M. Paling, W. Westwood, J. Gosling, Harry Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Whiteley, W. Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Ponsonby, Arthur Wignall, James Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine) Potts, John S. Wilkinson, Ellen C. Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Williams, David (Swansea, E.) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Riley, Ben Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) Groves, T. Ritson, J. Williams, T. (York. Don Valley) Grundy, T. W. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) Windsor, Walter Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Rose, Frank H. Wright, W. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Salter, Dr. Alfred Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) Hardie, George D. Scrymgeour, E. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Scurr, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Hastings, Sir Patrick Sexton, James Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. T. Kennedy. Hayes, John Henry Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[ Mr. N. Chamberlain. ]
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power so to amend the Bill as to put the scheme of pensions on a non-contributory basis."
On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, whether you intend to call and take, or whether this is the proper stage for calling, the Instruction to the Committee which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend and other hon. Friends?
I shall deal with that Instruction on the first day on which the Committee is proposed to be taken. That is the proper occasion to deal with the Instruction. It will appear on the Order Paper at that time.
Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms
Ordered, "That Mr. Barnes be discharged from the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms Committee."
Ordered, "That Mr. Kirkwood be added."—[ Colonel Gibbs. ]
Estimates
Ordered, "That Mr. Ellis be discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates."
Ordered, "That Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen be added."—[ Colonel Gibbs. ]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Adjournment
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Commander Eyres Monsell. ]
Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes after Eleven o'clock.