HC Deb 14 November 1932 vol 270 cc771-887

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. MABANE

On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the following point? I understand that it is the intention to divide on the Second Reading of this Bill at 7.30 to-morrow evening, and then to proceed with the Committee stage. If the present rule is observed, that will prevent Amendments for the Committee stage from being put on the Paper, because they may not be handed in until the Division on the Second Reading has been taken. Will you kindly guide me as to how it is possible to give notice of Amendments for the Committee stage of the Bill so that they may be on the Paper and hon. Members may be informed of them?

Mr. SPEAKER

No Amendments to a Bill can be handed in until the Bill has received a Second Reading.

Mr. MABANE

My point is that, if that is the case, it will not be possible to hand in Amendments until 7.30 to-morrow evening, when the Committee stage will at once begin, and there will be no chance for hon. Members to see what the Amendments are; they will of necessity be manuscript Amendments.

Mr. SPEAKER

That is the only way in which Amendments can be handed in on an occasion of this kind—as manuscript Amendments.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton)

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

The Bill follows the Resolution which the House has already passed. I do not propose to repeat in any detail the arguments which I presented to the House the other day, but I want to state quite shortly what the Bill does, and my reasons for commending it to the House. The object of the Bill, as I stated the other day, is to secure uniformity of principle with regard to three types of resources—first, disability pensions; secondly, payments in respect of workmen's compensation; and, thirdly, sav- ings. I see that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is in his place, and I want to say, with regard to disability pensions, that there is no one in this House who is more entitled to speak for ex-service men than he is. He is a member of the King's Roll National Council. He expressed in the House the other day certain fears as to what would be the result of what we are doing. I believe that those fears are groundless and will not be realised, but I said that this Bill is a temporary Bill, and that, if the hon. Member's fears are realised, if the apprehension which he entertains is justified, I should certainly take the matters in question into consideration in framing the new Bill, because I believe that the hon. Member's object and mine in this respect are identical, namely, to do the very best that we can for the disabled ex-service man.

I need, perhaps, only repeat, with regard to disability pensions, that the Bill secures that half of such pensions shall in all circumstances be secured by Statute to the applicant, and I would point out that this is the first time since the War that it has been recognised that pensions are not given solely for maintenance. In my view, that is a most valuable recognition of al important principle, and I think it is a principle which the House will do well to recognise and place upon the Statute Book. A question was asked the other day as to whether this 50 per cent. is a minimum. It is certainly a minimum; there can be no question about that now that the House has the Bill before it. It has been suggested that in some respects this Bill might make worse the position of the disabled ex-service mar, but in my view there is no justification whatever for that suggestion; in no sense can the Bill be made an instrument for making the position of disabled ex-service men worse.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) was apprehensive the other day lest, in the case of the lower disability pensions, of 30 per cent. or thereabouts, it might be taken as an indication to the assessing authorities that they should not do what they have been doing—and rightly doing—in the past, and might be considered as a direction to that effect. Again I say to my hon. and gallant Friend, as I said to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, that if I find that when the Bill is in operation it is acting in a way which I do not desire, and which they do not desire, in regard to disabled ex-service men, I shall be guided by the experience of the working of this Measure in framing the new Bill which I shall have to bring before the House next Session. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said the other day, in reference to this matter: Our answer to him"— that is, to me— is, first, that his concessions are virtually worthless; that large numbers of people, as a result of these so-called concessions, will he worse off. And he went on to say: We regard his concessions as empty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1932; cols.369–370, Vol. 270.] The answer to that statement of the right hon. Gentleman was given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras, and, quite frankly, in a matter affecting disabled ex-service men, I prefer the opinion of my hon. and gallant Friend. He said: We must recognise that, even if in regard to these amounts it does not go as far as many of us would like, that principle is of real value. For my part I thank the Government for recognising that principle."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1932; col. 378, Vol. 270.] My hon. and gallant Friend also pointed out, as I have done to-day, that this is the first time that there has, appeared in any Statute a recognition of the principle that disability pensions were intended for something more than mere subsistence. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that, so far as we can see, and so far as we believe, that is a recognition of a principle which is of great value and one, therefore, which I have no hesitation in commending to the House.

But that is not all. The Bill does more than that, because Sub-section (2) gives a permissive power in granting outdoor relief to observe all or any of the rules required by foregoing section"— that is the one to which I have re-ferred— to be complied with in relation to transitional payments. I never can understand why there should appear to be what seems to be a policy of discrimination against those who are not insured persons. Why should you not do the same for the agricultural labourer or for the shopkeeper who has fallen on bad times, or for a person who is not insured? In these circumstances I think, of all people in the House, the very last who should have made this statement is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield because, when he was Minister of Health, he issued Circular No. 1069—or the Secretary to the Ministry did on his behalf—which states: I am directed by the Minister of Health to state that there are certain points in regard to the administration of the Poor Law to which he would desire to draw the special attention of guardians. It says, further down: In assessing the amount of relief to be afforded, the general principle is that income and means from every source available to' the household must be taken into account. That means, of course, that, with regard to agricultural labourers, subject to what is said, that where there is special need there should be special concessions, there is no power vested in the hands of the local authorities to give any concession at all with regard to disability pensions to those who are not insured. The right hon. Gentleman had two years and more in which to rectify this matter, about which apparently he feels so strongly. If that Circular is the best he can do after two years, he is the last person in the House to criticise us.

Sir BASIL PETO

What is the date of the Circular?

Sir H. BETTERTON

3rd January, 1930. With regard to disability pensions we follow the recommendations of the majority Report of the Royal Commission. I think it is fair to say that what we propose with regard to sums payable in respect of workmen's compensation goes rather further than the Report of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission said' it should be open to the assessing authorities to allow a proportion, but it does not specify what. We lay down that it shall be at least a half.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD

It says 50 per cent., and not at least a half. The same point was made last week about ex- service men. I raised the question, and we have had no reply. Am I right in saying that the Bill is mandatory as regards the 50 per cent., or is there an option to local authorities, acting as the right hon. Gentleman's agents, in administering transitional payments?

Sir H. BETTERTON

It is certainly mandatory in administering transitional payments.

Mr. GREENWOOD

50 per cent.—not more.

Sir H. BETTERTON

The minimum is 50 per cent. and, if special need requires it, they may do in the future as they have done in the past and grant much more.

Mr. LAWSON

I really think we ought to have this point cleared up. Following the right hon. Gentleman, I put specific questions to the Parliamentary Secretary `which were not answered. It says quite clearly that a disability pension shall be treated as if it were reduced by one-half. It does not say anything about a minimum.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Is not this the position, that 50 per cent. will be allowed and, in the case of illness or some exceptional circumstances, they can make it 75 per cent., hut they will not be allowed to give 75 per cent. over the whole of their area?

Sir H. BETTERTON

I am glad to clear up what is obviously a misconception. The Bill says that at least, as a minimum, there shall be 50 per cent. and, in the future as in the past, when the need requires more than 50 per cent.—75 or 100 per cent.—it will be just as legal to give 100 per cent.

Mr. BUCHANAN

In individual cases?

Sir H. BETTERTON

Yes.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Not as a whole?

Sir H. BETTERTON

It is not now. I hope I have made it clear. The 50 per cent. is a minimum, and, as in the past, it is still open to the authority to allow more than 50 per cent. if the needs require it.

Mr. LANSBURY

In individual cases?

Sir H. BETTERTON

Certainly. With regard to savings, we have said that up to the first £50 they shall be disregarded, and it shall be assumed that there is an income of a shilling per week with respect to each additional complete £25. Our recommendations with regard to that is exactly the recommendation of the Royal Commission. There is no difference whatever between what the Bill proposes and what the Royal Commission recommend. [Interruption.] Although I did not see the report, I made it my business to find out, as far as I could, what were the views of the majority.

4.0 p.m.

The Amendment on the Paper proposes to reject the Bill which fails to abolish the means test itself. Whatever else this discussion has done, it has, I think, made perfectly clear what is the attitude of the Opposition in regard to the means test and, in those circumstances, I do not propose to take up time in comparing statements made in the past which seem to be wholly in conflict with the views now expressed. That would he a waste of time. But the fact remains, that the Opposition are committed to the view that there shall be no means test at all. That means that State relief is to be indiscriminate, perpetual and is to be paid whether a man needs it or not. As long as we have that perfectly clear, we know exactly where we are. The view which I hold in this matter has been more clearly expressed by the Royal Commission itself, and I can tell the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that I did not know this when I brought in the Bill because I only read it last night. The report says, on page 128: But a service based upon needs has this convincing advantage, that it at least attempts to have some serious regard to the principle of equality. It does not add equal benefit to unequal resources, but seeks to apportion the assistance available in such a way that the greater measure of help reaches those whose need is most. We doubt if, for many generations to come, any State will be prepared (or wealthy enough) to make, indefinitely, grants from public funds without inquiring whether the recipients have any need of help at all. Certainly while the resources available are as limited as they are to-day, we should think it unfortunate if payments were made to persons who were not in need, at the expense ultimately of those who are most in need. That, as far as I am concerned, sums up exactly my view with regard to the merits of a means test as such. The view, as I understand it, of those who support the Amendment is that wherever there is a loss of employment there is an obligation on the State to grant relief quite apart from the needs of the applicant. In our view that is a perfectly indefensible proposition. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), again, has expressed my views as clearly as, I think, it is possible to express them, and in reading what I am going to read, I would assure the hon. Gentleman if he were here, that I do so not with any idea at all of embarrassing him, but merely to adopt what he says as my own. In a publication called the "National Insurance Gazette," of 15th October, 1932, which is, after all, only about a month ago, the hon. Member for Westhoughton—who, I am sure the House will agree with me, stands very high in the respect of this House, has himself held responsible office in the Labour Government, and, therefore is entitled to expect that some regard should be paid to the views which he holds—says in an article entitled "Doubtful Tendencies": One proposition crops up in the Labour movement like a hardy annual which annoys me. Anyone who has studied the resolutions sent in, more particularly by local Labour parties, for discussion at the 1932 Leicester Labour Party Conference, will have noticed the number of proposals covering the following suggestion: That all our present State insurance schemes should be placed on a non-contributory basis. Let us deal with this shallow proposition in detail. There is no better place to handle these doubtful tendencies than in a trade anion journal. The only comment I have to make on that is that there is one better place and that is the House of Commons. The article continues: I am anxious that our movement shall not appear foolish. Let it he made clear above all things that there can be no benefit scheme of any kind that is non-contributory; some folk have got to pay money into some fund in order that some may be able to take money out of it.… Once we leave the prescribed field of insurance and contributions a needs or a means test inevitably follows. At the end the article says: Let us have by all means better and more generous schemes, but we must avoid the soup kitchen conception of Socialism implied in the non-contributory principle.

Mr. BUCHANAN

He will have to be disciplined.

Sir H. BETTERTON

I commend to the House those wise words of the hon. Member for Westhoughton, and I hope the view which they express will receive very wide circulation. The truth of the matter is, of course, that if insurance rights have ceased, then the payment is not benefit; it is relief. If your contractual rights no longer entitle you to benefit, then it ceases to be insurance. It is well known here, but outside there seems to be some doubt and some confusion. A means test, I need not mention to hon. Members present, does not apply to unemployment benefit, but only to those whose insurance rights have terminated, and there is no justification for payment out of taxation to a selected class whether they have need or whether they have not. Probably the House in all parts will agree with me about this. It was not until September last year that any Government whether Coalition, Conservative, or Labour faced up to this fact, that we have undoubtedly for years past been paying under the name of insurance what was, in fact, relief, and it is that which has so confused the issue and is confusing it to-day.

The demand in the Amendment that there should be an abandonment of the means test altogether really involves a demand that there should be an end of contributory unemployment insurance. That demand, up to now, has not been recognised by the official Opposition. It has always been the demand of the hon. Member for Gorbals, who, unlike the Front Opposition Bench, has been perfectly consistent in this matter, and it was a demand as long ago as the Blanesburgh Committee, when the members of the Trades Union Congress asked that there should be an end of contributory compulsory insurance. But, quite recently, just before the end of the Labour Government, I remember the Minister of Labour standing at this Box when I was sitting on the other side, and stating in definite terms that it was the policy of the Labour Government at that time that there should be a tri-partite system of contributory insurance. They have altered their minds. I do not make any complaint about that, but we want to know now where we are. We know now that what is demanded in this Amend- ment is that there should be an end altogether of the system of contributory insurance. Clearly, you cannot defend the position under which a man, who has no insurance qualifications, should draw exactly the same amount under exactly the same conditions without any inquiry as to his means, when you tell another man who has been insured for years that his rights are no more than the others. It would be very unfair to the man who has contributed, to treat a man who has not contributed in exactly the same way.

The contention, of course, involves the view that insurance as a system has broken down. That would be the view of the hon. Member for Gorbals. Frankly, we do not share that view. We, on the other hand, think that the principle of insurance has a tremendous social value to which we intend to adhere, because the moment you admit that there should be no contribution, then you have to admit that anything like self-help no longer plays any part in the scheme. It is just that which the Amendment challenges. If you once accept the doctrine that, whether necessary or not, all are to get alike in future, then it is not insurance benefit at all but simply an undiluted dole. I commend this Bill to the House. I am satisfied that it does really recognise principles of very great value to those who are affected, and I would say, in conclusion, that I believe that those who go into the Division Lobby to oppose the recognition of these principles will never be forgiven by those whom we are determined to help.

Sir B. PETO

Will my right hon. Friend make clearer to the House the operation of Sub-section (2)? Will it throw an enormous additional burden on to the ratepayers, and will it alter the whole basis on which Poor Law relief has been given?

Sir H. BETTERTON

I will tell my hon. Friend that I purposely did not deal with that, because it was dealt with at very great length by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health when the Financial Resolution was before the House the other day, and I cannot add anything to what he said.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the statement of the Minister of Health, consider- able doubts have arisen in the minds of municipal corporations which have been embodied in a communication sent to this House this morning, and is it not a matter which needs further light?

Sir H. BETTERTON

I can assure my hon. Friend that if any doubts arise in the course of the Debate on that point, my right hon. Friend will be only too happy to deal with them.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words: this House, realising the widespread public resentment created by the injustices inherent in the present system of transitional payments, cannot consent to the Second Reading of a Bill which fails to abolish the means test and does not remove the system from all association with the Poor Law. The Minister has told us that the object of the Bill is to secure uniformity on three points. I do not think that he has been as frank as he might be. Is it pro-posed to have unity on any other points? Is it intended that uniformity shall be confined to disability pensions, work-men's compensation and income from investments of capital, or is it the intention of the Bill that, having specified the terms upon which uniformity is to be achieved on those three points, uniformity shall be imposed on all other points that come into consideration? I hope the Minister will give us a reply, because it is very important. There is another point on which, I think, the Minister should reply immediately. Much depends upon his answers to these questions. I refer to the question put by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), and other Members of the House regarding the exact implication of what he said as to the 50 per cent. of disability pension which is to be taken into account. I will submit specific figures to the Minister in order that he may give to the House a clear answer, unequivocal and definite, and I will assume that he knows well enough that certain public assistance committees do not take into account disability pensions of small degree. I will put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. I will assume that the public assistance committee do not include a disability pension of 10s. a week. Is it intended that that public assistance committee who for the present exclude a disability pension of 10s. a week shall in future count 5s. as part of the income of the applicant or the applicant's family, and that therefore the assessment will be reduced by that amount Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that question? Is it intended that the amount now allowed by public assistance committees who have sympathy with disabled ex-service men, shall be reduced by one-half? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer that question.

Sir H. BETTERTON

Perhaps it will be more convenient if the hon. Gentleman first puts all his questions?

Mr. GRENFELL

It would be well if the right hon. Gentleman could answer the question straight away as I want to argue the matter further, and a great deal depends upon what he may have to say. What does he mean by "at least 50 per cent."? Does he mean that at least 50 per cent, of the disability pension must be taken into account, and that it must be added to whatever future income the applicant receives in order that the assessment may be reduced correspondingly? I could understand a statement of that kind, but I cannot understand his statement that at least 50 per cent. is to be allowed to the applicant. This is an innovation. It is a change we understand from previous practice. The Minister lays it down that the income from disability pension and from workmen's compensation shall be computed to the extent of one-half, that one-half of whatever disablement pension the applicant receives is to be taken into account, and that the remaining one-half only is to be allowed as the personal right of the disabled person.

The right hon. Gentleman has sought justification from many quarters. I was very disappointed when he failed to give a personal reason for the institution of the means test and had to seek refuge in the report of the Commission published after the Bill was introduced. The Commission was quite independent of his Department, I hope, and free from all Government authority, and yet the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Ministry of Labour who has been responsible for the administration of the means test for exactly 12 months stands up in this House and says in effect: "I have no need to give an explanation. I have the Majority report as justification for the institution of the means test." It is true that he sought to obtain confirmation for his Bill by quoting something which my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) wrote in a trade union journal for the benefit of his own members. I did not think that the right hon. Gentleman would listen to curtain lectures. I hope that the next time he listens to conversations between members of a trade union or members of the Labour party he will take into account that sometimes representative men of a Labour Government are very much worried and harassed by the action. of the Government themselves.

Sir H. BETTERTON

The hon. Gentleman does himself an injustice. It is not a case of listening. This publication may be had for the price of 4d. It is on sale.

Mr. GRENFELL

The right hon. Gentleman has made a bargain, and he is making full use of the indiscretion of the hon. Member for Westhoughton. I am sure it was never intended that such valuable evidence should be put into the hands of the Minister. Perhaps he will leave the hon. Member for Westhoughton to us. We know how free of speech the hon. Gentleman is and, much as we admire him, what importance to attach to some of the little asides which he makes in his own walk of life. We have an Amendment, and the Minister is surprised that we should have an Amendment couched in such terms. He will remember my saying that we realise the widespread public resentment. I am sure that that is neither news to the Minister nor to the hon. Members on the Front Bench. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has received any communications from his constituency. He represents, I gather, the City of Nottingham.

Sir H. BETTERTON

Oh, no.

Mr. GRENFELL

One of the divisions or Nottingham. [Interruption.] Not-tinghamshire, I am sorry. He may have received a more beneficent communication from the County of Nottingham than he would have received from the city itself. But is there a. city in the country, or a public assistance committee anywhere—does any right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentleman in this House represent any city or local authority in this country—which has a word of praise for the means test in its general application? I have received during the last minute or so from the hands of the Leader of the Opposition a telegram, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) for having to bring it in. The telegram is sent to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. George Lansbury), and is in these words: The Dundee Public Assistance Committee to-day reaffirm that the basic scales of transitional benefit have brought the recipients below the subsistence level. That telegram is from Dundee, an important city in Scotland. We have already heard from leading cities in the North, in the Midlands and in South Wales.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT

The hon. Member has referred to a Resolution sent from Dundee, but is he aware that in an earlier Resolution passed a few months ago the Dundee Public Assistance Committee recognised the need for some form of means test?

Mr. GRENFELL

I am only going on what the telegram says. I have not listened to the Debates of the Dundee Town Council. I simply have a telegram. It is an authentic document, and I ask the House to take it as it is. We have had resolutions from Newcastle, and from all parts of the Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman, first of all, should pay heed to the resentment among the unemployed themselves who arc not an unimportant part of the nation. Over 2,000,000 people have passed before the public assistance committees. Their circumstances have been inquired into and their family incomes have been subject to examination. All kinds of intimate questions have been put to them, and all kinds of inquiries have been made about them. There is not an unemployed man in the country who does not resent the whole scheme of things which the Minister now so tardily and scantily proposes to amend. There is public resentment, and our Amendment rightly calls attention to it in this House which, as the Minister has said, is the place in which to consider these things. This House should be more fully consulted. It is in this House that the arguments for legislation should be given and the case argued out rather than to place dependence upon the Majority Report of a Royal Commission which does not come near this House, and, worse still, does not go near the scenes of unemployment where millions of people are suffering day by day.

Resentment was recently expressed by the hunger marchers who came to this city. Resentment against the means test has been shown in at, least half-a-dozen large cities in the country within the last two or three months, and the public resentment has only been quelled as it affects a large number of people by the ostentatious and brutal use of force by men who are themselves well fed and free from the distress of unemployment. Shopkeepers, who are not an unimportant part of the community, deplore and condemn the means test and its effects. Shopkeepers suffer very much indeed because of the curtailment of purchasing power resulting from the administration of the means test. Public assistance committees—people who are elected for the purpose of carrying on local government in the country have had this additional unpleasant duty thrust upon them under the pretence that there was a national emergency, in order to get rid of which all people were to take on additional duties and sacrifices. Now the public assistance committees. not knowing at the onset what they had to do, have found, as they have gained experience in the administration of the Order, which is now to be amended, the duty to be very unpleasant and unpalatable. They have had to strain their consciences and better natures in order to try and carry out the duty cast upon them. Public assistance committees everywhere show resentment against the action of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health in carrying out the Order.

4.30 p.m.

I went to church with the Mayor in my home town yesterday and I met members of the public assistance committee who are themselves town councillors. They are not members of my party, but personal friends of mine. They had read in the newspapers that I was to have an opportunity of saying something upon the Bill to-day, and they said to me, "Grenfell, for goodness sake take this thing away from us. Whatever is to be done with this means test, we do not want to touch it." That is what was said to me by more than one councillor in the town in which I reside in the presence of a colleague of mine who is Member of Parliament for the district. The Churches have had something to say about this matter. Will the Minister confide in us and tell us how many resolutions he has received from churches protecting against the abuse, suffering and hardship imposed upon members of their congregations. All denominations in all parts of the country have passed resolutions. We know that there is very strong feeling in the Churches against the way in which the means test and its administration are being carried out. There is the organisation representing the ex-service men. The British Legion have passed resolutions which they have sent to me, and I cannot believe that the British Legion is prepared to accept the concession proposed by the Minister in satisfaction of their claim on behalf of the ex-service men. Trade unions have made their protests and there have been protests in the Press. I do not expect very much sympathy from many newspapers, but one could not fail to have noticed in the Press during the last month or six weeks more sympathetic references to the conditions under which people live, and to the injury inflicted upon unemployed people by the administration of the means test.

The Minister said something about discrimination. It is because of discrimination that we protest against the means test. There is that injustice inherent in the Bill. The Bill does discriminate, and it discriminates not against the worst, not against the unthrifty, not against the idler, not against the waster, but against the industrious person, against the thrifty person. It makes thrift and industry an offence and a crime for which people have to pay a very heavy penalty. I wish the Minister and hon. Members could imagine the condition of mind of two neighbours living next to each other, working in the same mine or the same factory, earning the same wages, with the same family responsibilities, but one family having ideas of thrift, which they put into practice, by means of which they have been able to save sufficient money, perhaps, to buy their house, while the person next door lives from day to day, and thinks it a very happy way to go on, paying no heed to the future but spending as he goes along, because the Government wishes that to be done and actually corn-mends him for so doing.

Imagine the state of mind of the thrifty person when his case comes up for consideration. The thrifty person has paid his contributions, has helped to build up the fund and has been no more responsible for the failure of the fund than the man next door, who is not thrifty and who spends his money as he goes along. A discrimination comes in at the point when it is discovered that one of the two has been industrious and thrifty. In respect of that person, when this legislation has been passed, if he owns the house that he lives in, if, after 30 years' work, he has saved £10 or £12 a year to purchase his house which may be worth £350, he is not to be given one penny piece in unemployment benefit, because he has been guilty of saving more than £300. If his money is invested in the Post Office, the same condition applies to him. In that case there is discrimination against the thrifty person. He is penalised to the extent of being deprived of benefit. That will leave a very large number of people without any hope of unemployment benefit when the public assistance committee considers their case.

The Minister referred to the self-help principle in insurance. He penalises the idea of self-help. He pours contempt upon Samuel Smiles and all his works. I did not think that I should live to see the day when a British Government would tell the ordinary working people whom they persuaded to save, by establishing War Savings Committees and other committees, that they would be penalised for their savings. I was invited to use my eloquence in my native tongue to appeal to people who knew that language, and to assist the organisers of the War Savings Committee who were not blessed with two languages in which to address their fellow countrymen. I was invited to address meetings and to encourage people to be thrifty and help the nation. I wonder what those people who were induced to begin saving in that way, who were urged to put away part of their earnings, are now saying when they find that, having been persuaded to save, they are told by a Government representing the same national interest: "Because you listened to the words of seduction by Grenfell and the rest of them, and you were thrifty, we are going to punish you very severely for having taken that advice in those days."

What is the family position? The Minister has not been frank with the Committee? What is intended? Is it intended that, having found out the applicant's means and the applicant's capital investments, when the case comes up for examination the savings as well as the income of every member of the family is to be taken into account? Let us assume that in a family there are three or four persona of various ages. Is the property of the head of the family only to be taken into account, or are the capital savings of every member of the family to be taken into account in dealing with the concession now proposed? With regard to disability pensions, I am surprised that the House is content, or the majority are apparently content, to permit the Minister to take half the disability pension, because that is what it means. An award was made by the Minister of Pensions 12, 14 or 16 years ago to the extent of, say, 20, 30 or 40 per cent. disability, to a person disabled by war ser-vice. Now another Minister says: "I make no medical examination, I make no inquiry into the history of your case, I make no inquiry into your war service, but I give instructions that your pension of 20, 30 or 40 per cent. is to be reduced by exactly one-half, for the purpose of transitional benefit, if you happen to have been unfortunate enough to have been disabled in your country's service and have not been able to get employment after 26 weeks standard benefit.

Sir H. BETTERTON

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member, but I feel that that statement cannot go unchallenged. What he has just said is a complete misconception of what the Bill says.

Mr. GRENFELL

I do not want to do an injustice. Suppose a disabled soldier has a pension of 40 per cent., which is 16s. a week. That disabled soldier becomes an applicant for transitional benefit. If he has an income over a certain scale, and he has the 16s. war pension, which has been given to him in consequence of his disability and as a reward for his services to his country, 8s. of that is to be taken away. [Interruption.] I shall not give way. I give way for the Minister, who has told us that it is not so. It is taken away. It is taking away from the disabled ex-service man what the Pensions Minister gave to him as a right. If a private employer did that, what would be said about him? What about workmen's compensation? I have hundreds of men in my Division who are receiving small sums in workmen's compensation and who will probably never be able to get work at full wages again. The Minister is taking away half the workmen's compensation. He has instructed the public assistance committees, in cases where they do not take it away at the present time, to take the workmen's compensation into account and reduce the unemployment benefit accordingly. Let me assume a case. It is possible that a man may be a disabled ex-service man in receipt of a disability pension, a workman in receipt of workmen's compensation and a claimant for unemployment transitional benefit. That disabled ex-service man may have gone back to work after the War and have contracted a disability at work for which he receives some small disability compensation, in addition to his disability pension. In addition, the Minister may say that he has been guilty of saving money, and on all these counts there is to be taken away what does not belong to the Minister but what belongs to the man himself.

A most shameful and most disgraceful thing is taking place in many parts of the country. There are children in our distressed areas in South Wales, Durham and other areas of industrial depression who have received meals at school. They have been fed because those responsible for their education knew that they could not obtain proper food at home. In order to maintain the physique and health of boys and girls meals have been given to them at school, but the public assistance committees have taken the value of the meals into account and have said: "To the extent that the school meals help your children to be fed, the allowance to the family will be reduced." What has the Minister to say to that? The Bill says nothing about it. We protest against it. It is not a small thing. I find that of the initial applicants for transitional benefit, 19 per cent. out of every 100 people are sent away without anything, lower rates are paid to 41 per cent. and only 50 per cent. get the full unemployment payment of 15s. 3d. for a man, 8s. for the wife and 2s. for each child.

It does not end there. Those who come away from the initial applicants appear again, it may be at their own request, and we find that of the renewed applications a further 5 per cent. have been struck off and sent away with nil determinations, 40 per cent. at lower rates, and 55 per cent. only get the full rate. When an applicant for transitional benefit has gone through the first test, how far is he liable to find himself likely to have his claim more and more harshly considered, with the possibility of more and more people who have passed the first test being reduced either in the amount allowed or being denied any assistance whatever? There is a growing number of people who will get nothing at all. Where are these people to go? Are they to be fed entirely out of their small savings? Must they use up all their savings before their ease is considered? Is it the intention of the Minister to pauperise all people who have means above the figure contained in the Bill? Does the Minister propose to pauperise 1,000,000 of these persons this year and next year 2,000,000? What proportion of the population of this country have to be pauperised by this Measure before the Government are fully satisfied?

We refuse to give our consent to a Bill of this nature because it does not remove injustices to individuals and because it is thoroughly bad not only for the country but for the individual workman and for the masses of the people. The cream of the people, those who have been thrifty, are to be singled out for punishment by this Bill. The Bill is also inconsistent. The other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the intention of what had been done at Ottawa was to increase the purchasing power of the people in Australia, in South Africa, in Canada, and, at the same time, his two colleagues opposite, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health, are reducing the purchasing power of the people of this country. If it is a good thing to increase the purchasing power of the Australian farmer and fruit grower in order to induce him to buy greater quantities of our goods is it not equally a good thing to increase the purchasing power of the people at home, who are only waiting for the chance to enter our home markets in order to buy goods? They will exercise their purchasing power the day after it is given.

We also think that it is a bad national policy, because it is bringing contempt upon us in the eyes of other people. It is a very dangerous precept to declare that in this country thrift is not to be encouraged. There are large masses of people in all parts of the world who band themselves together in order to safeguard themselves by mutual thrift. I agree with that, and one is dismayed to find His Majesty's Government declaring that thrift and industry are an offence and are to be penalised. It is dangerous to apply a means test. If it is right to apply it before people get transitional benefit is it wrong to apply it before giving relief from rates by the Derating Act? Is it right to give £30,000,000 by the derating proposals without the institution of a means test? Is it right to pay for the services of the National Debt £300,000,000 a year without a means test? I feel sure that the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not know what ideas are turning in the minds of men, and how catching these ideas are becoming. They will be dismayed when they find the number of converts they have made by the establishment of this means test.

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON

Will the hon. Member say whether he proposes to have any test whatever?

Mr. GRENFELL

We want the abolition of the means test altogether. We believe it is an injustice to the individual and wrong from the point of view of the nation.

Mr. O'CONNOR

Would you abolish it in the Poor Law?

Mr. GRENFELL

I am talking about this Bill. The Minister expects this concession to cost £1,000,000. I do not think his arithmetic is reliable, or his information. It may be that if no portion of the disablement pension or workmen's compensation awards or property below £300 are taken into account the Bill might cost him £1,000,000. But he knows that public assistance committees are much more generous than he is himself and at the present time they are making full allowance in respect of these items and, therefore, while he may lose £1,000,000 on the swings he is going to gain—if he counts it gain—£2,000,000 or £3,000,000 on the roundabouts. It is no concession to the unemployed. When this Bill becomes law millions of pounds will be taken away from the working people of this country by its-proposals. I come from Glamorganshire, and I am prouder than ever to belong to that part of the country. We have refused to starve our people, to take the butter off the bread of the unemployed. We try to keep them in a decent state of physical fitness. The Minister of Health has censored us, but for the moment we are holding firm and we shall not give in without a further fight. We shall try to preserve the decencies of life for our people as long as we can. If the Minister of Labour gets his way the transitional benefit claimant will get less than he has been getting, and many more people will be struck off the register.

I am prepared to make this charge, which I think is well founded, that this Bill is intended not only to save money at the expense of men claiming transitional payments but is intended as an attack on the scales of relief given by public assistance committees. The Minister knows that whatever may be the needs of a family there is to be no more generous treatment by public assistance committees than the standard rate of unemployment benefit. If not, why does the Minister limit an award to the standard of unemployment benefit? If it is to be a real examination of need and the public assistance committee feels that the needs of a family are £2 5s. per week, why are they not to be allowed to pay that sum? They are only to be allowed to pay the rates of unemployment benefit, and it is therefore intended, and must become the practice, to pay unemployment rates of benefit to all people claiming transitional payment and to pay no larger sum to those applying for Poor Law relief. Therefore the more generous scales of Poor Law relief will be reduced and less and less generous will be the payments made by public assistance committees to people who are unfortunate enough to want public relief.

There are a good many victims of unemployment who rue the day when the means test became law. This Bill will not help them. It is passed at the behest of reactionary people. The worst product of industrial depression and political confusion in this country is a, snob, of whom there are many occupying high places, who enjoy all the luxuries of their clubs, who when they dine can call for this and for that, for the choicest fruits, and who when they are drinking their sparkling wine, which tickles their palates and warms their stomachs, are filled with venom against the unemployed man, look upon him with contempt, although it is he who has built up the wealth of this nation. I beg the Government when they are considering public opinion, that they will rule these people out. They should not have a say in this matter. They are selfish people who think only of their own comfort and luxury. Let the Government listen to the great masses of the unemployed with their grey, pallid faces, their shabby clothes, and their look of hopelessness and grief. Let the Government look at these people and stand up to the problem of maintaining the citizens of this country in the best possible condition. The strength of Great Britain is the strength of all her people not of a few. I ask the Government to withdraw this thing; it is not worthy of the Government. Let them give fresh consideration to the problem of maintaining our unfortunate unemployed. Let them speak to the unemployed man as man to man and I feel sure that they will be convinced that this is not only a means test but a mean attack on people who deserve much better.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I had not intended to take part in this Debate, but after having listened to the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat there did appear to be one or two points that might have been cleared up earlier. In the first place I speak, of course, entirely without any possibility of having consulted the Government, but so far as the Clause and the paragraph to which the hon. Gentleman referred are concerned, there can be no doubt whatever what they mean. They mean that a local authority which does take into account any wound or disablement benefit may only take that pension into account to the extent of 50 per cent. That is not to say by any means, as the hon. Member suggested, that a local authority or public assistance committee must take 50 per cent. into account. The hon. Gentleman was dealing with the Bill before the House and he was putting upon the words of the Bill an interpretation which they cannot possibly bear. Under the Bill there is no obligation imposed upon local authorities to take any part of the disability pension into account. The same remark applies to the Workmen's Compensation Act. If the local authority took these pensions into account before, they may do so still. If they did not take them into account before there is still no obligation upon them to do so. I have no doubt that any responsible spokesman of the Government who speaks later will be bound to give the same interpretation.

Mr. GRENFELL

While I know the hon. and learned Gentleman to be a legal authority of eminence, two Ministers are present and we have asked them questions on the same point.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I have no doubt that this question will be answered authoritatively on behalf of the Government, but so far as my interpretation is of any service to hon. Gentlemen opposite, there it is.

Mr. LANSBURY

It is worth while to clear up this matter. There are certain areas in the country, in Glamorgan, in some parts of South Yorkshire, and I think in West Ham, where they do not take into account '75 per cent. of income, and some of them do not take into account 100 per cent. The Minister has said to-clay that the authorities will have power in individual cases to take into account more than 50 per cent. But what will happen if this Bill passes is that Glamorgan, Durham, 'South Yorkshire and other places that already are not taking into account the 100 per cent., will be forced to take into account only 50 per cent. for the bulk of their cases.

Mr. O'CONNOR

Of course, I am not responsible for and could not answer on any question of administration. All I can say is that the Minister would have no power to do any such thing under this sill, All that the Bill does is to force upon local authorities a limitation of the amount which they make take into account.

Mr. LANSBURY

Under the other Act the Minister has great powers, and the Minister is arguing that certain authorities exercise their powers in the direc- tion I have indicated. The Minister can now say to these authorities, "You must not in a general sense take into account more than 50 per cent., but you may take into account, in special cases, 75 per cent. or 100 per cent." That is what the Minister told us at Question Time.

Mr. O'CONNOR

So far as the Bill is concerned, what it says is diametrically opposite to what the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) suggested.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain the meaning of the paragraph in Clause 1, which says: The following rules shall be complied with, that is to say—(a) any wounds or disability pension taken into account shall be treated as if it were reduced by one half.

Mr. O'CONNOR

What I am pointing out is that there are the governing words "taken into account." The governing words are not that you shall treat the disability pension at 50 per cent. of its value, but there is a direction to the public assistance committees that if they do take those pensions into account, so far as they do so it shall not be to a greater extent than 50 per cent. The same thing applies to weekly payments of workmen's compensation. Whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, there is and can be no conceivable doubt that both those matters are a very considerable extension. They give to public assistance committees a wide discretion, so that in proper cases they can extend the limits to 100 or 75 per cent.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN

The obligation is already imposed upon the public assistance committees in the National Economy (No. 2) Order to take into account disability pensions and any other means of an applicant. I put it that "taken into account" means that already they have to be taken into account; they must be taken into account in future, and when they are taken into account they shall be considered as though reduced by one half. That is the position.

Mr. O'CONNOR

I do not accept that interpretation at all. In my view it would be perfectly open to any public assistance committee to consider, according to the needs of each case, the disability pension, and to make the same deduction as previously, provided there is a limit of 50 per cent. below which the assistance committee may not go. The hon. Member for Gower made what some of us felt was an extremely provocative and intemperate speech, quite contrary to the reasoned and careful arguments which he usually addresses to the House. It is right that something should be said from these Benches in defence of the means test. The time will come before long when the official Opposition will be extremely embarrassed by having, in an unguarded moment, accepted as a principle the abolition of the means test. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility, although it may be beyond the bounds of probability that some day some of them may find themselves governing once again. They have taken the plunge, beginning with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition himself, not like a shrinking plunger from the banks of the Serpentine, but they have gone in boldly after having broken the ice. Each time that this matter comes up in future it will become more difficult and more embarrassing.

There is an old saying that many a man dates his downfall from a murder of which he thought very little at the time. Hon. Members and right hon. Members may find some day that acceptance of the view that there should be no means test with regard to transitional payments may be one of the most disconcerting plunges they have ever taken. How far are they going to carry the principle? Are they prepared to say that there is to be no need test in regard to the Poor Law, in regard to out-relief, in regard to old age pensions? If not, why not? On what principle can they justify the abolition of a need test in regard to unemployed persons applying for transitional payment, and not in regard to unemployed or disabled persons or old persons or sick persons who are applying for any other kind of State relief under some different name?

The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) complained that the means test involved a great deal of intimate questions, and that people did not like it. How about the people who have to find the money? Have they not to submit to most intimate questions concerning every conceivable penny that they scrape together as income? Has the hon. Mem- ber forgotten that the taxpayer himself is subject to a very searching, and indeed a very unfair means test, a family test? Does he forget that in assessing a man to Income Tax or Surtax the whole income of himself and his wife is brought together, and that he is taxed often at a grossly unfair rate on the family income and not on the individual income. There is not only a searching inquiry as to means in the case of Income Tax and Surtax payers, but also an aggregation of income in order to provide these large sums of money which are afterwards distributed in this form.

Mr. D. GRENFELL

But the difference is that in the case of the means test the whole family income is taken into account, but in the case of Income Tax only the incomes of husband and wife are taken into account.

Mr. O'CONNOR

There is an aggregation of means when the State is demanding Income Tax, and I can see no reason why the State should not at any rate consider some of the family income in arriving at a means test for the purpose of these payments. The hon. Gentleman dismissed this Bill as being a penalty upon thrift. But it is the first recognition we have had at law of the advantages of thrift, and a recognition that those who have behaved thriftily in the past should have some consideration given in the assessment of their means in that regard. Do not let the hon. Gentleman run away with the idea that everyone who is possessed of £50 or £100 or £300 has acquired it by means of thrift. There are such things as Irish Sweepstakes and football competitions and the like. Would the hon. Gentleman say that if a man had a sum of £200 or £300 at the bank as the result of a newspaper competition, that man was entitled to go to the public assistance committee and demand, at the expense of his fellow taxpayers, his neighbours next door who are in work, that the public assistance committee should entirely disregard what his winnings are, and that he should have no deduction made from the amount of his public relief? Such a proposition is absurd.

Mr. GRENFELL

If people would only mind their own business as I would have them do, that would not arise.

Mr. O'CONNOR

If everyone minded his own business as the hon. Member suggested the State would not know my income and would not get the correct Income Tax. It is obvious that both in the collection of national revenue and in the expenditure of it you must have a close scrutiny both of the sources and method of expenditure. I took some initiative last year in pressing upon the Government that some steps in the direction indicated in this Bill should be taken. I was moved to do so by what, I had satisfied myself, was taking place in different parts of the country, where people were being forced to dissolve small capital savings and to bring them completely into income account. I thought that that was not only an improper procedure, but a procedure that did not commend itself to the principles of the party to which I belong. For that reason I spoke and made representations to the Minister during the Session before July that steps should be taken to treat capital sums according to their income value.

I, therefore, appreciate the Bill and am grateful for it as going a considerable way in that direction. I think the Bill has made a very effective and rather clever compromise. It takes into account capital sums up to this limited amount at their income value, and also, to a certain extent, at their capital value, although not anything like their full capital value and that is right. The whole argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite was that thrift ought to be encouraged because people were thus encouraged to put a little aside for a rainy day. But when they are drawing transitional payments they have reached their rainy day. This is the rainy day.

Mr. McGOVERN

It is the State's rainy day.

Mr. O'CONNOR

They are not entitled to put money into a stocking and keep it for ever. Like every other class of the community they have to be prepared for emergencies, and this is one of the emergencies of life towards meeting which in so far as he can do so without damaging his personal stability, every self-respecting citizen would justly like to contribute to the hest of his ability. There is one other matter to which I desire to refer. Considerable misapprehension or fear appears to exist among large municipal authorities as to the effect of Sub-section

(2) of Clause 1 upon local rates. It has been represented to me by the Association of Municipal Corporations and by the local authority of the great city which I have the honour to represent that this Clause is going to throw a heavy burden upon the rates. In other words, these responsible bodies do not take the view of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. They take the view that the relaxations which are made in the Bill, in so far as transitional payments are concerned, if applied to outdoor relief are going to have a serious effect on local rates.

I understand that the Minister of Health intends to speak before the close of the Debate, and it would be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman intervened as early as possible in order that we may have some authoritative information as to the anticipated effect of this provision upon the finances of local authorities. At first sight, there would appear to be a great deal of point in the submission of the local authorities that it is a little unfortunate that these matters should have been linked in the temporary scheme provided for in the Bill, at the very moment when the views of the authorities as to the general administration of the Poor Law are being taken and when revisions of the Poor Law are in contemplation. I content myself for the present with expressing the hope that the Minister will take this opportunity of reassuring local authorities as to their position under the Bill and of explaining the financial burdens which are likely to be cast upon them.

The worst possible service that could be done to our common object, which is to relieve the unemployed, would be for the Minister to be as successful as the hon. Gentleman opposite has been in Glamorgan, in so penalising his neighbours that nobody will establish businesses there at all—[Interruption]—because the burden is impossible of acceptance by any new industry. The long range view must always be in the direction of prudent administration. I welcome the Bill, limited though it is, for the reasons which I have given. I welcome it for another reason. Last year in my judgment there was no single element which did more to save this country and put it back into its position of undoubted prestige among the nations of the world than the wide distribution of small say- ings among the people. It was that element of stability in our national life which enabled us to weather the storm and emerge with a Government more powerful than any Government in the world to-day. It is because this Bill does something to recognise the value and the stabilising influence of the small savings of the people that I heartily welcome it.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT

In dealing with this question, I suggest that it is of importance to consider the scope of the means test and the area which its operation covers. I believe that at present, in round figures, about 1,200,000 people are living either in whole or in part upon transitional payments but about half of that number are receiving, at the full determination, except in a very few areas where the amount of transitional payment falls a little short of the amount of unemployment benefit. The fact that the test is in operation does not make any difference to those people and therefore I think it would be a correct estimate to say that about 600,000 people, at the present time are worse off as a result of the operation of the test. But the point which I wish to make is that the discontent aroused by the operation of the means test is by no means confined to 600,000 people. It goes much wider than that and I suggest that the area of indignation is very much wider than the area of actual grievance. Indignation at the working of the means test is not confined to those who take the view which we have just heard expressed by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell). I think there are millions of people in the country who are not against a means test but are very definitely against this means test or at any rate against the means test which we have had up to the present.

The hon. Member for Gower referred to the attitude of the Churches. Last summer the three great Methodist Churches met in their three conferences —the last separate conferences held before they were joined together in one Church—and each of the three passed a very strong resolution expressing grave concern as to the results of the working of the means test. There we had three organisations, which are religious rather than political, three organisations not concerned with politics as such, three organisations drawing their membership very largely from the working class in all parts of the country—and each of those organisations, on its own separate initiative passed a resolution expressing grave concern as to the results of the operation of the means test.

What we have to consider this afternoon is, how far the Bill goes towards remedying the legitimate grievances that have arisen in the operation of the test. Some of us on these benches who represent industrial constituencies must say, frankly, that this Bill does not go nearly as far as we would wish. Some of us are gravely disappointed that it only deals with certain grievances under the means test and entirely fails to deal with other grievances which are probably a much greater cause of discontent. The Bill may be described as a minimum. It draws a line below which no public assistance committee shall in future be allowed to fall, but I suggest to the Opposition that that is not a reason for voting against the Bill. The Bill is not all we should like in the industrial areas and especially in the depressed areas, but, in a case like this, surely the proper course is not to go into the Lobby against it but to accept what we can get and to go on asking for more. That is the course which some of us on these benches propose to pursue.

I wish to deal now with one or two features of the Bill. First, there is the provision with regard to disability pensions. The hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) referred last week to the younger generation in this country who had had no actual experience of the War. He said they were asking why ex-service men should receive special consideration. I can claim to speak as one of the younger generation to which he referred, because I was only 14 years of age when the War ended. But far from taking the attitude which the hon. and gallant Member indicated, I think I am expressing the views both of myself and of all my contemporaries with whom I am acquainted when I say that we would associate ourselves rather with the proposal of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) that in future disability pensions should be left out of account altogether.

I now come to a more obscure part of the Bill and one which has caused great confusion especially in Scotland. That is the part of the Bill which deals with savings. I believe that on Monday of last week, a day or two before the Financial 'Resolution was put down, representatives of the Scottish local authorities had an interview with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sorry to say that that interview does not seem to have dissipated the confusion which exists particularly with regard to this provision affecting savings. Yesterday I was in my constituency and I was called to attend an emergency meeting of the public assistance committee. The holding of such a meeting on a Sunday was a proceeding quite unprecedented in Dundee but the meeting was held because of apprehension and as I think misunderstanding, arising from this part of the Bill. The impression is abroad in Scotland that this part of the Bill leaves no discretion to the public assistance committees. As I read the Bill Clause 1 (1c) must be taken in the same sense as the provision which deals with disability pensions and that view is borne out by what was said by the Minister of Labour during the Debate on the Financial Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman said, speaking of the three objectives of the Bill: There will be a minimum which will be uniform and general in its application with a discretion above the minimum to be exercised by local authorities on the merits of each individual case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1932; col. 354, Vol. 270.] 5.30 p.m.

It would be a real service if the Minister would reaffirm that, and if he would allay the fears that have been so generally aroused by construing this paragraph over again. It would also be a real service ii the Minister would make it clear that public assistance committees still have what might be called an upward discretion, and that in suitable cases they can be more generous than is actually indicated in the terms of the Bill.

Sir H. BETTERTON

I thought I had already done so, but my hon. Friend who will wind up the Debate will then make that perfectly clear.

Mr. FOOT

I apologise if I have not quite understood the right hon. Gentleman, but I want it to be quite clearly understood, as there is very grave aprpre- pension on the point in many parts of Scotland. I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. Then there is the Clause, to which reference has been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor), which deals with Poor Law relief. Already there is very great resentment, especially in the depressed areas, at the fact that this Bill, instead of bringing the looked-for relief with regard to the able-bodied unemployed, will add a, fresh burden on the shoulders of the depressed areas, a burden which is already unfair and too heavy for them to carry. I agree that this is not likely to be a very heavy additional burden. Nevertheless it is an additional burden placed on areas which have been carrying for a long time far more than their fair share of the burden of the able-bodied unemployed. Last July, before the House rose, representations were made, both upstairs and across the Floor, to the Minister of Health by Members from various depressed industrial areas, asking that some action should be taken; and in the Debate on the Adjournment on the 13th July the Minister of Health promised to examine the question of the reallocation of grants so as to give some relief to the depressed areas. That is four months ago, and is that too short a time to enable the Minister to examine this question and to give us some relief?

I have given my views on the provisions that are actually inserted in the Bill, and I will now say a word about the omissions from the Bill, which are in some respects more important than the provisions in it. I agree with what was said the other day by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) that the real grievance under the means test is the family contribution. The provisions as to disability pensions and savings are no doubt real hardships, but the trouble, the disaffection, the discontent that have been aroused are mainly the outcome of the family contribution. Only yesterday I was speaking to the convener of the Dundee Public Assistance Committee, and also to the public assistance officer in Dundee. For the last year they have had to discharge a very difficult and thankless task, in a city where the number of those on transitional payment is not far short of 20,000 in an adult population of about 110,000, and in the last 12 months they have had to make no fewer than 121,000 determinations. I asked them their view as to the main grievance under the means test. They did not favour abolishing the household test, but their view was that if only the personal allowance could be raised as much as £1, so that each wage-earner in a family should get at least out of his own earnings, very few complaints would be heard in future as to the operation of the means test.

That is one way in which this question might be dealt with. Then there is the plan advanced by the Royal Commission in its Report published a few days ago, where they suggest, on page 289: An illustration of the application of this principle is a rule whereby if the income earned by a member of a household a minimum sum, and in addition a proportion, say a quarter, of earnings in excess of that minimum, should be allowed as 'personal' income, the balance only being brought into the estimate of the income of the household of which he is a member. Just before that they say: One of the normal inducements to earn is the power to spend some part at least of wages in satisfaction of personal inclination. With this very small personal allowance of 15s. or 17s. 6d., very little indeed is left to be spent "in satisfaction of personal inclination." I would suggest a third possible way of approach to this question. At present a member of a family who is in work is told that the whole of his wages must go into the family pool, except for this small personal allowance of 12s. 6d., 15s. or 17s. 6d. I suggest that we might with advantage adopt an entirely different principle and approach the matter as it were from the other end. We might say to the member of the family, whether parent or child, who happens to be in work while the rest of the family are employed, "We recognise that you have an obligation towards the rest of your family, but we will try to fix that obligation in terms of money." You might say that if a member of a family was in work and earning 30s. a week, he should be expected to contribute 10s. in discharge of his obligations to the family; if he was earning 40s., he might be expected to contribute 15s.; and you might have a, scale on those lines.

We have been told—and I think every Member of this House, to whatever party he belongs, was very glad to hear it—that there is to be a much more comprehensive Bill introduced next Session, in which the Government propose to overhaul the whole question of unemployment relief and insurance. I want to press upon the Government the extreme urgency of overhauling unemployment relief in this country. We have had an example, only a week or two ago, of the danger of delay in dealing with this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, speaking last week on the Financial Resolution in connection with this Bill, emphatically denied the suggestion that this was panic action due to the recent disorders. I think everyone in this House will readily accept his assurance, but how many people outside will accept it? How many people outside must have got the impression that this Bill has simply been introduced as a kind of concession to violence?

Whatever assurances the Minister may give, and whatever the facts of the case, it is inevitable that a very large number of people outside should have got that extremely unfortunate and lamentable impression; and I suggest that the Government should take warning. What a pity it is that this Bill was not introduced before the recent disorders, instead of after. What a different impression it would have made, if only it had been introduced last summer instead of this autumn. We realise that when the Government are arranging their programme for next Session, first consideration must be given to those Measures which they think likely to increase the volume of employment, but I suggest that the next most urgent thing is this question of overhauling our whole system of unemployment relief, by dealing with the grievances under the means test which have not been dealt with in this Bill, so that we may be able in this House, at the earliest possible opportunity, to pass into law methods of dealing with the means test which shall be rational, uniform, and humane.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND

I should not have risen except for some of the words which were used by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) in opening the Debate from that side to-day. I listened to his speech, and there were some sentences in it that I do not think ought to be allowed to pass without challenge from this side of the House. He spoke about people whose opinion was taken as to the proper means of dealing with the unemployed, and as to the nature of the unemployed, as people themselves living a comfortable life, having very ample means, taking their sparkling wine which tickles their palate, and that this was the kind of careless, easy folk—and unfeeling was insinuated—to whom the Minister of Labour would go for advice as to how to deal with the unemployed and as to what the unemployed were like. It is just that kind of speech—and I wish the hon. Member were now in his place—which seems to me to be an insinuation of a particularly mean, contemptible, and unworthy kind.

Those of us who know the hon. Member for Gower know quite well that he would not want naturally, under ordinary conditions, to make insinuations of that character. Outside this House, when he has not been lashing himself into a certain amount of rage against a Bill and in favour of an Amendment, which I think by now he is probably rather sorry he has put on the Paper—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]— I will deal with that in a moment, but I should think that under normal circumstances that would be the last kind of insinuation he would wish to make. I would add that everyone who knows the present Minister of Labour knows perfectly well that that would be the last kind of advice that he would wish to take in dealing with these questions was the last kind of advice that I would ever have taken myself in previous days. I know the present Minister infinitely too well to believe that he would do anything of the kind; and the sooner that kind of insinuation is stopped, the better it will be even for the people who let themselves, in rash moments, make them.

There was another charge which the hon. Member made against this Government and the National party, and that was the charge of inconsistency. I am bound to say that for anyone from the benches opposite to make the charge of inconsistency with regard to the means test against any of us seems to me to be one of the boldest ways of carrying out a defensive-offensive which anybody could possibly take. I see hon. Members opposite smiling, because they know very well what an absurd charge it is for them to make, to say: "You have been inconsistent with regard to the means test." I rather think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was not in his place to have the pleasure of hearing that observation from his hon. Friend beside him.

Mr. LANSBURY

I am here more than you are.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

I quite agree. I was not reflecting, as I am quite sure the Leader of the Opposition knows, on his not being often in this House. We all know that he is, but I was saying that