HC Deb 09 July 1920 vol 131 cc1904-19

1. Unemployment benefit shall be payable in respect of each week of any continuous period of unemployment and shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be at the weekly rate of one pound for men and sixteen shillings for women, or such other weekly rates as may be prescribed:

Provided that, in the case of an insured contributor under the age of eighteen unemployment benefit shall only be paid at half the full rate.

2. No person shall receive unemployment benefit for more than fifteen or such other number of weeks as may be prescribed, either generally or for any particular employment or branch thereof, within any insurance year, or in respect of any period of less than one day, or while he is in receipt of an old age pension.

In this paragraph the expression "insurance year" means such period of not less than fifty-two weeks as may be prescribed:

Provided that for the purpose of meeting any change in the insurance year or for the purpose of making provision for any period which may elapse between the date upon which contributions commence to be payable under this Act and the commencement of the next ensuing insurance year, the Minister may substitute for the insurance year such less period as may be necessary and make a corresponding reduction as regards the number of weeks of benefit which may be received within that less period.

3. No person shall receive more unemployment benefit than in the proportion of one week's benefit for every six contributions paid in respect of him under this Act, or such other proportion as may be prescribed with the consent of the Treasury:

Provided that—

(a) Where, owing to the fact that the wages or other remuneration of an employed person are paid at intervals greater than a week, or for any other like reason, contributions are paid under this Act in respect of any person at intervals greater than a week, that person shall for the purpose of this paragraph be entitled to treat each of those contributions as so many contributions as there are weeks in the period for which the contribution was paid; and

(b) In the case of an insured contributor of the age of eighteen years or upwards any contributions paid in respect of that contributor before he attained the age of eighteen years, shall, for the purpose of the foregoing provision, be treated in the case of contributions at the rate of twopence as two-thirds of a contribution and contributions at the rate of one penny halfpenny as three-fifths of a contribution.

4. Any time during which a person is, under this Act, disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit shall be excluded in the computation of periods of unemployment under this Schedule.

5. A period of unemployment shall not be deemed to commence till the employed person has made application for unemployment benefit in the prescribed manner.

6. The power conferred by this Schedule on the Minister of prescribing rates and periods of unemployment benefit shall not be exercised so as to increase the rate of benefit above twenty-two shillings per week or to reduce it below thirteen shillings per week for men or below ten shillings per week for women, or so as to increase the period of unemployment benefit above fifteen weeks, or so as to alter the proportion which the period of benefit bears to the number of contributions paid, except by rules confirmed by an Order made in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating to special Orders.


I beg to move, in paragraph (1), after the word "unemployment" ["continuous period of unemployment"], to insert the words "after the first three days of unemployment."

This is the Amendment which deals with the waiting period, and gives effect to the decision of the Government that we shall now set up a three days' waiting period. When the Bill was originally introduced there was a six days' waiting period. Upstairs in Committee the right hon. Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) secured the deletion of that, and the introduction of no waiting period at all, except that I think I am right in my interpretation when I say a man would not, under his scheme, get benefit, though from the first day, unless he had been out a week. In the Bill as it originally stood a man got no unemployment benefit for the first week. This proposal is to make the waiting period three days. If we were to stick to no waiting period at all, the decision at which the Committee arrived, the effect on the finances would be, with benefits at 12s. for women and 15s. for men, that we should increase the annual amount of benefit—with no waiting period and payable from the first day and for each day—by £4,750,000. If we took it at no waiting period and payments from the first day, but only after a man had been out six days, which, I think, is the scheme the right hon. Gentleman advocated, the amount would be £3,500,000. If we have a waiting period of three days, the increase in cost to the country will be £2,750,000.

The great effect of a waiting period at all is this—to put it quite bluntly—that you have a security against paying the benefits in a large number of cases for very short periods of unemployment. If you have only a certain amount of money to go along with you had better conserve it as much as possible for the later weeks of unemployment when the hardship is beginning to get greater rather than spend it on a great many very small broken periods. That is the proposition I put forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting is one of the most eloquent advocates of the necessity for increased production. If You abolish the waiting period altogether, then you afford an inducement to a man towards the latter part of the week not to go to work. I do not say, nor do I suggest, that he would always take it, but in this case he will get more by keeping at work than otherwise. We are trying to meet the case fairly. For those who want unemployment benefit from the first day there is still this open: they can, under the Bill, themselves have a special scheme with no waiting period at all—if they are prepared to pay for it. They can come under Section 20 with a supplementary scheme which will cover the places of this scheme of ours which are not covered. There may be those who would wish to pay for special benefits. There is no objection to them doing so, but I am afraid that there is a large part of the community to whom the cost of contributing to cover no waiting period does not appeal, for a scheme with no waiting period is very expensive. The cost to a large part of the community would be prohibitive in view of Health Insurance and the rest of it. Therefore, I commend to the House the compromise —which is an advance upon the original Bill—in which we make a waiting period of three days.

Amendment agreed to.


I beg to move, in paragraph (1), to leave out the words "one pound," and to insert the words "fifteen shillings."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Would that cut out my next Amendment, which is simply to equalise the amount?


The hon. Member's Amendment will come in after the word "pound."


I only want to bring the Bill back to its original form. Those who desire to have the 20s. unemployment benefit are in a position to obtain it by paying for it themselves.


Will the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the extra financial cost?


There will be no extra financial charge thrown upon the State.


Are we to understand that the calculations are such that the contributions as fixed in the Bill now, will not permit of more than 15s. being paid, and that the extra twopence which has been added is necessary in order to provide the three extra days? I understood the Government were prepared to put in 18s., and not 15s., as the result of the extra contribution. It is difficult to argue this matter from a purely actuarial point of view, but the whole contention of the Government is contrary to the experience of trade unions, who have paid this unemployment benefit, and it seems strange that the Government should ask for an extra penny from the workman, and another penny from the employers, and still be unable to give any further benefit. I think we are entitled to have some further explanation, because three days for an extra twopence seems entirely inadequate.


I think those hon. Members who sat on the Committee will feel exceedingly disappointed at the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has put down. We have been reminded that the Bill has been very carefully amended so as to make the contribution £1 per week, not because that was thought at all adequate, but because of the limitations of finance and the actuarial position, and we hoped that the readjustment of the amount to £1 might be a practical figure. I am sure, if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to agree to a compromise, and accept the 18s suggested, he would alleviate the disappointment which I am sure will be felt. You want a benefit which will be of some value and assistance in times of stress and unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the desire for increased production. Surely the whole basis of the unemployment insurance scheme is to ensure that men when at work shall not have constantly before them the fear of being thrown out of employment. The idea that by increasing production they will exhaust the amount of work available is a bugbear, and, if we are to get full production to the utmost capacity of machines and men, the workmen must have something to which to look forward if by chance work falls off, and they are thrown out of employment.

The purchasing power of 15s. is to-day infinitely less than the original sum put in the first Insurance Act of 1912. Therefore, instead of this being an advance, it is a retrograde step and places the workmen in a worse rather than a better position. The export returns for the last month show a decrease as compared with. May of some £3,000,000, and I submit that if we are to increase our output and to send our goods out into the world which is clamouring for them we must have increased production. The only way to secure increased production is to remove the fear of unemployment which is constantly before the workmen. I cannot for a moment believe that this miserable sum of 15s. per week is going to remove that fear. I therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter and make the sum 18s., so that the workman may have something upon which to fall back if unemployment comes. We know that it is purely a question of finance, but it is a penny wise and a pound foolish to stint a measure of this sort. If you are going in for a programme of reconstruction, you ought to do so on broad bold lines, and you will never solve the question of industry and of unemployment by tinkering at it. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the finding of the Committee upstairs, whether he cannot see his way to amend the scheme so as to make it worthy of acceptance.


I wish to add my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. The value of one pound compared with pre-War days is about 8s., and we want to maintain our people when they are out of work. The Committee upstairs, which discussed this matter minutely, are much the better judges of the position. They asked that a pound should be granted, and it would not be so very handsome if the Government helped us out of the difficulty. Fifteen shillings to-day represent about 6s. before the War, and that would about buy two decent cigars at their present prices. I think it is one of those little pettifogging meannesses which degrade the Government itself. I have full sympathy with the point of view of the holding of the public purse strings, but I do not believe that the public are so mean as to look on the economy of the Government in this particular as a right and statesmanlike attitude. I want to make an appeal to the Government to give us this concession. It has put many scores of shillings on barrels of beer; it has been mulcting us in all sorts of additional taxation, but it should be remembered that in this case we have to maintain the vitality of the nation, and therefore I appeal to the Government to give the out-of-works £1 a week which, after all, really represents less than 8s. 6d. a week.


What contributions are necessary from workmen and employers in order to pay 15s. to the men and 10s. to the women as unemployment benefit, allowing for the three days waiting period?


Fourpence from the men and fourpence from their em- ployers, 3d. from women and 3½d. from their employers.


And therefore to obtain an unemployment benefit of £1 a week the contribution would have to be 5d. from the men and 5d. from the employers, and something less from the women. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright there is no reason why the workmen should not combine to bring in a supplementary scheme which would raise the benefit to £1 a week or more, and in the present state of the organisation of labour, I should have thought it extremely probable that they would desire to insure for this larger unemployment benefit, and thus do away with the complaints raised by my hon. Friends near me as to the inadequacy of the payment.


I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill will give more consideration to his question. When the Bill was originally introduced, and it was suggested that 15s. should be given, there were fears expressed that malingering would thereby be encouraged. It is easy to dispose of any possibility of malingering even if the allowance be increased to £1 a week. No man would desire to rely on £1 a week in order to maintain his wife and family. When the 15s. was fixed upon, the cost of maintaining a pauper was admittedly 20s. 6d. a week. That was last October, and I believe, if later statistics were forthcoming, it would be found that that cost has substantially risen. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not want to give an unemployed man a grant which is less than that which is admitted to be necessary for the maintenance of a pauper? This is substantially less, but, while we have to spend 20s. 6d. to maintain a pauper, here we are expected to maintain, according to some standard of decency, not merely a pauper but an unemployed man and his family; and we are compelled, in spite of this Act, to appeal for assistance to the Poor Law again. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give this a little more consideration, and to try and put it on such a basis that there will be some security that the unemployed man and his family will be free from dependence on the Poor Law.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I am rather tired of hearing about these appeals, and I hope hon. Members on this side of the House are going to make a bit of a fight about this. I think the Government are extremely foolish in reducing the amount when it was the considered judgment of the Committee to give £1 a week. There is going to be a good deal of unemployment this winter. The slump has already begun in the North of England. There is a slump in the textile trade, and men are being thrown out of work. There is also a lot of unemployment in the engineering trade already, and there will be more. There is unemployment in my own constituency and in other North country ports, owing to the stoppage of the export of coal, and that looks like going on for some time. Those men who are out of employment will be trying to keep themselves alive on 15s. a week.


It cannot be done.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Of course it cannot be done. On the other hand, we see more display of wealth among the wealthy classes even than before the War. We see the reckless spending of money, the flaunting of luxuries, luxurious motor cars and other conveyances, gorgeous entertainments and all the rest of it. There is the money that is being spent at the great fashionable race meetings, and the money that will shortly be spent at Cowes. That is what bites into the soul of the people. They see, on the one side, money being wasted on useless fripperies and luxuries, and on the other side they see men who, through no fault of their own, are out of employment and who see their family hungry. It is foolish, apart from anything else. It will be welcomed by the extremists in this country who do not look to parliamentary action to bring about a radical change in our old industrial system. I hope that those on this side who agree with my view are going to make a fight about this. It will not pay us in the long run to have our unemployed going on short commons. What is the cause of the under-production to-day in Germany and in Poland? Above all, it is the under-nourishment from which the people have been suffering for a long period. If we are going to have great masses of people undernourished for long periods—and that is what the reduction of the allowance means—there will be a falling off in production again when those men can be employed, and it will lower their vitality as well. We are going to injure the productive power of the nation, and to injure our great source of wealth—the health and usefulness of the working people.

5.0 P.M.


The right hon. Gentleman has not stated upon what condition of trade generally the actuarial calculations to which he has referred are based. Trade varies very largely in cycles. I can remember several periods when the employer vainly seeks for workmen, and other periods when unemployment is rampant, because trade is very bad in every branch of manufacture and commerce. Those cycles of good and bad trade, good employment and unemployment, vary enormously. The variations are extreme, and almost within the most extreme limits. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether those actuarial calculations are based upon either of the extreme limits or upon what condition of Trade generally throughout the country they have been calculated?


When we reach a time when it costs more to maintain a convict or a pauper than we offer to the unemployed workman, a state of things has arisen which calls for very serious attention and adjustment. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that the country is confronted with a period of unemployment. The slump has already set in in the textile trade of the North, and that unemployment should obtain at all at present, in view of the great needs of the country and of the world at large, is another evidence of the necessity of close attention being given to this matter under existing circumstances. But the point at issue is, can we or ought we to afford to maintain a decent standard of life for a workman who happens to be out of employment for the time being. Any hon. Member who owns horses, if he happens to have no work for an animal for a day, a week, or a month, looks upon it as an absolute necessity and sound economy to preserve the animal in the best possible condition in order that it may be able to work effectively when he requires it to do so. During the period of unemployment for military duty that our soldiers have, we take the responsibility of clothing, feeding and housing them well. The standard of efficiency is maintained all along the line from the point of view of sound national economy. When the workman is unemployed it is in the best interests of the State and of the community to maintain the highest possible standard of efficiency, in order that when the period of the possibility of employment comes he may be ready to take up his employment under reasonable conditions. In these days, fifteen shillings a week will not keep a single man in a decent standard of efficiency, and when it is applied to a married man with domestic responsibilities the position becomes worse, and my appeal is to preserve, as far as possible, the standard of industrial efficiency. It is a misfortune for a person to be out of employment, and we ought to maintain him in a standard of strength, fitness and general well being, in order that when the opportunity comes he will be in the best possible condition to resume his employment, both in his own interest and in the wider interest of the community and the State.


I am not under-rating the 15s., which will be of some use, and I recognise that it is a great step in advance on what we have done before; but now that the Government have tackled the subject and are seeking to deal with the industrial problem which has been before the country at all times, they might have dealt with it more generously. Some people regard themselves as the high priests of economy in this House and hold up their hands in holy horror at the expense to the Exchequer; but they forget that, while they are straining at these gnats of economy, they are swallowing whole caravans of camels in Mesopotamia, Russia and elsewhere. Therefore, I hope the Government will realise that the biggest charge upon the Exchequer ought to be the social upliftment of the people.


This will not affect the Exchequer one way or another. If you were to make the amount £5 a week, it would not affect the Exchequer. No more will come out of the Exchequer; it will have to come out of the fund, which may be bankrupt.


I will not deal with that point further. I have had experience of working among the poor at times of great distress in one of the largest cities, and those who have gone through long periods of unemployment have had experiences which they will never forget. Although the 15s. will be of some use, yet in the times in which we live it will not go far.


My hon. Friend (Sir F. Flannery) asked me on what actuarial basis the figures have been arrived at. They have been derived from statistics taken over a very long period, with varying cycles of trade, and set out in White Paper 498. In that the hon. Member will see how we have built up the fabric of these calculations. In the Bill on its Second Reading the amount provided was 15s. for men, 12s. for women, and six days' waiting period. The contribution was 3d. a week from the men, 3d. from the employer, and 2d. from the State, and in the case of women 2½d. from the woman, 2½d. from her employer and 2d. from the State. It was amended upstairs and the amount of benefit was fixed at 20s. for men and 16s. for women and the scheme was made quite insolvent as a result. I, therefore, have had to raise the contribution of the men one penny and of the employer one penny. We have also raised the contribution of the women by ½d, leaving the contribution of the State as before. Under Clause 17, in which such interest was taken, we have got a far wider field, and trade unions and friendly societies who become our agents have got to make the 15s., if they do become our agents, up to £1 out of their own funds. Clause 18 provides that, if the provision made is not enough, trade unions or other organisations can prepare schemes and make their contributions what they like. Under Clause 20 they can have supplementary schemes, and can wipe out the three days' waiting period, but if we were to shorten that waiting period now the result would be that the men's contribution, which has already been increased from 3d. to 4d., would have to be 5d., and the women's contribution, which has been increased from 2½d. to 3d., would have to be further increased. With Health Insurance as it now is we have to consider how we are going. If this extra provision is made under Clauses 18 and 20 no one will be happier than I—


It does not add to your cost.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Casual labourers.


I have gone as far as I can in imposing a subscription of 4d., with 5d. National Health Insurance subscription. There is provision to cover the cases of partial employment. I regret that I cannot meet my hon. Friend.


As a member of the Committee which inserted this Amendment in the Bill, I think there is one thing to be said. The Committee were fully aware of the limits of the Financial Resolution, that the contribution of the State could not be increased, and that the consequence of making this increase was probably, almost certainly, to make a demand upon the accumulated funds. That is the whole point. It is not possible to discuss the actuarial basis of the insurance fund. But this is a fund

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to move, in paragraph 1, to leave out the words "for men, and sixteen shillings for women, or such other weekly rates as may be prescribed."

The object of this Amendment is to equalise the benefit for men and women. which has been accumulating rapidly at the rate of £4,000,000 a year, and out of the accumulations of that fund it was possible a little while ago to increase the benefit from 7s. to lls. We in the Committee upstairs felt that the Government might have taken some risk in the matter, at least for a short period. Emergency legislation is brought in from time to time. The Government might have adopted this Amendment, and if it threatened to make the fund insolvent they could have introduced an amending Bill.

Question put, "That the words one pound' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 78.

Division No. 200.] AYES. [5.16 p.m
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray Swan, J. E.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Taylor, J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Mills, John Edmund Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath) Morgan, Major D. Watts Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Entwistle, Major C. F. Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Galbraith, Samuel Murray, John (Leeds, West) Tillett, Benjamin
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Murray, Major William (Dumfries) Wignall, James
Hayday, Arthur Myers, Thomas Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Holmes, J. Stanley Newbould, Alfred Ernest Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Jesson, C. O'Grady, Captain James Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Johnstone, Joseph Prescott, Major W. H.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey) Rattan, Peter Wilson TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P. Seddon, J. A. Mr. Hodge and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander Simm, M. T.
Ainsworth, Captain Charles Greig, Colonel James William Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Baird, Sir John Lawrence Gretton, Colonel John Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Barnston, Major Harry Gritten, W. G. Howard Smithers, Sir Alfred W.
Barrand, A. R. Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)
Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.) Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Stevens, Marshall
Bellairs, Commander Canyon W. Hinds, John Stewart, Gershom
Breese, Major Charles E. Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) Sturrock, J. Leng
Brown, Captain D. C. Hurd, Percy A. Sutherland, Sir William
Carr, W. Theodore Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll) Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Coats, Sir Stuart Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Tryon, Major George Clement
Conway, Sir W. Martin Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George Vickers, Douglas
Curzon, Commander Viscount Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Dawes, Commander Lorden, John William Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Lort-Willlams, J. Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. Mallalieu, F. W. Whitla, Sir William
Farquharson, Major A. C. Molson, Major John Elsdale Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Fell, Sir Arthur Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen) Williams, Lt.-Com. C. Tavistock)
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue Neal, Arthur Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Ford, Patrick Johnston Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin) Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Forrest, Walter Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry Wilson-Fox, Henry
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Pollock, Sir Ernest M. Young, Lieut.- Com. E. H. (Norwich)
Gilbert, James Daniel Pratt, John William
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John Pulley, Charles Thornton TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. Mr. Dudley Ward and Lord E. Talbot.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

It was proposed in Committee by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Chadwick). It must be remembered that the majority of women in industry are young women, and in times of unemployment women are subject to temptations to which a man is not. A number of women owing to the War are widows, and are in many cases working to maintain young families. It is time they got a pension, but I see no reason why there should be this difference between the rates of unemployment benefit. I expect the majority of hon. Members agree with this proposal, and therefore I do not think I need labour the point.


I beg to Second the Amendment.


This question was debated upstairs pretty fully. The proposal is that the benefit should be 15s. in each case, for men and women, thus raising the women's benefit from 12s. to 15s., but to carry this out the women's contribution would have to be raised.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

There is a large surplus in the fund at present, and the increased benefit for women might come out of that.


At any rate, if you are going to have equal benefits for each, and if the State contribution for women is less than for men, it seems to me that you are face to face with an increased contribution from the women. However, I do not press that unduly against my hon. and gallant Friend, because I do not think he wants that, but I would ask him to rest content for the moment with the Amend-

ment which was made upstairs. In Clause 16, which provides for periodical revision of the rates of contribution, we inserted, at the instance of the Solicitor-General, words to the effect that if at any time after three years it appeared that an equalisation of contributions and benefits as between men and women was desirable, the Minister might order a revision. That is the best we could do upstairs, and I trust the hon. and gallant Member will not press us to go further.


Is the right hon. Gentleman correct in what he has said in relation to the increase necessary for women's contributions? Naturally, if you increase the benefits for women to 15s. it would be unfair to charge them less titan you charge men, and consequently you would have to make it 4d. in each case, but in the event of experience teaching that at a flat rate there is likely to be insolvency, you have got yourselves protected in Clause 15, whereby you can increase the contribution to safeguard yourselves against any such insolvency occurring.

Question put, "That the words 'for men and' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 26.

Division No. 201. AYES. [5.31 p.m.
Ainsworth, Captain Charles Greig, Colonel James William Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Baird, Sir John Lawrence Gritten, W. G. Howard Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Barnston, Major Harry Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Stevens, Marshall
Breese, Major Charles E. Hinds, John Stewart, Gershom
Brown, Captain D. C. Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) Sturrock, J. Leng
Carr, W. Theodore Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Sutherland, Sir William
Coats, Sir Stuart Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Taylor, J.
Conway, Sir W. Martin Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Curzon, Commander Viscount Lorden, John william Tryon, Major George Clement
Dawes, Commander Lort-Willllams, J. Vickers, Douglas
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray Wallace, J.
Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath) Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Mallalieu, F. W. Warren, Lieut.-col. Sir Alfred H.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. Molson, Major John Elsdale Whitla, Sir William
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen) Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Farquharson, major A. C. Murray, Major William (Dumfries) Williams, Lt.-com. C. (Tavistock)
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue Neal, Arthur Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Ford, Patrick Johnston Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Forrest, Walter Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike Wilson-Fox, Henry
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Pollock, Sir Ernest M. Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Pratt, John William Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)
Gilbert, James Daniel Pulley, Charles Thornton
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W) Rees, sir J. D. (Nottingham, East) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Royden, Sir Thomas Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Myers, Thomas
Barrand, A. R. Hayday, Arthur O'Grady, Captain James
Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.) Lyle-Samuel, Alexander Prescott, Major W. H.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Seddon, J. A.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Mills, John Edmund Swan, J. E.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Galbraith, Samuel Murray, John (Leeds, West) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Tillett, Benjamin Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Wignall, James Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) Mr. Hodge and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.

Question put, and agreed to.

Further Amendments made. In paragraph 1, leave out the word "sixteen" ["sixteen shillings"], and insert instead thereof the word "twelve."

In paragraph 2, leave out the words, "or while he is in receipt of an Old Age Pension."

In paragraph 3, leave out paragraph (b).

In paragraph 6, leave out the words, "twenty-two shillings per week," and insert instead thereof the words "seventeen shillings per week for men or above fourteen shillings per week for women." —[Dr. Macnamara.]