House of Commons
Wednesday, February 22, 1928
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
British Museum
I beg to present a petition which the trustees of the British Museum have to submit to this House annually, explaining the financial position and praying for aid. The petition recites the funded income of the trustees and point out that the establishment is necessarily attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the above-mentioned sums and the Trust cannot with benefit to the public be carried on without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with the Prayer:
"Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge, as to your House shall seem meet."
Private Business
BOGNOR URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (by Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
Object!
The promoters accept the Instruction on the Paper in the names of the hon. Members for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) and Chertsey (Sir P. Richardson).
Bill read a Second time, and committed.
Ordered,
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to have regard to Section 56 of The Public Health Act, 1925, on its consideration of Clause 37 of the Bill."—( Sir Basil Peto. )
LLANDUDNO URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (by Order)
Bill read a Second time, and committed.
The same remark applies to this Bill also. The promoters are quite willing to accept the Instruction standing in the names of the same hon. Members:
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to have regard to Section 56 of The Public Health Act, 1925, on its consideration of Clauses 65 and 68 of the Bill."
Object!
Can we be informed what the Instruction exactly means?
Object!
Oral Answers to Questions
Questions
Tangier
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make any further statement on the question of the future status of Tangier?
No, Sir. The Franco-Spanish negotiations are not yet concluded.
Persia
Sheikh of Mohammerah
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the nationality of the Sheikh of Mohammerah: and what is the particular interest of His Majesty's Government in this potentate, in view of the fact that he is apparently under the jurisdiction of the Royal Persian Government?
The answer to the first part of the question is "Persian." The interest of His Majesty's Government in the Sheikh is based on long-standing friendship. His Majesty's Government have, however, in no single instance, suggested that he is other than a Persian subject.
Can we have some further explanation at a convenient time as to why we are pressing the Persian Government about this Sheikh without the knowledge, as far as I know, of this House?
If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will communicate with me the exact nature of the information he wants I will try to get it.
Communications (Publication)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the terms of his last note to the Shah of Persia have been published in a paper printed in English in Iraq; and whether, in view of this, he will communicate the contents of the note to the House?
No, Sir. I am not aware that the terms of any of the communications recently addressed to the Persian Government have been published in the Press. It is neither customary nor desirable to publish correspondence regarding questions still under negotiation with a foreign Government, and I am therefore not able to make a communication to the House at present.
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the reprint from an Iraq paper that appeared in the London "Times" of 17th inst.? How is it that this leakage has taken place to the Iraq papers, and we are refused information?
I have seen that, and it was after seeing it that I said in my answer I was not aware of the terms of any communication to the Persian Government having been published in the Press. A certain caution in the amount of confidence the hon. and gallant Gentleman attaches to reports of that kind might be desirable.
When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to lay papers on this question?
It is neither conducive to successful negotiations nor courteous to the Government with which one is in negotiation to lay papers in the middle of negotiations.
When?
I must therefore wait till the conclusion. When that will be I cannot say.
Trade and Commerce
Landing and Shipping Merchandise, Lourenco Marques
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that by a decree issued by the Governor-General of Lourenco Marques the Portuguese Government propose to confiscate without compensation the business of landing and shipping at Lourenco Marques at present carried on by British firms; whether he is prepared to make any representations to the Portuguese Government for these firms to carry on their business, on which they pay a tax of 6d. per ton on the tonnage handled; and, if not, whether he will ask for compensation for the loss of business which these firms have built up during the last 30 years?
A decree was issued on 31st December, 1927, providing for the landing and shipping of merchandise in the port of Lourenco Marques to be taken over by the Administration of the port and railways of Lourenco Marques as from 1st January, 1929. Loading equipment is to be taken over at an agreed valuation. The preamble to this decree states that, as the affected firms are also agents of shipping companies, stevedores, forwarding agents and general commercial agents, they will not be compelled to discontinue their activities. His Majesty's Consul-General at Lourenco Marques is in touch with the local British firms, and I cannot say at present what action, if any, it may become desirable to take on their behalf.
Sudan (Tariffs)
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the Sudan accords any tariff preferences in favour of British goods?
I have been asked to reply. No, Sir.
Italian Somaliland (British Indians)
The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Colonel WEDGWOOD:
6. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the expulsion of Mr. Bohra, an old established Indian merchant, from Kismayu, recently transferred to Italy, without trial, because unintentionally he omitted to give the Fascist salute; whether British Indians in this territory enjoy all the rights and privileges of British citizens; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
May I point out that the name is not Bohra, but Mohamed Ali?
I presume my Department, with more knowledge than I possess, rightly interpreted the question. The answer is as follows:
"Yes, Sir. My attention has been called to this case, but I have no official information as to what actually occurred, and in the absence of a British Consular Officer in Italian Somaliland some time must necessarily elapse before an official report can be obtained. Natives of India enjoy the same degree of protection abroad as all other British subjects."
Has the right hon. Gentleman received information as to other British subjects having been imprisoned and fined for similar acts of omission, and, secondly, what steps can a British subject take in this ceded territory in order to make complaints, when they have to make complaints, in the absence of a British Consul or Vice-Consul?
As far as I know, this is the only complaint that has come to- our knowledge, but I will not speak definitely without opportunity of reference. They must address themselves to the nearest British official.
Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to inquire either from the people who have been deported or from the authorities of Kismayu into the occurrences there? Is he taking any active steps, or is he leaving it to further complaints from the people who lost their property?
I am trying to secure information as to what exactly took place.
Royal Navy
Hospital Accommodation
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many beds there are available in the naval hospitals in this country; and what was the maximum number occupied on any one day of last year?
The reply to the first part of the question is 1,912, and to the second, 1,804.
Political Activities
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make it plain that pensioners from the naval service may exercise their full political rights in the same way as any other citizen?
The existing Orders are clear that there are no restrictions in this matter upon naval pensioners, except if, and when, pensioners are recalled to service in emergency and so are serving precisely as though they were active service ratings.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Order is not quite clear, and will he take steps to amend it?
If the hon. Member will read paragraph 4 of the Fleet Order, I think the meaning is quite clear.
"4. These prohibitions also apply to retired officers and officers on the emergency list and pensioners when such officers or men are called to service or re-employed and to officers and men of the Reserve Force when actually serving."
I think that is perfectly clear.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the recent Order governing political meetings and candidates for Parliament, whether he will define what is meant by the restriction which is made to apply to retired officers and officers on the emergency list and pensioners?
When officers or men of these categories are for any reason recalled to full active service, the restrictions appropriate to active service personnel in this matter are applied to them.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether half-pay officers are free to take part in political activities in common with other citizens?
Half-pay officers are required to be subject to the same conditions as regards Parliamentary candidature and political activities as full-pay officers.
Does that mean that there has been no alteration at all since the matter was raised last Session with the Prime Minister, and when the Prime Minister, in answer to representations from both sides of the House, promised to look into it?
The position of half-pay officers has been fully considered in accordance with the undertaking to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers, and I understand that the Prime Minister is satisfied.
Does my hon. Friend realise that it is a totally new ruling given after Parliament had adjourned, and that the memorial from the Admiralty to the Cabinet said nothing whatever about half-pay officers but only active list officers and candidates; for Parliament? It is something that has been sanctioned under false pretences.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister stated on Monday that there had been no change in the procedure, and is it not quite clear that a very drastic and fundamental change has been made?
I did not see the answer given on Monday, but I presume it meant that there had been no change in our position between when that question was asked and to-day.
No!
I will look at the answer.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say if anything has been done in the case of half-pay officers who are Peers; whether they will be allowed to carry on political activities forbidden to Commoners in this House?
In order to clear up the position whether the Admiralty has any jurisdiction, can the right hon. Gentleman bring up a half-pay officer before a court-martial if he disobeys an order of the Admiralty?
That is a question of which I should require notice. I have forgotten the question asked by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
It is whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Prime Minister stated on Monday that there had been no change whatever in the practice concerning the political rights of naval officers and men?
I will look into the matter. I would rather it not be taken that my answer is a final one.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since this Order was issued a very distinguished Admiral, Lord Wester Wemyss, made a political speech in the House of Lords, and that he is an Admiral who is not on half-pay but on full pay?
He is on half-pay.
No, he is on full pay, which makes it worse.
Industrial EmployéS (Ministry of Labour Appointments)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the Admiralty have ruled that its industrial employés are not eligible for vacant appointments under the Ministry of Labour as third class officers?
No such ruling as that stated in the question has been given by the Admiralty; but having regard to the qualifications required by the Ministry of Labour for the posts in question, candidates from the clerical class seemed more suitable than those drawn from the industrial class of Admiralty employés.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Labour has indicated that the Admiralty take objection to the engagement of these men, and in view of the prevailing unemployment in dockyard towns, will he bring pressure to bear on the Ministry of Labour to accept discharged Admiralty employés?
I am quite unaware of the attitude of the Ministry of Labour but I will get in touch with them.
Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say on what basis the Admiralty arrived at their discrimination against the industrial employés?
The terms of the letter we received from the Ministry of Labour indicated that candidates were expected to be men serving on the clerical staffs under the Admiralty.
May we take it that the Admiralty will raise no objection to the employment of these men?
I think I can give that guarantee.
Interpreters (Language Allowance)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the shortage of naval interpreters with a knowledge of Eastern languages, he will consider granting allowances as an inducement to officers and ratings to study for conversational ability in the most commonly useful languages?
Payment is made to officers for two distinct grades of interpreter in each language (including Eastern languages) and it is not considered worth while to grant an allowance for any lower standard such as purely conversational ability. Payment to men is made when actually employed as interpreters regardless of standard.
Red Sea (Coastal Motor Boats)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the destroyers engaged in the suppression of gun-running and slave-trading in the Red Sea cannot follow native dhows into the numerous shallows, owing to their deep draught and the very light draught of the native craft, he will consider the use of coastal motor boats as an auxiliary force?
The question of employing coastal motor boats or other small craft, to assist in the suppression of the slave traffic and gun-running, has received careful consideration, but has been abandoned because of its very doubtful utility, and of the expense it would entail.
General Messing System
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that no messing allowance is paid to the accountant officer in charge of general messing, he will state how much per man per day he is allowed to expend to provide a free supply of necessary food for naval ratings messed under the general messing system?
The accountant officer is allowed to spend such an amount as is necessary to provide a suitable standard of messing. As stated in paragraph five of Admiralty Fleet Order 347/1928, the amount required varies with prices and other conditions, and, generally speaking, is less in shore establishments than in seagoing ships.
Then there is no definite sum mentioned?
The sum varies according to stations.
It varies from what—a penny to ten shillings?
If the hon. Member would like me to do so, I can give him details.
Thank you.
General messing from 1st April next, the average daily cost of general messing should not exceed the following:—Men's messes, 1s. 4½d.; boys' messes, whether afloat or in training establishments, 1s. 6d.
Museum, Greenwich (Rent)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will take steps to secure that no loss is incurred by the Greenwich Hospital Fund when the rent is fixed for the Naval Museum in the present Greenwich Hospital School buildings; and that this amount shall be at least equal to the income from the sum expected to be realised by the sale of this site and property?
I can assure the hon. Member that the interests and responsibilities of Greenwich Hospital will be fully considered, though I am unable to accept the implication that it is open to the trustees to sell the Queen's House, which is one of the historic buildings at Greenwich.
Mates (Pay)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that lower deck ratings who were promoted to mate rank after the 4th October, 1925, are paid at a reduced rate of pay; and whether, in view of the Prime Minister's promise in 1924 that the rates of pay for all ranks and ratings then serving would remain as approved by the Jerram Committee, he will issue the necessary instructions that these officers are to be paid at the old rates?
My right hon. Friend is not aware of any reason for altering the present arrangement, which is in accordance with that adopted in the other services for soldiers or airmen granted commissions.
EmployéS, Malta
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of men employed by the Admiralty at Malta in December, 1927, and January, 1928?
The numbers were 6,714 in December, 1927, and 6,757 in January, 1928.
Unemployment
Training Centres
asked the Minister of Labour which fresh training centres in England and Wales his Department contemplate opening; whether these training centres will be residential or non-residential; and when it is proposed to open them?
A non-residential centre was recently opened at Dudley: another will shortly be opened at Bristol. These are all that I contemplate at present.
asked the Minister of Labour the nature of the training given in the various centres for the training of seamen which juvenile employment committees are recommending; whether the training is under the auspices of the Admiralty; and whether the aim is to prepare men for general seamanship or for the Navy?
The training given in the sea schools recommended to boys in appropriate cases by juvenile advisory committees includes courses in seamanship and physical training as well as general education. The aim is to prepare boys for a career at sea, and the majority of the boys enter the Merchant Service. The Committees also make known to suitable boys the scheme of direct entry to the advanced class in naval training establishments. These establishments are under the control of the Admiralty and the aim is to prepare boys for their duties in the Royal Navy.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while there is no shortage of recruits for the Navy at all, there is a shortage of trained boys for the Merchant Service, and will he stress the mercantile side of this scheme and, if possible, extend it?
Can the right hon. Gentleman give figures?
If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will give him any figures that I can, but I am not at all sure how far I have got statistics. The whole object is, of course, to put unemployed boys into suitable places and to enable them to get a job and be available to the Merchant Service.
asked the Minister of Labour by what method the 74 persons who are to receive training at Wallsend from Glasgow were chosen; what method was taken to notify suitable persons; if he can state how many persons were refused training; and if any age-limit is imposed?
I am making inquiry into this matter and will supply the hon. Member with such information as is available as soon as possible.
Central Committee on Women's Employment (Grant)
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received the remonstrance sent to him by the Central Committee on Women's Employment as to the amount of the grant, together with a request that extra assistance should be given to Scotland and to certain distressed areas in England as well as to Wales; and whether he can hold out any hope of making the additional grants requested?
I have re received this letter and have it under consideration.
Can the Minister hold out any hope of being able shortly to make a statement?
I hope that it will not be long. I am actually considering the matter.
Is the Minister aware of the acuteness of the position in parts of Scotland?
Yes.
Are we to understand that the proposal which the Minister is considering is to give an additional grant to the North of England, seeing that he has given £10,000 to South Wales?
I have already said, in reply to the question, that I have this letter. If the hon. Member will read the question, he will see that my answer covers the point.
Aged Workers
asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed persons have been disallowed unemployment benefit in England and Wales and Scotland, respectively, owing to the receipt of old age pensions at 65; and if he will state whether any of them and, if so, how many remain on the live register?
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Tottenham North (Mr. R. Morrison) on 9th February. The total figure for Great Britain of 28,500 given in that reply is divided as follows:
Can the right hon. Gentleman give any figures of the numbers of persons who have been deprived of their unemployment benefit on reaching the age of 65, and to whom no pension has been paid?
No.
Is it possible to obtain those figures?
I will inquire.
Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to ascertain the additional charge upon the boards of guardians as a result of these figures?
I am not sure that I have any figures of that kind.
asked the Minister of Labour how many of the 1,132,000 applicants for employment registered at the Exchanges on 31st December, 1927, were 65 years old and upwards?
The only available statistics relate to persons aged 65 and over on the registers of Employment Exchanges with claims to unemployment benefit current at 2nd January, 1928, who numbered 28,500. Statistics are not available regarding the ages of uninsured persons on the register.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons over 65 years of age who ceased to receive unemployment benefit during January, 1928, owing to the operation of the Pensions Act at the Wigan Employment Exchange?
The only available figure is that for the number of persons aged 65 and over with current claims to benefit at the Wigan Employment Exchange at the beginning of January, 1928, namely 160. The number then in receipt of benefit was something less than this total, but I cannot give the precise figure.
Unemployment Grants Committee (Schemes)
asked the Minister of Labour how many meetings were held by the Unemployment Grants Committee during 1927; the number of schemes for work submitted; the number sanctioned; and the number of men to be employed on such schemes?
During the year ended 31st December, 1927, the Unemployment Grants Committee met on 20 occasions. The number of schemes submitted during the year was 101, and 68 schemes were approved for grant. These schemes were estimated to provide 41,177 man-months' work.
Date. Insured Persons in Great Britain classified as belonging to the Drink Industry recorded as unemployed. Men. Boys. Women. Girls. Total. 23rd January, 1928 … 4,513 151 1,731 144 6,539 19th December, 1927 … 4,061 104 1,382 111 5,658 21st November, 1927 … 4,010 122 1,674 118 5,924
Tin Miners, Cornwall
asked the Minister of Labour the number of workpeople engaged in the tin mines, of Cornwall, and the number of men registered in January, 1928, as unemployed tin miners?
I am informed by the Secretary for Mines that, according to returns received by him, the number of workpeople of all ages, exclusive of salaried officials, employed in the tin mines in Cornwall in December last was 2,980. The estimated number of persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts classified as belonging to the tin, lead and copper mining industry in Cornwall at July, 1927, was 3,550, and the number recorded as unemployed at 23rd January, 1928, was 596.
Have any steps been taken by the right hon. Gentleman to find opportunities for the employment of these unemployed tin miners?
I have no doubt that at the Employment Ex-
Brewery Workers
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women registered as unemployed brewery workers in the months of November and December, 1927, and January, 1928, respectively?
For the purpose of unemployment insurance statistics, this industry is included with aerated water manufacture and the bottling of wines, spirits, beers, etc., to form a group covering the whole drink industry. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the figures available for this group as a whole.
Following is the statement:
changes, in regard to tin miners and others, every possible opportunity is taken to let them know of places where they can get work.
Have any representations been made to the owners of these tin mines, asking them to open up some of the mines which were closed a short time ago?
Not that I am aware of.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Industrial Transfer Board has to deal with these tin miners, or only with coal miners?
At present they are concentrating their attention upon coal mines.
Is it not a fact that the owners of the tin mines in Cornwall are invariably the same people who own tin mines abroad, and that they only find work for British tin miners when it is profitable to do so?
Exchanges, Glasgow
asked the Minister of Labour if the alterations at Springburn Employment Exchange have begun; and when these are expected to be finished?
The plans of this proposed extension, which present certain difficulties, are still under consideration, but everything possible is being done to expedite the matter.
asked the Minister of Labour when the new Exchange for Central Glasgow is going to be proceeded with and if the contracts for it have been settled?
Plans of the proposed building are in course of preparation and while, as I told the hon. Member on 14th December last, there will be no avoidable delay, he will realise that the various stages will take some time.
Distressed Areas (Transfer of Labour)
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the percentage of insured persons registered as unemployed on 16th January was 8.2 per cent. in Kent and Hants, 8.4 per cent. in Dorset, 9 per cent. in Somerset, and 9.1 per cent. in Devon, he will state what industries either in the South of England or around London hold out a prospect of being able to absorb unemployed workers transferred from the more distressed areas?
These general percentages are consistent with much lower figures in particular trades and areas in which they fall to as low as 2 or 3 per cent., and I do not think there is any reason to suppose that a certain number of opportunities of employment cannot be found for those who are willing and anxious to obtain work.
Can the right hon. Gentleman not say into what specific industries the unemployed from the North of England should go?
Not without notice.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that persons who come here from the North, looking for work, are probably on arrival disqualified by his Department for not genuinely seeking work?
If the hon. Member will give me definite instances I will look into them.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that definite instances have been sent to him, and that the mere fact of having left the North and come here was taken as evidence that they were going away from work and not looking for it?
I cannot take that on the hon. Member's simple statement. I shall be glad to look into any cases sent to me.
Why does the right hon. Gentleman ask for notice, in order to answer a question which has been put to him on the Paper, as to what industries in the South of England can absorb unemployed people?
I will gladly inquire and let the hon. Member know.
That is the question on the Paper.
Is it not possible to get an early answer to this question, as to the industries in which men and women can find work? The question has never been answered.
39 and 40.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 16th January last, according to the local unemployment index issued by the Ministry of Labour, there were 17 per cent. of the insured persons in Northumberland unemployed; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this state of affairs?
(2) whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 16th January last, according to the local unemployment index issued by the Ministry of Labour, there were 25 per cent. of the insured persons in Durham unemployed; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this state of things?
29 and 30.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 16th January last, according to the local unemployment index issued by the Ministry, there were 68.9 per cent. of male insured persons unemployed in Merthyr, 51.9 per cent. in Pont Lottyn, 61.9 per cent. in Blaina, and 50.7 per cent. in Ystalyfera; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this matter?
(2) whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 16th January last, according to the local unemployment index issued by the Ministry, there were 24.6 per cent. of the insured persons in Glamorganshire, 26 per cent. in Monmouthshire, and 37 per cent. in Carmarthenshire unemployed; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this matter?
The high percentages of unemployment to which attention is called relate to mining areas and are explained by the general conditions of the coal industry. The problem presented by these and other areas in which unemployment is severe is engaging the attention of the Government. So far as relief may be possible by the transfer of labour to other occupations or other districts, this is a mater which is under consideration by the Industrial Transference Board.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of unemployed insured persons last year in the county of Durham was between 10,000 and 12,000; and what hope is there in bringing miners from Durham and Northumberland into the South, where there is so much unemployment? Would it not be better for the Government to do something to find employment for these men in the county?
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks what steps he proposes to take to deal with unemployment in the county of Durham?
I have already said that the principal steps that can be taken are being taken by the Government and by the Industrial Transference Board in trying to find openings for them either in other parts of the country, or, in cases where they are willing, by emigration.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Transference Board are doing? Have they transferred one miner during the whole time that they have been in existence?
That is really a matter for debate.
I submit that it is a fair question. The Transference Board is dealing with this matter, and I have put a fair question. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us of one miner in the county of Durham who has been dealt with by the Transference Board?
The hon. Member can take an opportunity at Eleven o'Clock of debating the question.
Children
asked the Minister of Labour the number of children between the ages of 14 and 16 years who were unemployed during the month of January?
I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.
Statistics
asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons in employment for a series of past years and for the latest convenient date?
As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the statement:
In the following Table an estimate of the numbers in employment in Great Britain has been made by deducting from the estimated number of insured persons the number recorded as unemployed, as shown by the lodged unemployment books (including the "two months" file), and making an allowance for sickness and other unrecorded non-employment, and also for trade disputes.
Under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, persons aged 65 and over are excluded from unemployment insurance as from 2nd January, 1928. The figures for January, 1928, therefore relate only to persons aged 16 to 64. In order to make the figures comparable throughout it has been necessary to exclude from the earlier figures the estimated number of persons aged 65 and over. The Table,
Date. Estimated number of insured persons aged 16 to 64 inclusive. Estimated number of insured persons aged 16 to 64 inclusive unemployed (including Two Months' File of lodged books). Difference between Columns 2 and 3. Estimated number of insured persons aged 16 to 64 inclusive in employment, after deducting from Col. 4,3½ per cent. of the numbers in Col. 2 to allow for sickness and other unrecorded non-employment, exclusive of customary holidays. Including persons directly involved in trade disputes. Excluding persons directly involved in trade disputes. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. End of June— 1921 10,769,000 * 2,370,0002,370,000 * 8,399,0008,399,000 * 8,022,0008,022,000 *6,909,000 1922 10,860,000 1,468,000 9,392,000 9,012,000 8,985,000 1923 10,908,000 1,226,000 9,682,000 9,300,000 9,281,000 1924 11,074,000 1,020,000 10,054,000 9,666,000 9,658,000 1925 11,290,000 †l,309,000 †9,981,000 †9,586,000 † 9,551,000 1926 11,438,000 ‡1,643,000 9,795,000 9,395,000 8,369,000 1927 11,534,000 1,014,000 10,520,000 10,116,000 10,111,000 23 January,1928 §11,590,000 1,227,435 10,362,600 9,957,000 9,954,000 * Affected by disputes in coal mining and cotton industries.Affected by disputes in coal mining and cotton industries. †Heavy unemployment in coal mining. ‡Exclusive of persons in the coal mining industry disqualified for benefit by reason of the dispute. §Provisional figure.
Court of Referees,Glasgow
asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases which were disposed of last year by the Court of Referees in Glasgow; the number at which there were present no employers' representatives; the number at which there were present no workers' representatives; and the number at which both were absent?
Inquiries are being made, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.
Benefit Disallowed, Wigan
asked the Minister of Labour how many miners were refused benefits at the Wigan Employment Exchange during the quarters ending June, September, and December, 1927, and January, 1928, stating the reasons for the disallowances?
I regret that statistics regarding the disallowance of benefit are not available in respect of particular industries or occupations.
asked the Minister of Labour how many insured persons were refused benefit at the Wigan
therefore, relates throughout to insured persons aged 16 to 64 inclusive.
Employment Exchange in the months of September and December, 1927, and January, 1928, respectively, and the reasons for the disallowances?
It has not been possible in the time available to tabulate the information required in this question, but I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Entertainment Industry (Foreign Artists)
asked the Minister of Labour if there are any special reasons why a permit was refused to Miss Alden Gray, an American actress, to appear in a production entitled "Married Bachelors" at the Q Theatre; and whether, any correspondence has passed between his Department and the United States Consul-General in London to ascertain the exact status of American actors or artists in Great Britain?
I was unable to advise my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to agree to this American subject being engaged for this employment, because the employer did not satisfy me that every effort had been made to secure the services of a British artist for the part. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any regulations in the form of a quota which prohibit more than a certain number of American artists appearing in this country?
It is not a question of a quota, as, I think, the hon. Member knows.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in America a great many English artists, actors and others, obtain employment, and has he borne that fact in mind?
I have all these matters in mind. I might also add that quite a considerable number of artists from other countries do get employment here, and are given permits. It is a complicated question as to the propriety of reserving certain kinds of employment in this country which can properly be filled in this country, and, from the artistic point of view, the propriety of giving leading artists, musical people and others, permission to perform at concerts and on the stage.
Who is to be the judge and to say whether these artists are able to perform their alloted tasks?
I am, for this purpose.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of these artists come over to this country and draw large salaries and pay no Income Tax?
Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to qualify himself for the part he is now playing?
Royal Air Force
Invisible Ray Searchlight
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his Department has investigated the ray known as the invisible ray searchlight, which is used for spotting aeroplanes unknown to their pilots; and whether any negotiations have been entered into for acquiring such rights?
The Air Ministry is in touch with the latest developments of the so-called invisible ray searchlight, but it would not be to the public interest to give a more detailed answer to this question.
Hospital Accommodation
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many beds there are available in Air Force hospitals in this country; what was the maximum number occupied on any one day of last year; and what is the annual average number of beds occupied?
The answer to the first part of the question is 440; to the second, 368; to the last part, 266.
Airship R100 (Repurchase)
45 and 46.
asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) if the option of repurchase of airship R100 by the Airship Guarantee Company for £150,000 is exercisable at any time or only subsequently to the successful fulfilment of her specified trial tests;
(2) if he will give full information as to the state of the negotiations now pending between the Airship Guarantee Company and his Department for the repurchase of R100?
The negotiations which have taken place to date are of a provisional and preliminary character and, pending the return of the Airship Guarantee Company's representative from the United States, they are temporarily in abeyance, though I have every hope that they will in due course be brought to a successful issue. In these circumstances I have no further statement to make upon them for the time being. So soon as the company's proposals take a more concrete form I shall, of course, be prepared to give the hon. Member full information as to the main lines of any agreement which may be negotiated.
Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten—has he ever been aware—thattheoriginal statement made in this House by the present Leader of the Opposition in 1924 declared specifically that the option of repurchasing would not be exercisable until this ship had passed all its necessary tests?
Yes, and certainly the ship will have to pass all the necessary tests. The contract stands in the actual words in which it now is and if any alteration is made or proposed, I shall, of course, take an early opportunity of informing the House.
Has the right hon. Gentleman ever heard of or known the meaning of the word "bunkum"?
Yes, and I will leave the House to draw its own conclusions from my answers and the hon. Member's question.
Aviation
Cape Town (Flying Routes)
asked the Secretary of State for Air how much time would be saved by taking the route across France, the Mediterranean, the Sahara, the Cameroons, and thence to Cape Town, rather than by the East Coast; whether landing grounds could be as suitably and cheaply created; and to what extent as to these points and as to commercial and revenue-producing possibilities the two routes would vary?
On the assumption that my Noble Friend desires a comparison between the route which is outlined in his question and the normal flying route to Cape Town, the answer is as follows: The saving in distance, if my Noble Friend's suggestion were adopted, would amount, it is estimated, to about 850 miles, representing approximately eight and a half hours' flying time. On the other hand, more than three-fourths of the western route would lie over foreign territory, of much of which no detailed survey has been made. The establishment and maintenance of landing grounds and the equipment of them with adequate supplies of petrol and oil would be very expensive, while in regard to commercial and revenue-producing possibilities the suggested route appears to compare very unfavourably with the normal flying route.
Airships (Regulations)
asked the Secretary of State for Air if his Department has any code of regulations governing lighter-than-air airship construction for civil passenger-carrying purposes embodying specific conditions as to passenger and crew accommodation, sanitation, medical service, life-saving apparatus, etc.; and, if so, will he publish them?
One of the objects which the construction of the two new experimental airships will, I hope, achieve, is to indicate the regulations which will be necessary for passenger-carrying airships. Until practical experience has been gained by experimental flights it would be premature to lay down general regulations, and in the meantime it is sufficient to deal with any individual applications which may be received for certificates of airworthiness for airships and the safety requirements which should be fulfilled on their merits.
Are we to understand that airships are to be built under no regulations at all and that the public will be invited to take passages in ships which have not been certified under any specific code or regulation?
No, Sir. The hon. Member must make no such assumption. Each case will be taken on its merits, and no airship will fly without having an airworthiness certificate.
Is it not the fact that the Secretary of State for Air has no regulations at all, and that these matters are subject entirely to caprice?
No, I have told the hon. Member that each case is taken on its merits.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say upon what these certificates will be based? If we can be told that we shall know what is behind it.
They will be based on experience and technical knowledge.
Experience and technical knowledge is a wide term. May we know what part of experience and knowledge is going to be applied to air?
Wright Brothers' First Flights (Aeroplane Exhibition)
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give any particulars as to the decision of Mr. Orville Wright to present us with the first airplane that ever accomplished flight; and where it is to be housed?
I understand that Mr. Orville Wright has very generously lent to the Science Museum, for a period of five years, the actual aeroplane in which he and his brother accomplished their first flights on 17th December, 1903. The machine will be exhibited in the Aeronautical Collection of the Museum.
Justices Advisory Committees
asked the Attorney-General the number of county advisory committees and borough advisory committees for the selection of those persons suitable to be nominated as justices of the peace which have not been revised since 1923 and which have not yet come under the new system which the Lord Chancellor has set up for appointing such members for a fixed term of office of six years; and how many of these committees have been reappointed during the past 12 months?
I have been asked to reply.
There are 99 advisory committees acting for counties or parts of counties. Thirty-one of these committees have been reappointed for fixed terms of office since 1923 and five of the 31 have been so reappointed during the last 12 months. There are, therefore, 68 county committees remaining to be dealt with. Advisory committees have been appointed for 212 boroughs which have separate commissions of the peace. Seventy borough advisory committees have been reappointed for fixed terms of office since 1923, and 26 of these have been dealt with during the past 12 months.
Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that there are in this country a large number of councils who have not the requisite number to form a quorum on these committees and will he take some action in the matter?
The hon. Member should put that question down.
asked the Attorney-General whether the advisory committee of the West Riding of Yorkshire has held a meeting recently to revise the recommendations that were made in 1926 for additional magistrates?
My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor understands that a meeting of the West Riding Advisory Committee is to be held in the near future to reconsider the list of recommendations which was submitted to him in 1926.
Will the hon. and gallant Member represent to the Lord Chancellor that these advisory committees should sit at various periods of the year?
Historical Monuments (Hebrides)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether steps are being taken for the preservation and protection of the monuments and constructions in the Hebrides recommended for conservation in the Ninth Report of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Constructions of Scotland?
I understand that the Ninth Report has not yet been published, though an Interim Report has been issued. When the Report is published it will no, doubt be considered by the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland, who will make recommendations to the Commissioners of Works in the manner contemplated by the Ancient Monuments Act.
India (States Inquiry Committee)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether in view of the fact that the subjects of inquiry falling within the terms of reference of the Indian States Inquiry Committee, recently set up, concern the relations between the Imperial Govern- ment and the Indian princes, it is the intention of the Government to contribute towards the expense of the Committee?
I have been asked to reply. My Noble Friend would refer the hon. Member to the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) on 19th December. It need hardly be added that all the subjects of inquiry directly concern the Governor-General and the Government of India.
Transport
London Traffic (Piccadilly Circus and Strand)
asked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the impediment to traffic caused by the works now in progress at Piccadilly Circus and by the delay in widening the Strand at the corner of Adam Street, he can state how soon the operations at these two points will be completed?
I have caused inquiries to be made and am informed that the work in connection with Piccadilly Circus Tube Station will be completed by the end of the year (it is hoped about November) and that the widening of the Strand by Adam Street will be completed about the middle of September.
Grimsby (New Fish Dock)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the serious and increasing extent of unemployment in Grimsby; and whether the Government will assist in relieving the local situation by expediting the construction of the new dock now under consideration?
I have no special information with regard to unemployment at Grimsby. The question of the construction of the proposed new fish dock is primarily a matter for the London and North Eastern Railway Company as the local harbour authority, and I am making inquiries of the company as to the position.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this town is included in the area referred to by the Prime Minister as one where unemployment is comparatively rare?
I could not say.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the contracts were actually let for the construction of this dock in 1914; that the work was stopped by the then Government on account of the outbreak of war; that since 1918 successive Members of Parliament for the Grimsby Division have made representations to successive Governments, including the late Labour Government, and have tried to get assistance so as to carry out the work; and that the present Member for Grimsby has been most persistent in the matter?
That goes without saying.
Poor Law Relief
asked the Minister of Health if he has any estimate of the number of person in receipt of Poor Law relief at the present time; and if he has any figures showing the number of persons relieved by the guardians since the present Government took office?
As regards the first part of the question, the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in England and Wales (excluding lunatics in county and borough asylums, casuals and persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only) on Saturday, 4th February, 1928, was 1,208,179. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is over 250,000 more than the total of those who were receiving Poor Law relief when the present Government took office?
Yes; and there are a good many explanations. Perhaps the hon. Member will be able to supply some himself.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give any figures showing the difference which has been caused by people being turned off unemployment benefit?
That is rather a matter for the Minister of Labour.
Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman has no figures to enable him to answer the last part of the question?
If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is prepared to put down a question I may be able to give the number of cases. The actual number of persons varies, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows. I cannot give the actual number of persons, but I will make inquiries and see how far I can satisfy the hon. and gallant Members curiosity.
Have special steps been taken to ascertain the present number of persons receiving relief, and is it the case that the previous figures have not been kept and collated?
No, Sir. I could explain, but it is rather a complicated matter. I suggested to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that a question might be put down with a view of getting the information.
Do the figures include Scotland?
No, Sir.
Stoke-On-Trent (Loan)
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any complaint as to the recent acceptance by a local authority of a tender for the public issue of redeemable stock on terms disadvantageous to the ratepayers of the locality, having regard to the fact that a much more favourable tender had been submitted by an underwriting firm of undoubted financial standing; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter by ordering an inquiry into the circumstances relating to the issue?
I cannot find that my Department has received any complaint on this subject, though I have seen references to it in the Press. The council were acting within their discretion, and my right hon. Friend does not propose on present information to direct a local inquiry.
Does the information concern the City Council of Stoke-on-Trent?
I think that is the matter referred to, and if my hon. Friend has any information to give me I will consider it.
Will my hon. Friend say whether the Minister of Health has any power of any kind to prevent this sort of thing happening in future, to the great detriment of the ratepayers of Stoke-on-Trent, since this sort of thing may be repeated in the case of other corporations?
I would like my hon. Friend to define what he means by "this sort of thing." If he has any information on the matter I shall be glad to consider it.
Is it not the fact that in this particular case it is notorious that an offer was accepted that was less favourable to the ratepayers of Stoke-on-Trent than an offer by a firm of much greater standing?
If my hon. Friend has any evidence in support of that statement, I shall be glad to receive it.
Tithe Rentcharge (Payment)
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether steps will be taken to see that tithes are paid to incumbents in the year in which they are due?
Under the Tithe Act, 1925, the duty of dealing with Ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge rests with Queen Anne's Bounty, and I am afraid that I have no power to intervene in the exercise by the Bounty of their statutory duties. If my Noble Friend has any particular case of delay in mind and will let me have details, I shall be pleased to bring it to the notice of the Bounty.
Afforestation,Carnarvonshire
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what acreage in Carnarvonshire was planted with tree during 1926 and 1927; and what is the Commission's programme of planting for the year 1928?
The Forestry Commissioners planted in Carnarvonlast season 420 acres and in the previous season 213. The programme for the current season is 536 acres.
In view of the very large areas cleared during the War, cannot the hon. Member persuade his fellow-Commissioners to increase the area for planting this year?
We have to act according to a scheme. We have only a certain amount of money to spend each year, and until we come to a new financial year, when fresh schemes are made, we have to keep within the limit of the money with which we are supplied by this House. We are always anxious to plant wherever we have suitable land on which to plant, but, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, on a 10 years' scheme you cannot plant all at once. If we did, we should fail to give continuous employment.
Broadcasting (Birmingham Area)
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the inadequate transmission from Daventry (5 G.B.) to the Birmingham area, thereby rendering hundreds of crystal sets useless; and will he take steps to have it rectified?
The British Broadcasting Corporation state that the signal strength of broadcast programmes in the Birmingham area was naturally reduced to some extent on the transfer of the transmitting station from the centre of Birmingham to Daventry. Since the transfer, however, material improvements have been effected at the Daventry Experimental Station, and the Corporation claim that reception is now practicable throughout the Birmingham area at good strength on adequate crystal receiving Sets.
Reparation and Inter-Allied Debts
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of money received by this country during the past financial year from foreign countries as a result of war debt settlements and from German reparations; and what is the total sum paid to the United States of America during the same period?
The figures for the financial year ending 31st March next, which I presume the hon. and gallant Member has in mind, will, it is estimated, prove to be as follow:
£ Receipts from Allied War Debts 10,700,000 Receipts from Reparations, about 14,500,000 Total 25,200,000 Payments to United States Government 33,000,000
Can the Financial Secretary say whether the amounts received in reparation and debts payable to us will ever be equal to what we have to pay out?
I must ask for notice of that question.
Iraq
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to whether the representative of the Iraq Government in London has recently been changed; and whether it is his intention to give the House any further information as regards the recent Anglo-Iraq Treaty?
The Iraq Government have recalled their present representative in London and have appointed in his place Ja'far Pasha el 'Askeri, the late Prime Minister of Iraq. As regards the second part of the question, the text of the recent Anglo-Iraq Treaty was laid before Parliament last Session. I do not understand in what way it is suggested that I should furnish further information on the subject.
Is there any truth in the reports that have appeared in the Press as to the reasons why the recent representative of Iraq has been withdrawn?
I have seen various somewhat contradictory reports in contradictory papers, but I do not know exactly to what report my hon. and gallant Friend alludes.
Imperial Research Stations
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been done to give effect to the recommendation of the Imperial Conference regarding the institution of a chain of research stations?
The principle of the creation of an Empire chain of research stations was approved by the Imperial Conference, 1926, and was subsequently endorsed by the Colonial Office Conference, 1927. The question of their development was also considered recently by the Imperial Agricultural Research Conference, whose Report will very shortly be published. The question of the functions and staffing of central research stations is also dealt with in Part III of the Report of the Committee which my right hon. Friend appointed, under the chairmanship of Lord Lovat, to formulate practical proposals to give effect to the resolution of the Colonial Office Conference on the subject of Colonial Agricultural Scientific and Research Services. The Report of this Committee will be laid before Parliament within a week or 10 days. This matter is one to which I propose to give special attention in connection with my forthcoming visit to Malaya and Ceylon.
Gambia Colony (Research Work)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any agricultural or other research work is being carried out in Gambia Colony?
Yes, Sir. Some useful research work is being conducted by the Agricultural Department regarding the rosette disease of ground nuts. The Imperial Bureau of Entomology is assisting the local director of agriculture in his investigations.
Is it not the case that the extension of this research work would considerably help the development of the colony?
The colony is a one-crop colony and a specially qualified staff has been appointed to investigate the various problems arising in connection with the better cultivation of ground nuts, and I think we may be satisfied with the progress that they are making.
Palestine (Haifa Harbour Works)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Palestine Government adheres to its intention to make the Haifa harbour works with direct labour or if public tender is now contemplated; and, if so, will a fair-wages clause be inserted in the contract?
The point raised in the first part of the question is under consideration. No final decision has yet been reached. As regards a fair-wages clause, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave him some time ago.
Is there any change in the policy laid down by the Palestine Government about six months ago, in regard to this question of direct labour? Has there been any suggestion in the Colonial Office about a change in procedure?
Yes, the possibility of a change is under discussion at this moment, and consideration is being given to the question of whether this harbour would be constructed by direct labour or by contract or by an experienced firm acting as agents for the Government of Palestine, but in any case, special clauses and conditions would have to be embodied to deal with the local labour situation.
I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but may I ask him, further, whether there is not some preliminary work in connection with roadways which might be done by direct labour and might be started very soon?
My impression is that, if not actually started, the preparatory work referred to is already receiving the attention of the Palestine Government.
Loss of Grimsby Trawler "Petrunia."
( by Private Notice ) asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will institute an immediate and full inquiry into the circumstances of the sinking of the Grimsby trawler "Petrunia" after a collision with the Swedish steamer "Ylva" in the North Sea in the early morning of Monday, 20th February, and which resulted in the loss of eight lives out of a crew of nine?
I desire, in the first place, to express the very deep sympathy of the Board of Trade with the relatives of the victims of this very sad disaster. Instructions have been given for depositions to be taken in regard to this collision, and the question whether a formal investigation should be ordered will be considered when the depositions are received.
Earl of Oxford and Asquith
I have to inform the House that I have received a telegram from Athens, dated 21st February, as follows:
"To the Speaker, House of Commons, London.
The Greek Parliament, having learned with profound regret, to which fitting expression was given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Leaders of the Opposition, of the death of the eminent statesman of Great Britain, Lord Asquith, who rendered such valuable services not only to his own country but to the cause of human progress and the liberty of nations, has commissioned me to transmit to you its sincere condolence in this loss which the British nation has sustained and its grateful remembrance of the powerful support which the departed statesman invariably gave to the Greek cause.
THEMISTOCLES SOFOULIS,
President of the Greek Parliament."
The House will, no doubt, desire me to send an appropriate reply.
Hear, hear!
Ballot for Notices of Motion
Socialism
I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to the perils of Socialism, and move a Resolution.
Safeguarding of Industries
I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to the urgent necessity of safeguarding our industries, and move a Resolution.
Greyhound Racing
I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to greyhound racing, and move a Resolution.
Independent Labour Party
I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I will call attention to the policy of the Independent Labour Party, and move a Resolution.
Hairdressers' and Barbers' Shops (Sunday Closing)
I beg to move, compulsion of keeping open their places of business. Many boys of less than 14 years of age are employed in our trade as half-timers. They work during the afternoon on every day in the week. They are working on Sundays as well as weekdays, and in some cases these boys work 365 days in one year. The health record of our trade is one of the worst to be found among shopkeeping trades in this country. Consumption is the cause of one in five of the deaths in the hairdressing trade. For these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that only by an Act of Parliament can we overcome the difficulties which lie in our way.
In my own City of Glasgow prior to the War, there were practically no shops in the hairdressing business, whether the well-to-do shops or those in what we call the lower localities, which were not kept shut on Sundays, but since the War the ever-growing tendency has been for the numbers opening on Sundays to increase, so that in several localities to-day nearly every shop is compelled to keep open, because its neighbour, in a trade that is not a lucrative trade and in which the conditions are not advantageous in any respect, is kept open. Consequently, we come before this House asking it to give the support that is necessary for the compulsory closing of these shops. This Bill has not been opposed by any Member, and it is not a party Bill. There are names on it representing the various parties in this House.
Last year, when the Bill was before the House, it had almost the unanimous support of the Members, and, but for certain other conditions, it would probably have gone through Committee and passed into law. We are hopeful that the sympathy shown towards the Bill of last year will be repeated this year, that the circumstances which prevented that Bill from becoming law last year will have gone, and that this Bill may become law, thus enabling this trade to get the advantage that is claimed for it. We are not desirous of imposing conditions on any other people whose religion is not the same as that of the mass of the people, and provision will be made in the Bill that where people's religion is such that they do not observe the Christian Sabbath, but have another Sabbath, day, they may remain open on the Christian Sabbath day, closing on their own Sabbath day. In that way we hope to meet any objections that may come on that score, and thus gain the support of every Member of the House, regardless of creed or nationality.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stewart, Mr. Templeton, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Barr, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Sutton, Mr. R. Morrison, Mr. John Jones, Sir Samuel Chapman, Lieut.-Colonel Moore and Mr. Womersley.
Hairdressers' and Barbers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Bill,
"to provide for the compulsory closing of hairdressers' and barbers' shops on Sundays," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 7th March, and to be printed.[Bill 43.]
Orders of the Day
Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act
I beg to move, been made, because I am sure that if we could get even into the individual post bags of the party opposite we should find hundreds of letters regarding the grievances of widows and orphans up and down the country; but the party opposite, I suppose out of loyalty, will vote for the Amendment, and, by so doing, will inevitably register their decision that these anomalies and injustices must continue.
4.0 p.m.
I thought the beet way to deal with the question was to endeavour to get the Minister of Health and his genial colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, together with their party, to face actual, concrete cases. I shall not deal in generalities, but I shall put before the House some actual human documents, containing too many grievances for me to deal with adequately this afternoon. It has undoubtedly been proved by experience, and without any theory at all, that the sum of 10s. a week is absolutely inadequate to keep these people at a decent standard of life, and the whole of the Labour party would invite the Government to raise that figure until it gives a decent standard of life to these people. I believe it will be found that even the paupers and criminals at the present time-cost at least twice as much as 10s. a week, if not more than twice that figure. I do not wish to become at all sentimental. I content myself with the observation that we are quite certain that 10s. a week is insufficient, that it ought to be raised, and that the immediate attention of Parliament ought to be directed towards a legislative effort to raise it. I come to the individual cases, and the first to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is the difference between what has become known, I believe, as the pre-Act widow and the post-Act widow. It seems absurd to ordinary women up and down the country that a widow before the passing of the Act must have children under 14 years of age before she can receive the pension, while, on the other hand, a widow after the passing of the Act gets the benefit. It is still more absurd to find that a woman, who became a widow before the Act, having children up to 14 years of age, gets the pension, and that when the youngest child reaches the age of 14½ the pension vanishes. That, undoubtedly, has created great apprehension and hardship in a large number of homes. As the pre-Act widow gets older she can look forward to the time, not when she will receive a pension, or an augmented pension, but to the time when all pension will actually drop.
I say that that ought to be remedied, and in this Motion we are asking the Government to bring in immediate legislation with that object. To show that this is not a mere statement of my own, I think I had better read—shall I say for the information and edification of the representatives of the Ministry here—the letters which I have received. These letters come from all parts of the country and are representative of all parties. I find that people who have been reading the "Daily Mirror" have been sending letters to me. I am quoting them, because I gather that there has been some idea that the "Daily Herald" has been fomenting this. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but from the letters I have here, and from the letters that every Member of the House has received, it will be recognised that the grievances were there, and needed no fomenting at all. Take this one: I should imagine they were very cute men who made the Bill which we are discussing this afternoon. attention. It is the case of the widow whose husband was 70 before the 2nd January, 1928. There are 45,000 women, I understand, who do not get a pension because their husbands were 70 before the 2nd January this year. There are men aged 70 who have paid every penny of the increased contribution of the past two years, who have been insured even longer than men aged 65, yet their wives will not get a pension although 65 years of age. The younger man of 65 may still be at work, and get 10s. for himself and 10s. for his wife, but in the case of the man who was 70 before the 2nd January of this year, his wife, I understand, will not get a pension. I have here the decision of the referees on this point. As a matter of fact, I have been through the summary of cases. I got the impression from reading it, that much of their decision has depended upon what humour they were in in dealing with it. I am not blaming them at all. It depended upon their humour so largely at the moment, because of the technical and difficult Clauses they have had to interpret. Some of the decisions—I do not blame them at all—to a plain, ordinary man are very difficult to appreciate, and very difficult to understand. Here is a decision given by them, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us why these 45,000 widows are still without a pension: at that time of life that a pension should be given. Surely it is an unjust thing that these old ladies should be left without any pension at all. I have heard of men who were having unemployment benefit, and immediately they reached a certain age, the unemployment benefit stopped. I have a case sent to me this week where a man having an income of 26s. a week—23s. unemployment benefit, and 3s. from his trade union—immediately he came under the operation of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, the 26s. a week was taken away, and he received instead the princely sum of 10s. a week. I say that that cannot be justified, and we, therefore, invite the Minister to tell us this afternoon what he is going to do about these women, and whether he is really going to meet them on a human basis at all.
Then we have got a number of very hard cases arising out of what, I believe, are technicaly known as re-entry cases, the cases of people who were in insurance for a large number of years, then dropped out for some cause or another, came back, and did not make up the number of qualifying stamps, and have been unable to secure a pension. Let me not merely state it in general terms, but let me give some cases. That is the line I am pursuing this afternoon. This one is from my own constituency:
When did this man become insured?
In July, 1912.
When again?
In June, 1924. that man's widow and children can get no pension. I think that is a terrible case of injustice and hardship, which the humanitarian sentiment of the House would remedy if it was free to do it. The responsibility of not being able to do it must rest upon the Government.
I have a case which has been put into my hands to-day and I ask the Minister if it is correct. If it is, it is an atrocious case of administration of the Act. I understand that, if a man has not been employed at 65, but has got his stamps for sickness, free contribution stamps or additional benefit stamps from his society, making up the requisite number of 39, he is refused the pension if he cannot prove that he was genuinely available for, but unable to obtain, employment. Is it right that a man of 65 has not merely to have the 39 stamps but has to prove that for the past couple of years he was genuinely available for, but unable to obtain, employment? Just imagine a man of that age trotting round to this factory and that factory looking for a job, but unable to get it, and hoping that at last he would get the 10s. a week pension, and finding that the onus of proof is on him to show that he was genuinely seeking work and available for work. A case of that kind is a great hardship. I ask the Minister to allow this Motion to be passed unanimously and to bring in legislation to get rid of the undoubted anomalies that exist, thereby doing away with a large number of injustices which are perpetrated upon these poor people. Again, it appears to be the case that the unfortunate in life are to be still more unfortunate, and that the unemployed man and the sick man are to be hit, even in their old age.
I beg to second the Motion.
I do not know whether I may plead the indulgence of the House, but I know the House will bear with me on a matter of great complexity which deeply affects the people of the country. Anyone who has taken part in the recent by-elections must have realised that there was no matter which was more harassing or worrying to the Government candidates than the question of this Act. There is no question on which Conservative candidates have been more heckled, and no matter on which they have issued more panic-stricken last words, than this question of widows' and old age pensions. The greater part of the difficulties connected with this Act are those of the Government's own asking. They arise from the fact that the Government insisted that the Measure should be a contributory scheme, and not a non-contributory scheme, because, in a country like this, a contributory scheme falls heavily on the workers and on those people who are already most heavily burdened with rates. Such a scheme is totally unsuited to a country like this, because it leaves all the great financial interests untouched. The scheme was dictated by those who are determined to make the workers pay for their own social services, and yet it is pretended that a Conservative Government in their generosity have made a gift to the workers.
From this contributory scheme really spring all the endless rules and regulations, qualifications and provisos, exceptions and exclusions, which are responsible for the suffering of the workers under this Act. The Government have no intention of altering the scheme and putting it on a non-contributory basis, and the purpose of this Motion is to urge them to bring in simple amending legislation to do away with injustices. Most of the anomalies are old, and were pointed out in the House when the Bill went through in 1925 by Members of this party. Had it not been for Zinovieff of blessed memory, and for the outrageous fraud of the Zinovieff red letter, there would have been more of us back in this House three years ago, and we would have brought in a very different Bill. I shall be out of order if I pursue that subject, and I am content to leave it to the electors at the next general election. I am not concerned with a Government which is approaching the sunset of their political existence, but I am pleading the cause of the aged people who are entering the twilight shades of their mortal existence.
The first case I want to bring before the House is that of the wives of the men who have paid all the necessary contributions, who have paid for years under the old Insurance Acts, and have paid under the new Acts. Simply because they have attained the age of 70 before the magic date, the appointed day, 2nd January, 1928, their wives will never get the pension between 65 and 70. Over 45,000 persons have been excluded between these ages, and when the right hon. Gentleman gives us the number of claims that have been rejected, he does, not give us the total who have been deprived of the pension. Scores of cases, come before us in the constituencies of people whose friends have received the rejection form O.A.P. 147, and we can only tell them that they are not entitled to a pension under the Act, and they naturally do not trouble to send in any claim themselves.
Here is a case of a man who has worked for the same firm for 41 years, without a break. He was 70 at the beginning of last December and has paid health insurance ever since the Act of 1912. He has also paid unemployment insurance and 104 contributions under the new Act, but because he reached the age of 70 at the beginning of December. 1927, his wife will not be entitled to the old age pension until she is 70. It is most unfair and unjust that old women, whose husbands have paid contributions, ever since it is possible to pay them, should not get anything, and I can never understand why the Government did not give time for the amending Bill brought forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) to pass through the House last year. If he will bring in that Bill again, I am sure it will now receive no opposition from anyone with any sense of humanity or justice.
At the age of 65 all these old men and women in industry, without exception, cease to be entitled to sickness benefit or to unemployment benefit, and the cutting off of those benefits is not contingent on their receiving the old age pension. At the best those old people lose their 18s., or 23s. if there is a man and wife, or they lose their 15s. or 20s. from their approved society in case of sickness, and instead they get 10s. a week only, unless the wife also is over 65. That is the best case; but there is a far worse case, which is that of people who are refused old age pensions at 65. There are a great many such cases. Up to 2nd February, that is, in one month's working of the Act, no fewer than 42,915 claims for old age pensions have been refused in England, Scotland and Wales.
At the age of 65 the approved societies wash their hands of these people; they get nothing more, no sickness benefit and no unemployment benefit, and under this Act they are not entitled to an old age pension.
A short time ago the Minister of Health told us, quite happily, that as a rule there would not be any interval between the cessation of sickness or unemployment benefit and the receipt of the old age pension. That is not correct. In thousands of cases there are intervals of two, three or four years. The majority of people who have been refused benefit have been refused it because they have not had five years' continuous insurance. Those old people have got to go on collecting contributions and it may be it will take them two, three or four years to do so, during which time they are like Mahomet's coffin, suspended half way between heaven and earth. They are not entitled to the sickness benefit or the unemployment benefit under the old Acts nor to pensions under the new Act. It is cruel that at the age of 65 and upwards unemployment and sickness benefits should be taken from a man; it is just the period when he is likely to require those benefits most. I say emphatically that sickness and unemployment benefit ought to continue until a man is qualified for old age pension.
I contend, further, that 10s. is not enough. Hon. Members opposite probably imagine that the 10s. is an addition to existing wages, and that the man and woman are able to put by a little for their periods of sickness and unemployment. I have had evidence from the county of Northampton that when these old folk become entitled to the 10s. the employer "docks" their wages by 10s., and that is happening not only in Northamptonshire, but all over the country. Cases were mentioned in the House last week in which county councils were doing the same thing. County councils ought to set a better example to private employers. The effect of this is that an old man gains nothing as a result of his years of contributing; in paying contributions all these years, what he has been doing, is paying a subsidy for his employer to reduce his wages. This is exactly what was foreshadowed in this House in 1925. My right hon.
Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) pointed this out on 18th May. He said: in camera. He pointed to the sunshine and the spring time, and told them that the people would probably be wanting to get to their gardens, and that this was the time to bring pressure upon the unemployed. Can you think of anything more callous or inhuman? Inspectors going round the country, drawing £1 a day subsistence allowance, and imagining that men who are living on 10s. or 12s. 6d. a week are actually doing that because they like it. That is the situation in regard to the single men.
What will happen to the married men? The married man, with a wife under 65, gets 10s. instead of the 23s. or 20s. which he is now obtaining. He also will be thrown back on to the Poor Law, on to the rates, on to local expenditure; because in spite of the inspectors of the right hon. Gentleman there are some boards of guardians who show a little sense of decency and humanity towards working people. A pension of 10s. is not enough to take the aged out of industry. When he introduced this Bill three years ago the right hon. Gentleman anticipated that 350,000 men and 50,000 women would retire from industry. The Minister of Labour assumed the other day that many of the 25,000 persons over 65 years of age who had ceased to register had retired from work. I was rather surprised not to hear him suggest that these 25,000 persons had retired from work because they were afraid of coming within the orbit of the Labour party's surtax. If this amount were sufficient to keep body and soul together we should not have 163,000 persons over 70 years of age still employed in industry. There are 142,000 War widows, many of whom receive far higher amounts, who are not able to live without employment in industry. I am certain that this niggardly Act, with its niggardly 10s., is not going to do anything towards solving the question of unemployment and taking aged people out of industry to make room for the younger people.
Now I wish to turn to an administrative question. People over 65 who have not yet qualified have to get a special card. Where are they to get that card? Will the Minister tell us who is to issue it? Men and women who have got their old age pension, who do not have to pay any more, and the old people over 70 who have got the non-contributory pension, have still got to have the card kept on. Suddenly a new card is issued to them and they are told to get the employer to put the stamps on. As these people themselves have not got to pay why does the Minister put upon them the onus of collecting the stamps? Why does he not either make the employers put on the stamps or make his officials bear the onus of collecting them? What is to happen, I would like to ask, if these old people are not able to collect stamps? In the qualifying conditions for pensions far too much emphasis is laid on the last five years. Practically everything depends on the contributions the man pays between the ages of 60 and 65. The Act requires five years contributions before 2nd January, 1928, or before the age of 65, and an average of 39 contributions in the last three years, including weeks of sickness or genuine unemployment. When we consider the difficulties and the upheavals of the last five or six years, when we consider that our unemployed have numbered not only a million but very often nearly two millions, and the fact that many men, especially those in our great staple industries, have endured long periods of unemployment, and are thereby out of the insurance scheme altogether, how can we be surprised to learn that over 10 per cent. of the claims have been rejected?
The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) told us the principal reason for rejections was the inadequate period of continuous insurance and shortage of contributions. I have here a number of cases which illustrate that point, and I will deal with two. A man working in one of the Royal Dockyards had been insured under the old Act for nine years until, in 1921, he was discharged from the dockyard. He started paying in 1912 and paid right up to 1921, when he was discharged on account of age. If he had been working in a private firm he could have gone on working until 65 and become entitled to his pension, but he had to go. He went out into the world and for a time he did not pay, could not pay, because of the high cost of living and his being so badly off. But when this Act came into operation he began to pay again, and he paid voluntarily from January, 1926, until the end of last December, paying 104 contributions of 1s. 6d. each. Now he is told that he cannot draw an old age pension, because he has not paid continuously, although he paid for 11 years since 1912. Another case is that of a man who started paying from July, 1912, and paid regularly until July, 1920, eight years continuously. In the slump in 1920 he lost his job. In 1921 he started business on his own, but he failed, and he came back to the insurance scheme in 1924 and worked until the end of 1927. Although he has paid a total of 11 years' contributions he is now told that he is not entitled to a pension, and because he is over 65 he is not entitled to unemployment benefit or to sickness benefit. He is left without any benefit at all. I contend that it is absolutely wrong to lay so much stress on the last five years.
It will be interesting to know whether it is possible to get statistics of the number of men in our staple industries, in coal mining or in the shipyards, who have managed to qualify for the old age pension. Hon. Members opposite must realise that people, when they get to the age of 65, are very often too worn out and too old to go on working. We hear a good deal about men and women being hale and hearty when they reach the age of 60, but I suggest that when men or women have been working for 50 years right up from their youth, often insufficiently fed and insufficiently clothed, living in horrible houses, they are done, and simply cannot go on working regularly. I have a case in my constituency of a man who toiled on the soil until he was 63 years of age, and he could not work any more. His doctor certified him as "senile" and "neurasthenic" and as suffering from "senile neurasthenia." He was too old at 63 to work, but he did not go on attending his doctor. This man thought that if he was too old to work at 63, he would still be too old at 64 or 65, and, although his doctor is ready to certify him as "prematurely aged," he is told that he cannot get the old age pension because being too old to work does not qualify him for benefit. One would have thought that senility or old age was a definitely disabling malady. Hon. Members opposite if and when they are senile can afford to consult Dr. Voronoff and get a rejuvenation of monkey gland. My old gardener could not afford that, and, although he has worked all his life and paid contributions for 12 years since the health insurance scheme began, he is denied the old age pension because of the tremendous insistence which is put on the work done in the last five years up to 65. My contention is that these old people have been cheated, and this applies not only to those who are so worn out that they cannot work any more, but also to those who, by the nature of things when they get to that age are not able to get regular employment. These people are cheated of their contributions, and this is the hardest test that you can apply to these aged people.
There are a number of minor injustices. The women, in particular, are hardly dealt with. I do not mean only the women of 65 whose husbands are now over 75 but the women whose husbands were 70 before the Act of 1926. They get no widow's pension except under the very unlikely circumstance that they may happen to have a child who is under 14 years of age. I also wish to plead for the woman who works and keeps an invalid husband. Why should not a woman who keeps an invalid husband and a family be treated in the same way as a man who works and keeps his wife and family? Why should these women not get the old age pension for themselves in just the same way as their husbands get them? Why should not married women who have been employed for years be allowed to become voluntary contributors? I cannot for the life of me understand why a woman whose husband died before the Act came into force should be treated life that. It is clear that the two funds have now been amalgamated. This Act refers to the five years' continuous insurance before 1928, and it includes the contributions under the old Act as well as the new Act. Consequently, the two funds have been amalgamated. I cannot see why the pre-Act widows should be treated differently and only receive a. pension when they happen to have children under 14 years of age, and even then they only get the pension until the child is 14½ years of age. It simply means that the older widow whose husband may have paid contributions for a dozen years does not get the pension. In face of these facts I am not surprised that over 65,000 widows have been refused their pension.
We have long since learnt that a widow and a widow under this Act are two perfectly different types of beings. Niggardliness runs through this Bill, and it contains all sorts of petty injustices and meannesses. I know a case where a voluntary contributor has paid for 10 years since 1918, and because he had paid only 94 contributions instead of 104 under the Act he has been told that he is not entitled to a pension. Why cannot the Ministry of Pensions transfer 10 of those voluntary contributions in order to make up the requisite amount of 104 earlier compulsory contributions? All these difficulties are really the result of the niggardliness of the Government. When you have all this careful book-keeping between the State and the workers you find the officials are always trying to prevent the workers from getting one penny more than they have paid for. That is bound to be the result when you have all this meticulous book-keeping. Hon. Members claim that they are always trying to see that the working people get all they ought to have but not more than they are entitled to. There are millions of them who will not only not get what they are entitled to but they will get nothing at all. This Act appears to have been drafted by robots and by people who have no idea what the lives of the workers are like. At present these people are living lives which are more insecure than ever they were. These poor people have to work day in and day out, year in and year out from childhood upwards, with hardly any holidays, and always holidays at their own expense. Why is the Government so niggardly? The Government ought not to be so parsimonious, because that is neither humanity nor good policy.
The Government have always been able to find money for their own friends or for the fighting Services or military expeditions. There is no difficulty in finding £7,000,000 to build a super-dreadnought or £4,000,000 for an expedition to Shanghai. The Government can always find money for their friends. The first act of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to find £10,000,000 to benefit the Super-taxpayers, to fill up the gaps in the pockets of the rich men who support the Government. At the crack of the whip from the Tory Diehards the Chancellor of the Exchequer nods his head and gives another £1,000,000 to the Loyalists in Ireland. I am not saying that the Irish loyalists are not entitled to have their injustices made good, but if it is easy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fill up gaps of that sort, it is just as easy for him to fill up the gaps in the old age pensions. In the face of all these facts, how can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that it is impossible to put all these injustices right? Surely in any country calling itself civilised we ought to make a generous contribution towards the most helpless section of the community, the widows, orphans and aged persons, and we ought not to leave many of them worse off in their old age than they were before.
I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words one hears the somewhat bold claim of the Mover of this Resolution that it is not couched on party lines—a claim which, by the way, was amply disproved by the peroration of the hon. Member who seconded the Motion—I am tempted to think of our friend Codlin in "The Old Curiosity Shop," who said, "I'm the real open-hearted man." I can imagine hon. Members telling the electors of Middles-brough and Ilford that in regard to the treatment of the widows and orphans and the infirm they are the real open-hearted men, that Codlin is the friend, not Short; and they have not even the modesty to say, as the original Codlin said, "I mayn't look it, but I am indeed"; or the decency to say "Short's very well as far as he goes." The Minister of Health has not got even that credit. Hon. Members opposite tell us that there is nothing right in this Act and from the first they declared that it was a fraud on the working classes of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Apparently hon. Members opposite are still of that opinion. Perhaps hon. Members will make that statement to the 1,250,000 people who will receive pensions to-morrow morning.
5.0 p.m.
May I remind hon. Members of one or two facts about the operation of this Act. Since January, 1926, when the widows' and orphans' part of the Act came into force, claims have been admitted up to the end of last year for 236,000 widows and 344,000 children. Since the 2nd of July, 1926, when the benefits of those over 70 years of age came into force, claims have been admitted for 227,000 people, and since 2nd January of this year claims in respect of benefits for people over 65 have been admitted in 450,000 cases. I want to say a word about each of those groups, and to answer, as far as I can, the specific points—not the specific cases, because I do not pretend to deal with specific cases; they will be answered by my right hon. Friend—the specific points which were made under each of those headings by the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution. With regard to the existing widows, the pre-Act widows as they have been called, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove), who moved the Resolution, asked, "Why should these people have their benefits taken away?" and the hon. Member who seconded used some such phrase as this: "I cannot see why the pre-Act widow should be in any different position from the post-Act widow." The answer is, surely, that the pre-Act widow—or rather, her husband, because, of course, the widow's pension is given as a thing which follows the husband's insurance and not the wife's in surance—
Why?
Of course, a woman could insure for herself as a widow, but that would only cover those widows who happen to be insured persons. We are talking of the widows of men who were insured persons, who, regardless of whether they themselves are insured persons, are getting the benefit of the widow's pension as a benefit incidental to their husbands' insurance. Of course, you can have any other sort of benefit that you like to name, if there is provision for it in the Act and if there is payment for it; but what is being discussed now is the benefit of the widow which follows the insurance of her husband. The plain fact is that, before this Act came into force, not one insured person in this country had paid one penny of contribution for any benefit of that sort at all. There was no bargain between him and his employer, or his approved society, or the State, or anybody else, for anything resembling a widow's pension, and, although hon. Members may choose to overlook the fact, it is undeniable that, with regard to widows who were widows at the time when the Act came into force, the limited pension which they have been given—the limited pension to themselves and their children during the infancy of the children—was a pure gift from the State, for which not one penny had been paid in the way of contribution by anybody at all. That is the reason, and it is, at any rate prima facie, a good reason, for distinguishing between these cases and the cases of widows who become widows after their husbands have become insured for a particular benefit.
There are bound to be border-line cases during the transition period just after an Act of Parliament like this comes into force, but it is not in the least to the purpose to say, "Here, on the one hand, is a woman who has no children, whose husband happens to be an insured person under the Act, and, if he happens to die a fortnight after the Act came into force, having only paid two contributions, she is entitled to a pension for life, whereas a woman whose husband had died before the Act is only entitled to draw the limited pension during the infancy of her children." A case of that sort can be put with regard to any form of insurance. You can take any 100 people who happen to be insured in a life office, and call attention to the fact that one unfortunate person has lived to pay premiums for 50 years, and would probably, if he had chosen to save his money in his own way, have realised more than he gets under the policy, whereas, on the other hand, someone next door happens to have died within a week after paying his first premium. Cases like that can, of course, be put, but, surely, the dividing line must be the moment at which insurance begins, and anything which happens after that comes in as insurance, while anything which happens before that comes in as a free gift. Surely, if the Government had to choose as to the sort of person who should benefit by gifts of this kind, they were right in concentrating upon the young, and in saying, "If we are going to give benefits which cost money and which have not been paid for, we will give them to those widows who have young children, so that, at any rate, we shall be doing something for the rising generation."
I am now going to take the point as to the widows of 65 whose husbands were already 70 at the time when the Act came into force. This, again, is a point of which a grievance can be made, and it is one which appears, as I am going to try to show in a moment, to be a grievance when really there is no grievance. Like the last point, however, it is one which is bound to occur in the transition period when the Act first comes into force. It must always be borne in mind that this Act does provide for people who were just on the point of receiving benefits—people who were just approaching the age of 65, or who were just approaching the age of 70—benefits out of all proportion to anything they could possibly have obtained in the open market for any premium comparable with the contribution which they have to pay under this Act. That, of course, is made possible by the State carrying the burden until the Act itself becomes solvent. It is necessary to remind the House, because it has not yet been mentioned, that, while in five years' time it will be true to say that, although the pension at 65 and the pension at 70 are paid out of different funds, yet, roughly speaking, they will be earned and administered in the same way, that is not true at present. At present, the insured man who gets a pension at 65 has to fulfil much more rigorous qualifications than the man who gets a pension at 70. As was said by the hon. Member who spoke last—and he made it one of the grievances—such a man has to be insured continuously for five years, he has to have paid 104 weekly contributions in the course of his current insurance, and he has to have paid an average of 39 weekly contributions in either the two or the three years according as he becomes 65 before or after the 2nd January, 1928; whereas, on the other hand, the man who becomes entitled to a pension at 70 has simply to prove that he was in insurable status at some time since the 29th April, 1925, and that he had been for two years resident in the country before the 2nd July, 1926. These two benefits are quite different, and have different qualifications.
The next point with which I want to deal is one that has been put about in my constituency, by people, I assumed, who had not given the matter a moment's thought; but I was amazed to hear the Mover of this Resolution fall into the same error in one of the cases which he quoted. You hear people say that there is this injustice against the man of 70 as compared with the man of 65, because the man of 70 must have paid more contributions than the man of 65. Of course, the statement is seen to be absurd the moment it is made. If they had begun paying their contributions when they were both in their cradles, it would have been true, but, unfortunately for the argument, National Health Insurance began in July, 1912, and it really is impossible for two people, between July, 1912 and January, 1928, to pay more than 15½ years' contributions, whether their age is 70 or 65. That argument, therefore, is one which really ought not to be used on the Floor of this House, even if it be used in the constituencies.
Then it is said that there are 45,000 of these people. Be it so; let us then see who these 45,000 are. Of these 45,000, 25,000 were already over 70 on the 4th January, 1926, before the first stage of the Act came into force at all. Therefore, it follows that these 25,000 people have not contributed one penny towards this benefit which they receive at the age of 70. They had already passed out of payment of contributions before the Act began to come into force, but they are qualified by reason of the fact that they have held an insurable status since the 29th April, 1925. These 25,000 are, therefore, in exactly the same category as the pre-Act widows; they are getting something for which they have never paid. The other 20,000, it is true, have paid 2d. a week. Some of them will have paid it for a week; some, we will assume, will have paid it for one year, eleven months and three weeks. The mean period of payment will be one year. Those 20,000 have paid on the average 2d. a week for one year, and for that—and this is said to be an injustice—they get unrestricted Old Age Pensions at 70, and their wives get unrestricted Old Age Pensions at 70, or, as the case may be, their widows get widows' pensions when they happen to die. For that contribution of 2d. a week for one year it would be utterly impossible for these people to have gone into the open market and bought any benefit of the sort. Therefore, this talk about the monstrous injustice of people of 70 and their widows being "done down" in this way really does not bear analysis.
The only other point with which I want to deal is that of the inadequacy of the old age pension, more particularly in conjunction with the loss of sickness, unemployment and disablement benefit. Of course, it must be admitted, and I am going to admit it at once if it requires admission, that you can take the extreme case of a man who, with his wife, is receiving unemployment benefit to the amount of 23s. a week. The man reaches the age of 65, but the woman is not yet 65, and down goes the benefit to the old age pension of 10s. a week. It needs no argument on the Floor of this House to convince anyone that 10s. a week is less than 23s. a week; we can agree at once that it is; but what really has to be compared is not what happens in those weeks when this man happens to be out of employment, or even during the six months for which he may still be entitled to draw the standard benefit. What must be looked at is the relative value of the two benefits; and would anyone outside a lunatic asylum, who was offered the choice of receiving 10s. a week for life from the age of 65s., to be accompanied by another 10s. for his wife when she becomes 65, reject that in favour of the chance of obtaining unemployment benefit when he happens to be out of employment, or sickness benefit when he happens to be sick? The actual fact is that these benefits are actuarially worth 3½ times the sickness and unemployment benefit which is given up; and, when it is said that these men are being deprived of unemployment benefit, it must be remembered that they are also relieved of the obligation to pay any contribution. It is not true, moreover, to say that they are being deprived of all benefits under the Health Insurance scheme; they still get the medical benefit, they still get the additional benefit, for the rest of their natural lives.
Then it is said, "It is being proved beyond the possibility of doubt, it has been proved during the operation of this Act, that 10s. a week is not adequate." "Codlin's the friend, not Short. We are going to give you £l a week, or 30s., or £4 a week if you like, so long as we are not responsible for bringing it in." I understand—I cannot vouch for the figure, but it has been given to me from the proper quarter—that to increase these pensions ail round by 10s. a week would cost an additional £25,000,000, rising to £50,000,000 in 1945. That is going to make a large hole in the surtax and it is not going to leave very much for the redemption of debt and all the other social services. But I am going to believe that Codlin is the friend and not Short when I see the Bill brought in by the party opposite which was drafted before 1925, and which provided for benefits larger than 10s. a week and provided for it on a non-contributory basis. Until then our 10s. a week holds the field as adequate within the realms of possibility.
The Motion ends with a reference to human needs. I believe this Act is the greatest social reform that has happened since the War, and I believe, further, it is recognised in the country as being so. I am going to end with two quotations. The Leader of the Opposition permitted himself, speaking of this Act, on the first day of this Session, to say:
I beg to second the Amendment, so ably moved by my hon. and learned Friend.
I notice that the Mover of the Motion did not attempt to deal with our Amendment beyond suggesting that the House should vote against it, but surely neither he nor any fair-minded person can deny the truth of our wording, that the Act has already conferred substantial benefits on a very large number of widows, orphans, and aged persons. My hon. Friend has mentioned a million and a quarter beneficiaries now under the Act. There are also 16,000,000 insured, 16,000,000 more prospective beneficiaries. They stand witness all over the country to the value of the Act, and when hon. Members opposite use these derogatory terms about the Act and call us niggardly and unjust, are they prepared to repeal it if they get into power? There is no response to that. My hon. Friend has quoted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince. I should like to add to his testimony the valuable testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) who wrote on 25th May, 1925: Mover of the Resolution what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) said two or three days ago? He spoke of those incompetents and tyrants who manage the affairs of the people of Russia. Those are the people to whom the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters propose to lend or to give—it is much the same as far as Russia is concerned—£40,000,000 of our money.
No doubt the hon. Member will understand those words were used by me as describing the way in which the Russian rulers are referred to by hon. Members opposite.
I heard and re-read the speech, and certainly the words did not convey that impression to me, nor I think to other hearers. It may have been sarcasm—
What has it to do with the question?
It has this to do with the question, that if £40,000,000 had been taken away from British citizens and given or lent to Russia, it would not have been available to bring in a Pensions Act, and far from attempting to carry out their own promise to the widows and orphans and the aged, the Socialist party, by giving this money to Russia, nearly prevented our doing so.
I am sorry to intervene again, but in view of the hon. Member's statement I must state to the House that the Labour Government never had the slightest idea of proposing the loan of any Government money to Russia.
I believe the Socialist party proposed to guarantee a loan—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Where is the difference? If our Government had guaranteed the previous loans to Russia, they would have had to pay up. They would have had to do the same with regard to this loan. It comes to precisely the same thing.
Turning to the terms of the Motion, first of all it refers to "the practice it encourages to enforce wage reductions." With regard to agriculture, a question was asked on that point a few days ago, and answered by the Minister of Agriculture, who said the receipt of an old age pension makes no difference to the employers' obligation under the Agricultural Wages Regulations Act to pay the minimum rates fixed under the Act. With regard to other workers, I believe there are instances, and they are in many cases regrettable, but in other cases, and I think in the great majority, they are cases where the employer has of his own free will paid something in the nature of a pension to try to assist his employés, and, as he is also now contributing to the old age pension, he has probably somewhat reduced the wage. I think it a pity that such things occur, but under the Old Pensions Act it was practically impossible for an employer to give any sort of charitable assistance to an employé who was qualified for the old age pension without the employé immediately forfeiting his claim to pension. At any rate, we have removed the thrift disqualification and improved the position of the employés from that point of view. Remember again that the employé now has a right to a pension, and that puts him in a superior position in negotiating with his employer. Surely the more money a man has the better able he is to make terms to secure a fair wage for himself.
I pass to poor relief, which is dealt with in a "Daily Herald" article, which probably hon. Members opposite have read, and in which a violent attack is made on the Government in connection with the Act. They say:
What I said was, in the cases where five years' contributions had to be paid, that obviously it came from the old fund, because in the first two years of this five years there was no fund.
A person had to contribute in those days to health insurance—the ordinary old health insurance contribution—but there was no contribution of any sort in those days towards a pension.
Exactly. Therefore, the two funds are now amalgamated.
The funds are entirely separate. What he contributed in the first three years went into the Health Insurance Fund. It did not go into the Pensions Fund in any way. The Pensions Fund did not start until January, 1926. Instead of being niggardly, the Exchequer commits itself to a capital liability of £760,000,000, and has to pay yearly sums of £5,700,000 to £6,400,000, totalling £57,000,000 in the first 10 years. Of course, the line has to be drawn somewhere. You can go on indefinitely adding to the social services. I gather that that would be the policy largely of the party opposite, but you must remember the whole time that when you get beyond a certain point you are simply adding to the burden of industry, making it more difficult to secure employment and robbing the people of the one thing they want more than anything else, namely, a regular job at a fair wage. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Courtaulds?"] I wish certain hon. Members would not always grouse about a British company's success in manufacture. Why should we not congratulate a company sometimes which is well managed and successful? We sympathise with these hard cases, but hard cases make bad law. Whatever line is drawn, there are bound to be a certain number of hard cases just on the other side of it.
There are two points I would like to mention before I sit down. There is one direction in which, I hope, in time the Ministry may be able to do something. It is in the direction of voluntary contributors. I was very glad to see yesterday a reply to a question to the effect that something probably will be done to bring the share fishermen within the scope of the Health and Pensions Insurance Scheme. I should be glad to see the village blacksmiths, the carpenters, and one or two other trades admitted. I know there would be great difficulty in classifying and defining such people. If a step could be taken in that direction, I think it would be very fair and very much appreciated. There is another point, as to whether we cannot help the old age pensioners to make their money go a bit further. When I heard the Minister speak on this subject in public, he made a very good point as to whether homes, such as cottage homes, could not be established in various parts of the country like the beautiful old almshouses to be seen here and there where the old people could congregate from a neighbourhood, and live on the ground floor in two rooms on their pension money and their savings, and could afford between them to have somebody to help them and to look after them. There are so many cases where they no longer have children or relatives with whom they can live, and where their neighbours are too busy to look after them, when they need some assistance and attention. I feel that if some scheme could be devised to gather them together in some form of cottage homes it would be of very great benefit to them, and enable them to spend their pensions to better advantage and make them very much happier in their old age.
I should like to refer, first of all, to the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Mr. Merriman) that we could not claim that the cases quoted by my hon. Friends were hard cases because, in fact, no bargain existed. He argued that since you have to draw the line somewhere, the people who were left out had no real grievance, because no bargain had existed for widows' pensions under the old Health Insurance Fund. That is an argument which needs an answer. If you have a large class of people with whom no bargain exists, and you are making another set of conditions, why should you differentiate, and thus leave out, not a very large number but a number sufficiently large to create a very great deal of ill-feeling and a very great deal of hardship as between class and class? That is the point. As the hon. and learned Member said, these people had not contributed to the Widows' and Old Age Pensions Fund, but I would remind him that out of the surpluses of the National Health Insurance Fund, to which they had contributed, this Government took, by another Act, something like £2,750,000. This sum has been taken from the National Health Insurance Fund, and the total Government contributions to the Widows' and Old Age Pensions Fund only amounts to £4,000,000 a year. Therefore, I suggest, it is a real hardship to draw this sharp line of differentiation and say to one set, "You cannot benefit" and to another set, under exactly similar conditions, "You alone shall."
This arbitrary distinction of 4th January, 1926, as regards widows, is creating such a large amount of bitterness that I cannot for the life of me understand why the Ministry left out a comparatively small number, and had to put up with all the ill-feeling as a result. I do not know what is the experience of hon. Members on the other side of the House, but I feel sometimes that I am the Member for widows rather than the Member for Middlesbrough, because my postbag every morning is simply full of the complaints, not only from my own constituency but from all over the country, of widows who cannot understand why this line has been drawn. There are women whose husbands have paid three or four times the amount who do not get the pension, while there are younger women whose husbands have paid very little who do get the pension. Let me give an example that came to my notice quite recently. There are two people living side by side. One is the case of an elderly woman of 50 odd, who has brought up a family, none of whom are now able to support her because, owing to the conditions in Middlesbrough, they are all unemployed. Her husband died on 19th December, 1925. The husband had paid Health Insurance contributions since 1911. She will not draw a penny benefit because she has no children under 14 years of age. Next door is a woman aged 20 whose young husband was recently killed in an accident. He had paid in for two and a half years. That girl of 20 has never left her employment. She is still employed as a clerk. The couple had no children, and there is no question of children in the case, yet that girl who is in employment, and who has never left employment, will draw 10s. a week, and will not have to contribute to the old age pension at all. This elderly woman, who has brought up a family, has to go out charring, and, in addition, has to pay 2d. per week contribution towards a pension she will never draw. Her only hope is to pay until she is 65 years of age. She has no hope of a pension unless she is in an insurable employment until 65.
It is all right to say that it is rather a hard case, but there is case after case—hundreds of cases—like it, where you have comparatively young women drawing the pension. I am not saying they ought not to get the pension. Anybody who draws the pension has my hearty goodwill. But I do point out that it is surely an anomaly that these older women, who are a drug in the labour market, and cannot get employment except at the very hardest kind of labour, should not be able to draw a pension, although their husbands had paid in for a far longer period than the husbands of some of the younger women who are drawing the pension. This question of the elderly wife is a very serious one. The Employment Exchanges of the country are simply full of these women. What are they to do? They are insured. They have brought up a family. Many of their children are in poor circumstances, and cannot help them, or they are scattered to the ends of the world. It will be years before they can hope to draw their old age pension. This 10s. would mean at least that their rent would be paid, and that anything they got above that would be for food. Of course, they go on to the guardians, and in cases like Middlesbrough, where the guardians are so desperate because of the rising rates they are subjected to all kinds of inquiries, and persecution even, and sometimes are denied benefit. I suggest that we are not putting forward a really contentious case, but we are raising a very serious public difficulty concerning these older women who cannot get employment and who are deprived of benefit under the Act.
I want to raise the question of the injustice to married women who are not allowed to become voluntary contributors. In an area like Lancashire and Yorkshire married women go out to work as a matter of course. Some of these women have husbands who are insured and some of them have husbands who are not insured. They bring up two or three children and are perfectly willing to pay the full amount of contribution, but are not allowed to do so simply because they are married, although they are independent workers. The result is that when the husbands who cannot be insured, die, the women are left to struggle along without the benefit of the widows' pension. That is a very serious matter. It would add to the contributions received under the Act if the married woman was allowed to become a contributor if her husband was not able to be insured.
Another point ought to be borne in mind by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are so anxious to sneer at what they call "people on the dole." The Act as at present drawn definitely penalises initiative. You may have a man who is on benefit but he hates it and wants to get out of it and to work on his own. I can give three cases which have come to my own knowledge in my own constituency. One is the case of a man who set up as a window cleaner; another that of a man who set up as a jobbing joiner and the third case that of a man who set up as a jobbing gardener. Their wages were very little. They had been in insurance as iron and steel workers ever since the Act came into existence, but rather than remain on insurance benefit they set up these little businesses of their own, a one-man business, earning certainly not more than they earned in their former wages. In each case the man died and had been off insurance for a little over a year. Because they helped the country by going off benefit and doing work on their own, they are penalised and when they die their widows are not allowed to draw benefit, because during the year in which they died they were out of the insurance field. They did not want to be out; their names were down at the local steel works and as soon as the steel works got busy they would have been in insurable employment again. These men were definitely penalised. On the other hand, the man who says, "I will stay on unemployment benefit, and if anything happens to me my wife will, at least, get the widow's pension." I suggest that where a man comes out of insurance temporarily, not intending to remain out and hoping to get back again—if he does that for a few weeks he is not out of the insurance field, but if he does it for over 12 months he is—it would need very little alteration to enable that man to remain in the insurance field and to allow him to qualify on his previous service.
There is a definite penalisation of another kind under the Act. Again, this is the case of an iron and steel worker, a man who had paid into the Insurance Fund. He was a skilled man, and during the year 1925 he was promoted to be a foreman. He, therefore, got a salary of just over £250 and was, therefore, out of insurance. Although he died after the qualifying date 4th January, 1926, his widow does not draw anything, because of the two years previous to 1926 in one year he was out of insurance because he got £260 a year. If his salary had been £11 less, he would have been in the insurance field. That is an actual case which I have brought before the Minister. I suggest that only a little alteration would be needed in order to deal with cases of this kind. If the Minister would go through these border-line cases he would do a great deal to remove much of the ill feeling that exists. Of course, I realise that the Minister must have some dividing line somewhere. That is one of our basic objections to the contributory scheme. Once you get a contributory scheme you have cases of this type. We stated that, when the Act was passing through this House.
What you have done by this Act is to place the burden upon the industrial section of the community, whether employers or employed. The burden of the Act is falling upon industry. It is not falling on the rentier class; they only contribute their small part of the £4,000,000 which is given yearly by the State. The employer and the employé bear an enormous burden. A good reason for our objection to this contributory scheme is that while you throw the burden on the industrious section, the rentier, the dividend-drawing class, go practically free. The Act has been drawn on that principle and you have arrived at the present system. I suggest to the Minister that there are means, without costing a very great deal, by which he could remove some of the undoubted anomalies which exist under the Act.
I want to ask the Minister to use the immense power which his position gives him to persuade employers to have regard to the necessities of the old people who reach the age of 65 in employment, and who either lose their employment on that account or suffer a reduction in wages. I believe that these cases are very few in number, but they do exist, and it is the case that large employers of labour have in some cases adopted a policy which appears to the working men to be the policy of putting them off at 65. That may be justified on some grounds. There is a side to the case of the employer. For instance, in the railway industry it may be that by letting men go off at 65 you may be opening avenues of promotion which have been long clogged. There is also the fact that by letting people go at that age, young people who never have had a chance of employment may be able to come in. Those arguments must not be ignored, and we must not accept the whole of the censure which the Socialist party seek to put upon us and the employers because of action of that sort. There are two sides to the question. Long notice ought to be given in these cases. It will be defensible in years to come for men to go off at 65 when they have had the immeasurable advantage of being able to save up money which they can utilise at the age of 65 to augment the pension granted to them. They will have had years in which to do that, and they will have contemplated that age as the age of retirement. That is a defensible thing and in the national interest; but suddenly, as a result of this Act to be faced with dismissal five years sooner than they may have expected, is bound to create and has created, even though there may be only a few cases, a disbelief in the honest intentions of the Government to help these people. The Government cannot and ought not to be responsible for compelling employers in any way, but I feel that at this time a plea made with the authority of the Minister of Health might do some good in bringing to the notice of the employers the inexpediency of the action and in many cases the hardship which is caused by the action they are taking.
I wish to call attention to two small anomalies, in order to make a further plea to the Minister. The first is in relation to ex-service men who are totally disabled. Under the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, Section 60, Subsections (1) and (2), the House will find, as the Minister well knows, that there is a provision which renders it impossible for totally disabled ex-service men to receive the whole of the disablement and sickness benefits, namely, 15s. for sickness and 7s. 6d. for disablement which are ordinarily paid, unless the totally disabled ex-service men have since they left the Army been able to show that they were in insurable employment for 26 weeks in the case of sickness benefit, and 104 weeks in the case of disablement benefit. That anomaly was not expected to happen in the view of Parliament or of the societies, which paid the full benefit in many cases for many months in good faith. It is an anomaly which I have on many occasions brought to the notice of the Minister and he has assured me that it is a matter which will be included in amending legislation. One thousand cases of blinded soldiers would be affected by this particular anomaly were it not for the provision which has been made through voluntary channels to meet their difficulties. There must be many other disabled ex-soldiers who are affected, and they ought not to be left indefinitely in that unsatisfactory position. I hope that it may be possible for the Minister to give some assurance that within measurable time he proposes to relieve the voluntary agency which has met the needs in the case of the blind men, and that he will also meet the cases of the men whose needs have not been met. These men ought not to be left with 7s. 6d. in the case of sickness benefit, when almost exactly similar cases are getting 15s., and in the case of disablement nothing, when almost exactly similar cases are getting 7s. 6d.
The second anomaly is rather a curious one, and I apologise to the Minister for not having called his attention to it privately so that he might have investigated it, and have been able to check me if I am wrong. It is very complicated and I must ask the indulgence of the House if I go wrong. A man blinded in industry gets 7s. 6d. a week disablement benefit when his period of sickness benefit has expired, and he gets that benefit until certain provisions of the new Acts begin to operate and allow alternative benefits. A blinded man who is blinded in industry or goes blind through natural causes in insurable employment at any age, let us say at the age of 30, receives from the age of 30 onwards a pension of 7s. 6d. a week. At the age of 50 he would also get 10s. a week, which is the pension for blind people under the Blind Persons Act, and he would go on drawing, his 7s. 6d. pension in addition, so that at 50 he would have a pension of 17s. 6d. a week. At the age of 65 the pension of 7s. 6d. ceases but the pension for which he has been contributing under the Contributory Pensions Act is payable, and his income becomes £1 a week from the age of 65 to the age of 70. At 70, the contributory pension stops, and he goes on drawing the old age pension or the blind person pension of 10s. a week, so that his income will vary from 7s. 6d. to 17s. 6d., then to £1 and then down to 10s.
6.0 p.m.
That is an anomaly, and I consider that some provision should be made to meet the needs of the blind as a whole. If that be not possible, an Amendment of this Act to meet this particular anomaly should be considered. My reason for raising these matters is this: I cannot support the Socialist Motion. Whatever may be said by the Mover of the Motion in this House, people outside will not believe, and could not believe, that it was drafted without any consideration of politics. Quite plainly, it is a Motion to secure reforms which they think desirable, but it does not give tribute where tribute is due and seeks, if I may use the phrase, to make political capital out of alleged delinquencies of the Government. The Amendment put down by hon. Members who support the Government is perfectly acceptable. It is quite true that this is a comprehensive Measure; it is quite true that the Government is to be congratulated upon having done something concrete instead of merely talking about humanity, and I have no doubt hon. Members can vote for the Amendment because it says what is true, but it does leave us in the air, and without any idea as to how the Government are going to deal with admitted anomalies. It leaves one to assume that everything is all right with the Act.
I hope the statement of the Minister will put right the rather too complacent wording of the Amendment and will indicate that something is going to be done to remedy many of these anomalies. In my view, the whole House should be willing to testify their admiration of the way in which the Act has been carried out. The enormous number of cases dealt with, and the extraordinarily small number of mistakes that have been made are causes for congratulation, not merely on the part of the Government but on the part of the Permanent Under-Secretary and the officials at the Ministry. While we bear that in mind and reject the Labour Motion, which is not fair to the Government or the Minister, I think we should ask the Minister to give us some assurance that we are not going to be left with this self-congratulatory Amendment which, while perfectly true, does not meet the needs of the case.
The speeches we have heard from the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment show that they entirely misconceive the purpose for which the Motion has been brought forward. I read it with quite a detached mind, and the impression I got was that it was an honest endeavour by those who are familiar with the working of the Act after two years' experience to see what could be done to improve it. This kind of legislation was really intended to remove from the objectionable form of relief which comes through the Poor Law to the better basis of an insurance scheme, those who need assistance. In this country those who are unable to earn sufficient to support themselves must in some form or other be supported by the community and, therefore, in considering all these questions we are not asking the community to give more but to shift the burden from one part to another, having regard to what, on the whole, will inure most to the prosperity of the country. I am not going to argue it now, but the rates are the most objectionable form of relief of the poor.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day enumerated, and we all agreed with him, the various vices which attach to high rates. It would be far better if you could carry from off the rates those who are now destitute and put them within this Act, and it would be better still if you could carry them further and put them in some cases directly upon the taxpayer. We have a contributory scheme, not a non-contributory scheme, and the only question is whether that contributory scheme can be made to work with less hardship and fewer anomalies. I agree that nearly all the anomalies and hardships which have been pointed out are the result of a logical attempt to carry out an actuarial principle. They inevitably flow from it; but that does not prevent one from pressing upon the Government that this Parliament is not a Court of Justice, we can do the right thing and if necessary alter the fundamental principles upon which we proceed.
Let me take a few illustrations. Take the case of widows. This Act came into operation on 4th January, 1926. You contemplated the relief of certain classes of widows. You did not relieve all of them. You divided them into three classes. In one class are widows whose husbands were uninsured, not that they were the less poor or the less entitled to be looked after, but because, in fact, they were ineligible for insurance. That class you rule out. Then, of those who are insured you draw a distinction. You say, "Show me a widow whose husband at the passing of the Act had been insured, but who has no children under the age of 14 years." You rule her out. Then you say, "Show me a widow whose husband had been insured but who happens to have a child who is under 14 years." And you rule her in. Then the absurdity comes in. This woman is ruled out the moment her child becomes 14 years of age. She is a widow at the time of the passing of the Act with a child 13 years and 11 month old. She comes in for one month, with six months grace; she obtained a widow's pension for seven months and then she reverts back to the class who are entirely excluded, and will get nothing. That is an anomaly. I am not considering at the moment how the anomaly comes about; whether it is due to the necessity of saying that this is an insurance scheme and the benefits must be determined by the contributions which are paid. T know that is so.
In one street you may have three poor women of the same age, in the same circumstances, their husbands engaged in the same occupations. They are identical in every respect, yet you say to widow A, "You get nothing." To widow B you say, "If you have a child and it is under 14 years, you get something," and to widow C you say, "I find you have no child at all tinder 14 years of age; you get nothing." From a lawver's point of view I can see the distinction, but from a statesmanlike point of view it is wrong that these distinctions should be made, and they could be quite easily overcome if the Government would extend the privilege which they gave in reference to widows with a child under 14 years of age. That was breaking away from the strict logicality of the system, but when the Government were doing that they should have taken their courage in both hands and have said that these three classes of widows must be relieved—they are being relieved by somebody—and since we are going to place one class logically under the Act, we will make the necessary financial arrangements to bring the others under the Act as well. That could have been done, and it would have allayed a great deal of discontent.
You cannot expect these poor people to be alive to actuarial principles. All they know is that you make fish of one and flesh of the other, and it creates a sense of injustice. Where there is in- justice there is always discontent, and where you get discontent you always get bad feeling. And you have bad feeling and high rates running together. Take the post-Act widows. The anomaly is greater there. Take the case of two women who became widows after the Act came into operation. Their circumstances are the same; they became widows on the same day. What happens? If one of them is able to show that when the Act came into operation her husband was under 70 years of age, she gets a pension for life, but if the other woman has to say that her husband was a day over 70 years, she gets no pension at all. Can you think of anything more absurd? What must these poor women think? They are in identically the same circumstances, but the poor widow who is entitled to most sympathy, because her husband is the old man over 70 years of age, gets nothing, while the other, because she has married a younger man of 65 years, gets a pension.
Take the old age pension system itself, You have two dates there. On the 5th July, 1926, old age pensioners of 70 were to get their pensions without any test; without any inquiries into their means, and so on. On the 5th July pensioners of 70 were to get their pensions without being put to any of these unpleasant inquiries. Suppose that an old man of 70 was of a kind that never could be insured. There were thousands like that. You say to him, "You, old man, will get your pension, but you will be subject to the tests." Another old man, living perhaps next door, with all the circumstances similar, in whose case there was no objection to his being insured, will be told, "You will get your pension without tests." How can anyone justify that differentiation? Let me quote another example. 2nd January, 1928, the third date, was the date when the old age pensions at 65 came into general operation. What do we find there? If a man was between 65 and 70 on that date his wife became eligible for pension, through him, at 65. If he was over 70 on that date his wife does not get any pension. It works out in this way. On or after January, 1928, one couple, ages 65 and 65, get two payments of 10 shillings, or one pound altogether. Another couple, ages 70 and 65, get only 10 shillings a week because one of the two is a little bit older. Had the men been blessed with fewer years and greater vigour his household would get the 20 shillings.
The last case to which I would draw attention is that which was referred to in an excellent and very fair speech—the sort of speech that justifies this Motion—by the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser). He spoke about dismissing men at 65 years of age. I know what happens in some cases. Before the Act was passed an employé of 65 was, if fairly well able to do his work, kept on. The employer said, "While no doubt a man of 50 would be more efficient, still where is he to go?" The man of 65 was thus kept on. Now the Act comes in, and what does it say? It says, "No. 1, turn him out and he will have a pension. No. 2, keep him in and you will have to pay the full insurance." It therefore holds out the strongest possible inducement to employers to dismiss men. The Government say in effect to the employer, "Do not give way to your good feelings, for if you keep on this man of 65 the insurance will cost you more, but if you turn him out you need have no anxiety about his pension." Having given that inducement to the employer to dismiss the man of 65 the Government say to the man who is turned out, "You are turned loose now with no health benefit and no unemployment benefit."
There are many more considerations that might very properly be brought forward. I shall be surprised if the Minister in his reply does not take up an attitude very different from that taken up by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman, however, ought to be thankful to Members who are more in the way of knowing the actual working of the Act than others, for bringing forward these cases and drawing attention to anomalies and hardships that could easily be rectified. The Government might strain a little the actuarial structure of the Act and do something to get rid of the sense of injustice which arise because people are unable to appreciate the legal niceties that have brought about the anomalies. The Motion is quite right in saying that the pensions are inadequate. Does any sane man say that a human being can live upon 10 shillings a week? It is perfect nonsense. A man does not live on the 10 shillings, but gets the difference between the 10 shillings and what is necessary for bare subsistence from the guardians. So you are back to the old question. Is it not a thousand times better that men should get a subsistence allowance under an Act of this kind than get a pittance under this Act and be forced still to go to the guardians? I would like to see the Act enlarged so that it would be a real and thorough substitute for the Poor Law. Then destitute persons would receive a decent allowance and receive it in circumstances which would make them feel that it was an honourable return from the community for having given their life services to the community. Destitute people should be able to say, "We live upon what we receive under the Act and we do not regard it as any humiliation or degradation." It is to that system that we should aspire.
I am confident that the reply that the Minister will make to the searching and damning criticism of the Act that we have had this afternoon is that in any contributory scheme there must be a large number of border cases, and that he is not responsible for what must happen in the very nature of things. The right hon. Gentleman chose the course of a contributory scheme. He must have seen the hardships that would be associated with it. It is a just criticism that he ought to have acted more generously in order to reduce the hardships and the serious price which the country would be called upon to pay for the policy that he adopted. We, on this side, have always favoured a non-contributory scheme. Even this afternoon I have heard hon. Members opposite ask us to produce the Bill drafted before 1925 on a non-contributory basis. One would think that Labour Members of Parliament were expected to go about with pocketfuls of Bills that they hoped one day to present to Parliament, and that if they were not found in possession of these valuable commodities their public political utterances were to be subject to serious doubt. I was responsible for the Ministry of Health in 1924. It was my intention to introduce a Bill similar to the one that we are now discussing, but without the hardships and without the contributions.
It has been said that the Government of that time intended to take the con- tributory course. I want to state again, as I have done before, that it was my business to introduce a Measure, and that there was never a suggestion of introducing a contributory scheme, that no instructions to that effect were given to any official at the Ministry of Health, and that certainly had a pension scheme been introduced by me it would have been on a non-contributory basis. Hon. Members say: "Why did you not introduce the Bill? You were eight months in office. Why did you not give us a non-contributory Measure?" The Labour party, apparently, were expected by hon. Members opposite, in that brief period of office, with only one-third of the membership of this House, to solve every problem under the sun. May I remind the House that in that eight months the Minister of Health put a first-class Measure through the House, the Housing Act of 1924, and put through several minor Measures, and I am sure that the Ministry was as hard worked in 1924 as in 1925, when the present Act was steered through Parliament.
What I want specially to put to the Minister is this: How many people have really benefited by this Act? In listening to the discussion one might think that the standard of living of hundreds of thousands of the poorest of the poor had been raised by the passing of this Measure. We hear about the hundreds of thousands of people who have old age pensions and the hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans who have their pensions. But I would like to know how many people have actually benefited. Certainly the man of 65 who has been thrown out of employment, and the class to which he belongs, have not benefited. Before the Bill became an Act such a man was entitled to 23s. a week as unemployment benefit when he was thrown out of work. After the Bill became an Act the same man had his income reduced to 10s. The man and wife who got the 23s. have now to subsist on 10s., and they are not likely to bless the Minister of Health for what he has done for them. When you turn to the case of the widows and orphans you get even more glaring hardships. It does not follow that because so many widows and orphans get pensions their incomes have been actually increased.
I am sure I could supply the Minister, from my own personal knowledge, with hundreds of cases where incomes have been actually reduced. These people were being maintained from the rates and they were receiving a much larger income in that way than they are now receiving in the way of pensions. I think I may speak for these people and say that then the guardians' money purchased as many loaves per shilling as the money that they get from the Ministry of Health, and that they would rather have a larger income from the rates than the smaller income under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. I wish to know whether the Ministry has made any inquiry into the number of people, widows and orphans, whose income has been actually reduced by this Act of Parliament. After all, these people were led to believe that they would be in a better position. They were led to believe that when this Measure became an Act of Parliament there would be an addition to their incomes. These old men were led to believe that their 23s. would become something like 33s. after this Measure had been put on the Statute Book. I said at the time that for large numbers of people the Act was a heartless fraud. After the experience we have had of it, and in view of the suffering which I have seen accruing from it, I have no hesitation to-day in repeating the description which I gave when it was first introduced to the public. In thousands of cases—I do not know how many because the information is not available—it has made the people of the poor class poorer still, because of the manner in which they have been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman.
My hon. and learned friend the Member for the Rusholme Division (Mr. Merriman), in the course of his admirable speech, drew attention to the fact that hon. Members opposite were not merely basing their criticism of this Act on what they alleged to be the facts, but that they failed altogether to recognise what the Act had achieved, and the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House carries that position still further and actually maintains that the result of the Act has been to make the beneficiaries worse off than they were before. I am quite prepared, on any platform, in any part of the country, to take up that statement of the right hon. Gentleman and I am not afraid of the result of any appeal to the people who have benefited under this Act, upon such a statement. There are very few Acts of Parliament indeed, of any length or complexity, which spring from Parliament in a condition of perfection. If we take in particular the Insurance Acts, all of which deal with very large numbers of the population, with people of all ages and of both sexes, engaged in a great variety of occupations in a great diversity of circumstances, we find that these Acts have been amended again and again. The passage of years has revealed facts which were not at first taken into account and changes which have taken place since the Act in question was first passed, making it necessary that gaps should be filled up and other changes made. All such Acts are found, in time, to require a certain amount of rectification. I would be the last to say that in the Pensions Act as passed by this House we crystallised the final form of such an Act, or that it will be impossible, in the future, to alter it without making it worse than it was when it left our hands. I have not the slightest doubt that in time to come the Pensions Act will be amended, will be improved, will be altered and adapted to meet conditions which are not static but which must change from time to time.
In the Motion before the House I am bound to say I have failed to find any criticism which is founded upon any mischief caused by negligence in the drafting of the Bill. Such criticisms as have been made by hon. Members have arisen, not out of any oversight on the part of this House when the Act was passed, but out of the structure and the principles of the Act itself. This Act was very closely and carefully scrutinised in all quarters of the House. We devoted a great deal of time to the Committee and Report stages, and I never for a moment denied that the criticism directed towards the Measure in its original form, was, to a great extent, genuine criticism put forward in the conviction that there were faults to be remedied, and that such criticism was supported by arguments which ought to have consideration. As a matter of fact, the Measure was materially altered in many details during its pass- age through the House, and I think, perhaps, it is owing to that careful examination—and I must add to the willingness of the Government to listen to and to meet fair criticism—that we have the remarkable fact that such criticism as has been passed upon it since it came into force, has been concerned not with any fundamental difficulty, but simply with some of the hard cases that may be found in the commencement of almost any scheme of this nature.
The terms of the Motion may be divided into four parts, and I should like to say a few words about the four different lines of criticism which, I understand, we have to meet. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) is quite right in saying that my defence primarily rests upon the fact that this is a contributory and not a non-contributory scheme, but I do not agree with him or any other hon. Member on that side of the House who suggests that if you could introduce a non-contributory scheme, you would thereby get away from the necessity of having any checks or safeguards. At least you can argue that under a non-contributory scheme the people who pay have certain rights—that if the whole cost is to fall upon the Exchequer and upon the taxpayer, if the whole benefits are to be in the nature of a gift and a charity to the persons who receive them, then at least it will be necessary, in the interests of the country as a whole, that you should see that your gifts are not abused, and are given to those for whom they are intended. For that reason you would have to have limitations, checks and safeguards. I have not the slightest doubt that even under any non-contributory scheme it would be perfectly possible for hon. Members to point to cases which were just on one side or the other of the borderline and which might be alleged to involve hardship. When the right hon. Gentleman tells us that it was solely his business to introduce a pensions scheme, I must remind him that a pensions scheme, and particularly a non-contributory scheme, has always been regarded as one which would require, at least, the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He will recall that, as a matter of fact, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed that he had a scheme, and, therefore, had the advantage over the right hon. Gentleman, who says he had not a scheme although it was his business to introduce one.
I said I had not a Bill in draft—quite a different thing.
We all know the tremendous difference between a Bill which is not in draft, and a Bill which is. The right hon. Gentleman had not his Bill in draft, and, therefore, evidently he had not faced up to the difficulties of his proposals. But the scheme for which we have always asked and have always desired to see, was the scheme of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will not say it was in draft, but, at any rate, we were informed that it had been worked out in great detail. We have never been able to get a clear answer from hon. Members opposite as to whether that scheme was contributory or non-contributory, but we can draw our own conclusion that, as a matter of fact, it was a scheme very much on the lines of this Act, and involved contributions.
The Motion begins by suggesting that the Act encourages the practice of enforcing wage reductions, and on that matter I have had an appeal from a quarter to which I always pay particular attention—namely, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser)—because I know he always speaks with very great sincerity and earnestness on these matters. I am asked for some reason to suppose that certain employers have regarded this Act as an invitation to them to displace old men in their employment in order to give employment to young men. I have even been asked the question whether it was the moral duty of employers to take up that position, and I take this opportunity of saying that no such consideration has ever been present to my mind in connection with this Act at all. The Act specifically provides that a man may draw his pension and still earn wages, and there is, therefore, no moral duty in connection with this Act upon any employer to push out old men in order to put in young men.
The point taken in the Motion, however, does not relate to the question of putting men out of employment. The suggestion is that the employer keeps the man in employment but reduces his wages. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members support that view, but I ask them how this Act differs from any other Pensions Act of which you can conceive in that respect. How are you going to prevent that happening under any Act which gives pensions? Perhaps the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) will answer that question, and tell us what he proposes to do in order to counter that. For instance, to say that it shall be a condition of a. pension that a man shall abstain from work, would be to impose a new means test of a more drastic kind than any of those which we have abolished. On the other hand, is he going to say that it shall be an offence for an employer to reduce the wages of anybody who is in receipt of a pension? If so, how can you stop the employer from getting rid of the man altogether? How can you prevent the employer from replacing an old and perhaps infirm worker by another man at the same wage who would be able to give a better return for the money? It is quite true that an employer might think that he would rather keep on an old man at a lower wage than push him out into the street and take on a younger man. But I do not think that can be charged against this Act. Unless hon. Members opposite can show us how they are going to stop it—the Amendment which they would suggest in order to put a stop to that practice—I do not think they can make that a substantial charge in their indictment.
Then we come to the question of the ability or inability of persons through unemployment to fulfil the conditions for the receipt of pension. I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding on this subject. It is very difficult to see how a person on account of unemployment is unable to fulfil the conditions, for what are those conditions? A person must have been insured for the last five years, that is, previous to attaining the age of 65. Is it suggested that that is a condition which keeps a large number of people out of work? It cannot be, because hon. Members must remember that, under the Health Insurance Act, a person who ceases to be employed has a free year of insurance, and not only that, but after the expiration of the year there is still another nine months of medical benefit which keeps a person in insurance.
What about where a man is doing other work?
I will deal with that presently. I want the House now to understand the extraordinarily liberal provisions which have been made so that a man shall not, by reason of unemployment, lose his title to an old age pension. I want the House to remember that in addition to the free year under the Health Insurance Act, there is also the Prolongation of Insurance Act, which continues his insurance indefinitely, and therefore makes it impossible in those cases that five years' insurance shall be lost to a man by reason of unemployment. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) brought forward the case of a man who had been made a foreman and gone outside the wage limit, and said it was very hard that because he had got a few pounds extra, he lost all his benefits. Surely she must have realised that it was open to that man to have become a voluntary contributor when he passed outside the limit. He could have kept alive his insurance, and if he did not take advantage of that opportunity, is not the fault of the Act.
Then we had a hard case brought forward by the hon. Member for Welling-borough (Mr. Cove), who called it an idiotic case, quoting the gentleman who had not got the pension. It was the case of a man who, for a considerable period, had been out of insurable employment, who had come back again into insurable employment, but who had not fulfilled the five years' condition. Is he thereby precluded from any benefits under the Pensions Act? Not at all. They are merely postponed until he has made up his five years, and surely there is no particular hardship about that. While he was not in insurable employment and was his own employer, he could have kept alive his insurance by becoming a voluntary contributor. The worst he suffers is that he has to wait until he has made up the amount. Then there was a case which made the hon. Member for Wellingborough quite indignant, a case which he said had only just been put into his hands. I should have thought that by this time he would have been a Member of this House long enough to know that it is the case which is put into your hands just before you come into the House that you had better not trust. This was the case of a man who had got his 39 stamps but was turned down because he was not genuinely seeking employment. I assure the hon. Member that the facts are not correct in that case. If he has got his 39 stamps he is all right, and the question of genuinely seeking employment does not arise. It rests on his 39 stamps, and if he has got them, he is not turned down for the reason given to the hon. Member.
One could go on taking these alleged hard cases and show that in a great many of them some essential factor has been left out of account. In those I have mentioned already, the fact that the man had the opportunity of keeping his insurance alive and had not taken it is an essential factor. Before we are asked to condemn the Act on cases of that kind, I think they ought to be more fully investigated, and, if they were, I believe hon. Members opposite would not support them.
How could a man have kept his insurance alive from 1919 to 1923 in the case I gave? He was out from 1919 to 1923, and he came in in 1923, but, owing to sickness, he was unable to make the five years' contributions.
Very well. Out of the time that he was out of employment he had, to begin with, 21 months under the Health Insurance Act. If he was unable to obtain employment, he would have got prolongation of insurance, but if he was not employed, but working on his own account, he could have kept his insurance alive by becoming a voluntary contributor.
How could he have become a voluntary contributor before the passing of the Act?
Under the Health Insurance Act.
In anticipation of this Act?
I should like now to say a few words about the disqualification of the wives of men who have reached the age of 70 before 1928 and who therefore are disqualified from receiving the old age pension themselves at the age of 65. Hon. Members talk as though that was a permanent state of affairs, but I would point out that the cases which come under this heading are strictly limited in number. They are cases which only arose at the beginning of the Act, and every day that passes means that more of these people are coming out of that class, because they are reaching the age of 70 and drawing the old age pension.
I am told there are 40,000 of them.
This is one of the cases which arises out of the structure of the Act, out of the fact that it is an Insurance Act and that the finance of the scheme has been so contrived that a pension which goes to the wife does not arise out of her contributions but out of those of her husband. She does not pay at the same rate as her husband. Her rate of contribution is calculated at only half his rate, and the reason is that he has to provide a contribution which will in its turn entitle, not only him, but also his wife when she becomes of an appropriate age, to qualify for a pension. Therefore it is an essential part, not only of the principle, but of the finance of the scheme, that the husband must in fact fulfill all the necessary qualifications for his own pension and for his wife's pension. A good deal has been said about the cessation of unemployment and health benfits, but I would ask the House to bear in mind that this pension scheme is not a separate and independent scheme. It is not true that the pensions fund and the health insurance fund are one fund, but it is true that the two schemes are linked up together, and when one considers that certain individuals may temporarily suffer a loss because of the linking up of the scheme, one must at the same time take into account the fact that they have derived very great advantages from this same linking up.
Let me enumerate some of those advantages. To begin with, at 65, under this linked scheme, the insured person ceases to contribute either to health or unemployment insurance, and that is 11½d. a week saved at once on those two contributions. Secondly, hon. Members will no doubt remember that it is only cash benefits that cease at this age, and not medical benefits. Free medical attendance and free medicine are available for the insured person for the remainder of his life, but if the cash benefits did not cease at that time, there would have been an additional contribu- tion of 2d. for a man or 1d. for a woman per week. That is another advantage which comes from the linking up of the schemes, but the greatest advantage of all is that the contributions under the health insurance scheme count as qualifying for the pension.
7.0 p.m.
If this had been a separate and independent scheme, the widows under the contributory scheme would not have had their pensions payable until January, 1928. If they were to fulfil the qualifications, it would have taken them till 1928 before they came into their pension, but because the health insurance contributions of their husbands were counted as qualifying contributions for pensions, 106,000 widows with their children received pensions between January, 1926, and January, 1928. In the same way, if this had been a separate, independent pension scheme, the old age pensions could not have been received till 1931. Therefore, the half million people who have already received their old age pensions at 65 have done so on account of the linking up of the health insurance scheme with the pensions scheme, and that is a benefit which certainly nobody can compare with the temporary loss of such benefits as they may have got under the health insurance scheme. It is all very well to take an extreme case of 15s. sickness benefit, for instance. The experience is that the majority of elderly workmen who have a poor record of employment, have increasing difficulty in obtaining employment, and many are in arrears with their contributions and not able to obtain the full sickness benefit. Many would be only getting 8s. or 10s. a week for sickness benefit. You have to recollect that their wives are not entitled to anything under the national health insurance scheme. Therefore, what they are getting is not only a permanent income of 10s. for themselves, but 10s. for the wife when she reaches the age. That has to be set against a temporary income of, it may be, 8s. or 10s. for the man alone, which would be reduced by half when the sickness benefit ceased, and if he came down to disability benefit.
A good deal has been said about the pre-Act widows. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) waxed eloquent on the anomaly of treating the pre-Act widow, the post-Act widow on different principles. Hon. Members make a mistake in dealing with the case of the pre-Act widows; comparisons should not be made between widows and widows. The real comparison is between children and children. This is an insurance scheme. It is based on the contributory principle, but there is an exception to the contributory principle in the Act, and that is the one which applies to the pre-Act widow. I agree with anybody who says that that exception has undermined the logic of the whole Act, but I put it to the House that we were justified in departing from the principle of the Act in that case. We were not thinking of the widow. We felt that the widow of a man who died before the Act would be no worse off, at any rate, by reason of the Act, than she would have been. Both she and her husband must always have contemplated the possibility of the misfortune which has, in fact, occurred, and made such provision as it was possible for them to make against such a contingency. We could not obtain a contribution from her husband who is dead. We could not, therefore, bring the widow of that man into a contributory scheme. But when we considered the children we had this in our mind, that these children at the beginning of their lives would hereafter have to stand in competition with children, perhaps, of the same age as themselves, the children of parents where the husband has died just after the Act. To make a distinction, at that stage in their lives, between those children might handicap them for ever afterwards. It was for the sake of the children, therefore, that we said, that although there had been no contributions from the father, yet, since we were giving certain advantages to the children of the future, we must see that those children who, from circumstances over which they had no control were now put in a worse position in competing with their fellows, should be helped and put in the same position as the children of people who died after the Act. The widow's pension, therefore, was not a pension for the widow's sake. It was a pension to enable the widow to give the same care to the young children as the post-Act widow. That is the logical answer to those who ask, Why did the widow's pension cease when the youngest child reached 14½ years of age? The answer is because it is a pension given to the widow merely for the purpose of enabling her to do the same for her children as other widows whose husbands died later.
I remember that, on the Second Reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) warned me not to expect any gratitude for a Measure of this kind. He said he had had too much experience to recommend anybody who introduced an insurance scheme to expect gratitude from it. But we did not introduce this scheme for the sake of gratitude, although I do not pretend that we would not gladly accept any gratitude which might come from it. We did it because we promised to do it, and we did it because it seemed to us that it was the greatest contribution we could make to the welfare, the security and the happiness of the great mass of the people.
It is, of course, perfectly true that politicians get no gratitude for their services, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should not complain, though he hinted that he would gladly accept any gratitude at the General Election. We have had an important admission from the right hon. Gentleman to-night. He has never been quite so frank as he was in the speech which he has just delivered, when he admitted that this Act was not perfect. I had gathered from the Amendment that it was perfect, that it was, indeed, beyond perfection, and was perhaps the most striking Measure that ever came before this House. I am glad to learn that the Minister is a little more modest on the matter. He does admit that the Act will need amendment in the future, but says, "We are not prepared to admit any advantage in amending it now." I say that if there are people to-day who are better off than they were, I am very glad. I would rather see 10s. in the pockets of the old people than nothing. But that is not the point of the argument.
The point about this Motion is that the Measure of the right hon. Gentleman is open to serious objection on the ground of very great defects which came to light when the Bill was before the House, and which have been proved to exist in its administration since. The right hon. Gentleman said, "There are no funda- mental defects in the Act." I do not agree. I think there are some serious fundamental defects. The first arises over the question of wage reductions with which the right hon. Gentleman, dealt at some length. He says, "How are you going to prevent them?" There has been no real word of reproof for the employer who has meanly taken advantage of the Act. It was never intended by the House that this Act should be an employers' subsidy Act, but that is just what is happening. It is undoubtedly true in the case of agriculture, notwithstanding what was said by the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Amendment. Law or no law, the wages of agricultural workers are being reduced. We are told there is no way out of their being deprived of the whole of that pension and having to exist on the old age pension with no addition to their aggregate income.
The right hon. Gentleman says, "How are you going to do it?" Let me take two cases—and they are not the only cases—of public authorities. Here is the case of the Newbury District Council which has decided to reduce the wages of their road men, when they reach the age of 65 and become entitled to the old age pension, by 6s. per week. In the case of the Carmarthen Urban District Council, a decision has been made there that when their employés become eligible for the old age pension, their wages are to be reduced by the full amount of the pension, namely 10s. per week. Is that a thing to which this House should assent? It cannot be waved away by the rhetorical flourishings of the right hon. Gentleman saying, "How is it going to be dealt with?" These are public authorities.
Publicly elected bodies.
So are the boards of guardians. My case against the right hon. Gentleman is that he will take no action against these people, but if they were to pay 10s. more, then he would be very willing to take action. There is a moral responsibility on local authorities not to reduce wages in the case of contributory pensions, when people become eligible to receive them, by the amount of the pension. This problem would not arise if the pension were an adequate maintenance. People of 65 do not go to work for the love of work. They are getting tired at that age and are failing in health, and the bulk of them work because they must. If it were possible, as I believe it would be, to give these people a pension sufficient to maintain them without recourse to wage earnings, you would find very few people over 65 years of age who would go out to work at all. That, I think, is the answer to the question of the reduction of wages by the amount of the pension.
The right hon. Gentleman next referred to the question of the very liberal provisions that were made under the Act. We point out in our Motion that, in fact, the conditions are so onerous that large numbers of people are inevitably excluded from the benefit of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech that the provisions were generous. If he had been with us through the fight on the Unemployment Insurance Bill last autumn, he would have realised the struggle that we had over the conditions in that Bill. I say that the conditions for the receipt of benefit in the Unemployment Insurance Act last Session are infinitely better than the conditions which operate in the right hon. Gentleman's Measure. Why should that be so? There is really no justification for it. I believe that the conditions under the Unemployment Insurance Act are too severe, but they are infinitely more generous than the conditions which have to be fulfilled before people become eligible for the benefits under the National Health Insurance Act.
What was the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the question about women of 65 to 70? It was that this is not a permanent class, that it is a limited number of people which is diminishing day by day. That is the best argument for including them in the Act. If it is such a limited class, and a diminishing class, the right hon. Gentleman might have made an exception and brought them within its provisions, but he said, "No; this is an insurance scheme." When he tries to defend the position of the pre-Act widow, he says, "Just for these people we went outside the insurance scheme; we made an exception; we were generous." He spoke very movingly about the children. If I had his eloquence, I would speak movingly of an old couple, the husband over 70 and the wife creeping on to 70, trying to exist on 10s. per week. If I appeal to him to do something for these people in the evening of their day, why could he not on grounds of sentiment take exactly the same lines as in the case of the children of pre-Act widows? The case against him is even stronger than that. He will not say that he knew he had excluded them when he had passed the Bill. This defect was a discovery after the Bill had come into operation. That is all the more reason why it should be remedied, but the right hon. Gentleman has deliberately gone out of his way to refuse to deal with this limited number of people, notwithstanding the fact that in his heart he thought he had deprived them of pensions. I submit that if there were a case for the pre-Act widow because of the children, there is an equally strong case for those women between 65 and 70 upon whom the right hon. Gentleman thought he was conferring the pension—
There is a fundamental difference in the cases. In the case of the children, they are actually put in a worse position because we have put their competitors in a better position by the Act. There is no such situation in regard to widows.
They are precisely similar cases, and, if on grounds of sentiment the insurance character of the scheme is to be departed from in the case of pre-Act widows, it clearly ought to be in the case of the wives between 65 and 70. I am not going to complain of the substance of the Amendment, because that is the business of the Mover, but when did the Labour party try to prevent the Act coming into operation? It is true that we criticised the Bill, but when did we in any way attempt to stop the Act coming into operation? Did we go to the right hon. Gentleman at his Ministry, and, with a pistol at his head, stop him from issuing instructions? Of course we did not. The Amendment is inaccurate and ridiculous. The gem of it is contained in the words: pensions. That is our complaint against it. The greater part of the Motion which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) deals with the fact that this is not a comprehensive Measure. Our final criticism is that the Act is inadequate in the amount which it gives to the beneficiaries. There is not a word of that in the Amendment, which places this Act among the Measures of perfection— a claim that the right hon. Gentleman would not care to make. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be perfectly satisfied with the Act. Is it their case that they believe that the people who are outside its operations should remain out? Is it their case that the pension of 10s. is adequate? The Mover of the Amendment said it was adequate within the realms of possibility. That was developed by the statement of the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment that the State had committed itself to a capital expenditure of £760,000,000 and that in the next ten years the State was going to contribute £57,000,000. Employers and workers will contribute seven times as much as that in those ten years. How much has the State contributed up to now? The figure of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 is not an accurate one, for what is the State saving in sickness and unemployment benefit after 65? The net cost to the State is negligible. This is a contributory scheme, and it is being borne almost entirely by industry, and the State is doing very little towards it. Our case is that there should be far more done by the State.
I am prepared to show that there are resources available in order that the State's provision may be increased to make the scheme more adequate. In the recently issued report of the Board of Inland Revenue it is shown that in each year since 1922, during the trade depression, the net receipts from Estate Duties has increased. In 1921–22 it was £44,000,000, and in 1926–27 it was £59,000,000. The number of estates liable to duty has in each of the last five years steadily increased. Every year since 1922, also, the number of Super-taxpayers has increased. These figures prove that there is still an available source from which more generous contributions might come in order to increase old age pensions. Ten shillings per week is an utterly inadequate amount. Two magnums of champagne at £40 each would provide three old age pensions for a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ask the Home Secretary!"] I would ask my right hon. Friend if he were here, but this is simply a question of arithmetic. I am not raising large questions of policy or of private taste; I am saying that at something euphemistically called a charity ball £40 was raised for something called a magnum of champagne, whatever that may be. [An HON. MEMBER: "A Jeroboam."] I multiply that by two and I get £80. That £80 would have left the Anti-Socialist Union with £2, after providing three pensions for a year. In view of that kind of luxury, and in face of the increasing yield from Estate Duties and Super-tax, notwithstanding the difficulties of the times, there are available resources which could well be used for improving the lot of the old age pensioners. If it
be said that we have emphasised criticisms, that is true, but the right hon. Gentleman has not yet given an undertaking that he proposes to deal with the problem at all. If the Government has at heart the interests of the aged, the widows, and the children of widows—and there are a large number of children of widows besides the children of pre-Act widows who are outside the Act—they might utilise their swollen majority to deal with the matter by legislation this year. I hope that they will, but I fear that they will not; and I hope that hon. Members opposite, who know the truth of the case we have made, will be prepared to take their courage in both hands and to follow us into the Lobby on this Motion.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 238.
Division No. 13. ]] AYES. [ 7.30 p.m. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hayday, Arthur Scrymgeour, E. Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hayes, John Henry Scurr, John Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hirst, G. H. Sexton, James Ammon, Charles George Hore-Bellsha, Leslie Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Blston) Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Shiels, Dr. Drummond Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Barr, J. John, William (Rhondda. West) Sitch, Charles H. Batey, Joseph Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) Beckett, John (Gateshead) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Briant, Frank Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Snell, Harry Broad, F. A. Kelly, W. T. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Bromfield, William Kennedy, T. Stamford, T. W. Bromley, J. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Stephen, Campbell Brown, Ernest (Leith) Lansbury, George Stewart, J.(St. Rollox) Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Lawrence, Susan Strauss, E. A. Buchanan, G. Lawson, John James Sullivan, Joseph Charleton, H. C. Lee, F. Sutton, J. E. Clowes, S. Lindley, F. W. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) Cluse, W. S. Lowth, T. Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lunn, William Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) Compton, Joseph MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) Connolly, M. MacLaren, Andrew Tinker, John Joseph Cove, W. G. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Tomlinson, R. P. Dalton, Hugh MacNeill-Weir, L. Townend, A. E. Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) March, S. Varley, Frank B. Day, Colonel Harry Maxton, James Viant, S. P. Dennison, R. Montague, Frederick Wallhead, Richard C. Dunnico, H. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen Edge, Sir William Mosley, Oswald Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Murnin, H. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Naylor, T. E. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney Gardner, J. P. Owen, Major G. Wellock, Wilfred Gillett, George M. Palin, John Henry Welsh, J. C. Gosling, Harry Paling, W. Westwood, J. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Pethick- Lawrence, F. W. Wiggins, William Martin Greenall, T. Ponsonby, Arthur Wilkinson, Ellen C. Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Potts, John S. Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Riley, Ben Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Groves, T. Ritson, J. Wright, W. Grundy, T. W. Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) Hardle, George D. Rose, Frank H. Harney, E. A. Saklatvala, Shapurji TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.—Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.
NOES. Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Foster, Sir Harry S. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Fraser, Captain Ian Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E Moreing, Captain A. H. Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Galbraith, J. F. W. Murchison Sir Kenneth Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Ganzoni, Sir John Nall Colonel Sir Joseph Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Gates, Percy Nelson, Sir Frank Astor, Viscountess Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Neville Sir Reginald J. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Goff, Sir Park Newman Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Balfour, George (Hampstead) Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Newton Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Balniel, Lord Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Banks, Reginald Mitchell Greene, W. P. Crawford Nuttall, Ellis Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Oakley, T. Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Grotrian, H. Brent. O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Bennett, A. J. Gunston, Captain D. W. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Bentlnck, Lord Henry Cavendish Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Pennefather, Sir John Berry, Sir George Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Penny, Frederick George Bethel. A Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Perkins, Colonel E. K. Betterton, Henry B. Hammersley, S. S. Pownall, Sir Assheton Birchall, Major J. Dearman Hanbury, C. Price, Major C. W. M. Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton Harland, A. Raine, Sir Walter Blundell, F. N. Hartington, Marquess of Ramsden, E. Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Reid, D. D. (County Down) Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Haslam, Henry C. Richardson Sir P. W. (Sur'v, Ch'ts'y) Brass, Captain W. Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) Brassey, Sir Leonard Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Ropner, Major L. Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Henderson, Sir Vivian (Bootle) Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. Brocklebank, C. E. R. Henn, Sir Sydney H Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Rye, F. G. Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Hilton, Cecil Salmon, Major I. Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Sandeman, N. Stewart Bullock, Captain M. Holt, Captain H. P. Sanders, Sir Robert A. Burman, J. B. Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Sanderson, Sir Frank Burton, Colonel H. W. Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Savery, S. S. Butt, Sir Alfred Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) Caine, Gordon Hall Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Campbell, E. T. Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Shepperson, E. W. Carver, Major W. H. Hume, Sir G. H. Skelton, A. N. Cautley, Sir Henry S. Huntingfield, Lord Smith-Carington, Neville W. Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) Hurst, Gerald B. Smithers, Waldron Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Spcnder-Clay, Colonel H. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Jephcott, A. R. Stanley Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. Chapman, Sir S. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Kindersley, Major Guy M. Steel, Major Samuel Strang Christie, J. A. King, Commodore Henry Douglas Storry-Deans, R. Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement Stott, Lieut,-Colone W. H. Clarry, Reginald George Knox, Sir Alfred Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Clayton, G. C. Lamb, J. Q. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Cobb, Sir Cyril Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Templeton. W. P. Conway, Sir W. Martin Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) Cooper, A. Duff Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Cope, Major William Loder, J. de V. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Couper, J. B. Long, Major Eric Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Lougher, Lewis Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Waddington, R. Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Lumley, L. R. Wallace, Captain D. E. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Ward Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on- Hull) Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Warrender, Sir Victor Davies, Dr. Vernon McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) Davison, Sir W. H (Kensington, S.) MacIntyre, Ian Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) Dawson, Sir Philip McLean, Major A. Watts, Dr. T. Dixey, A. C. Macmillan, Captain H. Wells, S. R. Drewe, C. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) Duckworth, John MacRobert, Alexander M. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) Eden, Captain Anthony Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) Edmondson, Major A. J. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Wilson, R. R (Stafford, Lichfield) Ellis, R. G. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Malone, Major P. B. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Withers, John James Fairfax, Captain J. G. Margesson, Captain D Womersley, W. J. Falle, Sir Bertram G. Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) Fermoy, Lord Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Woodcock, Colonel H. C. Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Mr. Merriman and Mr. Geoffrey Peto.—Mr. Merriman and Mr. Geoffrey Peto.
Words added. Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
rose — —
It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Municipal Banks
I beg to move,
The present Government appointed a Committee to go into this question. Why they did so I, personally, do not understand, unless it was with the object, which they achieved of shelving the question for ten years or of camouflaging the position so as to blind the British public. This Committee consisted mainly of people who certainly have no interest in municipal banks. In so far as they are eminent their interests have always lain in the direction of advising the Government in an opposite sense. Therefore, to begin with, the suspicion attaching to the Committee is very high indeed. Their effort, by the way, was extraordinary in this sense, that they have given us a tremendous amount of information, as Government Committee's do, but little guidance. The whole purpose of this Committee, in my view, was to give the House of Commons guidance, but their report does not take us very far—beyond revealing that it is highly coloured and biased. If the House has any doubt about that, I do not ask them to accept the opinions of a back bench Socialist, I prefer to put forward the opinions of others who are deeply interested in the question. This afternoon the leader of the Labour party received a letter which I would like to read:
I intend to quote some sayings of the right hon. Gentleman which are very interesting. The Committee on Municipal Savings Banks issued a Report in which they dealt very extensively with the question of thrift, and they came to the conclusion that things were pretty much the same as they were before. I will not argue whether that is so or not, but I would like to quote the words on this point used by the Minister of Health, because I think he is a most conclusive authority on the subject. In a book published by the manager of the Birmingham Bank, entitled "Britain's First Municipal Savings Bank," which ought to be read by everybody interested in this subject, there is a foreword by the Minister of Health which I will quote in order to show how much importance the right hon. Gentleman attaches to this subject. It reads as follows: Debt Commissioners made all the difference between a profit and a loss. Even the experiment of the Birmingham bank was so restricted that they could not invest in War Loan, but had to invest in Treasury notes in order to prevent the people of Birmingham from getting a high rate of interest. The Committee's Report re Savings Certificates stated: War broke out in 1914, because that was the greatest crisis which the country has ever gone through. At that time, if all the canons of banking had been carried out, the banks would have called all the shareholders together, but they did not adopt that course. Instead of doing that, they went to Whitehall, and what did prudent gentlemen do on such occasions? They did not take with them what they call their liquid assets. On that occasion, the bankers told the authorities at Whitehall what was going to happen, and the Government granted them a Bank holiday of four days, and after that they issued Bradburys. If the Chairman of this Committee does not go down to history as an advocate of municipal banks, at any rate he will go down to history as the man who introduced Bradburys.
That surrender was made on terms which were quite unwarrantable, and the result is reflected by the financial position in which the country now finds itself. Under these circumstances, I think the State must come to the assistance of our municipalities. If it was good enough for the State to act in that way during the War, it should be good enough for the Government to do it now in the case of municipal banks. If the danger foreshadowed by the Committee should come it would be of a similar nature. Would it not be more appropriate to meet the needs of our local authorities? The bankers must know that it is quite possible to give power to county councils, borough councils, and municipal authorities in all our big cities to pool their resources in the event of any great danger or crisis.
8.0 p.m.
Apart from that, the idea that the citizens of any town in this country would take steps which would not only endanger their own savings, but would involve their falling back on the rates, is futile. In the very meagre King's Speech which was presented to this House, there was a reference to the burden upon the local ratepayers. That is a great trouble; it is like the burden on the working classes; it is a running sore, and it is a bit of a job to get rid of it. The real difficulty of the ratepayers, apart from those outlined in speeches in this House, is the terrible amount of money that they have to pay under the terms laid down by Parliament, and under other laws which have been passed from time to time in regard to the manner in which they shall raise their money. The burden on local ratepayers for roads, housing, parks, schools, and education in general, is terrific. It may seem to be an exaggeration, but I think it is not too much to say that, if they could get cheaper money, there would be cheaper houses, cheaper schools, cheaper roads and so on.
The effect of the money rate is very serious now. When I was a member of a local council, we got permission from the Unemployment Grants Committee to do some road work, and, on going into the figures, I discovered that the money spent in wages was only two-thirds of the interest that went to those who lent the money; so that, while Parliament was granting money and the local authority was penalising itself to assist employment, they were assisting to a still greater extent the man who does not do any work at all. Therefore, the question of high money rates is very important indeed. In fact, it is so important that I worked out that, in the case of the houses built under the Addison Scheme at a cost of about £l,000, the extra rate of interest charged to the local authorities amounted to 8s. 6d. per week on the rent of the houses. If the London County Council had had power at that time to borrow on the same terms as the municipality of Birmingham, those houses could have been let for at least 7s. a week less. Yet, as is well known, the bricklayer was supposed to be responsible for the high rents, although we know to-day that, if he had worked for nothing, it would not have reduced the rent by more than 3½d per week.
I hope the House will receive this Resolution seriously. They cannot ignore that tremendous protest of the Association of Municipal Corporations; they cannot ignore a great city like Sheffield. If the City of London were to ask permission to establish a municipal bank, their aldermen and sheriffs would come to the Bar of this House, and this House would not dare to refuse them. What is good enough for Birmingham ought to be good enough for Sheffield, or Leeds, or Manchester, or Glasgow. What right the Minister responsible for that Department has to take up the attitude that he has taken up, I do not know. He has been in office in responsible Departments during the greater part of the period covered by this experiment, and I will conclude with one more quotation from him, which I think summarises excellently the position that this House ought to take up. At the time when he was Lord Mayor of Birmingham, in the early days of the experiment, he was not content with founding the bank and being its parent, but, when works meetings were arranged by trade union leaders and others, he insisted upon being present. The quotation is as follows:
I beg to second the Motion.
I should like to call the attention of the House to the terms of the Motion, because I think there are very few Members here, irrespective of their party colour, who will dare to go into any constituency in the country, and particularly Birmingham, and say that they are opposed to its terms. It is framed in lucid language, without any ambiguity at all. It simply asks for a declaration: being discussed which is regarded as of primary importance from one end of Birmingham to the other. I am sorry to speak in their absence, but it is their fault and not mine. I have to say that I would challenge any Member representing a Birmingham constituency, whether he be a Cabinet Minister or an ordinary Member, to make the submission at the next General Election that we should abolish municipal banks in Birmingham. I go further, and say that, although the Birmingham City Council has a majority of Tory members, and although there is a majority of Tory members on the committee responsible for running the municipal banks, every one of them is enthusiastically in favour, not only of the maintenance of the present position, but of its extension.
In reading the book of Mr. Hilton, the manager of the municipal banks in Birmingham, from which quotations have been made by my hon. Friend, and which ought to be read by every Member of this House, again irrespective of party colour, I am reminded that one of the things about which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health was very concerned, and about which he protested very strongly in public, when he took such a prominent and active part in the promotion of the Birmingham municipal bank, was the fact that, when Birmingham was urging the Government to support the Bill empowering that city to establish the enterprise of municipal banking, the joint stock banking companies were the biggest obstacles in the way of what Birmingham, desired in its original Bill. The Government, evidently, have not learned that lesson, although the Minister of Health is a Member of the Cabinet, because they again appointed a similar Committee to deal with a similar request that the facilities which had been given to Birmingham should be extended elsewhere. I say quite frankly that those who wished that to be done had no confidence in the Committee when it was first set up, and they have had less reason to believe that it has been impartial since the publication of its Report. If that Committee was expected to carry conviction, it ought to have been of such a character as to command a measure of public confidence, and it should undoubtedly have had upon it representa- tives of our great municipalities, many of whom are very desirous of having the advantage of these facilities.
The only real experience that we have, the only concrete case that we can quote, is that of Birmingham, and, although the Birmingham Municipal Bank has only been established since 1916, its history reads more like a romance than anything else. If the House will bear with me, I will give a few round figures showing the extraordinary progress that has been made. The number of depositors has increased during the last seven years from a trifle more than 40,000 to over 250,000. That is extraordinary progress, indicating the popularity of this type of saving among the great masses of the people of Birmingham. That, as I am reminded, is in one city alone. The amount standing to the credit of depositors has increased during the same period from less than £750,000 to over £8,250,000 at the end of December last. Interest is payable at the rate of 3½ per cent. per annum. On last years' working, after making allowance for depreciation and writing off sums for alterations, there was a surplus of close upon £12,000, which was placed to reserve. Moreover, I would remind those who may be inclined to agree with the conclusions of the Bradbury Committee that all that development and all that saving has taken place during this short period in Birmingham—including the establishment of something like 40 branches of the bank—without costing the ratepayers a single penny piece.
During the same period the bank has been responsible for advancing to the citizens of Birmingham no less a sum than £2,250,000 for house purchase. Will hon. Members on the other side of the House say that that is something which should not be encouraged and established in other places of equal importance with the City of Birmingham? I suggest that they will do nothing of the kind. As I have said, the rate of interest paid to depositors is 3½ per cent.; that is laid down in the Bill. Any surplus that the bank has it is entitled to lend at call to the local corporation, and considerable sums of money have been lent in this way to the City of Birmingham, at a lower rate of interest than could possibly have been obtained in the open market. One cannot help thinking that those who are interested in the banks of this country see the significance of that, and they see that, if it develops to such an extent that the people of this country become their own bankers and administer their own money through their own democratic committees, there will be an end of the shareholders' profits and directors' large salaries.
Municipal banks of this type cater for a type of customer that is not catered for by any other means. Many of their customers are small contributors, people who want to put small sums into the bank. They are equally a boon to the small shopkeeper, because these municipal savings banks in Birmingham are open until six o'clock in the evening, and the small shopkeepers make considerable use of them. Therefore, there would be considerable hostility on the part of even the private traders in Birmingham to their abolition. As indicating the type of depositor who uses these banks, some figures from a report of the committee responsible for the Birmingham municipal bank may be of some service. They say that the average holding of each depositor is £31 16s., and that an analysis of the figures' shows that 62.25 per cent. of the depositors' balances do not exceed £10 each, while 97.78 per cent. have less than £250 to their credit. These percentages, they say, demonstrate that the statement, which has been frequently made by the committee, that the bank is catering for a class for whom few facilities for saving existed before the establishment of the bank, is thoroughly confirmed. You can easily see that if you will only allow the same facilities to other cities and towns which desire it, you will confer on a large proportion of the community a real boon. I should like to give a quotation from a book written by Mr. J. P. Hilton, the manager of the Birmingham Municipal Bank, entitled. "Britain's First Municipal Savings Bank." The writer has no political views as far as I know. His only interest is the success of this scheme The Minister of Health paid him a tribute for the work he has done in advancing the Birmingham scheme. He says:
I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the second word "the," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
"extension of municipal banks is unnecessary and undesirable."
I am very glad to think that hon. Members opposite have taken the opportunity of reading the Report of the Committee on municipal savings banks. They will learn a great deal more about municipal banks than they knew before the Report was issued. The Mover of the Motion said that the Committee had no interest in municipal banks. In my opinion, the Committee was one of the best that could possibly have been asked to report. They show no bias in any way. They are unprejudiced, and they are just the people who could report to the House. I do not think the hon. Member can say the Municipal Officials' Association are unbiased. They would probably be the most biased people who could report on municipal bank. They are all interested. The hon. Member did not refer to any banker on the Committee. I do not know whether he knows any banker on the Committee. He did not refer to the witnesses. I do not think you can see a more representative list of witnesses, representing every phase of the whole conditions. On page 54, there is a long list of the witnesses who gave evidence giving every possible view that could be obtained from every standpoint. The Report is a very valuable one and will do a great deal of good throughout the country when it is fully digested. Unfortunately for the Mover, and also for those who wish to promote municipal banks, they have only a single success to their credit. Possibly that single success is due to the gentleman who founded it, upon whom the Mover passed many encomiums. I do not know whether other towns have such able men. He was mainly responsible for its inauguration and probably its success in Birmingham.
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain how we get on without him on the administrative council in Birmingham now?
The influence and name of Chamberlain will exist in Birmingham for all time. I thought the hon. Member was going to ask me how they get on in Sheffield without them. I was going to say very badly. This municipal bank was formed in March, 1919. The Birmingham Municipal Authority in that year got a Clause inserted in an Omnibus Bill to give them further facilities than were obtained by the 1916 Act. Since the formation of the bank many towns have discussed it thoroughly in their town councils, and the subject has been discussed in this House. A general Bill was brought in in 1923 and read a First time, but no more was heard of it. In 1925 a Bill was read again a First time only, and in 1926 and 1927 the subject made no further progress. The councils and this House have turned the proposals down. An effort has been made by municipal corporations to insert it in their ordinary corporation Bills. In 1920, Swansea tried it in a private Bill, Wigan and Tottenham in 1921, Swansea again in 1922, in 1923 Stoke-on-Trent, in 1926 Bristol, and in 1927 Swansea tried a third time. On every occasion it was refused. Many of the towns where the subject has been discussed are thoroughly Socialistic.
The conditions under which Birmingham started this municipal bank cannot in any way be compared with the conditions in other towns. Since 1864, Birmingham has had no Trustee Savings Bank. Several towns have these Trustee Savings Banks in full operation. It must be remembered that in 1919 money was very plentiful and that the Money Market was much better and money rates were higher, while from 1918 to 1920 there was a big trade boom. All these conditions were favourable in assisting in a most extraordinary degree the successful launching of this municipal bank. We have not similar conditions to-day, and it is probable that in this generation we shall not get such favourable conditions in which to launch a municipal bank as obtained when the Birmingham Municipal Bank was launched. Notwithstanding that there are no Trustee Savings Banks in Birmingham, it is estimated that during the last eight years the total amount diverted from the Post Office Savings Bank and National Savings Certificates has probably not fallen short of £4,000,000 sterling, which is £4 per head of the population of Birmingham. This money is simply being diverted to this municipal bank. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] It is very problematical whether in other towns where they have opportunities afforded by other savings banks the municipal banks would get any new money from those banks.
What we should like to know is, whether the whole of the scheme which has been put forward for municipal banks is simply one of thrift for the nation or whether it is part of a general scheme for municipal banks, the nationalisation of banks, the nationalisation of railways, coal mines, produce and everything? This House will not be unmindful of the fact that it is not very long ago since the political party endeavoured to make great efforts to capture the great municipal machinery of this country. If they capture the municipal machinery and are backed up by municipal banks, is that going to be for the good of the general community or only for the good of the people who are so keen upon pushing these municipal banks in the way they are doing? If the promotion of thrift is the only thing that the people who are promoting these banks want, they can encourage people in thrifty ways by encouraging them to take advantage of the existing provisions without the necessity of any municipal banks. You have the Post Office, the Trustee Savings Bank, the National Savings Certificates. You have the prosperous building societies, and industrial clubs in almost every town. Let me give you some of the figures. The Post Office has over 12,300,000 depositors, and the deposit accounts amount to £280,000,000. The Trustee Savings Bank deposits total over £82,000,000 and are held by over 2,250,000 persons. National Savings Certificates are held to the value of nearly £368,000,000 by over a million people, and at least half were held by small investors, so the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) states. There are plenty of opportunities for thrift, as the hon. Member for Hills-borough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) will tell you. How is it going to cut into his Co-operative business in the country? I should not like him to have any harm done to his Co-operative Society movement. On the 3rd January of this year, at the quarterly meeting of the Accrington Co-operative Society, the chairman said: Interruption. ] The name is Mr. S. M. Holden, the Chairman of the Co-operative Society at Accrington. Then again the "Co-operative News" stated: Gentleman in this way. What I should like to know is, whether the incentive for municipal banks is simple due to a desire to obtain cheap money to use extravagantly in some of these municipal enterprises that are running rife throughout the country and through Socialistic councils, and which will not be for the benefit of the community in general? May I here interpret another quotation with which, probably, many people will agree, that if municipal authorities were not to spend any money for the next five years they would be doing the best they possibly could for the community generally and would render an immense service to the trade of the country. The Mover, or the Seconder, I think, spoke of the confidence in the security. Of course, there is confidence in the security, but who is putting up the security? It is the ratepayer who has to put up the security. Whether he wishes to become a shareholder or not in this bank, he has to guarantee the capital from the rates, and that is altogether an unfair proposition, in my opinion. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the War Loan?"] Thank God, we do not go to war every year. We are talking of peace conditions now in their relation to municipal banks. Why should every ratepayer be compelled to become a shareholder of municipal banks with unlimited liability? If these banks are not a success, who is going to pay? The ratepayers are going to pay, and the people who have no interest hi the banks whatever will have to pay in the same way as many municipal authorities have had to pay by drawing upon the rates to a very large extent to meet deficits on tramways and other municipal undertakings.
It is the competition with the private banks that you are concerned about.
I am not interested in this matter in any private bank. It is the competition with private banks that municipal banks will have to face. You must remember that the directors of the joint stock banks have made a lifelong study of the whole work and are probably, the best financial experts in the world. If you are going to bring municipal banks up against the competition of these people, well, it will not be a very difficult proposition for the municipal banks to face. Everybody realises that a bank's first duty is that its investments must be liquid. How are you going to keep the investments liquid? You must have the bank's capital sufficiently strong and liquid to meet an emergency if there should be a run on the bank. At Birmingham, a large percentage of the bank's assets is concerned with housing property, the other consists of loans to corporations. You may have a run on the municipal bank through bank trade or something else. There have been big runs for money on some of the best banks in times past. How are you going to meet these when the capital is not liquid? If you are going to have a municipal bank, the capital must be liquid in cash so that if the depositors want their money, they can get it. The Motion states that the establishment of municipal banks will mean "the reduction of interest burdens upon ratepayers." I do not think the ratepayer will get anything by way of reduction in lending his money to a corporation. On page 10 of the Municipal Savings Report we find the statement:
The Birmingham Municipal Bank has not shown up very well in regard to expenses of management. It has not made any great showing as to how economically it can run the bank. The expenses of management of the Birmingham Bank were 17s. 2d. per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who gives that figure?"] I am quoting the figures which are given with the great authority of the gentleman who wrote the very nice book with the gilt edges, from which we have had so many quotations to-night. The expenses of management of the Trustee Savings Bank were, at Glasgow 6s. 5d. per cent., at Edinburgh 6s. 6d. per cent., at Manchester 8s. 5d. per cent. and at Aberdeen 7s. 2d. per cent., as compared with 17s. 2d. per cent. for the municipal bank at Birmingham. Therefore, the municipal hank will have to reduce its expenses a great deal before it comes down to the level of the trustee savings banks, which are already doing the work which hon. Members opposite wish to promote by municipal savings bank, as a means of encouraging thrift. One of the conclusions that are given, after careful consideration of the whole subject by the very able Committee, who examined a long list of witnesses, is worth reading:
Will the hon. and gallant Member quote the actual figures on page 73 of the Bradbury Committee's Report, dealing with the working expenses of the Birmingham Bank as compared with the trustee banks? He has given us many figures, and I am sure that he would regard them as unfair if they appeared in the Press to-morrow without necessary correction. The Birmingham figures of expenses of management are lower than those of Aberdeen which he quoted.
In the figure which I gave, Birmingham heads the list with 17s. 2d. I have given the figures, and if the hon. Member opposite does not agree with them, of course he must dispute them. If he wishes to give other figures it is not my business to say "No."
I beg to second the Amendment.
May I accept the challenge of the Proposer of the Motion and answer one or two of his questions? May I draw his attention to the fact that in quoting the book he has missed out the gist of the matter in it. Apparently, in the mind of the writer and other people, there has been a desire to make use of municipal money in Birmingham for the purpose of buying their own houses. Therefore, in quoting from this book one must be fair and say that in the minds of the people in Birmingham it was not just a question of cheap money. Everybody knows that if you are going to pay 3½ per cent. to a man or woman who puts money into the municipal bank at Birmingham, and the bank is going to charge 5 per cent., then the only body which gets the advantage is the corporation. That is a way of getting cheap money that is not recommended in this book. It is quite the reverse, but the Mover of the Motion did not tell us that.
What is the difference of opinion between this side of the House and the other side? We are asked, who will control? My reply is, that the officials will control the municipal banks, and not the members of the corporation. There is not a Member on the opposite side who can deny that fact. A moment or two ago hon. Members opposite were complaining that certain highly-paid men in the banking world were doing very well, yet here they want to institute another system under which we shall have another highly-skilled body of officials doing a job which is not necessary. It is the officials who control the banks; and corporations all over the country are already suffering from over-officialism. In fact, too much officialism has been countenanced both in this House and by the ratepayers in the country, and if only people would wake up and vote we should not have these discussions in this House, and we should have less officialism.
Hon. Members opposite believe in municipalisation and nationalisation. So do we, but only so far as monopolies are concerned. Personally I do not desire to-see any further municipalisation without it can be proved to be a monopoly. The Mover of the Motion asked what general effect it will have on the citizen? If a municipal bank became a monopoly it would have no effect except this, that it would be the only place in which they could place their money, and they would feel trammelled in this respect. They cannot say that to-day. Then the words "cheat" and "camouflage" have been used in respect of this Report. If we have reached the position in this House that, when a Committee brings in a Report which does not meet the- views of a certain section of hon. Members, it is necessary to indulge in this kind of criticism, I do not think people outside will give much weight to speeches which contain such remarks. There is not a single paragraph in the Report to which the hon. Member who moved the Motion can point and say that it is wrong in fact. He cannot say that it is cheating, misleading, or that it is camouflage, because it gives a different impression from what is intended.
Apparently, hon. Members opposite are under the impression that the banks of this country are making terrific profits and, therefore, they want to come in as well. I am not a shareholder in any bank and I can speak from an unbiased point of view in this matter. There is not a single hon. Member who would dare to come into this House and recommend that any municipality should do the same business as is done by any joint stock bank; that you should lend money for the purposes of trade. If any municipal bank tried to do this the whole thing would go by the board, it could not carry on for 10 minutes. Men in charge of a bank must be men of special ability, but when we are discussing banking we seem to know all about it although we may never have seen the inside of a bank. We know what the bank manager does; we consider that he does very little for his money and that it is the easiest job imaginable. That is not true. There have been occasions when the banks have gone through very difficult times. In my own city there was the case of a man who had got more of an overdraft than he should have. A friend met him and asked him, "Have you been in the sweating room." He said, "Yes." His friend asked, "How did you get on?" and he said, "The other devil sweat." To suggest that a municipality should take up business like this is the most nonsensical thing I have ever heard.
The Mover of the Motion also said that the State must come to the assistance of the bank, and did so during the War. He hoped that the circumstances of August, 1914, would never be experienced again by the banks or the wage earners of this country. We are at one there. We hope that time has passed. But it would be a bad job for the working classes of the country if the banks had not had those four days' holiday and the moratorium for a time. But this was not for the protection of the banks but for the protection of the people of this country, rich and poor alike, and the Mover and Seconder of this Motion must have known that. To say that the Government should come to the assistance of a municipal bank if it went wrong is rather asking for trouble; it would encourage slack management. If a municipal bank went wrong there is only one person who can put it right, and that is the ratepayer. If you are going to have a municipal bank in order to assist a town, Birmingham if you like, you cannot without security allow that bank to loan too much money to the person who is desirous of buying his house or to the corporation for carrying on its work. The next thing that would have to be done, you could not help it, would be to amalgamate the municipal banks of the country. They would be compelled to amalgamate. If you set up an institution in competition with the present joint stock banking system you could not expect the joint stock banks to come in and assist the municipal banks, who are their competitors. If you did you would be expecting rather more than is generally the case. If you accept the principle that a municipality shall have a municipal bank there is no question that you will find yourselves in difficulties before long. It has been pointed out in this book that there is not sufficient liquid assets in the bank if anybody in Birmingham took fright and there happened to be a run on it. I hope this will never occur.
Quote the passage.
It is rather long but I will quote it if I can find it. I do not want to take up too much time of the House.
The hon. and gallant Member has made an exceedingly damaging statement and I think he should substantiate it or withdraw it.
If I cannot substantiate it I will withdraw it. The figures are here.
The hon. and gallant Member made a statement which is a very damaging statement from the point of view of the bank, and he quoted it from the book. He should either substantiate it or withdraw it.
I cannot quote it from the book. I therefore apologise and withdraw it.
Is there not according to the Report £5,000,000 at call in the Birmingham Corporation?
It is plainly set out in this particular Report, and hon. Members opposite know it, that they have not the money at call. The whole of the Report, from start to finish, says that they have not. Let me come to the question of the bank itself. It is what is known by the taxpayer in the Birmingham municipality, or any other area, as a penny bank, a savings bank. That is not a bank for the purpose of assisting trade or helping developments. It is for the purpose of helping the householder. The argument for municipal banks is that they are going to encourage thrift. The Committee have dealt with this matter fully and have pointed out that it does not in a great measure encourage thrift where there are other organisations doing the same business.
There are other organisations carrying out exactly the same work which is supposed to be carried out by a municipal bank. A building society may claim to be a democratic organisation. I do not suppose that hon. Members opposite would say that I was wrong in claiming that. There are no shareholders to be paid. The board of directors certainly is paid, but if you take the total of salaries of the board of directors and spread it over the capital of any building society in the country, you will be surprised at the working costs of that society. In fact, it will surprise the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) when I say that, with one exception, they are very low, and that exception, I believe, is his own society, the Co-operative Permanent Society. With £3,664,000 assets, the management cost comes out at 17s. 10d. per cent. But in other building societies the management cost is much less. The lowest works out at 3s. 10d. There is another at 4s. 2d., another 8s. 9d., and another 9s. 1d. The question has been asked: "Why do you not quote from page 73 of the Committee's Report, which says that the Birmingham bank figure is 16s. 4d.?" Compare this democratic institution, the building society, with the one hon. Members ask for, like the bank at Birmingham, with 16s. 4d.! On the same basis the figure is 17s. 2d. But the average of building societies throughout the country is 14s. If it is the cause of thrift that hon. Members are seeking to help, they have now an organisation working at a quarter or a fifth of the cost that the municipal bank in Birmingham is at present showing. Therefore, it cannot be that hon. Members desire to have an organisation which is to encourage thrift at an economic price through a municipality.
The hon. and gallant Member has included building societies with a very large amount of assets. The Halifax Society has assets of £44,000,000. Their Board of Directors will probably cost no more than the one the hon. and gallant Member has quoted. If a new society is formed it cannot, of course be managed as cheaply as an old society. That probably makes the difference.
No, the hon. Member is wrong. The whole point is that if a building society, which is a democratic society with a Board of Directors elected every year, is managed as most of them are managed, the cost will work out more cheaply than that of the Birmingham Municipal Bank. I have quoted one building society where the management cost works out at 3s. 10d. There is another at 4s. 3d., another at 8s. 9d., another at 9s., another at 9s. 1d. and so on. That is a comparable figure with the figure in the book.
Not at all.
I am sure my point is a sound one.
9.0 p.m.
The hon. and gallant Member is dealing with building societies, a very large number of whose contributions are paid monthly, quarterly and so on, and he is comparing their costs with the cost of a bank which takes very small contributions, from a penny upwards, in evening collections all over the city, in addition to doing all the other work of the building society.
That is a bit of camouflage. The building societies are not bodies accepting big sums of money; they take small sums of money exactly as the bank would do. Hon. Members opposite do not know what they are talking about. In order to meet the particular points raised by the hon. Member for Hillsborough every building society in the country has started little savings banks into which people in their homes can put 2d. or 6d. These can all be taken to the different branches of the building society. I am not speaking of a baby organisation, but of one with 2,000,000 members throughout the country and with £200,000,000 of capital. This is something not to be sneered at; it is a tremendous organisation and one of the best in the country. I think this country ought to be proud of the building society movement, because it has done more than anything I know to encourage the ordinary working man to own his own house. My point is that the works cost of the Birmingham Bank is very much higher than that of institutions already running, some of which have been running 50 and 60 years and others only five or six, but all sound institutions, all democratically governed, with the direc- tors elected every year and not every three years like municipal members, aldermen and so forth. Let me mention now something that will be of more interest to every investor in a municipal bank. There is scarcely a building society in the country to-day that does not pay to its shareholders at least 5 per cent. free of Income Tax.
Five per cent. on less than £1,000?
Certainly.
The Halifax Building Society, the biggest, only pays 5 per cent. on £2,500.
That is where the hon. Member is wrong again. If you want to put into a society a fixed sum, then the society gives you 5 per cent. and guarantees it on £2,500. But there is not a shareholder with £5 or even £1 in the Halifax Society who did not draw 5 per cent. on his shares last year. I know what I am talking about. Those being the facts, what is the good of asking the municipal investor in Birmingham to put his money into a municipal bank and to be content with 3½ per cent.?
The hon. and1 gallant Member is mixing up the investor and the shareholder and the depositor.
I am doing nothing of the sort. The hon. Member seems to think that I am unaware of the difference between buying a share in the market and putting the money in the bank. If the hon. Member had money in some of the banks in the old times he would know whether he was an investor or not. Is it doing the working classes a good thing to ask them to put money into municipal banks at 3½ per cent. interest when they have an opportunity of getting a full 5 per cent. somewhere else with just as much security? What is the benefit of the Birmingham Municipal Bank against your own National Savings Bank? You have a fixed rate of interest there. If the municipality is good enough, surely the country is also? Why go about it the other way? What is in the minds of hon. Members opposite is not the question of security or of being able to borrow money at 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent., but the idea of capturing a certain system of working in the municipalities so that they can control it. We, on this side, hold that that is not the true principle. You should not attempt to do by municipalisation what can be done, more efficiently and more economically, by private enterprise. Our contention is that the time has not arrived to stifle private enterprise, and I, at any rate, so long as I remain in this House, intend to be a champion of private enterprise.
As the Mover of the Amendment has pointed out, there is no other bank of this kind which would have the experience of a bank started in 1915 and proceeding up to the present time. We are, I hope, coming to more stable times when fluctuations in wages will cease—at any rate, we hope they will not go down any further. That being so, I contend that municipal savings banks on the lines defined by the Opposition this evening cannot be a success. We have in Yorkshire the Yorkshire Penny Savings Bank. I may say that it is only called so because a penny is the lowest sum which can be deposited. That bank went on for a time and they had not a joint stock bank arrangement so that they could lend to traders, and what happened eventually? The big banks came in and now it is part and parcel of the big organisation. Working on the same lines you will find that you cannot carry on the business any cheaper, and you would be in a position where you could not meet your liabilities if you had to face any kind of a run at any time.
I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the Yorkshire Penny Bank has, of course, always met all its liabilities.
I am sorry if I have given a wrong impression, but I was going on to say that the bank did this simply for purposes of security and those in charge were quite right in what they did. Nobody to-day is going to accept a small organisation and that is the reason for all the amalgamations. May I point out, without any disrespect whatever to local banks, that when they amalgamate, it is for strength, exactly as is the case with the Yorkshire bank, and no blame attaches to any of these organisations for endeavouring to make their shareholders and investors and their borrowers safer by joining amalgamations. I do not say that it is always better for the borrowing public, who may have more difficulty in getting money, but it certainly makes for security, and that is the reason for these amalgamations. There is one thing which hon. Members opposite must do if they want municipal banks. They must say what kind of institution they are going to set up in a city of, say, 200,000 population, and what they are going to do in the case of a city already overburdened with debt and rated at 20s. to 24s. in the £. Are they going to ask their own people to support a bank of that kind when the money is going to be used by the officers of the corporation? I think when they examine the facts some of them will be bound to come to the conclusion that they could not recommend municipal banks as the proper or safe thing for investors. There are certain businesses which a corporation can run municipally. There are others which municipalities had better keep their fingers off altogether, and it should not be forgotten, in considering these questions, that, when all is said and done, it is the ratepayer and the citizen who has to find the money.
I am absolutely amazed at the effrontery of the persons who oppose the extension of municipal banks and I am particularly amazed at the speech—I will not use language which could possibly be called unparliamentary—of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. He made an amazing attack upon the Birmingham Municipal Bank, an attack which, had it been made outside this House upon a bank directed by private enterprise, would have rendered him liable to an action for libel. There is not the smallest doubt about that. He made the statement that the bank's liquid assets were insufficient to enable it to meet a run, and, not only that, but he alleged that that statement could be found in the book written with regard to the bank.
I have withdrawn that statement. Why does the hon. Member repeat it?
I am entitled to repeat what the hon. and gallant Member said, and I am going to do so. He first made the statement that this defect was definitely stated in the book written with regard to the bank. When we challenged him to find the page on which it was written in the book, not being able to find the page he withdrew the statement, but he then added that it could be found in the White Paper. We then challenged him to give us the page of the White Paper where the statement was to be found, but he neither gave the page nor withdrew the statement. I say that is an amazing action, and I should not have expected an hon. Member of his reputation to have been guilty of such an action.
May I intervene to state that this is on page 39 of the White Paper:
"To provide for liquidity on the basis of its own resources, we should think it essential that a municipal savings bank should hold ( a ) a substantial cash balance, ( b ) a considerable percentage of the balance of its liabilities in Treasury Bills or in the form of a deposit with the National Debt Commissioners, and ( c ) a substantial amount of securities readily marketable on the stock exchange."
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is attempting to defend his statement—which was a categorical statement that the Birmingham Municipal Bank did not possess sufficient liquid assets to meet demands on the bank—by quoting a general statement with regard to what the position of a municipal bank ought to be. The paragraph which he has read by no means supports his allegation. It does not do so, even in the smallest degree, and he ought to withdraw what is an utterly unfounded statement with regard to this bank and a libel on the finance of the bank, uttered in this House under the shelter of the position of a Member of Parliament. I shall read to the House the only statement which really deals with the question. It is not on the page from which the hon. and gallant Member has quoted, and what it says is something very different from what the hon. and gallant Member said. On pages 49 and 50, in paragraph 137 it is stated:
When I speak of the effrontery of those who oppose this Motion, I am not thinking primarily of the hon. and gallant Member or his allegations as to the insecurity of the funds of the Birmingham municipal bank. I am thinking of the general position and of the advantages of municipal banking in this country. If there had been no municipal bank in this or any other country, it would have been open quite legitimately for hon. Members and others not in this House to have cast doubts and aspersions upon the possibility of running a successful municipal bank, but in the face of the actual facts it is merely childish and hypocritical to take that view. First of all, let me make a reference to foreign countries. In Germany they have long had municipal banks, and they have been run with very great success and have proved an immense advantage to the financial position of that country. Since the time when of course everything went wrong there owing to the immense inflation, the municipal banks have had to restart, and they have increased their deposits by an amount so phenomenal that I shall not trust myself to give the actual figures from recollection, but those who wish to find the facts can turn them up in a recent number of the "Economist."
I do not suggest that it is the business of this country to copy Germany, and I come, therefore, to the success of the Birmingham bank. With the exception of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, it is admitted—and I do not think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will deny it—that the Birmingham municipal bank has been a great success, that it is a sound bank, and that it has been of great benefit to Birmingham. In these circumstances, what effrontery it is for hon. Members opposite to say that this system, which has been adopted with such success in Birmingham, cannot be adopted with success anywhere else. I do not know whether they think the Minister of Health is the only successful financier which the Conservative party possess, or that he alone is able to make a success of such banks, but there are other fish in the sea besides the right hon. Gentleman, and I am quite satisfied that there are other municipalities quite as capable of running a banking system as is that of Birmingham.
This White Paper that has been brought out makes out a case against municipal banking, but I venture to suggest that the case is made out entirely against the weight of evidence. The evidence is that in the short space of a few years—because it is only really since 1919 that the Birmingham bank has been on its present basis—in that one city alone no less than £9,000,000 in deposits has been gained. The Minister of Health holds that from 75 to 80 per cent. of those deposits would not have been put into any other savings organisation. It may be that that figure is too high, but even this White Paper says that 25 per cent. would not have been saved in any other way, and if you take that very low figure, although I am very far from accepting the evidence on which this Report is based, you get something like £2,000,000 saved in Birmingham alone which would not have been saved in any other way; and if you carry that over the whole country, you get something like £100,000,000 of additional savings that would otherwise have been frittered away, yet this White Paper actually ventures to say that organisations which would have the effect of adding to the savings of this country to the amount of something like £100,000,000 would have a deleterious effect upon the national finances. I cannot help thinking that the members of the Committee who signed this Report must have done so with their tongue in their cheek, for everyone knows that organisations which would have added £100,000,000 or thereabouts to the savings of this country would have the exact opposite of a deleterious effect upon the national finances.
By whatever means savings are increased, to that extent must the financial position of the country be improved, and I am certain that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury agrees with that. What is the argument that can possibly be brought forward by these gentlemen to refute that position? They argue in this way. They say that if this money had not been saved through the municipal bank, if this £2,000,000 which they say would not otherwise have been saved had not been saved, the remaining £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 might have gone into other channels—some to the Post Office, some to the trustee savings banks—and the whole of that, they say, would have gone to the National Exchequer. It is clear that the development of the country has to be financed, whichever channel is used for that purpose. If it is housing in Birmingham that has to be done, it has to be financed, whether it comes directly out of the pockets of the depositors in Birmingham or whether the depositors in Birmingham give their money to the National Exchequer and it afterwards goes back into the housing of the citizens of Birmingham.
It is alleged that the finance of the City of Birmingham is in some way unsatisfactory and unstable because this short money of these depositors in the bank has been used to finance operations which are lending long, but these houses have to be financed, and if they are not financed in this way they will be financed in another way. If the savings of the Birmingham people were to go into the Post Office, and those savings were to go into the National Exchequer, and the National Exchequer had to lend money for building houses in Birmingham, what is the difference in effect between one method and the other? An attempt is made to argue that there is a difference, but I venture to say that that is an entire mistake.
The fact is that this success of the Birmingham Savings Bank has been too much for the logic, the judgment and the good sense of Members opposite, and for the gentlemen who wish to discredit municipal banking in this country. It is quite true, as the hon. Member said, that we are out for the extension of municipal activity. It is quite true that he and his party are out for the cramping of municipal activity. I should have thought that we in this House could at least agree that where a piece of municipal activity has been proved successful, it ought to be adopted. This has been proved successful in many ways. First of all, the depositor has been able to get 3½ per cent. interest in the municipal savings bank, as against 2½ per cent. in the Post Office Savings Bank. The Birmingham ratepayer, instead of losing by the formation of this bank, as the hon. Member quite incorrectly represented, has gained by it. He has succeeded in getting money for the purposes of the corporation at a lower rate than he would otherwise have done. The bank is perfectly safe, and, further than that, the National Exchequer must gain by an increase in the saving of the nation and would gain far more if these municipal banks were allowed to extend their benefits under this scheme. In the teeth of that, to suggest that the extension of municipal banks is a dangerous thing and ought to stop and to imply that the municipal bank at Birmingham is unsafe, is an outrage and audacity which I should not have expected even from hon. Members on the opposite side of the House.
I find myself in some agreement with the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who has just sat down, but I suggest to him that, when he says we need only consider this question from the point of view of where the money eventually goes, he is forgetting one of the fundamental principles of banking, whether it is regarded from the point of view of a municipal bank, a private banker, or a joint stock bank. It is the very same thing with all of them. The principle is that you have to consider the depositor primarily. It is all very well to talk about what you want your money for. The first consideration is that you have to carry out your bargain with the man who lends you the money; the second is that he thoroughly understands the terms on which the money is lent; and the third is that he can get back the money when he wants it, and has a right to expect it back.
It is very dangerous to argue from the particular to the general. Particularly so when you have only one instance, and there is no other method of comparison. It is easy enough to say Birmingham has been successful, and therefore all other municipal banks would be successful too; but, in estimating success, one ought to take into consideration not only the peculiar circumstances in which the bank was founded, but the position of Birmingham itself when the bank was founded. In most of our large towns, and more particularly in Scotland and the North of England, we have had systems for the saving of money which normally would not have gone into any bank before those systems were established. We have our building societies, our trustee savings banks, and we have—and in the old days they started this great system—the old friendly societies. That has never obtained to the same extent in Birmingham as in the rest of the country. There is no trustee savings bank; there was, it is true, a building society, but unfortunately or perhaps fortunately for the building society and the interests of sound finance, it has always operated in a very conservative way. The Birmingham experiment was started at a time when there was a great glut of wages and excess of currency, and there was, there fore, an exceptional opportunity that could be taken advantage of, and un opportunity which did not exist in other parts of the country. Therefore, though you are entitled to take your success in Birmingham for what it is worth, you are not justified logically in claiming for it half as much as has been claimed for it this evening.
I want to point out, first of all, that this question really resolves itself into two parts. The first is whether you have in existing circumstances got sufficient means for satisfying the needs of a thrifty man. Then, if you have not, or even if you have, will the suggestions of hon. Members on the Socialist side be justified, not merely from the point of view of politics, which for the moment do not matter at all, but as sound business principles, not based so much on what they call the capitalist system, but based on a real economic system and one which they can justify to the people from whom they take the money. Let us, at the outset, deal with the question of thrift in the country and the means of supplying it. If the House will allow me I will very briefly recapitulate what we find. First, there is the Post Office. That, of course, gives a perfectly definite interest of small amount. It gives that small interest because you may at any moment demand your money back and get it. One of the first principles in lending money—and usury is far older than politics in this country, and almost as old as the history of the world—is that by the extent of your risk, so you judge the interest that you charge. Here the risk is nil, because you have the Government behind you. The rate of interest is low, because you can get back your money at any moment.
The next is the trustee savings bank. Trustee savings banks have developed to an extraordinary extent in the North of England particularly, and in other forms and by other names in Scotland. Let it be said to their credit that those banks have in effect the Government behind them, because under the Acts arrangements are so made that, if necessary, money belonging to depositors can be produced almost at a moment's notice, although, as hon. Members know, money invested in them is generally invested on terms. There, again, the interest is comparatively low, because of the security, and because of the ease with which the demand can be met. Then you have next the ordinary banks. Here I see a smile go round the faces of some of my friends on the Labour benches, because the ordinary bank par excellence is supposed to be the wickedest possible example of the capitalist system which, according to them, is certainly dead or dying. It is customary to-day in joint stock banks, as in the old days of private banks, to take small deposits and allow interest. A great many people, the working class and others, invest their money, as they always have done, in the joint stock banks. In many cases, banks give them a little more than the Post Office or the trustee savings banks. Whether you like the people who run these concerns or not, you have to face the fact that they do serve a very useful purpose in this country.
Next, we come to the War Savings Certificates. Hon. Members on the Socialist side have forgotten that arrangements have been made that, according to the amount of National Savings Certificates sold in a given area, that area shall be able to get from the National Debt Commissioners a proportional amount of money for municipal purposes. The same thing obtains, I believe, with trustee savings banks. Therefore, if the newly-established municipal bank diminishes the source of savings from these two existing institutions, it is diminishing the municipality's ability to get money from the National Debt Commissioners, so that in the end what they would gain on the swings they would lose on the roundabouts. The next source of investment is that of the building societies, and here is a development which, since the War, possibly encouraged by the many schemes of housing, has increased to an extent which is not appreciated except by those intimately connected with it. Side by side with that increase, which has been caused mainly by the undoubted desire of people to own their own houses, there has grown up a system of deposit. The deposit was originally intended to give people their houses, but they have continued their deposits when their houses have been paid for, and this has encouraged the habit of saving.
The next is the modern system of municipal short-term bonds. Many financial authorities think that it is being a little over-done. Advertisements appear in the papers day after day that municipalities are prepared to take on certain terms bonds at a certain rate of interest. These offers are made in competition between municipalities throughout the country. If people wish to be patriotic there is nothing to prevent them investing in their municipalities a sum from as low as £50 up to any amount they wish. Last of all comes what is a growing system, and that is the opportunity given by public companies, and very often by private companies, to their employés to take up their shares. Two days ago I was at the board meeting of one of the companies in which I am interested, and we specially set aside £20,000 to be taken up by our employés because £10,000 already set aside had not been enough.
I have mentioned forms of savings which we on this side of the House contend amply meet all the needs of thrift at present. We are therefore driven to the belief that although the first part of this Motion was drafted by the hand of Esau, it is the voice of Jacob saying, "It is your money we want." The reason for the Motion is that the party supporting it wants more money for municipalities, and they have an idea at the back of their minds that municipalities have not been getting money as cheaply as they are entitled to get it, and that in some way there is a financial incubus sitting over the whole country which, the moment a Socialist municipality puts forward an idea, brings down its hand on that municipality and prevents it getting money at what they regard as a reasonable rate of interest. There is nothing of the kind.
Banking has been going on for a considerable number of centuries, and if hon. Gentlemen establish a municipal bank, forgetting their hatred of capital, are they prepared in the management of that bank to carry it on according to the customs which banking practice has established for many generations t If they are not prepared to observe those customs, how are they going to replace them? Supposing we start de novo and establish a bank. A bank, in the mind of an ordinary man, operates safely for the simple reason that for a long course of years he has learned to expect certain things from that bank, and to expect that the bank will take care of his money in a certain way, and will produce what has been lent to it at such times as may be demanded of it. The other question we have to meet is: Can municipalities establish and run such a bank? In other words, can it reasonably enter into competition with the existing banking system? It would have to enter into competition with existing banks, because, in order to get money which it hoped to get, it would have to offer better terms than the existing banks; and, in offering those better terms, it would have to consider this serious point: Is it not offering the better terms at the risk of the very security which lower interest money is devised to cover? Let us take the money coming out of the reserves or out of what is left when the other savings securities have had their day. It will be deposited, not in even sums, but in varying sums, and nobody will deny, looking through this Bradbury Report, that it is probably correct to say that about four-fifths of the whole of the deposits in such banks would be in one-fifth of the accounts. Therefore, you have not to consider the question of your citizens being shareholders in your banks or of your citizens dealing with their own deposits. What you are really then considering, according to what has been suggested, is that the controllers of the citizens who happen to vote are dealing with the money which they themselves have not put into the bank. That is another proposition altogether. These people who have deposited their money in the banks have invested it so that it is in most cases on demand.
What is the ordinary banking practice? The ordinary practice is to keep a certain definite percentage of money in the till or in the shape of cash at a neighbouring bank. That varies from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. The next thing is that you have a sum of cash, or something which represents cash, which you can get possibly in from one to three days—such things as Treasury Bills and other securities which can be liquidated rapidly. Then there is a series of investments which can be sold at short notice. Last of all there are your investments, which you cannot touch except after notice, or your loans, which are made on terms which do not permit you to get back the money at once. Those are loans which, in effect, are represented in your municipal bank by the current money which is lent for daily dealing by the municipality. It is no use saying that that money which the municipality has borrowed is available cash, unless the municipality, taking its accounts as a whole, has more money than it has borrowed from the bank, and the only liquid money the municipality can have is the balance to credit on the whole of its accounts. It is not the least good saying there is £4,000,000 on any one day to the credit of the municipal bank with the municipality if all the debit accounts of the municipality, in total, are more than the £4,000,000, and if the balance between debit and credit may well be something on the debit side, so far as liquid money is concerned, although theoretically the account as between the bank and the corporation shows a large credit.
It may well be said, "In that case, of course, the local banks or some other banks will come to the aid of the municipal banks. They could not let it go down." But just ask yourselves one question when you put forward that argument. You have established your bank in open competition with the existing banks and you have not played fair with them, because you have taken risks which the system says it is not safe to take, and you have no right, when you get into a difficulty which has been pointed out to you, to turn round and ask them to help you out of the difficulty. That is the position you would undoubtedly have to face in a crisis of that kind.
The Government came to the aid of the bankers in 1914.
The hon. Member knows perfectly well that in 1914 the Government came to the aid of the banking system because the Government took over the currency system, and had the Government not taken over the currency system the whole of the succeeding arrangements with regard to the currency could not have existed. [ Interruption. ] Really, the hon. Gentleman is omniscient about most things, but banking he does not understand. Your municipal bank is mainly devised for the purpose of lending for housing purposes—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]—at any rate, that is one of the things which has been said—as well as having a liquid balance, which, I think, might not sometimes exist in practice. If that is so, it is open to one of the cardinal objections which has always to be faced by banking, and it is that the greatest mistake in the world is to put all your eggs into one basket. If the municipal bank had put all its eggs into one basket the stress of bad times, a decline of trade in the town, would render a realisation of the security practically impossible. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about building societies?"] Hon. Members know perfectly well that in their case the money is not payable on demand; in the case of banks it is payable on demand. That is the difference. I am afraid history is not much respected nowadays, but sometimes it is useful to look back through history, and if we examine the history of our banking system we shall find that those banks which went down quickest and suffered the most in the old days of private banking were those banks in which the private banker was not only a banker but also in some sort of trade. When the bank went down it was found that he had lent money to this one individual trade, and that that was what had killed him in the end. The same principle applies now.
There is one final point, which is really the gist of the whole question, and that is: Where are you going to put the control of your municipal banks? Are you prepared to accept a set of regulations which will bind you down to cautionary practices, to rules and customs which practice has shown to be necessary in banking throughout the whole world? That is the first question I want to put. The second is this: Are you prepared to separate the banking section of your municipal activities from the spending section? Are you prepared to say, "We will establish a manager of a bank and a committee of the bank, giving them personal authority "—very much in the way that the Comptroller and Auditor-General is apart from the spending departments? Then are you prepared to divide yourselves on a kind of Box and Cox arrangement in which Cox, as the municipality spending, must go to Box, as the banker, and prove on sound economic grounds that he is entitled to the advance for which he is asking? That is the whole question, and if hon. Gentlemen are not prepared to do that then they are beaten back to this very simple point, and it is this point, I believe, which is at the back of their minds. They do not care a bit about the rules of banking; what they want is more money. They cannot now get the money for the purposes for which they want it because they cannot convince people that it is reasonable they should have it. Therefore, under a subterfuge, they are going to get that to which they have no right because they will not tell the truth about the way they are asking for it.
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Ellis) has covered many points, but one point in connection with the subject which has not been referred to I wish specially to mention. One of the reasons why I rather regret the composition of the Committee is that nobody was placed on it who had had any special practical knowledge of the methods of saving employed by large numbers of the working classes, and they are not mentioned in this document at all. I ought to explain that there are certain gentlemen whose names appear here whom I do not know very closely, and therefore there may be one who has had some association with them. But any hon. Member, especially anyone sitting on these benches, knows that saving funds much patronised in the working class quarters are those which terminate at the end of a year. Week by week men and women pay in a certain sum of money to the fund, and sometimes they have the right to get loans out of it, but in any case the money is paid out at the end of the year, and is used at Christmas time for the needs of the family and the enjoyment of Christmas. Although there is a great deal to be said for this system, and personally I do not wish to see it stopped, I believe that in many ways it leads to a great deal of waste which otherwise might be prevented.
If you take the Post Office Savings Bank, it always requires a certain amount of energy on the part of those who are going to save to go through the procedure connected with it, and the same applies to all those schemes mentioned in the Report. I cannot help thinking that one of the advantages connected with the Birmingham Municipal Bank is that it has discovered a system whereby it is made easy for people who have not much time or knowledge about saving to save. That is why I feel that this is a very important point which has been overlooked by the Committee. Everybody in this House believes in saving, and really, if the Birmingham Corporation have achieved such a remarkable success in procuring deposits and have found an easy way of collecting savings from the people, then many of the points we are now discussing become of secondary importance.
The hon. Member for Wakefield said that we were not prepared to carry out certain definite rules with regard to the management of municipal banks. That is a point to which the Committee do not seem to have directed their attention. Surely, the Committee might have said that if municipal banks are going to be carried on certain rules and regulations would be necessary. Instead of doing this, I believe that there is only one instance in which they have suggested a way in which banks should be managed. It would have been quite easy for the Committee to have made some very definite suggestions with regard to the management of municipal banks. The fallacy which underlay the speech of the hon. Member for Wakefield is that the system of municipal banks in Birmingham and other places cannot very well be compared with the ordinary banking system, because in the case of municipal banks they have behind them the credit of the city to which they belong.
But you cannot put them into bankruptcy as you can in the case of an individual.
10.0 p.m.
I do not think the comparison is a fair one. The hon. Member for Wakefield may not like the fact that the credit of the city is be hind the municipal banks, but it stands to reason that if one of those banks got into difficulties, unlike a private firm, it is almost certain that they would be able to procure a certain amount of money. I do not wish to convey the idea that municipal banks ought not to adopt a careful system of keeping their accounts, but I think that when you come to examine the policy of the Birmingham Bank, it is very much on the same lines as those which have been laid down by the hon. Member for Wakefield. I believe the Birmingham Bank laid down that not more than one-third of its capital is to be used in regard to housing. The hon. Member for Wakefield suggested short credits, but it seems to me that in this respect municipal banks are following very much the same principle as ordinary banks.
We have been told that the Birmingham Bank holds a certain amount of stock which is being held against the money advanced. I look upon all these things as being secondary to the main principle which we are considering. Reference has been made to the question of how far it is possible to allow a bank to lend money on a paying system. I would like to point out that it is not likely that a municipal bank is going to make losses in the same way as an ordinary bank. I do not gather that municipal banks are lending money to any great extent except in two directions, one dealing with housing and the other investments in Government securities. Ordinary banks are constantly being faced with bad debts by making investments here and there, but they have to face those losses. The great danger in regard to savings banks is the depreciation that may take place in gilt-edged securities. Hon. Members will recollect the days when Consols fell from 114 to the price at which they stand to-day. A number of banks specially invested their savings in Consols. The Birkbeck Bank invested all its money in Consols, and, as time went on, that bank lost a great deal of money, and in the end had to be wound up. Other savings banks did exactly the same thing.
As time goes on, it is quite possible these municipal banks will have to pay a lower interest to their depositors, but this only brings me back to the point with which I started, which is that the Birmingham Bank has really discovered a good method of saving money. My impression is that the arguments used in the Report have been very much over stressed, and the impression created is that the Committee were anxious to find any and every argument against municipal banks. The Report refers to the fact that if you were to reduce the money received by the Post Office you would add largely to the difficulties of the Government in raising money, but I think that argument is very much exaggerated. There is a sum of £900,000,000 of Government debt to be dealt with in the next few years and to suggest that that will be affected by a decrease in Post Office savings of £10,000,000, £20,000,000, £30,000,000 or even £50,000,000 seems to be rather overstraining the point. That is the general opinion that one has of this Report—that it is a Report written in order to condemn municipal savings banks quite regardless of whether the arguments put forward are as sound as they are made out to be. On these grounds I very much regret that the Report has been brought out in this way, instead of pressing the points that have been brought out in this Debate, showing how these banks may be managed and how they might be co-ordinated together by placing a certain definite amount of their money in the hands of some Government Commissioners, who would put it into a common pool from which to help any bank that might be in special difficulties, so that later on any such bank might make up any deficiency that might occur during a time of crisis. A Report somewhat on those lines would have been much more helpful than the Report which has been presented.
I do not propose to intervene at any great length in this Debate, in view of the fact that a reply is, as I understand, to be made from the Government Bench. I should like, however, to impress upon the House that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) has, to use a vulgarism, completely given the show away, and has indicated exactly what is at the back of the minds of those who are advocating an extension of the municipal banking system. In the early part of his speech he said that the security of these banks is the power to raise the rates of the town in order to pay off a deficiency or meet a run. He specifically laid it down that that was the real security. Let us follow out what that means in practice. It means putting up the rates in order to meet the requirements of the bank's depositors, or, in other words, that the security of municipal banking, the strength of municipal banking, depends simply upon the fact that, if the depositors call for their money, the municipality can take the money out of one of the depositors' pockets and pay it back into the other. That, of course, as I have said, gives the whole show away. Who are the depositors, and who are the ratepayers? The depositors are the small people, large in numbers but small in the matter of their deposits. The large ratepayers are people who have no sort of control over the management of the town, who in many cases are without any votes, and it is their money that forms the security for the depositors. I venture to say that the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury has probably opened the eyes of this House to the real security offered by municipal banks.
Might I ask the hon. Gentleman what difference there is between a municipal savings bank and the Post Office Savings Bank, except that in the one case it covers only the town, and in the other case it covers the whole country?
Exactly; and I object to any form of Socialism.
I have heard every word of this Debate and I must say that, in listening to it, I have felt that it has been one of the most interesting Debates that I have ever heard in the House of Commons. The case was stated fairly and properly by the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Gardner), and it was well supported by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Dennison). The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment also made admirable speeches, and, indeed, if I may be allowed to say so, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Ellis) made a speech than which, I say quite seriously, I have never heard a better. There is no need, really, for me to say a word upon this Debate at all; the speech of the hon. Member for Wakefield was unanswerable. I will leave the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), who I understand, is going to wind up the Debate, to try to answer it. The Amendment has the good will of the Government, and I hope it will be carried by a large majority.
Let us see what the Motion aims at. It proposes to establish municipal banks for the promotion of thrift. [An HON. MEMBER: "IS that wrong?"] No, I am all for it; but is it a fact that the establishment of municipal savings banks is absolutely necessary for the promotion of thrift? Has it not been pointed out in every quarter of the House that we have the Post Office Savings Bank with its 14,000 offices open every day, into which people can put their money at any moment and take it out almost at a moment's notice. [An HON. MEMBER: "Two and a half per cent!"] People who make that observation remind me of the fact that when I was Lord Mayor of Norwich I was asked why we did not try to find a better system of getting people's deposits than was then in operation. I was told that people found difficulty in putting by their money in the suburbs of Norwich and I was also told this—and I have never forgotten it—that it is not a question of whether people get £2 10s. or £3 10s. interest on £100, which is as much as most of them would be able to save, but that they wanted to feel certain of being able to draw their £100 when they needed it, perhaps when a child was ill, or when a death or other disaster occurred. They wanted that money then, at a moment's notice, and the rate of interest they got was of little importance in comparison. When therefore anyone speaks of the importance of the interest on poor people's savings let me assure them, from my own knowledge of municipal work, that it is not the interest but the security that matters.
Hon. Members speaking in this Debate have taken Birmingham, as an example. It is one of very great interest, but it does not cover the whole ground. The municipal bank there has been managed perfectly successfully, with the ability that we associate with Birmingham, but people are apt to forget that it is a very special case. That bank was founded in a territory where there were not sufficient facilities for depositing the savings of the people. There were no trustee savings banks there and there were very few building societies, and moreover it was a district where, on account of the War and just after the War, employment was fortunately very good and money was plentiful, and the basis of the bank was the funds which had come out of the temporary War bank. I would remind hon. Members of what was said by the Committee on these matters. They say on page 32 of their Report: saving, leaving only £1,000,000 to go into the municipal bank.
I want to turn aside to say a word, which I think is quite germane to the discussion, in reference to building societies. It has been said in Debate that Birmingham in the past has not been adequately supplied with building societies. I am glad to find that a total of £200,000,000 is now invested in building societies; if hon. Gentlemen opposite had put down a Motion in favour of supporting building societies in order to promote thrift I should be one of the first to agree with it. People in this country have not yet fully awakened to the fact that the well managed, honestly arranged building society is one of the best forms of security for the working man's savings. Whether he wants to buy his house or a shop he can save his money through a good building society and put it where he can improve its value and where at the same time he has good security. I can conceive of no better form of saving than through the building society. If hon. Members wish to promote thrift, there is the Post Office Savings Bank, with its 14,000 offices, there are the private Trustee Savings Banks, which are usually controlled by responsible local people and which have 443 offices and over £114,000,000 of deposits.
Is there any lack of facilities for thrift? That is the point. That is the basis of the Motion. You have the friendly societies' and co-operative societies' banks, War Savings Certificates, and many equally good methods. There is no lack of opportunity to foster thrift. The argument which stands on the leg of thrift falls to the ground at once. There is no lack of opportunity. The plea is a false one. The Motion goes on to talk about the reduction of interest burdens on the ratepayers. I have my doubts about that. The Council of Municipal Treasurers in their evidence made a special proviso that corporations, if any, that had municipal banks should pay to the banks at the same rate of interest they were paying for loans from private lenders. In that case I cannot see that they would make much money out of the municipal banks. Further, if they make up their minds to keep proper liquid resources, as no doubt they will, and they are earning not more than they are paying in interest, very little profit will be made as a result of their trading. The Council of Municipal Treasurers also said they were totally against any profits being used to help the rates.
Where then is the relief to ratepayers? If, as I believe is true, the Committee is right in saying the general establishment of such banks within the next 10 years would cause serious embarrassment to national finance, that is a very valid reason in itself for resisting the Motion. [ Interruption. ] If depositors withdraw or divert their money out of existing organisations for saving, such as the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks, and place it in the hands of municipal banks, that will render it necessary for the Government to realise some of its investments, which means adding to the amount of Government loans on the market. If there is one thing the Treasury want to do it is to convert loans to a lower rate of interest. Anything that takes money which might otherwise go into Government loans would be an obstacle in the way of conversion. The third thing this Motion seeks is the more efficient operation of municipal services. What does that mean? If money is hard to come by people are reluctant to spend it. They say, "What is this going to cost and where is the money to come from?" If they have money easily come by in this way, entrusted to them in municipal banks, it will do what it does in everyone's pocket—burn a hole. The first thing councillors would want to do with it would be to spend it. The one thing we do not want to do at present is to spend more than is absolutely necessary. That is not the policy, however, of hon. Gentlemen opposite. For that reason I shall certainly give my vote to the Amendment.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this has been a very fine Debate on both sides, and I should have liked to see it properly wound up. I should have liked to hear the most effective answer that could be given to every statement the hon. Gentleman has made delivered by the present Minister of Health. There is not one argument, or shall I say one pretence at an argument, the hon. Gentleman has used which has not been answered, refuted and scorned in ad- vance by the late Mayor of Birmingham, the present Minister of Health
That was in particular relation to Birmingham.
It so happens that the one municipal bank which has been in existence in England is at Birmingham, and, therefore, the Mayor of Birmingham spoke with greater knowledge of Birmingham, but the Mayor of Birmingham also said that he would as soon think of endeavouring to imprison a volcano as endeavour to confine a successful muncipal bank to Birmingham and prevent it from being applied to any other city. I venture to make this offer to the hon. Gentleman. If he will approach the Minister of Health tomorrow with a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT in his hand, he will find that in regard to every statement that he has made the Minister of Health can riddle it as he has done in advance. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here. He was the right hon. Gentleman who appointed the Committee of Inquiry. He selected its personnel. I was amazed to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment to-night say that it was an impartial Committee. An impartial Committee of five gentlemen! Two of them directors of banks, including the Chairman of the Committee, a director in a private bank, and the other three mixed up with high finance and insurance in the City. I would sooner think of appointing a Committee of butchers to inquire into and report upon the practice of vegetarianism in this country.
It is perfectly clear there is a very close connection between what is called the Treasury mind and the Report which has been discussed to-night. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution quoted a letter which had come from Sheffield—a protest that Sheffield's proposals were not even to be considered, that the Treasury were forbidding the consideration of these proposals. But that is nothing new. As far back as the 18th February, 1926, the Treasury, through Sir Otto Niemeyer, wrote to the agents on behalf of Bristol, who were then promoting a Corporation Bill, declaring that unless the Clause promoting a municipal bank were taken out of the Bill the Treasury would do its utmost to kill the Bill. It is nothing new. This Bradbury Report need never have been signed. The Treasury officials have been relentlessly hostile to the development of municipal banks. It has become a prevailing practice for high officials in the Treasury to graduate in the Treasury for the City, and there is a very close underground connection between the two. Therefore, we do not place the same high importance upon the Report of the Bradbury Committee as some hon. Members have placed upon it to-night.
The history of the Birmingham Bank adds force to what I have already said. I think no-one to-night has told the history of that bank. The right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Health, as a result of his propaganda succeeded in having the Municipal Savings Banks (War Loan Investment) Act put on the Statute Book in 1916, but Clause 1, paragraph ( a ) of that Act, at the instance of the Treasury, and in the interests of high finance, declared that there were to be no direct deposits. No-one was to be able to make a direct deposit, but deposits were to be made by workmen through their employers and by deductions from their wages. The investments of the bank were, to be made with the National Debt Commissioners. Three months after the War, the bank was to cease. As if that were not enough, the Treasury only allowed 3½ per cent. interest on the money from the bank. Although the Treasury were paying private lenders 5 per cent. for money in the City, they would only allow the Birmingham Bank 3½ per cent. Naturally, there were howls of glee and joy when the Birmingham Bank in the earlier stages showed a loss. But the Minister of Health did not lose courage. In 1919, Birmingham, through his agency, came to the House for a new Bill. I pay the right hon. Gentleman this tribute, that it is through his persistance and prescience that Birmingham stands financially where it does to-day, and that when some other actions in his public life have disappeared into well-deserved oblivion, the Municipal Bank which he conceived, nursed, fought for and guided to success, will be for ever a permanent testimony and memory.
What are the facts about this bank? I have here a cutting from a newspaper of to-day, and I think it answers a large part of the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock), who moved, and some part of the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bradford Central (Lieut.-Colonel Gadie), who seconded, the Amendment. The quotations relating to the bank is taken from the "Manchester Guardian":
What are the objections to the development of the municipal banking system? First of all, and we have heard it stated to-day ad nauseam by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Ellis) and others, it is said that it would have a considerable effect upon municipal expenditure; that the more money a municipality gets and the cheaper it gets it, the more likely it would become a spendthrift organisation; that it would waste the money. Easy come, easy go! That is the chief objection that has been advanced to the development of municipal banking. What are the facts? When the Minister of Health is in Birmingham is he a spendthrift? When he is at Westminster, under the tutelage of the Treasury officials, he is a great economist. If he runs a bank as Mayor of Birmingham he becomes a waster. If his experience of Birmingham has taught him that there is a tendency to waste, we have considerable testimony frequently offered us here that Birmingham is a well-managed city.
There is no evidence of waste or spendthrift finance about Birmingham any more than any other city. There is local control of expenditure. The taxpayers in Birmingham are no more anxious to see their money wasted than are the taxpayers anywhere else, and it ill becomes hon. Members to contrast the experience of this House and its control over finance with the experience of municipal control over finance. One night in the year we travel through the Lobbies and vote away £80,000,000 without a word of discussion. Nothing like that ever happens in any municipality. The saving of rates and unnecessary expenditure is surely a thing which all hon. Members should assist. The second argument is that if municipal banking develops the Government's conversion schemes will be rendered much more difficult; that if money which at present goes to the Treasury through the Savings Banks and the Post Office Savings bank, or a considerable portion of it, is retained in the localities by municipal banks the Treasury would find it much more difficult to proceed with its conversion schemes in order to lower the interest on the National Debt. That is, I think, stating fairly the argument of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
No, not quite. The argument was that there was a fear that depositors might be attracted from the existing places where their deposits are and would place them in municipal banks which would cause the Government to realise its investments.
That is the same thing stated in another way. It means this, that this cheap money instead of flowing into the Treasury would flow into municipal coffers and that His Majesty's Government would require to take other steps to raise national money and thereby conversion schemes would become more difficult. Surely there must be other methods of securing the conversion of our National Debt into a lower rate of interest other than insisting on dear money to the ratepayers? Surely there must be, and ought to be, other steps taken by this House for the reduction of the interest on the National Debt rather than continue the present practice of taking the poor man's money at 2½ per cent. plus ¼ per cent. for working expenses. It means that you are taking the poor man's money at 2 per cent. while paying the rich man 5 per cent. I want to add one word on the point made by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) who spoke so effectively. I refer to the question of new money. The Birmingham municipal bank is not simply diverting money into municipal coffers that would otherwise go to the joint stock banks or to the Treasury. Even the Bradbury Commission estimate that about 25 per cent. of it is new money.
That is their estimate. They say it is 25 per cent. of new money. We must analyse their estimate. On what does the Bradbury Committee base its statement? The Minister of Health does not say it is only 25 per cent. He makes a carefully considered estimate or he made an estimate in the earlier stages of the bank, and he said it was 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of new money. The Bradbury Committee, in saying that it is only 25 per cent. new money, take the figures for a given period for War Savings Certificates sold in Birmingham. They say that in 1920 the sales of War Savings Certificates—that was before the bank started—were eight per 1,000 of population above the average of the country, but that after the bank was started the sales fell to 23 per 1,000 below the average for the country. That is the basis of calculation. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Bradbury Committee should be so blind as not to see that other big cities in the country which have no municipal banks, have had even greater reductions in the sale of War Savings Certificates. For example, Leeds fell from 108 to 66, and there is no municipal bank there. Therefore, I do not for a moment accept the Bradbury Committee's estimate of only 25 per cent. new money. But suppose it were only 25 per cent., suppose it were £2,000,000. As the hon. Member for West Leicester said, that means £100,000,000 more in use as capital savings in the country. That is £100,000,000 at present kept in jugs or pockets and not banked and not in effective use. Nobody can dispute these figures. They are the Bradbury Committee's figures, the worst that can be given. Surely if there were £100,000,000 of fresh capital in the country to-morrow, it would have the effect of easing the National Debt position and not making it worse.
If the municipalities, who are at present paying 5 per cent. for the money could, when they start municipal banks, replace that 5 per cent. money by 3½ per cent. money, they would save the local ratepayers 1½ per cent. and they would do more; they would release this 5 per cent. money, which must find investment elsewhere, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably come in for his share of it, although at a lower rate of interest. We have heard eulogies of the Post Office Savings Bank. We have been told how many thousand opportunities there are already for thrift. Thrift at 2½ per cent.! In good times and bad, 2½ per cent. is what the working classes are offered for their money. That money, over £300,000,000 of it, arrives at the Treasury door. Then the same ratepayer who has put his money at 2½ per cent. into the Post Office goes to the Treasury, and asks for a loan of money to build houses. It is urged that slums are bad, that death rates are high, and that more houses must be built. The municipal authority therefore goes to the Treasury, and asks for a loan of money to build houses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury meet them with great benignity and say, "Yes, certainly, we will lend you your own money back. You have given it to us at 2½ per cent.; we will let you have it back at 5 per cent. for housing." There is an actual profit of 2½ per cent. on the deal.
The hon. Member is comparing a short-dated transaction with a long-dated transaction.
This is the kind of short-dated transaction that has been going on for a long period of years.
The money in the Post Office is on call.
As a matter of fact it is not on call; it is on seven days' notice.
Instead of leaving their money at 2½ per cent., where they can get it on call, they can take local municipal bonds and get 5 per cent.
I know, but hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Wakefield, spent a considerable time in "boosting" the Post Office Savings Bank, as the proper and appropriate method for the working classes.
That is only if you want your money back on demand.
We heard a great deal about the number of Post Offices in the country and about how their doors were open for so many hours every day to accommodate the working classes, but the working classes only get 2½ per cent. The fact remains that the Treasury is using £300,000,000 of working class money which it gets at 2½ per cent., while it is paying 5 per cent. to the richer classes in the community. No amount of superfine argument can get round that fact. An hon. Member on the other side has said something about short term loans—borrowing short and lending long. We have heard a lot about that, and by reading the Bradbury Committee's Report one can get a considerable amount of information upon the subject. Let us consider apart from Treasury fine phrases what this actually means. A group of local ratepayers decide to have a municipal gasworks. They have to morrow the money long wherever they borrow. Why should a group of ratepayers in Manchester or Leeds or Norwich or anywhere else believe that their security is no good. They see the security in front of them—the gasworks. If they all turn mad—and that is an assumption which would destroy many fine arguments put forward in this House—and if there is a run on their municipal bank, the municipal bank committee can quite easily take their securities—the gasworks securities—into the market as now. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I have been a member of a municipal authority, and I have been the convenor of a finance committee, and I have had to sign several overdrafts and all the rest of it, in private banks, on municipal security such as I am suggesting now.
You have to realise it.
Since the hon. Gentleman raises the question, this is the answer to him. Once your bank puts the stuff on to the market like that, with the knowledge that it is in want of money, the system of unrest will spread to all the other banks.
I think that argument is really beneath the hon. Member.
That is what happens.
If there was a run on the bank, and if the municipality had a perfectly good security for the money it had borrowed from its ratepayers and was compelled to secure immediate liquid assets, it could pledge its assets elsewhere—[An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] In the last resort, exactly where the private banks of this country got it in 1914, when they were on the verge of a collapse had not the State stepped in. Experience shows that this question of a run on the banks is a bogy, a positive bogy. The deposits, as a matter of fact, grow year after year. Birmingham is not the only place where many of these theories have been tested, and my chief ground of accusation against the bias and unfairness of this Bradbury Report is that it never mentions the successful municipal banking experiments in Germany and in other parts of the world.
We have tried to get round the Treasury in Scotland in this matter. I remember that in my own native town we could not get power to run a municipal bank—this House would not give it to us—and we were tired of overdrawing and paying 6 per cent. interest to a private banker, so we formed the members of the town council into a limited liability company, we registered ourselves under the Companies Acts, and we paid in something like a shilling a share each, and formed ourselves into a Municipal Bank, Limited, and started to take money from the ratepayers by that means. All the money that we got we were compelled to lend to the municipality, and we were compelled by our articles of association to make no profit, and the result has been—
But you did not guarantee it on the rates.
If we have got a municipal gas works, and we borrow money from private lenders or from the Prudential Insurance Company at 5 per cent. to run those gas works, why should we not get money from our ratepayers at 3½ per cent., which is 1 per cent. more than they are getting now from the Post Office Savings Bank, pay off the 5 per cent. borrowed money and replace it with the 3½ per cent., thus saving the ratepayers l½ per cent.? It is the experience all over the place. In my town we have lowered our rates by 2d. in the £ for six years. I know that the convener of the housing committee of the Glasgow city council, who was the leader of the Moderate party—that is, the anti-Socialist party in the city—less than a year ago made a public estimate from his place in the city council that a municipal bank would save the city of Glasgow no less than 3d. in the £ on the rates. Then there are Motherwell, Clydebank, Peebles, Selkirk, and so on, all upon this basis. The thing is being done now, and, as a matter of fact, there is a Bill before the House at this moment, at the instance of this precious Bradbury Committee, designed to stop the operation of these banks by preventing us using the term "municipal bank."
In conclusion, I want to say that the Report that we have been discussing this evening is a biased and an unfair document. At any rate, it is an incomplete document, and if the Government desire to have a complete report on municipal banks, let them set up a committee of this House composed of business men, financiers and men of experience, and let us no longer have a Committee of wolves to investigate into the habits of sheep. We are tired of a system which means high rates for the municipalities, and hon. Members who go into that Lobby against us to-night will, as a matter of fact, vote, even at present rates, for l½ per cent. too high an interest for the local ratepayers. You talk about helping the industries in distressed areas. Why not help us to shift the burden of usury? Why seek to justify the continuance of a 5 per cent. rate of interest for municipal authorities, when it has been proved that you can get millions of money at 3½ per cent.? I submit that if this House justifies the conclusions of the Bradbury Report, and votes for the Amendment to our Motion, it is voting for a high rate of interest and a continuance of the stranglehold upon our industries. It is sinning against the light, and denying the considered experience and opinion of highly respected Members of its own Government. Not only the present Minister of Health, but his successor in office, Sir Percival Bower, who is a member of the party opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—I understood he was the successor—
He did not succeed the Minister of Health directly, but is chairman of the bank to-day.
I thought he was subsequently Lord Mayor of Birmingham. We have two Lord Mayors of Birmingham—one who sympathises with us on
this side, and one who is a distinguished ornament to the party opposite, so that in Birmingham you have got Labour and Conservative leaders in entire agreement that the bank is a good thing and has been working successfully. Further, the Minister of Health goes up and down the country declaring that if this is Socialism he is not afraid of the name, and if he is not afraid of the name I am sorry indeed to have to say there are other hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches who are.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 219.
Division No. 14. ]] AYES. [ 10.55 p.m. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hayes, John Henry Scrymgeour, E. Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hirst, G. H. Scurr, John Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Sexton, James Ammon, Charles George Jephcott, A. R. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) John, William (Rhondda, West) Shiels, Dr. Drummond Barnes, A. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Barr, J. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) sitch, charles H. Batey, Joseph Kelly, W. T. Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Beckett, John (Gateshead) Kennedy, T. Snell, Harry Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Broad, F. A. Lansbury, George Stamford, T. W. Bromfield, William Lawrence, Susan Stephen, Campbell Bromley, J. Lawson, John James Stewart. I. (St. Rollox) Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Lee, F. Sullivan, Joseph Buchanan, G. Lindley, F. W. Sutton, J. E. Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel 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) Tinker, John Joseph Cluse, W. S. MacLaren, Andrew Townend, A. E. Compton, Joseph Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. Connolly, M. Macmillan, Captain H. Varley, Frank B. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) MacNeill-Weir, L. Viant, S. P. Day, Colonel Harry Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Wallhead, Richard C. Dennison, R. Maxton, James Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen Duncan, C. Montague, Frederick Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Dunnlco, H. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Gardner, J. P. Mosley, Oswald Wellock, Wilfred Gillett, George M. Murnin, H. Welsh, J. C. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Naylor, T. E. Westwood, J. Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Palin, John Henry Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. Greenall, T. Paling, W. Whiteley, W. Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Ponsonby, Arthur Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Potts, John S. Windsor, Walter Groves, T. Richardson, B. (Houghton-le-Spring) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) Grundy, T. W. Riley, Ben Hardie, George D. Ritson, J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —— Hayday, Arthur Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland) Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Allen Parkinson.
NOES. Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Banks, Reginald Mitchell Brass, Captain W Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Brassey, Sir Leonard Albery, Irving James Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Bridgeman. Rt. Hon William Clive Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Bennett, A. J. Brittain, Sir Harry Allen,J.Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Berry, Sir George Brocklebank, C. E. R. Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Bethel, A. Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Apsley, Lord Betterton, Henry B. Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Birchall, Major J. Dearman Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Astor, Viscountess Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Bullock, Captain M. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Campbell, E. T. Balfour, George (Hampstead) Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Carver, Major W. H. Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) Hills, Major John Waller Ramsden, E. Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Hilton, Cecil Remer, J. R. Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Holt, Captain H. P. Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) Clayton, G. C Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Ropner, Major L. Cobb, Sir Cyril Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N). Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Hudson. R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whlteh'n) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Colman, N. C. D. Hume. Sir G. H. Salmon, Major I. Cooper, A. Duff Huntingfield, Lord Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Cope, Major William Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Couper, J. B. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Sandeman, N. Stewart Crawfurd, H. E. Iveagh, Countess of Sanders, Sir Robert A. Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Can'l)) Sanderson, Sir Frank Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Sandon, Lord Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Savery, S. S. Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) Curzon, Captain Viscount Kindersley, Major Guy M Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Rentrew, W.) Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. King, Commodore Henry Douglas Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Shepperson, E. W. Dawson, Sir Philip Lamb, J. Q. Skelton, A. N. Drewe, C. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Duckworth, John Loder, J. de V. Smithers, Waldron Eden, Captain Anthony Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Edge, Sir William Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Edmondson, Major A. J. Lumley, L. R. Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F. Ellis, R. G. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Steel, Major Samuel Strang Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Storry-Deans, R. Everard, W. Lindsay McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Fairfax, Captain J. G. McLean, Major A. Streatfeild, Captain S. R. Fermoy, Lord Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Forestier-Walker, Sir L. MacRobert, Alexander M. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Forrest, W. Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Templeton, W. P. Foster, Sir Harry S. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Thomas. Sir Robert John (Anglesey) Fraser, Captain Ian Malone, Major P. B. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Gates, Percy Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Tinne. J. A. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Goff, Sir Park Meller, R. J. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Gower, Sir Robert Merriman, F. B. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Waddington, R Grant, Sir J. A. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Wallace, Captain D. E. Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L (Kingston-on-Hull) Greene, W. P. Crawford Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Moreing, Captain A. H. Warrender, Sir Victor Grotrian, H. Brent Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) Gunston, Captain D. W. Murchison, Sir Kenneth Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph Watts, Dr. T. Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wiggins, William Martin Hammersley, S. S. Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) Hanbury, C. Nuttall, Ellis Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) Harland, A. Oakley, T. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) Hartington, Marquess of O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Owen, Major G. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Haslam, Henry C. Penny, Frederick George Womersley, W. J. Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley) Perring, Sir William George Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley Henderson, Sir Vivian (Bootle) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) wragg, Herbert Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Henn, Sir Sydney H. Price, Major C. W. M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Colonel Woodcock and Lieut.-Colonel Gadie.—Colonel Woodcock and Lieut.-Colonel Gadie. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Raine, Sir Walter
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
rose —
It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Poor Law Act, 1927
I beg to move, We desire once more to urge on the House that the Order appointing special guardians for West Ham should not be renewed. Though we have had several Debates like this in the House, we have never once got to real grips with the Minister. We have contented ourselves with detailing instances of the harshness of the administration of the appointed guardians, and the Minister has uniformly replied with a series of anecdotes regarding the old guardians. His defence has been that the old guardians were extravagant. To-day I want to deal with the question, not upon the lines of harshness towards the poor in my district, but I want the House to consider what use the Minister is making of these new guardians.
What is the policy of the Minister of Health? The order we are discussing relates to the poverty of my district. No rich district has anything to fear from the guardians, because the whole reason for superseding the old guardians and appointing new ones is that the local authority is not carrying on the administration economically. My locality is being eaten up by its own poor rate, and it has not enough money to feed the poor. On account of our poverty we have to starve our system of higher education, and we have one of the worst records in England in regard to municipal housing. Out of our poverty we have to subscribe to the even greater poverty of the Borough of West Ham and the West Ham Union. That is the ground of our offending. In these Debates the Minister of Health has always pointed out the extravagance of the old guardians. It is always an easy thing for the right hon. Gentleman to turn the scales against local administrators, but I would like to ask what he has done for the relief of the poverty in my district.
In 1923–24 we had a poor rate of 16s. 6d. in the £ and a borough council rate of 22s 2d. That 16s. 6d. rose to 17s. 6d. in the first instance and then to 17s. 9d. During the first year that the new guardians took charge of the union it stood at 17s. 9d., and when they got firmly into the saddle the poor rate for the year ending March last was 16s. 8d., with a borough council rate of 22s. 8d. The consequence is that this modern administration has left the district slightly worse off than it was under the old regime. That is our present position, although at one time we stood almost alone as a necessitous area. When some particular district becomes intolerably over-burdened with the rates the right hon. Gentleman appoints a committee. He did this in the case of Bedwellty, Chester-le-Street, and Abertillery. In some cases he appoints new guardians, and in one case he appointed an economy committee. He goes on in that way without recognising that the disease from which we are suffering is one which has affected a very large part of our local government system. The whole body of local government is affected, and yet the Minister of Health contents himself by simply putting a mustard plaster on here and there to cure the disease. What is the Ministry of Health doing for the necessitous areas? No amount of extravagance could bring Westminster under the Guardians Default Act. That is an Act which, on the face of it, can only be applied to districts which are apparently not in a position to meet their obligations.
It was all very well for the Minister to ride away with the idea that this, that and the other district were poor because of the extravagance of their local administrators. That can no longer be upheld, now that people are seeing that the causes which have led to the poverty in West Ham and East Ham are visibly affecting so great a part of England, and the country is looking to him for a policy. When we ask him for a policy, in Debate after Debate he replies with humorous anecdotes about the former guardians of West Ham and of Chester-le-Street. I am now making one more attempt to ask the Minister of Health for a policy. The right hon. Gentleman is, however, very weak in policy. He is a very good organiser; he is a very tidy administrator. He would have made a very good civil servant. He is quite good at machinery. His Rating and Valuation Act is a valuable contribution; I have never denied it. The Minister of Health is a very tidy-minded man; he is very good at machinery. The Rating and Valuation Act is quite a good Measure. He is very ingenious at inventing little, ingenious, punitive things like the Guardians Default Act; but when there is a crisis in local government, and the country is asking for a policy, he is perfectly dumb and helpless, and it is curious that it was left to another Department to give the first rational analysis of the situation, and even the hint of a remedy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a statesman—not a statesman of whose policy I approve, but he is of the race of statemen and not of the race of great administrators. He is a man accessible to great general ideas; he is a man who can formulate a policy, and it is, as I say, one of the curiosities of government that, where the whole of local government is crying out under the same evils which affect West Ham, the Minister of Health is dumb, and there is apparently only one person in the Cabinet, and he is from another Department, who has been able to give an analysis of the situation and point to a remedy. I cannot, unfortunately, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he is going to do with West Ham; I have to ask the Minister of Health. We have asked very often. We have asked in this House; we have been on deputations; but we have never had the slightest hint of any policy for these distressed areas, and I desire to point out to the House that the matter is taking an altogether different aspect from that which it presented when this Act was passed.
When this Act was passed, the House was expecting a Poor Law reform. Indeed, more than that, a Poor Law reform was promised. This Measure, therefore, presented itself to the House as a sort of stop-gap Measure, to put things right locally until the great reform should come along, and it is plausible enough to say that, where you are going to do away with all guardians, you will put particularly troublesome ones into cold storage until you can amend the machinery. It is quite a different matter when all the big reforms have been dropped, when the Minister is turning to a policy of going on, six months after six months, applying the Guardians Default Act as a sort of Measure of economy. To-day I want to ask the Minister of Health, what is his policy with regard to West Ham? When does he mean to do something to repair what is, after all, the cause of our present misfortunes, the prime cause of the appointed guardians? When is he going to turn his mind from these criticisms of the late guardians and tell us when my district, which is so seriously oppressed, can hope for some rational system, some rational remedy?
I say it is unworthy of the House to go on tinkering with effects in this way, to go on with Measures which afford no help to my locality. Even if we fed the poor, we are not treating the poor properly—but I have said that so often in this House that I am not saying it to-day. I am saying that this model administration leaves us still in a position in which we cannot have the ordinary municipal services. It is only the Treasury that has benefited. The loans, or irregular grants, are no longer paid; the district is paying them all. But in the district itself local government, education, housing, every other service is going to pieces under the model administration, precisely as it was going to pieces many years ago. I ask hon. Members opposite to put some pressure upon the Minister to deal with this whole question of the necessitous areas, of which my district is only one example, in a broad and statesmanlike manner.
I beg to second the Motion.
I rise to support the Prayer in order to obtain from the Minister of Health a renunciation of the Government's present policy in regard to West Ham. The alleged reason why the old West Ham Guardians were superseded was, according to a public speech delivered at a hotel by the present West Ham chair-man of guardians, that they were lavish to the poor. That period is so far away that we now confine our attention to the activity of the present guardians. The real reason why we feel that the Crown should intervene through the constitutional channels we have indicated and dismiss the present guardians, is that they are lavish, but in a different degree. We should not feel ashamed if the indictment that we were lavish to the poor were true, but I charge the present guardians with being lavish, not in the distribution of bread and meat to the poor of West Ham, but in the dissemination of economic conditions which can only breed poverty, misery and ill-health. It is reasonable to assume that where food is diminished to the extent that children do not get enough to eat, they will be more prone to be attacked by any malady that is prevalent at the moment. The attack rate of scarlet fever and diphtheria was 4.5. For the 15 months of the administration of the new guardians it is 10.4 per 1,000. There is only one deduction for common sense people to make, and that is that the thousands of children in our area have not been sustained by adequate and nutritious food.
Secondly, I should like the Minister to explain, as a great believer in democratic rights, how he can defend the action of the present Chairman in dismissing one of his employés merely because he stood and was elected a member of the Borough Council, which has nothing officially to do with the work of the board of guardians and membership of which in no way interfered with his work under the guardians. I want to make clear what is my indictment of the present guardians. Their general policy, which was put before the House a few months ago, is still persisted in, so much so that in 1927, compared with 1926, taking the last week in January, there were 804 additional children necessarily fed at our schools, and, in 1928 over 1927, 690 in addition. In the last week of January, 1928, compared with 1926, 1,494 additional children were fed in connection with our schools. We are not ashamed of that work. In the Education Committee of West Ham we are not afraid to stand up for the responsibility imposed by Statute. What I want the Members of this House to realise is, that for years Members on the opposite side have preached that this sort of collective responsibility undermines parental responsibility. We believe that the best place in which a child should be fed is round its own mother's table. But when the poor people are so affected that the income of the family is such that the children cannot be fed, we in West Ham will not permit the children to go to school with empty stomachs, and we take care that they are fed before we teach them. I daresay many hon. Members are interested in that wonderful book of Mr. H. G. Wells—"Mankind in the Making." One of the most classic phrases is: cial Secretary to the Treasury, that is to say, quite contrary to the decision of another Government Department.
They have refused assistance to men who have been unfortunate. I have the case of a man before me, with the official reply from the board of guardians. I do not want to give his name because I have discovered that the people whose particular cases I referred to here six months ago, and whose names and addresses were printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT, have been punished because they came to see their Parliamentary representative. I am going to read the letter, which is headed: tuent dealing with the way in which the present board has treated an ex-service man. He had 12s. a week from the guardians during the general strike. He needed the money; he could not starve. He received a notice to attend the Armistice Service; but the night before, he received a demand note from the West Ham Guardians stating that if he did not repay the 12s., legal proceedings would at once be started. I want to appeal to the hearts of hon. Members opposite and to ask them, when I have read the man's reply, whether they will feel that the treatment meted out to this man is the sort of treatment they would like to have meted out to one of their comrades. He wrote to the guardians: as a result of the letter, I am glad to say that the guardians remitted the 12s. We can never get anything from these people except by threats. It is no use my writing to the Parliamentary Secretary, or for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that if I will let him have particulars of the hard cases he will look into them. All that the Parliamentary Secretary does is to send my letter to the local guardians, who send back the letter. If that is investigation, we do not want it. Investigation means looking into the merits of each case. If the Parliamentary Secretary can defend the action of offering emigration to a man because he is down and out, or 5s. in food tickets to a girl suffering from chronic epilepsy, then I trust he will do so before his own supporters.
I expect there is some reason why the Minister of Health is not in his place to-night. While we do not complain about that, we think it would have been much better if he could have found time to be present. We are praying His Majesty to annul this Order. Personally, I should like to have seen His Majesty present and to have heard the statement that has been made by my two hon. Friends. I am quite sure that His Majesty has the will—
The hon. Member knows that we never allow the name of His Majesty to be used in our Debates. The Minister is responsible.
Had it not been for the wicked and cruel action of the Government we should not be debating this question to-night. Since these three Commissioners have been appointed they have given relief to the poor in a very niggardly way, and I suggest that in this respect West Ham is now being treated in the worst manner possible. The old board of guardians gave relief in some cases up to £2 19s. per week, but since the present Commissioners have been acting no relief of any kind is given if the income of the family is £2 per week. If the father and mother between them have an income of £2 per week, and the sons and daughters are out of work, no relief is given, and if the father is out of employment and the sons and daughters are getting £2, no relief is given. There are hundreds of cases of people who have been treated in a harsh and cruel way.
Several cases have been cited. I will give another. It is that of an ex-Civil Service man, and I am referring to a letter sent to the "Stratford Express" on 4th January. It is the story of a man who brought himself under disciplinary treatment and was dismissed just on the eve of retirement. The family circumstances were that there were two sons earning, and their contributions to the home were £2 5s. per week. There were eight children to be fed and clothed, and a rent of 18s. 2d. per week to be paid. The mother did her best to make both ends meet, but Poor Law relief was refused. I can anticipate the reply of the Minister. He will simply say that since the Commissioners have been operating they have saved the ratepayers a large sum of money—about 10d. in the £. Yet that saving means to the majority of the ratepayers, the small householders, only about 2d. or 3d. a week, and it is a saving made at the expense of the poorest. I am convinced that the ratepayers would pay the 2d. or 3d. per week willingly if they knew that the poor were being treated in a humane way. It has been said that as a result of the Commissioners cutting off a large amount of relief men have found employment in more ways than one. Where is the proof? The fact is that there are 164,487 more men and women unemployed now than there were in May of last year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] All over the country, and West Ham must be affected because it is one of the poorest districts in the country, with a large number of casual workers. I am more than convinced that the cruel way in which the Commissioners are dealing with Poor Law relief is not resulting in men finding employment.
For four centuries this country has protested against taxation without representation. We all remember what Oliver Cromwell did in this House in 1653—how he cleared out the Ministers because they were backing King Charles, who was inflicting taxation on the country without representation. In West Ham to-day 300,000 people are in fact disfranchised. Not long ago I and my colleagues had an interview with the Minister of Health and asked him whether he was prepared to give the people of West Ham a chance of re-electing a board of guardians in April. The Minister absolutely refused. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, the time is coming when we shall get the chance. I do not expect that Members opposite would like the people of West Ham to do what Oliver Cromwell did in 1653. Would they like it, if the people of West Ham went to the board of guardians, and cleared them out, bag and baggage, as Cromwell did with this House? But the people would be perfectly justified in doing so. If a lot of the fellows had the pluck and the will that I have, they would do it, too.
It is absolutely unfair that these Commissioners should be functioning as they are functioning, while the people of West Ham have no right to say whether more or less relief should be given. If the Minister gave the people the opportunity of an election I do not think he would find the same anomalies cropping up as those which have been occurring during the time these guardians have been operating. I know it is useless to plead with hon. Gentlemen on the other side. I know this prayer will not be granted, but we shall keep on hammering at this question, until we get these fellows right out of it, just as Oliver Cromwell did. Then we shall have a different Government in office and one of their first acts will be to see that the poor people of this country are treated in a more humane way.
I only intervene in this Debate because the constituency which I represent is part of the area under the West Ham Board of Guardians. When the Guardians Default Act was passed, accusations were made against the old board of guardians and accusations are now being made against the new board of guardians. I hope the burden of the right hon. Gentleman's reply will not be either a mere repetition of one set of accusations or a reference solely to the reduction of rates. This is a serious matter and is not to be settled by merely interjecting from the benches opposite, "Oh, it does not matter." Hon. Members opposite may smile, but my weekly experience and my post would make them realise how serious it is, if we are to have the poverty of one set of people pitted against the desire for a reduction in the amount of rates extracted from another set of people. It is a serious matter if West Ham is to be made a sort of cockpit in which the lives and destinies of several vast communities are to be bandied backwards and forwards. It would, I think, be a shame and a disgrace to this House of Commons if we did not take a more statesmanlike view of this question. Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman's reply will not be confined to the statement that there has been a reduction of rates, because that is no answer.
From my association with this district I have realised that this is a national problem, and I am strengthened and fortified in that view—[ Laughter. ] It may be that the hon. Members who are able to laugh represent constituencies where these facts are not brought home to them, but I tell them again this is a serious matter. It is so serious that it has become and must remain a national problem, until a remedy of some kind has been applied. My language may not be fortunate but I say again, I am strengthened and fortified in that conclusion when I remember that, vast as is this area in East London, there are other areas throughout the country almost as vast, almost as populous, suffering in the same way. These things were brought to a head, not because the late West Ham Board of Guardians had or had not exceeded their duty in the relief of the poor, but because the amount raised in rates was so enormous and the indebtedness so vast that the problem had got out of hand and could not be dealt with locally. We may continue to carry on this quarrel a score of times in the House of Commons, but that is not helping the people concerned at all. What we ought to try to concentrate on is to find a remedy for this thing, which has become a problem of an appalling magnitude.
If the right hon. Gentleman likes, we will forget the last three years. We on this side of the House, my late colleague, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, who represented West Middlesbrough, and particularly some hon. Members above the Gangway, have insisted upon this problem over and over again, and it is only about a week or 10 days ago that for the first time the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer from that Box gave any hint at all that the Government were alive to the magnitude of the problem. We are, or at any rate I am, prepared to forget and to forgive all that neglect if the right hon. Gentleman to-night can give us some hope that the Government have got something by means of which they will be able to relieve the pressure of the enormous burden upon these communities in various parts of the country. I can say, from personal contact with my own constituents, that at the moment there are living in these areas dozens, hundreds, and it may be thousands, of people who have absolutely no hope in life at all. I am not basing my statement on the instances quoted by the hon. Member, although they need an answer, but on the fact that here is a whole community which is rotting—and I use that word in no disrespectful sense to the people there—because of this great burden of poverty lying upon it, and we want something more than statistics about the relief of rates, we want something more even than comforting statistics about disease and death rates; we want to know that the Government are not only alive to the problem, but are going to produce a solution which will render this kind of Debate unnecessary in the future.
Unfortunately, the name of West Ham is introduced into these Debates very often by people who do not seem to know their geography. They know the Empire from Zanzibar to Peru, but they do not understand the geography of places in their midst, and unfortunately the name of West Ham has become attached to the Poor Law area of West Ham. It represents a population of a million souls, and is the largest Poor Law area in Great Britain, and we have been singled out for special attack by those who know the least about us. We represent on one side a great dockside area where casual labour is unfortunately prevalent. They are the people who have to get their breakfast before they can eat it. Then we come to the residential areas like Woodford and Wanstead, where people get their breakfast before they want it. Until comparatively recent days we have had to bear our own burden and find relief for our own people who are distressed. I ask the representative of the Ministry of Health, in the case of every board of guardians and public bodies generally, if they are acting corruptly or doing things they ought not to do, has not the Minister the power to hold an inquiry into their administration? Has he not the power to put them into gaol as they did years ago. Eight members of the West Ham Board of Guardians in my memory were brought before the Old Bailey on charges of corruption. I am pleased to say that seven out of the eight who were convicted were members of the Liberal and Tory parties. Do we have inquiries into charges of corruption or maladministration? No. What we do get is a miniature Mussolini, and we have a board of guardians appointed1—a Commission as they are called.
It is easy to put on a kind of cherubic smile and imagine that you are quite capable of passing judgment on better men than yourselves. We in West Ham are as clean as ever you knew how to be. The men and women who have sat on the West Ham Board of Guardians are just as clean and good as the Minister of Health and those sitting on the bench opposite. What was our crime? It was that we understood our class better than he did. You have saved fourpence in the pound in rates. The West Ham Town Council, composed of Labour men, similar to the men and women on the Board of Guardians, have saved fourpence in the pound. Shall we have some bouquets? £l,300 represents the rate of the guardians and £5,000 that of the West Ham Town Council. I would like to tell the hon. Gentleman who will speak on behalf of the Minister of Misery. I will tell him the truth, and I would shame the Devil if he were here himself. There are the gentlemen whom you have down in West Ham. There are three of them. One has died and has gone to a better place. Their expenses have amounted to more than the total administration expenses of the West Ham Board of Guardians. They have drawn it in salaries. They are Commissioners, and they have got commission on the poverty of the poor. The more they save in rates the more they get in salaries and expenses. Every penny-piece these men are getting represents the blood and sweat of better men and women than themselves. We are sick and tired of writing letters and making appeals to these people. We always get the same reply. When we apply to the Minister of Health, it is all in the hands of the Appointed Guardians. When we apply to the guardians it is "nothing doing." So far as I understand the Act, it was intended that the Minister would have to place an Order on the Table for three days before a new commitment was made, so that we could have a chance of discussing it. He did it, but the House was not sitting, and the result is that these gentlemen had six months more, and one of them is going to draw £800 more for doing nothing so far as the good of the people is concerned—and doing it very well. We in West Ham are not afraid. Appoint a Committee of this House to inquire into our administration, and I will undertake to say that before many days are over this crowd will have to be cleared out because they are incapable of righting the position of the people. Fancy a man earning £2 10s. a week being told, as one of my constituents was told, that he must keep two out-of-work children besides four other children! This gentleman who is getting £1,800 a year in salary and pension tells them that they have a sufficient income coming in. I wish I had the chance of facing him as a man. I would like to face Sir Alfred Woodgate and tell him to his teeth that he does not understand the position of the people on behalf of whom he is administering the Poor Law. I tell the Minister frankly that we are "fed up" with it. There is talk about the votes of people receiving relief; gives votes to people who are not receiving it, and Sir Alfred Woodgate and his friends would get their marching orders the first time, we got the chance. His Majesty the King would give us the chance if he had the power, but we know that the form of this Motion is all swank. It means that we have to appeal to the Minister who is not here. He has sent the monkey along, but the organ grinder is not present.
Order!
I do not think the hon. Gentleman says that seriously.
No, I do not, only in the monkey sense. I do not mean it seriously at all. I am never serious except when I am comical. Some of my friends think that I am never serious. All I want to say is, that a Minister usurps the authority of the State when he says, regard- less of what Parliament may say or do, that he is going to continue the services of people who have been appointed to carry out certain duties. When the Bill was introduced into the House the Minister of Health told us that before any fresh appointments were made an Order would be laid on the Table of the House. That promise has not been kept. While Parliament was not sitting he took advantage of a technicality to re-appoint these Commissioners—the Commissioners of Poverty. I know what will be said about the rates. In West Ham we know what rates mean, but we have reduced the rates as much as they have, only we do not claim the credit for it; and, therefore, I say the electors of the biggest Poor Law area in the country ought to be given an opportunity to elect the people who are to administer the Poor Law in their district.
I should like to state, especially having regard to the appeal made to me by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd), exactly what it is that is before the House at, the moment. We are now considering whether the Order issued last month extending the period of office of the Appointed Guardians of the West Ham Union till the end of June shall be confirmed or not. That is the sole issue before the House.
On a point of Order. When the Bill was introduced it was said a Motion would be tabled if it was proposed to continue the services of these Commissioners. Now action has been taken while Parliament was not sitting and without the consent of this House.
All the conditions of the Statute have been strictly complied with. This, of course, is not the occasion—
Absolutely! [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I do not care whether you call "Order!"
Order!
Does the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?
Yes.
I ask, because the last one he raised was not a point of Order.
I wish to ask whether the Law Officers of the Crown will tell us whether the Act did not lay it down that an Order must be placed on the Table while the House is sitting in order to continue the services of the Commissioners?
That does not appear to me to be any point of Order.
Well, I am challenging you, and I am not a lawyer.
This is not the occasion to make a general statement on the question of necessitous areas up and down the country. All members appreciate the difficulties in some parts of the country owing to industrial depression; the burdens are very heavy indeed, and many Governments have sought a remedy. There are a very large number of authorities up and down the country carrying on their work under great difficulties, and I think they ought to be supported by this House. But that is not the case at West Ham, and that is why we ate considering this particular Order to-night. The case of West Ham and two other local authorities under this Act is altogether different. I do not want to repeat what I have said about the position of West Ham, because hon. Members know why the Order was made. The reason for issuing the Order is not that West Ham is a necessitous area or that it was suffering from distress, but that is all the more reason why the authorities in West Ham should be more careful with their administration. The reason why the Order was made and why local government had to be protected was, in the first place, that West Ham was practically heading for bankruptcy. This view is confirmed by a statement made by the vice-chairman of the old board of guardians, who was a member of the Labour party. He said that that party was conducting affairs in a manner for which they ought to be thoroughly ashamed.
rose —
The hon. Member must understand that unless the Parliamentary Secretary gives way she cannot intervene.
I want to state exactly what has taken place. This is not a case of people having made allegations against the board. Here is a statement made by the vice-chairman of the board who was a member of the Labour party at the time. He said:
"He must admit that Mr. Ward was correct when he charged the Socialists with using the guardians' relief for political and personal ends. He regretted to have to say that the way in which some of his colleagues were canvassing the unemployed had become such a scandal that something would have to be done to put a stop to it."
At a subsequent meeting a few days afterwards, on the 10th June, the vice-chairman said:
"Some of the things that had been done in the name of the West Ham Guardians, well the least he could say was that they ought to be ashamed of them. When you are elected to the guardians you do not go there to give out relief as though you were giving away handbills. We have been landed into this position by people who have entirely abused their membership of the board of guardians."
It was for that reason that drastic action had to be taken and that is why the West Ham Board of Guardians had to be superseded and another appointed Board put in its place. I have to satisfy the House that these appointed guardians should, not in their own interest, not in the interest of the Government or of the Ministry of Health, but in the interests of the locality, continue in office for another six months. I divide my reasons for that into two categories. I agree with the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) that it is not purely a question of finance, but that there are other matters which should be properly considered. But you cannot overlook, in dealing with, a district which has gone through such painful experiences and was so near to bankruptcy, the financial position. So far from being ashamed of the record of the guardians, I think they are worthy of the support of this House, and I will give only two illustrations, and then pass on to justify the appointment of the particular men who have been so fiercely and unfairly criticised in the House to-night. The statement has been made to-night, which, is utterly untrue, that the remuneration of these men depends on the amount of relief they can cut down, and apparently, in accordance with the view of those who made the statement, the more relief they cut down the bigger is their remuneration. That is an absolute falsehood. I may say at once that the whole cost of the present administration, including the advisory Committee, is about £4,000 a year, and against this must be set the direct cost of the late guardians, which, under the various headings of elections, printing, stationery, travelling expenses and luncheons, amounted to not less than £2,500 a year.
That is an absolute lie. [ Interruption. ]
rose —
We really cannot have more than one hon. Member speaking at the same time.
I say he is a wholesale perverter of the truth.
And I say he is a damned liar. [ Interruption. ]
The hon. Member must withdraw that expression.
No, Sir; I am very sorry to disobey your ruling but, in view of the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman, I refuse to withdraw, and I say again that he is a damned liar.
Then I must ask the hon. Member to leave the House.
I will leave the House gladly, but still he remains a liar in the House.
The hon. Member accordingly withdrew.
The whole of the statement which I have made to the House— —
Do you maintain that they had free lunches?
No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will justify the remarks which he has made.
I ask him whether they had free lunches. Let him prove it.
The whole of the statement I have made is entirely true, and I will repeat it. I say that, against the cost of £4,000 a year of the present appointed board of guardians, including the advisory committee, must be set the direct cost of the late guardians, which, under the various headings of elections, printing, stationery, travelling expenses and luncheons, amounted to not less than £2,500 a year.
May I just put this point, that in the case of the present guardians there are no election expenses whatever? How much of this sum which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted refers really to election expenses, and how much to free lunches?
Six pounds.
I think the hon. Gentleman has missed my point. The point I am endeavouring to put is that it was urged to-night that the cost of these newly appointed guardians was, in the first place, dependent upon the amount of out-relief that they are saving, and secondly, it was said to be excessive, and I am now pointing out that one at any rate of the advantages of this Order is this saving of the cost of elections.
When the hon. Gentleman first made his statement the emphasis was on luncheons. Is not the first item he mentioned, elections, the larger and is not the last item on which he placed emphasis the lesser and is it not the fact that it amounted to less than £5 in any single year?
I will obtain the exact figures, though I should think the last item was much more expensive than that.
On a point of Order. Is it not in order and customary if a Member rises to allow interpellations?
It can be done by courtesy.
When the new guardians took office the amount of loans unredeemed was £1,975,000.
On a point of Order. In view of the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, which led you, Sir, to indicate that because of its seriousness, no doubt an explanation would be given, are we not entitled to an explanation?
There really is no point of Order. If hon. Members will allow the Minister to proceed, he will have an opportunity of telling them what they want. I may point out that courtesy must be given on both sides.
One of the reasons I am asking the House to continue this Order is that the new Board have ceased borrowing altogether and they have arranged for the repayment of the entire debt of £2,275,000 in a period of 10 years and the debt is accordingly to be repaid in 19 half-yearly instalments of principal and interest combined. Since we last discussed the matter the first instalment, amounting to £138,000 has already been repaid and it included a sum of no less than £82,625 in respect of principal. Therefore the guardians have not only ceased to increase their indebtedness but have undertaken to pay the whole of the debt within the limit of the time specified by the Statute and have already begun to implement their undertaking. Arrangements have also been made which have resulted in a considerable reduction in the poor rate—amounting in all to eight-pence—since the appointed guardians took office. I do not disguise for One moment—I think it is very necessary—that they have initiated a system of strict economy in relation to out-relief. During the week ending 20th February, 1926, there were 28,808 cases covering 68,140 persons, and the cost was £28,697, whereas during the week ending 18th February, 1928, the number of cases had been reduced to 11,050, covering 26,957 persons, and the cost of the relief had decreased £7,171.
The question of unemployment has been raised, and I promised hon. Gentlemen a little while ago that in justifying the work of the appointed guardians I should not simply limit myself to the question of pounds, shillings and pence. They have done something which I regard as equally important, and that is, to get rid of demoralisation which hitherto existed in that district. If you compare, for instance, the unemployed who were in receipt of relief on the two dates which I have given to the House, I think it will be agreed that it shows an equally satisfactory condition of affairs. During the week ending 27th February, 1926, the number of men who were unemployed was 13,332, and the number of women was 2,772, making a total of 16,104. During the week ending 18th February, 1928, the men were reduced to a figure of 3,760, and the women to a figure of 555, making in all 4,315. [An HON. MEMBER: "What happened to those people?"] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue the statement. I expected that some such observation would be made. I have before me a set of figures which are very interesting, because they have been worked out by the staff of the appointed guardians. They have adopted this practice. They will go through a particular district. We will take, say, District No. 9. They will find in that district, we will say, 42 people who have been on out-relief during the week, and they will then look at the number of cases that have come for relief and endeavour to account for, and find out what happens to, these particular people, with a view to meeting, in the first place, the allegation that these people have been treated badly, or that the work of the guardians has been improper or cruel, or, on the other hand, to see whether the position is consistent with the view, which a good many of us believe to be possible, that a very large number of people in West Ham, if they were given a suitable opportunity and if certain temptations were removed from their path, would get decent and honest work.
I have here a set of figures which give interesting information. In all the cases mentioned in the list of people who have obtained work, the officers have obtained the names of the firms who are employing them, so that there can be no question that these people were genuinely in work. On the 3rd September, when a test was made in relief district No. 9, where the number of cases of out-relief during the week was 42, it was found that seven people had actually obtained work. The number of cases continuing on out-relief owing to unemployment was one, and the number of cases off relief for other causes—they may have left the district or died—was one. If you take relief district 17, which was visited on the 24th December, where there were 189 cases on out-relief during the week, you find that in that one week alone 17 people obtained work. The number of cases off relief on account of unemployment benefit was three, and the number of cases off relief for other reasons was three. These and other figures can be confirmed by examination of the cases. These guardians are not only effecting a very necessary financial reform, but a much better reform, that of getting the people in the district back to real work again.
rose —
The hon. Member has had a full opportunity of stating his case, and he ought to listen to the Minister's reply.
I am willing to listen, but I would like to put a point of Order.
Sir Kingsley Wood.
I should like to have met all the reckless charges which have been made to-night against the three persons who are so ably discharging their duties as guardians. Questions have been put regarding the continuance of the Order. I must say at once that in the judgment of my right hon. Friend the work of these appointed guardians is not finished, and there is no reason to suppose that an elected board of guardians would not rapidly undo the work which has been done, and reduce West Ham again to bankruptcy in a short time and renew demoralisation. We ask that the Order be continued and that the guardians should hold office for a further period. The financial position of the Union is improving; a very different state of affairs from that which existed when the new guardians took office. It was then very serious. The present board are paying off debt, without incurring any fresh debt, and a sound basis must certainly be established before any further risks are taken.
There is every reason, in my judgment, why these gentlemen should continue in office. It is impossible for me to say when a change can safely take place. Under the Act the action of the Minister and the work of the newly appointed board of guardians can be challenged at least every six months. The Minister can give no further undertaking or indication of what his attitude will be in six months' time. The greatest caution must be exercised to prevent the district relapsing into its former condition. I must also say that in the two districts—West Ham and East Ham—there are large undertakings which have to pay rates without any possible voice in local affairs, and which have no right to say how the money should be spent. In West Ham and East Ham no less than 38 per cent. of the rateable value is represented by undertakings which have no part, lot, or voice in the administration of this area. I therefore ask the House to reject this Motion and to show its confidence once again in my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and also in the careful, sound, and just administration of the present board of guardians. I ask the House also by rejecting this Motion to show once again its determination not to allow this important union, for the second time, to be plunged into bankruptcy, and to prevent attempts being made to demoralise and pauperise its inhabitants.
The right hon. Gentleman made a statement, Mr. Speaker, prior to your taking the Chair last time, in which he laid great emphasis and, I think, deliberately intended to create a false impression in the mind of the general public by referring to the luncheons when he spoke of the cost of the present Commissioners. Does he know of boards of guardians throughout the country who are the house committee, or members of guardians, who, at some of their meetings, are not in the habit of taking food at the institution when these meetings are held there? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer that question. If he fails to do so, we shall be able to weigh the value of the words he uttered and understand how much notice to take of him when making statements of this description.
I want to ask whether the luncheons were of the cost mentioned in the question. I ask him further if he means to tell that cost, and if in the statement so much was allocated to something else. Is he in a position to separate the items and tell us what each cost?
As a matter of fact, the guardians were surcharged on three occasions and refused to pay for the cost of their own luncheons.
That is a very clever evasion of the issue. I want to ask whether the luncheons were of the character described in the question and whether the hon. Gentleman will give us the cost.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
Order, order!
My hon. Friend who seconded this Motion read a letter written by an ex-soldier. I expected that when the hon. Gentleman got up to reply on behalf of the men who were officers during the late War that he would answer the points made. I want to know the answer to the case put with regard to the ex-service man, and a person 23 years of age, whom your £l,800-a-year Commissioners believe can be honestly fed on 5s. a week.
The hon. Gentleman read the letter, and, at the end of the statement, said that this matter would be put before the guardians and that they themselves meant to put the matter right.
I said that they gave way under pressure.
The hon. Member is not entitled to address the House twice.
I have not had the advantage of hearing the whole of the Debate, but I have heard the supposed answer of the right hon. Gentleman. I want to point out to the House that there is no answer he can make, or any Member on the other side of the House can make, to the indictment regarding the administration of these men. The right hon. Gentleman gave a set of figures to prove that men had got work. I counted up the number of men. It was between 20 and 25 in a week. We do not know whether that was day's work or week's work, or what it was. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I know that the mass of men pushed off relief are now existing on their friends, their parents in some cases, and their children in others, and that the mass of men are not at work. I will make a challenge to the right hon. Gentleman. He can take the list of the men thrown off, and, if he can show that 10 per cent. of them are in regular work, I, for one, will admit in this House, or anywhere else, that Sir Alfred Woodgate and his colleagues have done a good piece of work. The bulk of the men of West Ham who have been refused this relief are living in a state of semi-starvation. In view of the hilarity with which right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite welcomed this statement, I want to repeat that if they went to the country—[ Interruption ]. Hon. Members may shout "Humbug" as much as they please, but there are in the Division I represent 1,300 ex-service men, and there is in West Ham a very much larger number. There are also their women and children. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are trying to get the Poplar Board of Guardians to stop giving them relief. They are not to be permitted even to have Poor Law relief. That is their reward for having fought for their country and for their patriotism. The only thing we can get is sneers from the well-paid gentlemen opposite.
They know perfectly well that during the War and all through the days leading up to the War the men were told that when they came back a grateful country would take care of them. The grateful country is starving them and their dependants. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health knows that in West Ham to-day the widows and the sons and daughters of men who were killed in the War are being starved because this country will not find the money to keep them.
The idea of talking about money spent on. luncheons! I should be positively ashamed if I were any one of the hon. Members opposite to say such a thing. They attend free feeds and free guzzling at the City of London Corporation dinners and company dinners, and over and over again get free dinners for nothing with champagne and all the wines of the universe. Certainly they do. I do not know why we have a Hospitality Fund, and why a handful of guardians giving their time—and as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, West Ham is a very big union indeed, and to attend the meetings of the board and the house committee means men being away from
their homes sometimes the whole day—even if they did have a luncheon, who on that side of the House or on this side has not had a luncheon at the public expense? It is sheer humbug and hypocrisy to talk like this about luncheons. It is quite possible for Sir Alfred Wood-gate and the men at the Ministry of Health to do what has been tried for nearly 100 years in this country—that is, to put down relief for the poor. This will not be the first time that it has been tried, nor the first time that it has failed. The whole history of the Poor Law has been an endeavour to break down giving Poor Law relief, and, when they have stopped it, they have had to give relief in another form. To-day the Minister of Health and his colleagues, instead of coming to this House and saying that the problem of West Ham is too big a problem for West Ham to grapple with, just come here and glory in the fact that they are starving people in West Ham. This thing cannot succeed. Public opinion will first try to deal with it by private charity—the Salvation Army, the Church Army and that sort of thing—and then you will have to fall back on the sort of relief you are giving now. I repeat what I have said in this House before and will go on saying—that this is the worst and the most treacherous betrayal of brave men who gave their services to this country. You cannot deny that there were thousands and thousands of these men in West Ham, and to-day some of you who led them in the field are grudging them Poor Law relief. That shows how you value the sacrifices of these men.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 64; Noes, 164.
Division No. 15. ]] AYES. [ 12.45 a.m. Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Grundy, T. W. Naylor, T. E. Barr, J. Hayday, Arthur Paling, W. Batey. Joseph Hayes, John Henry Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Bromfield, William Hirst, G. H. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Potts, John S. Buchanan, G. John, William (Rhondda, West) Riley, Ben Charleton, H. C. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) Clowes, S. Kelly, W. T. Scrymgeour, E. Compton, Joseph Kennedy, T. Scurr, John Crawfurd, H. E. Lansbury, George Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Day, Colonel Harry Lawrence, Susan Shlels, Dr. Drummond Duncan, C. Lawson, John James Stephen, Campbell Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lindley, F. W. Sullivan, Joseph Gardner, J. P. Lunn, William Sutton, J. E. Gillett, George M. Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'tharnpton) Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Maxton. James Tinker, John Joseph Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Montague, Frederick Townend, A. E. Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Murnin, H. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. Varley, Frank B. Welsh, J. C. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen Westwood, J. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) Whiteley, W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Mr. Groves and Mr. Barnes.—Mr. Groves and Mr. Barnes. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Wellock, Wilfred Windsor, Walter
NOES. Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Greene, W. P. Crawford Oakley, T. Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Grotrian, H. Brent Penny, Frederick George Albery, Irving James Gunston, Captain D. W. Perring, Sir William George Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame) Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Price, Major C. W. M. Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Raine, Sir Walter Apsley, Lord Hanbury, C. Ramsden, E. Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Harland, A. Remer, J. R. Balfour, George (Hampstead) Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Ropner, Major L. Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. Betterton, Henry B. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Henn, Sir Sydney H. Salmon, Major I. Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Samuel, Samuel (W'dswortn, Putney) Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Sandeman, N. Stewart Brass, Captain W. Hilton, Cecil Sanders, Sir Robert A. Brassey, Sir Leonard Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Sanderson, Sir Frank Brittain, Sir Harry Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Sandon, Lord Brocklebank, C. E. R. Holt, Capt. H. P. Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel (Renfrew, W) Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Huntingfield, Lord Shepperson, E. W. Bullock, Captain M. Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Skelton, A. N. Burman, J. B. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Smith-Carington, Neville W. Campbell, E. T. Iveagh, Countess of Smithers, Waldron Carver, Major W. H. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. C.) Jephcott, A. R. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Storry-Deans, R. Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Kidd, J. (Linilthgow) Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Clayton, G. C. Kindersley, Major Guy M. Streatfeild, Captain S. R. Cobb, Sir Cyril King, Commodore Henry Douglas Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Lamb, J. Q. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Couper, J. B. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Templeton, W. P. Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Loder, J. de V. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Tinne, J. A. Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Curzon, Captain Viscount Lumley, L. R. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Wallace, Captain D. E. Dawson, Sir Philip Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hall) Dixey, A. C. McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. Eden, Captain Anthony McLean, Major A. Warrender, Sir Victor Edmondson, Major A. J. Macmillan, Captain H. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) Ellis, R. G. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Watts, Dr. T. Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) MacRobert, Alexander M. Wells, S. R. Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) Everard, W. Lindsay Makins, Brigadier-General E. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) Fraser, Captain Ian Malone, Major P. B. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Winosor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony. Margesson, Captain D. Womersley, W. J. Gates, Percy Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Meller, R. J. Woodcock, Colonel H. C. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Wragg, Herbert Goff, Sir Park Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Gower, Sir Robert Moreing, Captain A. H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Major Cope and M. Frederick Thomson.—Major Cope and M. Frederick Thomson. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Neville, Sir Reginald J. Grant, Sir J. A. Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Rating (Scotland) Amendment [Consolidated Fund]
Resolution reported:
"That it is expedient to amend the Rating (Scotland) Act, 1926, with respect to the ascertainment of the amount of the additional annual grant for Scotland under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1923; and the payments to rating authorities in respect of that grant and in certain other respects, and to charge on the Consolidated Fund such sums as would have become payable in respect of the additional annual grant for Scotland but for Sub-section (3) of Section thirteen of the first-mentioned Act."
Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Sir John Gilmour, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Major Elliot.
Rating (Scotland) Amendment Bill
"to amend the Rating (Scotland) Act, 1926, with respect to the ascertainment of the amount of the additional annual grant for Scotland under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1923, and the payments to rating, authorities in respect of that grant and in certain other respects," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
Adjourned at Six Minutes before One o'Clock.