asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that His Majesty's Chinese Secretary of Legation is proceeding home on leave at the same time as the British Minister, and to whom British interests in China will be entrusted in the absence of the two senior representatives?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. But my hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension; Mr. E. M. B. Ingram, Counsellor to His Majesty's Legation in China, is the officer next in rank to His Majesty's Minister and would in any event act as chargé d'affaires in Sir Miles Lampson's absence.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will inquire from the Japanese Government whether the local Japanese authorities prevent merchandise from entering Manchuria via Dairen when not provided with a pass by the Chinese maritime customs office; and if he will represent to the Japanese Government that steps should be taken to discourage agencies within the leased territory placing British goods at a disadvantage by passing dutiable articles into Manchuria unknown to the Chinese customs authorities?

My right hon. Friend has already received reports on this question and, on his instructions, His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokio has raised the matter with the Japanese Government, and received an assurance that the matter will be taken up immediately.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he has any information regarding the present situation in Manchuria;

(2) whether he is aware that the Chinese Government has sent the Secretary-General of the League of Nations a memorandum recalling the fact that the Powers having representatives in Manchuria undertook last December to keep the League informed as to the development of the situation and asking that these Governments should comply with this undertaking by providing information on the present military situation in Manchuria; and whether, in view of the recent fighting and increasing tension in Northern Manchuria, His Majesty's Government will supply the League with this information?

Such reports as have reached my right hon. Friend with regard to military operations in Manchuria do not indicate that these were of such a character as to justify the expense of sending special officers to observe and report upon them. Moreover, the League of Nations Commission which was in Manchuria at the time has but recently concluded its investigations there as to which it has submitted a preliminary report dealing mainly with the military situation.

Is the hon. Member not aware that the resolution of the League of Nations provides that this special information shall be sent in addition to any information which may have been given? Will he carry out that part of the resolution?

My answer shows that we did not think it necessary to incur any expenditure in sending a special officer when the League of Nations Commission was actually on the spot.

Who represents British commercial interests in Manchuria at the moment?

I must have notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that a memorandum endorsed by the British, American, French, Italian, Netherlands, and general chambers of commerce in Shanghai has been handed to His Majesty's consul-general requesting that a round-table conference be held to arrive at a solution of the many outstanding issues affecting the settlement, he will instruct His Majesty's consul-general to negotiate with the representatives of the other Powers concerned with the object of inaugurating such a conference without delay?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the request submitted by the British residents' association at Shanghai urging that an early round-table conference should be held to settle outstanding problems at Shanghai; and whether, in view of the danger of the troubles of 1927 and 1931 being repeated unless these problems are settled at an early date, he can state what action, if any, he has taken to promote such a conference?

I understand that such a resolution has been under consideration but it has not yet been submitted to His Majesty's Government. The position with regard to the proposed Shanghai Conference is that the confidential discussion referred to in the answer returned to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) on 26th May last is still continuing.

Does the Under-Secretary refer to this conference or the one to which he referred in his previous answer?

These are confidential discussions which have been initiated by the Japanese Government, and it is to these that I refer.

If representations are made as a result of this conference, will His Majesty's Government do everything possible to permit a conference being held and an agreement reached?

If this conference is held, will the Secretary of State consider the Feetham Report as a basis of the proposed conference and as a perfectly statesmanlike solution equally fair to Chinese and foreigners.

The matter is distinctly in the region of confidential discussion, and I cannot make any other statement. The hon. Member may be sure that all relevant facts will be borne in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding the progress of the Disarmament Conference at Geneva?

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT an account of the work of the conference since my right hon. Friend's last statement on the subject.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what test or tests are applied to prove the existence of epilepsy before a naval rating is discharged as suffering from that disease?

No officer or rating is invalided from the service for this cause unless he has been seen actually suffering from definite symptoms of the disease; the evidence must rest upon the testimony of reliable witnesses. In addition subsequent investigation is made to exclude other causes of fits. All these matters are thoroughly investigated by the Board of Survey before action is taken.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what authority at the Admiralty decides whether documents placed before the board shall be destroyed or kept for record?

The decision whether Admiralty documents should be weeded or transferred to the Public Record Office as permanent records is governed by office rules based on the "Schedules for the destruction of valueless documents" issued from time to time by the Master of the Rolls pursuant to the Public Record Office Act, 1877. Any case of doubt under these rules is submitted to the Permanent Secretary, who decides it or refers to higher authority if necessary. Documents placed before meetings of the full board are in all cases kept for record.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the inaccessibility of the Admiralty library, he will consider transferring the important historical documents contained therein to a place accessible to the public?

I cannot agree either that the Admiralty library is inaccessible or that it contains important historical documents. The library is largely used and appreciated by naval officers and students of naval matters, but it is merely a naval library in the ordinary sense of the term, and probably contains no work that is not also accessible at the Reading Room of the British Museum.

Can the First Lord say whether "Flinders Journal" is in the Admiralty Library?

I must have notice of that question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a statement as to the progress made in the use of pulverised coal for the ships of the Navy with the object of helping the coal industry of this country?

The Admiralty do not contemplate the use of pulverised coal for the ships of the Navy, owing to the disadvantages inseparable from the employment of coal as a fuel for warships, namely reduced endurance for a given weight of fuel and increased weight and space required for a given power.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any investigation is taking place at the present time with a view to reducing the present expenditure at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth; and, if not, whether he is satisfied that no economies are possible in so far as a reduction of staff is concerned at that college?

I am satisfied as the result of the general inquiries which have been made up to date that reductions in the cost of Dartmouth are both necessary and possible in the matter of staff as well as in other directions. I am particularly anxious to see removed as soon as possible this one real source of criticism since I regard the continuance of the college as a matter of the first importance.

Is it not absolutely essential for the future of the British Navy to maintain this college as far as possible at the highest efficiency?

That is my opinion.

Would the First Lord consider postponing the age of entry for cadets and saving money to the State in that way?

The whole subject is now under consideration, and I should not like to give a detailed answer to the question before I have considered the report in full.

May I ask whether that part of the college which is not in use now will be used for any other purpose?

That and everything else is under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Kenya Land Inquiry Committee proposes to start its work; whether the question of adding independent Europeans and Africans has received the attention of His Majesty's Government; and, if so, with what result?

With the concurrence of his colleagues on the commission, the chairman, Sir William Morris Carter, is devoting the present month to taking essential evidence on points of fact from retired Kenya officials, settlers and missionaries in this country. His departure for Kenya has accordingly been postponed until the 1st of July, and the first formal sitting of the commission in the Colony will no doubt be held shortly after his arrival. As regards the second part of the question, as I stated in a recent Debate, I am satisfied that the members of the commission are admirably suited for the task, and I see no reason for adding to their number.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the general disappointment that a settler should have been selected as the commissioner and that there is no countervailing influence on the other side—on the part of the natives?

I think the general expression of opinion is one of great satisfaction with the selection. I would point out that the selection of a settler follows very closely the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee of both Houses that settlers should be encouraged to take an active interest in these matters.

While we do not disagree with the appointment of a settler we disagree regarding the fact that no representative of the natives, who would have been a countervailing influence, has been appointed.

I entirely repudiate that statement. Let the hon. Member consider the members of this inquiry. Sir William Morris Carter, the chairman, did the whole of this kind of work in Rhodesia, and he is by common consent the ideal man for the purpose; and there is Mr. Hemsted, who is also, I think, by common consent one of the ablest commissioners and representatives of native interests there has ever been in Kenya.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made up to date in the construction of the Zambesi bridge; and whether it has been found necessary to retard operations in view of the financial crisis?

As the answer is a rather long one, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of colonies which now have their own air-mail stamps; and whether he will suggest to all of them, including Kenya which has not, the desirability of having such stamps in the interests of propaganda?

The only Colony issuing air-mail stamps is Malta where a 6d. postage stamp is surcharged for that purpose. It is not proposed to invite any Colonies to consider the issue of special air-mail stamps. Air-mail letters are already easily distinguishable by reason of the blue air-mail labels required by the Postal Union Convention, the use of which remains obligatory even if special stamps are issued.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Palestine Government proposes to take steps to ensure that the public are properly safeguarded against bankruptcy of insurance companies by requiring insurance companies to deposit with the State treasury a considerable sum as a guarantee?

Provision has already been made for such deposits in Section 101 of the Palestine Companies Ordinance of 1929, of which there is a copy in the Library of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether arrangements have now been made to ensure fair wages and fair conditions of labour on the work carried out under the Convention regulating the Transit of Mineral Oils of Iraq Petroleum Company, Limited, through the territory of Palestine; and, if so, whether wages and conditions on it will be similar to those in force on the Haifa harbour construction?

The company have given His Majesty's Government a formal assurance that they will observe fair conditions of labour in the execution of all works carried out under the Convention. I am not yet in posses- sion of information as to these conditions of labour but I know that the matter is engaging the attention of the High Commissioner with reference to the assurance given by the company.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now make any statement as to the activities of the new committee which has been appointed to censor films for use in countries, where there is a Native population; whether he is aware of the constant difference of tratement of films in Tanganyika and Kenya; and whether he will endeavour to ensure that the different censoring authorities in those countries have some similarity in their decisions?

As I explained to my hon. and gallant Friend in the reply which I gave to him on the 18th April, the committee to which he refers is of an advisory nature only and it is not intended that it should undertake the censorship of films. Its function is to advise the distributing company in the selection of films suitable for exhibition in the Colonies. As regards the latter part of the question I have received no complaints of the difference of treatment of films in Kenya and Tanganyika.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what was the total number of the staff of the Colonial Office in the year 1913 and the total amount of the salaries; and will he state the number of the staff in the year 1931 and the total amount of the salaries paid last year?

On the 31st of December, 1913, the staff of the Colonial Office numbered 189 and the expenditure on salaries during the financial year 1913–14 amounted to £57,023. On the 31st of December, 1931, the staff numbered 393 and expenditure on salaries during 1931–32 amounted to £144,500. The latter figure includes the salaries of staff engaged on joint services for the Dominions Office and Colonial Office.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether any of the staff engaged in the Colonial Office in 1913 were subsequently transferred to the Dominions Office and not replaced in the Colonial Office?

I think my right hon. Friend has on the Paper a question about the Dominions Office. There is a small Dominions Office staff. The staff which performs joint services for both Departments, for example, library, legal advisers' typists, are included in this. I inquired into this matter myself, and I found that a few years ago a very careful inquiry had been conducted by a committee, including two of the highest Treasury officials, into the whole of the staffing and work of this Department. That seemed to me satisfactory, as I think close Treasury control is the most effective means of economy.

Is it not true that in 1913 one office carried out the duties of the Colonial and Dominions Offices?

Yes, Sir.

Are the figures given for 1913 figures which really cover both Offices at the present time?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what was the total number of the staff of the Dominions Office in the year 1931 and the amount of their salaries?

On 31st December, 1931, the staff of the Dominions Office, excluding the Oversea Settlement Department and the Empire Marketing Board which are virtually separate Departments, was 63. The expenditure on salaries during 1931–32 was £36,607. These figures do not include the staff engaged on joint services for the Dominions Office and the Colonial Office whose salaries are provided in the Vote for the Colonial Office.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the licensing authorities for public service vehicles require applicants for licences to provide a vehicle on which to pass their tests; that this precludes the majority of applicants from attempting to qualify; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this?

My attention has been drawn to few instances in which this difficulty has arisen. Many operators make their own arrangements for the training and testing of their drivers and in other cases it is usual for the applicant to approach his prospective employer and obtain permission for the test to be carried out on one of his vehicles.

What is going to happen to the man without a licence who has a prospective employer and expects to get a job?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman would scarcely suggest that at this time we should keep a number of vehicles for the express purpose of allowing people who wish to enter the industry of motor-driving to take their tests upon them.

Could not the hon. Gentleman make municipal vehicles available in such cases?

That is not within my power.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps are taken to ensure that the Public Service Vehicle (Equipment and Use) Provisional Regulations (No. 2), 1931, providing for the carrying by public service vehicles of first-aid equipment of suitable design and construction, are being complied with?

In cases where first-aid equipment is required to be carried such equipment is examined when the vehicle is presented for licensing.

Is the Minister aware that certain types of equipment carried by many public service vehicles are not of suitable quality, and will he consult with the British Medical Association on the subject?

No, Sir. The specification of the equipment to be carried was approved by the British Medical Association.

That is not a reply to my question, which was whether the equipment now carried complies with the regulations.

The specification on which the regulations were founded was drawn up after consultation with the British Medical Association, and I see no reason to take any action in the matter.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the introduction of the roundabout system of traffic in all London squares?

I am advised that roundabout working should only be introduced in cases where definite advantages to traffic are likely to accrue. In a number of London squares the volume of traffic is small, and no serious difficulties are experienced under the existing arrangements.

Does not my hon. Friend feel that owing to the present chaotic system in London squares there is great danger both for pedestrians and for motorists, and, if the roundabout system has succeeded in Parliament Square and other squares, why should it not be extended to all the London squares?

For the reason that I have already given, namely, that we do not consider it desirable to extend it to all the squares and that the roundabout system must be dependent on traffic conditions.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that the roundabout system has not done anything but increase the taximen's charges?

Will my hon. Friend explain why the arrangement for a roundabout at the Westminster end of the new Lambeth Bridge has been made, whereas at the other end no such traffic improvement has been provided?

I do not think that question arises here, but, if my hon. Friend will put it down, I will see to it.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will state, to the nearest convenient date, the itemised expenses incurred by the traffic commissioners for the Scotland (Northern) area since the present chairman entered upon his duties, together with the expenses incurred by the same commissioners during the three months immediately preceding the change of chairman;

(2) the respective expenses incurred by each group of traffic commissioners during the first three months of the present year?

I am obtaining the information asked for in these questions and will forward it to my Noble Friend when available.

asked the Minister of Transport whether any decision has been arrived at in connection with the taking over by the Glasgow Corporation of the electric supply in the Sandyhills area, which is at present supplied by the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Company?

My only jurisdiction in this matter was to appoint an arbiter to determine certain questions which had arisen between the corporation and the company. I understand that the decision of the arbiter has now been given.

Is it not perfectly well known that the Clyde Valley produces electricity at a lower rate than Glasgow Corporation?

That is not true.

asked the Minister of Transport whether the approval of the Electricity Commissioners to the purchase by the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority from the Leatherhead and district undertaking for the sum of £312,540, assets which stood in the books of the latter at £230,148, was based on general considerations or was the result of special circumstances; and, if so, will he state the nature of the special circumstances?

The undertaking, comprising both fixed and liquid assets, was purchased on the basis of a going concern and the value does not depend wholly on the value of the fixed assets.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will take into consideration the relieving of the congestion of the Indian gaols by political prisoners by the method of deporting such persons to localities outside India, such as the Andamans?

The question of transporting certain classes of prisoners to the Andamans is under consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of taking guidance as to the results of all such repressive measures from a professor of history?

asked the Secretary of State for India if any steps are being taken to ensure the supply and adequate distribution of suitable films for Native audiences in India?

This is a matter which was dealt with in detail in the Report of the Indian Cinematograph Committee, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The Provincial Governments have their own censorship arrangements to ensure that unsuitable films are not shown.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that British interests predominate in the production of these films, and that those possessing knowledge of India and the peculiar problems involved are being consulted with regard to the matter?

I am not sure that I caught the question. I am looking into this matter again and am actually in communication with the Government of India. I will take into account the supplementary question.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will request local authorities to consider the advisability of restricting the building of houses provided by State assistance to the type of dwelling costing no more than £450, in order that persons in a position to pay economic rents should not be enabled to obtain by means of subsidised rentals cheap houses which they could buy through building societies?

I am sending to my hon. Friend a copy of a circular issued to local authorities in England and Wales on the 12th January last on the subject. The latest returns available indicate that the average cost of houses now being erected by them is well within the figure mentioned by him.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if, having regard to the depression in the British fishing industry, he will grant facilities for lectures and propaganda relating to the benefits of a regular fish diet, with a view to assisting this industry?

I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend thinks the benefits of a fish diet are well appreciated in the country, as evidenced by the steady consumption of fish, which shows no sign of decline.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs whether he has any statement to make as to the preparations, particular or general, that are being made by His Majesty's Government for the forthcoming Conference at Ottawa?

As I informed the House on 11th December, an organisation was set up both among Ministers and in the Departments, within the first week after the present Government took office, to prepare for the Conference, and that organisation has been continuously at work. In addition, Ministers and the Departments concerned have been in close touch with representative organisations in this country and with the representatives of the numerous trades which have desired to express their views to us. Since the beginning of May we have had the advantage of the advice and assistance of the industrial advisers whose names have been announced, and who will accompany the United Kingdom delegation to Ottawa, These gentlemen are constantly being consulted by us on matters affecting trade interests and generally, and are themselves in direct communication with those qualified to speak on behalf of particular trades and industries in this country. Finally, as I stated in reply to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 2nd June, preliminary discussions have been taking place with Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa. Newfoundland and Southern Rhodesia, and also with India.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department when the committee considering the application of the clearing-house system to foreign trade debts or remittances will be able to report?

I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to his question on Monday last. The matter is under the examination of the responsible Departments and not of a formal committee. Consideration is being pressed forward.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether any progress is being made in connection with this very difficult subject; that is to say, the payment of these remittances or trade debts?

As the hon. Member says, the subject is a very difficult one. The answer to the next question throws a little light in a certain direction.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the names of those countries which still impose restrictions upon exchange transactions; and whether, so far as British subjects are concerned, any such restrictions by any countries have been modified since the beginning of the year?

There are some 30 countries affected, and I propose, therefore, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate the names with the OFFICIAL REPORT. Since the beginning of 1932 some change has been made in the form of control in practically all these countries. In a few cases only has there been an improvement. In Sweden and Finland exchange control was removed in December, 1931. In Portugal and Spain the difficulties have been reduced. In Estonia efforts are being made to liquidate outstanding debts and in Venezuela the rationing system adopted by the banks has been removed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the estimated amount to date of the payments to and receipts from the various Irish sweepstakes in respect of subscribers to those sweepstakes in Great Britain?

On 15th April last I gave an estimate of the amount subscribed in Great Britain to the five Irish sweepstakes which had been held up to that time. So far as I am aware an audited statement relating to the latest sweepstake has not yet been published, but an estimate based on the available material appears to indicate that the amount subscribed to it from Great Britain would be about £3,785,000 (including sellers' commission of about £757,000) and that £2,086,000 was received in prizes. Altogether in respect of the six Irish sweepstakes so far held, approximately £13,285,000 has been subscribed in Great Britain (including sellers' commission estimated at about £2,357,000), and £7,086,000 has been won in prizes.

Do not these tremendous figures given by my right hon. Friend show him that it is very desirable that we should have an interim report from the Royal Commission on this matter; and will he make some representations to them, by way of request in that respect?

That is a separate question. I think the Royal Commission have the matter already in hand.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Free State Government is taking a large proportion of these funds for their own Exchequer?

That does not arise out of the question.

asked the Home Secretary the nature of the representations he has received from the Police Federation regarding matters upon which dissatisfaction is felt; and whether any action is being taken to deal with matters so raised?

The resolution submitted by the Joint Central Committee of the Police Federation covered certain matters (such as the present deduction from pay and prohibition of open meetings) which concern the service as a whole; while others were matters of Metropolitan Police administration such as the training of members of the Metropolitan Special Constabulary Reserve, the arrangements for the employment of uniform men in plain clothes, and the conditions governing the grant of certain special increments of pay. Some of these matters I dealt with in the course of the debate on the Police Vote: for the rest I can only say that the representations are under my consideration.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in replying to these representations is causing very great feeling among the men; and is he further aware that one branch of the federation has already resigned because of the apparent indifference of the Department to their representations?

No, Sir. I was not aware of the last fact suggested by the hon. Member. Several of these matters do not admit of early answer.

asked the Home Secretary the number of police officers in the Metropolitan area employed daily in ensuring that traffic turns at the correct point for one-way circuits; and the cost per annum of the employment of police on such services?

I am informed that the number of men employed on this particular duty is 10. The cost would be about £3,000 per annum.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any forecast as to when these men will be replaced by mechanical signals?

No, Sir, not these particular men, but the question of the rapid extension of the system of automatic light signals for controlling traffic has recently been under consideration by my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and myself. We have been in communication with the local authorities in London, and I hope that more speedy progress will be made in that matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to a recent decision of the High Court to the effect that the costs which a taxpayer had incurred in connection with an Income Tax appeal cannot be treated as a deductable expense in arriving at his profits for Income Tax purposes; whether he is aware that the taxpayer in the case referred to, though successful on appeal before the Income Tax Commissioners, was as the result of the High Court decision mulcted in costs; and whether steps can be taken to relieve a taxpayer of the payment of costs in any event where such taxpayer has been successful on appeal before the General or Special Commissioners and the case has been taken to the High Court on the application of the revenue authorities?

I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. The decision of the High Court on the question at issue confirmed the established practice with which the Income Tax Commissioners' decision did not accord, and my right hon. Friend can see nothing in the circumstances of the case which would support a proposal for an alteration in the existing position in regard to the costs of appeals to the Courts.

Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the Income Tax Commission in their report definitely drew attention to the hardship of the taxpayer having to decide doubtful points of Income Tax law and expressly recommended that, where the taxpayer had been successful, in the High Court if the Inland Revenue authorities appealed against that decision, they should bear the costs of both sides?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to have regard to the interests of the taxpayers who do not appeal, as well as to the interests of those who do.

Is not that appeal on behalf of all the taxpayers?

Not at all.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increase from £105,302,000 in the year ended 31st March, 1914, to £318,000,000 in the year ended 31st March, 1932, of the expenditure of local authorities in Great Britain borne out of rates and Parliamentary grants he proposes to reconsider the financial relationship of the Exchequer to the local authorities with a view to restricting the expenditure of the Latter?

The Government have the whole question of local authorities' expenditure under careful scrutiny and no opportunity of securing economies will be overlooked, but they doubt whether an alteration of the financial relationship of the Exchequer to the local authorities is in the present circumstances the best way of approach.

Having regard to the fact that this represents the principal source of extravagance, are we not justified in taking steps to secure that local authorities shall make economies in this respect and will the Government force economies on the local authorities by reducing the grants?

It is a question whether it is better done through the financial relationship of the Exchequer to the local authorities, or by means of general policy.

Is it not inevitable that, if one set of men provide the money and another set of men have the spending of it, there will always be extravagance?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended to set up the committee of investigation on the beet-sugar industry before the summer Recess?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, in view of the desirability of placing the beet-sugar industry of the country on an economic basis at the earliest possible opportunity, he will arrange for the work of the committee on that industry to be commenced during the present month;

(2) what are the reasons for the delay in announcing the names of the committee that is to investigate the sugar-beet industry?

This matter is still under consideration, and I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Can my right hon. and gallant Friend not answer my question, as to whether it is intended to set up the committee before the Summer Recess?

I am afraid my answer must be as I have already stated. I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

What is the reason for the delay?

The reason for the delay is that the matter is still under consideration.

Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend think that enough money has been wasted on the beet-sugar industry already?

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can give any estimate showing separately the yield of Petrol Duty for the financial years 1928–29, 1929–30, 1930–31, and 1931–32 from the spirit consumed by the Royal Air Force, Imperial Airways on home services, including joy-riding, other civil flying, stationary plants, and motor-cars and road transport?

I regret that it is not possible to furnish an estimate such as my hon. Friend desires.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that free passes are being given by omnibus companies to burgh prosecutors whose duty it is to look after the operation of the law relating to omnibus companies; whether his Department approves of such a practice; and, if not, will he issue recommendations on the subject to the appropriate authorities?

I have no information on this subject. I would regard such a practice as undesirable, and, if the hon. Member will furnish particulars of specific cases, I shall communicate them to the appropriate authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the name of the local authority which had a clause in their specifications for plumber work, limiting the work within their own area to the exclusion of manufacturers of the same material within the same county; and whether the representations made by his Department have had the effect of inducing the local authority concerned to withdraw this limiting clause from their future specifications?

The local authority in question is the County Council of Stirlingshire. As regards the latter part of the question, the representations made by the Department of Health for Scotland have had the effect of inducing the local authority to withdraw the limiting clause from their subsequent specifications.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been called to the complaints made at the Kilbirnie riot trial of unnecessary batoning of men and women by the police; whether he is aware that these complaints were made by reputable members of the community who did not form part of the deputation to the public assistance committee; and will he institute an inquiry with a view to clearing the police of the charges made against them?

I am aware that in the course of the recent trial in Kilmarnock Sheriff Court of nine men charged with disorderly and riotous con- duct at Kilbirnie on the 8th February, allegations were made against the police by certain witnesses. I am informed that although these witnesses were not members of the deputation to the public assistance committee, they were members of the crowd on the evening of the 8th February. After consideration of the proceedings at the trial and of reports which I have obtained, I am satisfied that no further action on my part is necessary.

May we take it that every individual who was present where these disturbances took place and might not form part of the crowd or take part in the disturbances has been considered as an individual whose word cannot be accepted, and will he therefore make further inquiry to see whether any definite statements alleged later against the police are not accurate?

I want to make it clear that they were actually part of the riotous crowd, according to my information, but that their statements were made in court to the sheriff and that, in spite of their statements, the sheriff found the charges proved against the men concerned. If, however, my hon. Friend is dissatisfied, it is open to him and to others who may be dissatisfied to ask the Procurator-Fiscal to take up the case in the ordinary way.

Has my right hon. Friend had any complaint about the conduct of the police in Glasgow on Saturday in defending the two hon. Members opposite?

It was Sunday!

asked the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade whether his attention has been called to the import restrictions recently imposed by the Danish authorities; whether it is correct that the Danish authorities intend to restrict the importation of textiles to 15 per cent. of last year's importation; whether he is aware that Danish importers are cancelling orders already in process of delivery, and what action he proposes to take to protect the interests of British exporters and their employés in this urgent matter?

I have no information in regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, but I am making inquiries. I am aware that Denmark is taking steps to reduce the volume of her total imports. His Majesty's Minister in Copenhagen is keeping in the closest touch with the Danish Government in order to alleviate the effect of these steps upon British interests. I myself have been in communication with the Danish Minister in London on this subject and have pointed out that, in view of the balance of trade between the two countries, it is desirable that any restrictions on our trade should be as temporary as possible.

With reference particularly to textiles, is it not possible to take definite and urgent action like that, in view of the present position of the textile trade in Lancashire?

All possible action will be taken in this regard, I can assure my hon. Friend.

Is not the restriction of imports precisely the policy which this country is carrying out?

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

In so doing, I would urge that the principle contained in this Clause is both reasonable and just. The present position is that if a person has exhausted his statutory unemployment benefit and applies to a public assistance committee for transitional payment, and if the income in the home where the individual resides, providing he is a relative, averages in the London area—it may be varied in other parts—between 8s. and 10s. per week per person—and two children under 14 in this instance count as one adult—then the individual so applying for transitional payment receives the verdict of the public assistance committee of nil determination. Therefore, the person so contributing to the home has an additional liability in having to maintain the relative, providing that the relative is still remaining in the home. Our point is that the State is relieved of responsibility for any payment to that relative, because the member of the household becomes responsible for discharging that duty of maintenance, and we think the individual who now takes the responsibility of the State should not, in common fairness and justness, be charged Income Tax upon the amount of money that he has paid in relieving the relative in question. The Clause is self-explanatory in this respect and asks that such a person should have at least £50 less income assessed to him in respect of his liability to Income Tax.

In supporting this proposed Clause, I want to point out to the Financial Secretary that a new set of circumstances has arisen in the last 12 months. Since the last Finance Act, the Government have thought fit to bring the means test into operation, and that has brought into being a set of people who have to take on the burden of keeping some member of the family. A person may have been drawing unemployment benefit, but, owing to the means test, the income of the family prevents him getting any benefit or transitional payments at all. The burden of keeping him has to be borne by some member of the family, and this new Clause is introduced in order to relieve that member of the family from some of his Income Tax. I know of cases where parents have put their children to the teaching profession. They borrow the money from the local authority in order to send the children to college, and the loan is paid back when the children enter the teaching profession.

I have in mind two cases of a boy and a girl from separate families who have passed through college and gone into the teaching profession, and the money which was borrowed for their children's training has now to be repaid. The fathers in each case are miners who are out of work and have been refused transitional payment because of the earnings of their children, who now have to bear the double burden of paying back the borrowed money and helping to keep their parents. We claim that those children should receive relief and the parents be recognised as dependent relatives as they are in other cases under the Income Tax provisions. The proposition is so fair that it only wants to be brought to the notice of the House to be recognised as such. It may be urged that this concession would upset the financial aspect of the Bill, but I do not think that it will make such a vast difference.

The proposed Clause is very reasonable and fair. A set of circumstances has arisen which has not been in operation in any other year. A number of men have to keep dependent relatives owing to the operation of the new regulations governing Unemployment Insurance. These people are also faced with the ordinary Income Tax calls, and it is an extremely hard and formidable burden to throw on poor people. I am not so much concerned about the teaching profession, because it may be argued that they have continuity of work, but I am concerned about those who may be employed during one year earning fairly reasonable wages and who follow an occupation which results in their experiencing a good deal of unemployment in the next year. They have to meet an Income Tax claim based on the previous year's earnings, and, owing to their unemployment, it is almost impossible to meet it. I lave a case which I sent to the Minister, who replied to it courteously saying that nothing could be done. The man is being called upon to pay Income Tax during a period when he has to maintain a wife and certain relatives. To make matters worse, he is on short time and not earning sufficient to pay his Income Tax demand.

We on this side have had no concessions in this Finance Bill at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nobody has!"] It may be that nobody has, but attempts are being made by the Government's own supporters to get certain concessions, particularly in regard to beer. I have no doubt that they will be rejected, but I heard the Chancellor say that he hoped that in any review that might take place beer would get a proper share of the rebate. We are putting forward a request for a reasonable concession which should be met. It has been granted in the case of men who have to maintain their mothers, and surely, where the State has thrown the added burden of maintaining dependent relatives on other members of the family, it ought to relieve them of some burden of their Income Tax.

The House is entitled to an explanation of the underlying requirements of the Mover of this proposed Clause before we decide on its merits. I am inclined to agree with the principle of it, but I am rather suspicious of its actual meaning. If a man has a relative living with him, all that he will have to do under this new Clause is to prove that that relative has been living with him at his expense during some period of the year in order to receive the relief of £50. The relative might live with one member of the family for one month, and with another for another month, and so on round the family, and 12 branches of the family might make claims for relief. The result would be 12 distinct inquiries into one case. In consequence, the Commissioners would be involved in expenditure, which at this time we are not in a position to afford. The Clause also refers to a relative who has been

"denied, wholly or in part, transitional payment under the Unemployment Insurance Acts."

What exactly does that mean? We understand the word "wholly," but what does denied "in part" mean? Certain ranges of allowance are made according to the financial condition of applicants, and if every applicant's condition has to be investigated there will be a lot of unnecessary inquiry. Before we are asked to accept this Clause hon. Members opposite should state their case much more clearly, telling us for exactly how long a relative must live with a person and be dependent upon him in order that the abatement of Income Tax may be granted, and exactly what they mean by denied "in part" so far as transitional payments are concerned.

I am afraid that the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) has not properly understood the Clause, and that his misunderstanding of it must be due to his misunderstanding of the conditions prevailing amongst unemployed people even in his own constituency. If he were taking a greater interest in the unemployed, and trying to push their interests in a little warmer manner than he seems to be doing, he would have a wider knowledge of the conditions among them and would understand clearly the reason for moving this new Clause.

I think I do understand the purpose for which the Clause is being moved, but what I am asking hon. Members opposite to do is to let the House have their own explanations of it, so that we may understand it as they would desire us to understand it.

I have merely taken what the hon. Member has said as indicating that he does not understand the circumstances of the unemployed. He talks about an unemployed person living a month with each member of the family in turn, and each member of that family—12 in all—afterwards sending in to the Treasury applications for a reduction of £50 from the amount which they have been assessed for Income Tax. If there were many such cases as he imagines the Ministry of Transport would have to provide additional facilities to enable people to travel round among their relatives. I think the purpose of this Clause is clearly understood by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has told us that he has sent him a case or two, and I also have sent him cases dealing with this particular point. There are young men or young women who have been educated at the expense of their parents—working people —who have made many sacrifices in order to send them to a university. At that time the father was in good work, but now, with the economic depression from which we are suffering, the father has become unemployed. The son or the daughter is regarded by the public assistance committee as being able to maintain the unemployed parent out of the income derived from teaching or the Civil Service, or whatever the occupation followed; but when the son or the daughter makes application to the Income Tax authorities for a rebate because of supporting their parents the Income Tax authorities refuse to regard them as maintaining their parents, and say they are not entitled to an abatement of Income Tax.

Therefore we have this curious situation: the public assistance committees and the Employment Exchanges, which are Government or public departments, look upon these young men and young women as being capable of maintaining their parents and compel them to do so —though in using the word "compel" I do not want to suggest that the young man or young woman seeks to escape the obligation. The public assistance committee says, "With your income you must support your father and mother; we will not give them any transitional payment in view of the income which you enjoy." Those young people are regarded by one Department of the Government as being wholly responsible for the support of their parents, and yet the taxing authority, another Department of the Government, tell them they are not supporting them, and therefore are not entitled to receive an abatement of Income Tax. An hon. Member opposite shakes his head. Let him ask the Financial Secretary if that is not the case. Letter after letter upon this one point has been sent to the Financial Secretary, and the replies we have had, while quite courteous, have stated that under the law as it stands at present nothing can be done in the matter, that no abatement of Income Tax could be granted in respect of the expense to which they were put in maintaining their relatives.

The purpose of this new Clause is to say that where a son or daughter is looked upon by the public assistance authority as maintaining the father and the mother, who on that account are getting no transitional payment, they shall be regarded as supporting their parents, and that the amount of the allowance which the public assistance authorities withhold, whether it be the full sum of 15s. 3d. plus the allowance for the mother, or whether it be a part of that sum, shall be regarded by the Income Tax assessors as being the amount of the abatement in respect of Income Tax to which the son or daughter is entitled. The people on whose behalf we are putting forward this claim arc not many in number, and to grant it would not mean any large sacrifice on the part of the Treasury. I doubt whether throughout the whole country more than 2,000 to 3,000 people would be affected. We have a very good case, a very fair case. It is a new situation, one that could not have been foreseen in any previous Finance Act, not even the Act brought in last autumn. The situation has arisen entirely out of the legislation passed in view of the economic proposals of the National Government. I hope that the National Government will consider this as a perfectly fair and legitimate request, and that this little injustice from which a number of people are suffering will be put right.

I readily admit that, in the first instance, this seems a very reasonable proposal. Certainly from those letters, when they came in to me, as they did from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and from their constituents and from my own constituents and those of other hon. Members, it seemed at first that there was an injustice which ought to be remedied. Then when I examined the matter it seemed to me that the following points arose which I should now like the House to consider. In the first place, we all agree that this is not a case of officials refusing anything, but is the present state of the law. In the second place, these special circumstances have arisen in the case of one set of persons only. The proposed new Clause would relieve this one set of persons and not the others, and persons who have had to maintain uninsured relatives in the past, and will have to maintain them in the future if those relatives do not fall under the statutory provisions with regard to old age and infirmity, would receive no relief. Under these proposals, no relief is given in respect of anybody except the ex-insured persons, and the relatives of the middle-class, who suffer as much as anybody from such circumstances, and the relatives of agricultural labourers, who also suffer under those circumstances, would not receive any relief whatever under the proposals. I do not want to do more than just make the point. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do agricultural labourers pay Income Tax?"] I am talking now of such people as the small shopkeeping class who pay Income Tax. There are people engaged in small farming occupations, perhaps a little higher than agricultural labourers, who feel very keenly at present in regard to the maintenance of relatives. Their burden could not be relieved under the proposed new Clause. Perhaps the term "agricultural labourer" was a mistake. The relief proposed here is double the amount allowed in the case of a dependent relative, which is £25, and here it is £50, but I do not want to found myself on that.

The present state of the law is that a person may have relief on account of a dependent relative living with him if the relative is incapacitated by reason of old age or infirmity. Under this proposed new Clause that provision is to be extended to relatives who are not incapacitated in that way. Let me tell the House why I think it is an unsound proposal for such a small number of people. The Income Tax authorities can only make an annual determination, but the public assistance committees make a monthly determination. If a determination is made by a local authority it is made in the case of what is admittedly, in theory, a temporary condition. A person is unemployed, and, though unfortunately by the circumstances of the case unemployment may continue for a very long period, it does not continue as long as old age and infirmity which are permanent disabilities. Unemployment, especially in the case of younger people, is a thing which may vary from month to month. In that case, the question asked by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) is a perfectly reasonable one. Who is to carry out the investigation which would be necessary in order to make sure that the relative was being maintained to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue? Obviously, that must be ascertained throughout the whole period of the year during which the person was either wholly or partly dependent upon the relative by whom that person was being kept. Those authorities would need to have investigating machinery to enable them to satisfy themselves that in cases which would no doubt be lodged, cases either of fraud or of infringement of this provision, the person was in fact during the whole of the 12 months in respect of which the claim was made being wholly or mainly maintained by the relative for whom the reduction of Income Tax was being asked. The hon. Member for Gorbals will agree that that is not a difficulty which arises in cases of old age or infirmity, in both of which there is permanent disability which can be easily verified. For the reason that the proposed new Clause only applies to ex-insured persons, and therefore cuts out large sections of the community altogether; for the reason—

May I put this point? The point that seems to present difficulties to the Financial Secretary is that of investigation. Could not the same method be adopted as is used at present to rule people out of transitional payments? Could not the investigating authority be the public assistance committee which at present investigates the need of people in regard to transitional payments?

The hon. Member will see at once that that could not apply. In the case of the Inland Revenue, a claim is made for a period of 12 months, and it would involve us in an inexplicable tangle of administrative complications if relatively small sums of 35s. or £2 had to be reclaimed by the Inland Revenue from the persons who had received exemption, and if a series of claims and correspondence were to go on for a small sum for the period of a year.

Could not this be done: Every man who is refused unemployment benefit by the public assistance committee is supplied with a form by the authorities. The form says that his claim is nil. Could not the responsibility be put upon the man who was claiming in respect of a relative of supplying forms for a particular period, and handing them to the authorities after they have been duly authenticated and signed? Would not that be sufficient evidence to cover the period without any investigation at all?

Surely the hon. Member for Gorbals will realise that these are determinations and investigations which are proper to the consideration between the person claiming benefit and the public assistance committee. The local committee have investigating machinery. To bring the Inland Revenue authorities into this is a wholly unnecessary complication. If the person is not receiving adequate relief, then that is the business of the public assistance committee, which is not asked to find out the facts out of its own money; it has been put into funds by this House, and their investigations are carried on out of funds provided by this House. It is the business of the public assistance committees to ensure that due and adequate relief is given. To complicate that with a series of claims which would be matters of shillings rather than of pounds is to import undesirable complications into the Inland Revenue system of this country.

4.0 p.m.

Let me go further. The Inland Revenue realise that certain circumstances are operating as far as these people are concerned, and that there is a class of case with which previously we have not had to deal. We are anxious, and I will give a pledge that we will do our utmost to mitigate by administrative action the difficulties that have arisen. For instance, in the most difficult cases where a parent is being assisted, and where there are younger brothers and sisters, it has been found possible to give Income Tax relief by reference to the younger brothers and sisters, treating them as adopted children. There is a class of case running over a long period of time in which it is right and reasonable that such relief should be given. Furthermore, in every case where it can be shown that existing conditions in an elderly man's trade effectively destroy his chance of employment on that account, he is to all intents and purposes incapacitated by old age, and therefore is brought within the meaning of the dependant relatives provision. But I would ask my hon. Friends in all parts of the House to realise that it is not possible to deal in the Inland Revenue with every class of case which arises in the course of a year. The Royal Commission on Income Tax, on which Members belonging to all parties sat, went into this question very closely and very sympathetically, and they said:

"These claims, while differing in degree, all arise out of the personal or domestic circumstances of the taxpayer, and although we are conscious that in particular cases the operation of the general rule may result in individual hardship, we feel that we cannot advise any general relaxation of the principles on which the tax is levied."

That report was signed, as we know, among others by Mr. William Graham. That was in the year 1920. The fact is that it is not possible to adapt the Income Tax provisions to the circumstances of every case, and particularly an annual determination is not adapted to temporary circumstances. That was true in 1920, and it remains true to-day. The public assistance committee have a very important duty to perform. That duty must be primarily the responsibility of the public assistance committees. This House has gone a very long way in placing vast sums at the disposal of the public assistance committees which they have to administer to obviate these cases of hardship, and I would ask the House to leave the machine of the Inland Revenue to operate, as in the past, on an annual determination, and to leave the short determination to be carried out by the public assistance committee. That, I think, will be found in practice much more satisfactory, and much less liable to give rise to a double set of means test investigations—which would be the worst thing that could happen to these people—than a system brought in under such a Clause as this.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given us a large number of reasons, including many weak ones, for not accepting this Clause. After all, Income Tax is based on the income of the previous year, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman takes the line that family circumstances have not changed, and that the system is a perfect one. That, is not so. He says that the facts are ascertainable. There may be an aged person supported in one year, and who may die in that year. There may be children who are born and die in the course of a year. You do not make these adjustments. Your Income Tax regulations are only an approximation at best, and when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman takes the line that you must have it absolutely perfect, I think he is quite wrong. As a matter of fact, the Income Tax takes the broad circumstances of a person, and you do not get a readjustment of injustices. Now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that we cannot do justice in this case, because if we try to do it we shall have to do justice in every other kind of case, and bring in all kinds of persons. That is a very familiar argument coming from the Treasury Bench and from the representative of the Treasury, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has ignored that this particular set of circumstances is the creation of the Legislature. It is the creation of the action of this Government with its specific means test. It is quite possible to avoid this by a process, which the National Government are so actively carrying on, of breaking up the family.

My hon. Friend will agree that that would not obviate the real difficulty, that this would apply only to one section of the community.

I quite agree, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot charge that against this Clause. It is a fact that the Government do not insure agricultural labourers against unemployment, but does that mean, therefore, that the doing of justice to any class must beheld over until the Government choose to give unemployment insurance to agricultural labourers? Of course, the social system is full of anomalies. If we are to wait until justice is done all round, we shall never get anywhere. But in this specific case you have an elaborate system of means tests, under which committees are charged with taking into consideration the means of certain members of a family. The right hon. Gentleman's Department is already removing those means, and therefore it is entirely unfair that an amount of money which is coming into the household should be estimated on an income which is not the income at all, because it is subject to deduction of Income Tax.

Any deductions made from income would certainly be a perfectly legitimate thing for the public assistance committee to take into account.

But do those committees, as a matter of fact, take into account Income Tax in every case? Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman given such instructions? I do not believe, as a matter of fact, that they do; but here is the point. These persons are having a burden put upon their income of keeping a relative, and they are being charged with Income Tax on that part of their income which, in fact, they are not receiving. I consider that the right hon. Gentleman's arguments with regard to the practicability of this Clause are extraordinarily weak, because they postulate a state of completeness and accuracy in Income Tax which does not exist, and I think that his argument that it is impossible to do anything for these people because we cannot bring in everybody, is really only the sort of argument we always get on a point like this. If we tried to bring in everybody, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would say, "If it had only been a case of a few hundred people, we might have done something, but we cannot afford this." It is a good old Treasury retort. On the merits of the case, I think the attitude of the Government is quite unreasonable, and we shall press this Motion to a Division.

The Financial Secretary, I know, finds himself this afternoon in a difficulty. He had to admit the principal case which the Opposition has put up, namely, that a new class of dependants has recently been created. He must have had in mind that the Government of which ho is a member has declared that a person who is in receipt of transitional payment, and who is living as a member of a family where there are persons who are earning wages, is, in fact, a dependant of the wage-earners. The case which he cited, where large numbers of people would not have relief if this Clause were added to the Bill, is that of a voluntary association. The law has not declared, in fact, that they are legal dependants, and, therefore, it cannot be held that they are entitled to relief. But this is a class which the law has declared is a new class of legal dependants.

Surely my hon. Friend is not quite accurate. The determination, according to the Poor Law standard, has not been in any way altered. We are dealing, not with the question of dependants as regards the Inland Revenue, but as regards the Poor Law. The definition of dependants as regards the Poor Law is in. no way altered.

I accept the statement made by the Financial Secretary that this set of circumstances could have arisen, and did arise, with respect to the Poor Law before; but a new class of dependants, notwithstanding, has been created, because you have now transferred to the Poor Law machinery a large number of persons who were formerly insured. You have, in fact, created a new class of dependants, and you have declared that any persons in a household in receipt of transitional payment shall be legal dependants of the other members of the household. All that we desire by this proposed new Clause is to carry the logic of the position to the Inland Revenue, and to say that if the law declares that these persons are dependants for the purpose of assessing transitional payment, they shall be dependants for the purpose of assessing Income Tax in regard to the members of the family, That is a perfectly reasonable and logical stand to take.

What is the actual nature of the injustice which the Financial Secretary is defending? The law up to now has said that it is unjust to tax an income below £120 a year. The law said that it was unreasonable to pay taxation to the State when living at a standard of life represented by less than £120 a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "£135."] £135. That is precisely what the law has said. I know of the case of an uncertificated school teacher receiving as such teachers do receive, very low wages, paying a very small amount of Income Tax because her earnings are just above the taxable level. There is a brother living with her who had 15s. 3d. a week, and the transitional payment people have taken 10s. a week from that relative on the ground that his sister must now keep him. That has lowered her annual income well below the level at which the State has said it is unreasonable to levy Income Tax. That seems to be a rank injustice, because the State has said, "We think you ought not to be taxed, because your income ought not to be less than a certain amount." The law has said in another of its Departments, "You must live upon a lot less than this, because we shall make your brother chargeable to you." That is a powerful case which has not been met, and we earnestly submit that this is carrying the whole thing a little too far; indeed, it is levying so high a tax upon the earnings of some members of families as gravely to reduce the incentive to earn wages at all. I do submit, in view of these considerations, that the Financial Secretary might reconsider the position. If he does not like our form of words, perhaps he can suggest a form of words to meet the main gravamen of the charge which we are bringing against this Bill.

With regard to what is called the legal position in this matter, I always understood that legally an able-bodied person was obliged to support a non-able-bodied relative, whether living with him or not, but I always understood, also, that no person was obliged under the Poor Law to help to maintain an able-bodied relative. I do not know of any legal right by which the Government, through the public assistance committees, are compelling relatives to maintain able-bodied persons who are out of work. [Interruption.] I have been helping to administer the Poor Law for nearly 40 years, and I always understood that that was the law. The other night in the House I asked if anyone could contradict me on that point, and no one has done so yet. The position is brought about in this way: The public assistance committee say: "There is enough coming into the house, and you must share it and must bear the burden of the unemployment of your relative." They have not any legal right to do that. If the relatives say, "No, we are not going to do this," then the public assistance committee reply, "Well, your friend, or brother, or whoever he is, must go into the workhouse." They have that weapon which they hold over both the applicant and the relative. There is no legal obligation to do this, and I believe that, if the House of Commons really understood the terrible burden that is being put upon quite hard-working people by this family income test, it would be removed. I only rose to say