HC Deb 09 November 1911 vol 30 cc1923-35

If any question arises—

  1. (a) as to whether a person is liable to become insured under this Part of this Act as being a person employed within the meaning of this Act; or
  2. (b) as to the rate of contributions payable by or in respect of any insured person; or
  3. (c) as to the rates of contributions payable in respect of an employed contributor by the employer and the contributor respectively;
the question shall be determined by the Insurance Commissioners, in accordance with regulations made by them for the purpose. Provided that—
  1. (i.) if any person feels aggrieved by the decision of the Insurance Commissioners on any question arising under paragraph (a), he may appeal there from to the County Court, with a further right of appeal upon any question of law to such judge of the High Court as may be selected for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor and the decision of that judge shall be final;
  2. (ii.) the regulations of the Insurance Commissioners may provide for questions under paragraph (b) being determined, in the case of any person who is or is about to become a member of an approved society, by the society.


I beg to move in paragraph (a), after the word "liable" ["whether a person is liable to become insured"], to insert the words "or qualified."

I think this Amendment is necessary after the changes which were made in Clause 1, Sub-section (3). I ask the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge if he does not think it is necessary to insert the word "qualified," and also to accept the next Amendment in my name, which is consequential.


If my hon. Friend presses me upon the point, I shall be prepared to accept his present Amendment and the next Amendment he has on the Paper, but in a slightly different form. I shall be prepared to propose to add at the end of paragraph (a), "or as to whether a person is entitled to become a voluntary contributor."


I am bound to say I prefer the word "qualified." The Government are holding out this scheme as a great boon and blessing to all these persons. If you say there is any dispute as to whether a person is liable to become insured, as if it were an awful catastrophe, is that not a mistake? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what the word "liable" means? This is only a verbal point. I do not want anybody to be frightened of this Bill. If I were reading it as a comparatively uninformed person, and saw that a certain liability was offered to me I should hesitate to accept it. If it were suggested to me that I had to be qualified for the great boon the Government is going to offer I should accept it in a happy state of mind.


I readily admit that the right hon. Gentleman knows the Bill as well as anybody in the House. The Bill distinguishes between employed contributors and voluntary contributors. My hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce) proposes that the same rule should apply to voluntary contributors as applies to the persons who are liable to become insured. By adding the words I propose at the end of the paragraph we treat both classes of insured persons in the same way.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: At the end of paragraph (a) to add the words, "or as to whether a person is entitled to become a voluntary contributor."—[Mr. McKenna.]


I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (a), to insert, "(b) as to whether an insured person is entitled to receive medical or maternity benefit under this Act; or."


The hon. Member has not stated any reason, and if he will allow me to say so, I do not think he can give any satisfactory reason why a distinction should be drawn between medical and maternity benefits and other benefits. The conditions of receiving benefits will be laid down in the medical rules of the different societies, and I do not think it is appropriate to introduce this particular proposal.

Amendment negatived.


I beg to move, in paragraph (i), to omit the words "paragraph (a)," and to insert instead thereof the words "this Section."

This is the question of the appeal. Under this paragraph an appeal is granted from the decision of the Insurance Commissioners with regard to any matters arising under paragraph (a) I do not see why the same appeal should not be granted in regard to any question arising under this Clause. What is the difference between the question to be decided in paragraph (a) and the question which is to be decided under paragraph (b)? Under paragraph (a) we are to decide whether a man is an employed contributor or not, that is to say whether the employer is to pay nothing or 3d. Under paragraph (c) we are to decide whether he is to pay 3d. or 6d. If you are to have an appeal to decide whether a man is to pay nothing or 3d., I fail to understand why there should not be the same appeal as to whether he should pay 3d. or 6d. I do not understand what paragraph (b) refers to. I presume it refers to the rate of contribution of a voluntary contributor. If voluntary insurance is to be encouraged, surely the man ought to have the same right of appeal as to what he is to pay, in the same way that he is to have an appeal when he is a compulsory contributor.


I wish to support the Amendment, because I feel very strongly with regard to paragraph (c). A large number of agricultural labourers and their employers will find it extremely difficult to decide for themselves as to whether they will pay 3d. or 4d., as the case may be, as to whether, in fact, the remuneration which I understand in the case of the agricultural labourer will include certain perquisites and the occupation of his house, either rent free or else at an economic rent. These will involve difficult considerations, and it will be very unfair to the agricultural labourer and possibly also to his employer if they are going to be settled without any sort of appeal from the decision of the Insurance Commissioners. These are bound to be difficult questions, and I am not at all sure that the Insurance Commissioners will be properly qualified, at any rate at the outset, unless they are better acquainted with agricultural matters than most of the gentlemen sitting in a Government Department will be—thoroughly qualified to decide these matters properly. In the interests of the agricultural population, therefore, I press for the inclusion at any rate of paragraph (c), and in order to make it comprehensive, it seems to me that the Amendment is worthy of all aceptance.


The hon. Member has shown an extraordinary ingenuity in finding difficulties. In reality, paragraph (a) covers questions which may raise difficult points of law. Paragraph (b), on the other hand, is purely an arithmetical Clause. The only question to be decided under paragraph (b) is a mere arithmetical calculation upon the facts, and I submit that the Commissioners are a quite sufficiently important body to decide a question of that kind. The same, notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. Member, is true of paragraph (c). It is purely a question of arithmetic, and in those circumstances it would be undesirable to extend the powers of appeal from the Commissioners to the county court on a mere question of addition. It is really sufficient to leave questions of that kind to be settled as proposed by the Bill.


I wish the questions arising under paragraph (b) were really going to be as simple as the Home Secretary would have us imagine. Of course, the question really relates principally to the questions arising under Schedule 2, the question of the sliding scale of wages. Wages are not merely the figures taken in the Schedule, but the question of other perquisites, and the economic rent of cottages, and so forth, all come into the question of remuneration, and affect the figure on which the contribution is to be based. I am sure the Home Secretary is in error if he thinks all the Commissioners will have to say is, "You get 12s. 6d. paid to you every Saturday, and therefore your contribution is to be in respect of your 12s. 6d." As I understand, they have to look into the question whether or not a man has free coals, or whether he has, for 1s. a week, a cottage which will command an economic rent of 4s. Surely the matter involves calculation.


That is exactly what it involves—calculation.


Calculation which we want to have an assurance will be justly and properly carried out, and that if it is improperly and unjustly carried out there should be an appeal to a proper tribunal. That is what we are asking for, and I do not think that the demand put forward is unreasonable in any way. I do not think there is going to be any real or serious danger. I do not believe for a moment the persons engaged in this work are going deliberately to set to work to cheat either the employer or the employed or the State. I believe people are going to do their best to carry out this Act, but, unquestionably, there will arise cases in which the person affected will feel that he is not being fairly treated, and unless you give him some appeal to a tribunal that he can trust, you are not going to remove the sense of injustice from his mind, and that, I am afraid, will have a bad effect on all the insured persons in the neighbourhood.


May I ask the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to get up at the Table and tell us whether or no tips are included in the expression "other remuneration."


I think this refusal on the part of the Government to entertain this Amendment would, of course, have this effect, that in all questions as to exactly what the wages are which are to be taken into consideration the Insurance Commissioners and the Department of the State in some shape would have an absolute jurisdiction upon matters of fact and upon matters of law. I look upon this as just another instance of a tendency that there has been under both Parties during the last 10 or 15 years to take away from the courts of the land the jurisdiction which every citizen is entitled to ask from them. There is a very strong feeling amongst the bulk of the people that they are apt to be unjustly treated, and I am sorry to say that in my own experience that suspicion has been on a good many occasions more than fully justified. If this Act in its working out is to command the confidence of the people they must be able to go, on an important question as to the rate of contributions, to the County Court and to get a decision on the facts, whereas it is suggested, I understand, that some kind of communication would have to be written out and sent to the Insurance Commissioners in London. No one would know whether the Insurance Commissioners themselves had ever heard of the matter. It might have been decided by some junior clerk in the Department. There is always a sense of injustice about that kind of thing, and I protested against it when my own side was in power. I am very sorry, indeed, to see it suggested here that any of these matters touching the rights and privileges, either of employer or employees, should be decided in a hole-and-corner manner by a Department. Moreover, supposing it necessary to get a decision which shall bind a number of cases, and I can quite understand that there might be instances where a whole lot of contributors were practically under the same circumstances, and they might want to have a competent and an authoritative decision which would rule the whole of these cases, how can the person whose case is under discussion, or anyone else, know the basis on which the decision has been given, or what has really been done to properly consider the case. I speak rather feelingly on the matter. I object to it as a matter of principle. I am not making this appeal and taking this stand in any way from a political point of view. In the interest of the amicable working of this Act, I think it is highly desirable that the Amendment should be adopted, and if there is to be an appeal at all upon any of the points arising under (a), (b) or (c), that appeal should be decided in the way just suggested that matters arising under (a) may be decided. It is very difficult to see what distinction might be made in the cases arising under paragraphs (b) and (c).


I wish to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member opposite. As I understand the answer given by the Home Secretary it is that paragraph (b) is merely a matter of calculation. I venture to say that he is mistaken about that. I will give an instance which occurred to me during this short debate. Hon. members will remember that in the case of agricultural servants there is provision that if certain conditions prevail within a certain area, and it is established that there is a certain custom, then the agricultural servant is to have a penny deducted. He is to subscribe 2d., and the employer is also to subscribe 2d. That is a very great deal more than a question of calculation. It is a matter which will require a certain amount of evidence and consideration, and there will have to be an inquiry. That would certainly come within paragraph (b), and not within paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) refers to the question whether a person is qualified or liable to be a contributor. Paragraph (b) refers to contributions. I believe there are many such cases. The different kinds of employment in this country, and the different conditions are innumerable, and it is almost impossible to anticipate all the different kinds of employment when passing a Bill of this kind. I am perfectly certain that the Insurance Commissioners will have to consider all kinds of questions and I would earnestly appeal to the Government to make this a workable Act. This would be some little check upon the Insurance Commissioners. We do not at present know who they are to be, but if there is a right of appeal from them, I am perfectly sure that it would not be made use of unless there was good reason.

10.0 P.M.


I wish to support the appeal made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Sanderson) to the right hon. Gentleman. In view of the difficulty which there will be in working this Clause, I really am sorry for the Insurance Commissioners at the commencement of this Act. Their duties are to be not only administrative, but you are going to give them large judicial duties. I am not pleading for this work being given to legal gentlemen, but I would point out that you are providing here for giving this power of judicial decision to the Insurance Commissioners themselves. I venture to say that under this Clause the Commissioners will be bound to hear the arguments upon the disputes, and if that duty is to be added to the other burdens they have, I do not see how they can possibly discharge their duties. The delays in getting decisions from them will be enormous. We have recently had occasion to see what a disadvantage it is to have these functions given to a Government Department. Only recently we had a decision by which 11,000,000 forms issued throughout the county have been declared to be illegal. Parliament passed a law that certain interrogatories could be put to His Majesty's subjects, and it has been found that the Department, in attempting to administer the Act, went outside of what Parliament laid down. There was in that matter a means by which it could be brought before the Court. The action was at first resisted, but eventually the decision which I have indicated was obtained. I point this out as showing the danger of attempting to saddle on the Insurance Commissioners not merely administrative duties, but enormous judicial duties as well. If they are properly to discharge these judicial duties, they would have to hear the arguments in every case. At the commencement of the Act there will be a large number of these cases. If the Government wish to make the Act workable it is their business to do so. I only call attention to the difficulties which I think will arise when the Act begins to operate, and if the Government take no notice of them, that is their concern. It would be extremely difficult to work Clauses 52 and 53, because when questions arise under these Clauses, it appears to me that the Courts might have to stop the proceedings and refer the case back to the Insurance Commissioners with respect to some question arising under Clause 49 which might be involved.


I think the Home Secretary, in refusing to accept the Amendment, quite inadvertently misled the House. After all, what was his argument? He said it was necessary that there should be an appeal with regard to paragraph (a), but that as paragraph (b) mainly dealt with facts and calculations no appeal was necessary. I think anybody who reads the paragraph will see at once that it does contemplate an appeal on questions of fact alone in so far as it provides a further appeal from the County Court to the High Court on points of law. I ask the Home Secretary to consider whether he would not think it advisable to provide for an appeal to the County Court on points of fact on paragraph (a) with regard to qualifications. As it now stands it appears to be still more desiraable to provide for appeal on questions of fact under paragraph (b). I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Home Secretary said nothing as to the method of dealing with appeals under paragraph (c). Further, I think that this is a proper Amendment to be made. Further down on the Paper an Amendment stands in my own name providing for appeals from decision by approved societies and appeals from the Insurance Commissioners under paragraph (i) I hope if the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept this Amendment that it will be pressed to a Division.


The difficulty is a very simple one. The whole House is anxious to cut down litigation as much as possible; we do not want to see these poor people put themselves to this expense. Such a Clause as we have put forward is one which we think meets the whole case. The question of fact will be dealt with by the proper tribunal. It is desirable to avoid as much as possible these appeals, as we hope that the judgments given can be relied upon as satisfactory judgments. We must not forget this, that the Insurance Commissioners are salaried officials, and if this House is dissatisfied with a decision they can call the Commissioners to book. That is the real answer. We wish to avoid legal expenses, and questions of fact we are assured will be settled by gentlemen who are conversant with every question of this kind, and we have the further assurance that we can give this House that these gentlemen will be made cognisant of all the facts.


I hope the hon. Member who moved the Amendment will press a Division. The Home Secretary of State is anxious to avoid appeals on questions of fact, and I entirely agree with him. Appeals on questions of fact are not in the least necessary. There may be questions of law, but if we are to avoid appeals on questions of fact we should allow those who are competent to deal with these matters. The Home Secretary suggests that these should be free from litigation, and that the litigation should be free to those who seek it. My experience is that the man who gets his law for nothing is he who will get bad law. He avoids paying a fee, and in the result he gets a worse article than he would have done if he had paid. What I suggest is that it is highly desirable to have some sort of check on the Insurance Commissioners. I do not know why hon, Members below the Gangway believe it is desirable that there should be this appeal, but whatever the appeal is I do not think that if the matter passes into the hands of permanent officials without any sort of check from any other tribunal at all it will be unfortunate for these persons. Personally, I believe that the Government official is an excellent person so long as you have some sort of appeal from him, some sort of check upon his actions. I am not holding any brief for the lawyers; they are a necessary evil; they are part of the machinery for framing and putting these Bills before Parliament, and the only result will be that there will be plenty of employment for lawyers. The real point is whether it is necessary to have any sort of appeal from a decision of mixed fact and law. I do not want an appeal from fact, and I am quite willing to limit this Amendment to points of law. I shall be prepared, if this Amendment is not accepted, to go into the Lobby in support of it.


If the hon. Member had looked at the Amendment on the next page he would have found that, to some extent, the matter was covered. We appreciate the argument put forward by the Home Secretary on matters arising on this Section. We think that these matters can be better settled by the Insurance Commissioners, and we feel sure that these Commissioners will be exactly the same type of man as you will find on the County Court Bench or those put in similar positions. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do not know."] We have the idea, and I think I am justified in saying, from previous experience on matters of this sort, that we shall get exactly the same type of gentleman as we get on the County Court Bench. There is this one other point: We are against this matter being taken further than the Insurance Commissioners, because the further you go in courts of law the more expense it is, and it is always possible in these matters that the wealthy come off better than those without wealth. I take it that the Insurance Commissioners will deal with these matters in an equal judicial sense, and at no disadvantage to those who come before them. I give the Amendment my utmost support, and, for my part, I shall go into the Lobby with the utmost cheerfulness for the Government.

Question put, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 85.

Division No. 379.] AYES. [10.17 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Goldstone, Frank Molteno, Percy Alport
Acland, Francis Dyke Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Munro, Robert
Adamson, William Greig, Colonel James William Nannetti, Joseph P.
Addison, Dr. C. Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Needham, Christopher T.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Alden, Percy Gulland, John William Nolan, Joseph
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Nuttall, Harry
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) Hackett, John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Anderson, Andrew Macbeth Hancock, John George O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Dowd, John
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Barnes, George N. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Parker, James (Halifax)
Beck, Arthur Cecil Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Pointer, Joseph
Bentham, George Jackson Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Boland, John Pius Haworth, Sir Arthur A. Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Booth, Frederick Handel Hayden, John Patrick Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Bowerman, Charles W. Higham, John Sharp Pringle, William M. R.
Brady, Patrick Joseph Hinds, John Raffan, Peter Wilson
Brunner, J. F. L. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Reddy, Michael
Bryce, John Annan Hodge, John Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Richards, Thomas
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Hudson, Walter Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Hughes, Spencer Leigh Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Chancellor, H. G. Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Clough, William John, Edward Thomas Rowntree, Arnold
Clynes, J. R. Johnson, W. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Jowett, Frederick William Scanlan, Thomas
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Joyce, Michael Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Cotton, William Francis Keating, Matthew Sheehy, David
Cowan, William Henry Kelly, Edward Sherwell, Arthur James
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Kennedy, Vincent Paul Shortt, Edward
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Kilbride, Denis Spicer, Sir Albert
Crumley, Patrick King, Joseph (Somerset, North) Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) Summers, James Woolley
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Lansbury, George Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Dawes, J. A. Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) Toulmin, Sir George
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Leach, Charles Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Devlin, Joseph Levy, Sir Maurice Verney, Sir Harry
Dillon, John Lewis, John Herbert Wadsworth, John
Doris, W. Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Duffy, William J. Lundon, T. Walters, John Tudor
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Lyell, Charles Henry Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lynch, A. A. Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) McGhee, Richard White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Elverston, Sir Harold Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Whitehouse, John Howard
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Macpherson, James Ian Wiles, Thomas
Farrell, James Patrick M'Callum, John M. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Ferens, Thomas Robinson McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Ffrench, Peter M'Micking, Major Gilbert Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Martin, Joseph Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Masterman, C. F. G. Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Gibson, Sir James Puckering Meagher, Michael
Gill, Alfred Henry Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Glanville, Harold James Millar, James Duncan Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Dudley Ward.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Cassel, Felix Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Cator, John Houston, Robert Paterson
Astor, Waldorf Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Hume-Williams, William Ellis
Baird, J. L. Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Ingleby, Holcombe
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Doughty, Sir George Larmor, Sir J.
Balcarres, Lord Eyres-Monsell, B. M. Lloyd, George Ambrose
Baldwin, Stanley Fell, Arthur Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Forster, Henry William Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton) Gardner, Ernest Mackinder, Halford J.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Goldsmith, Frank Magnus, Sir Philip
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Goulding, Edward Alfred Malcolm, Ian
Beresford, Lord Charles Grant, J. A. Mount, William Arthur
Bigland, Alfred Gretton, John Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) Nield, Herbert
Boyton, James Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Helmsley, Viscount Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Burn, Colonel C. R. Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury) Parkes, Ebenezer
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton) Valentia, Viscount
Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge) Smith, Harold (Warrington) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Perkins, Walter Frank Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Radford, George Heynes Steel-Maitland, A. D. Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) Worthington-Evans, L.
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) Wortley, At. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Ronaldshay, Earl of Talbot, Lord Edmund Yate, Colonel C. E.
Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Salter, Arthur Clavell Thynne, Lord Alexander TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Sanders, Robert Arthur Touche, George Alexander Mr. Holt and Mr. Sanderson.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.