HC Deb 09 July 1924 vol 175 cc2338-65

I beg to move in page 4, line 24, to leave out the word "two" and to insert instead thereof the word "three."

I hope this Amendment will commend itself to the Minister. It is a continuation of the attempts we have made on every possible occasion to increase the allowance for the maintenance of children which is granted to people who are out of work. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) initiated the system which stands to his credit, and made an allowance for the maintenance of children of the unemployed workers, the allowance was fixed at 1s. per week. He was assailed from all sides as to the inadequacy of the allowance. It was pointed out that it was something less than 2d. a day for the maintenance of a child. All the arguments that were used against that allowance apply to-day with equal force to an allowance of 2s. Although 2s. is an improvement on 1s., it is only an allowance of less than 3½d. per day. If you give a child something to eat in the morning and at mid-day, and something before it goes to bed, that allowance represents only 1d. per meal and ½d. for luxury. We believe that that allowance should be increased, and we put the figure at 3s. per week, which is only 5d. per day. We believe that this is too little, and that the allowance ought to be increased at the earliest possible moment. I could not justify the allowance of 3s. per child if I were called upon to do so. I should be forced to the line of defence, which, no doubt, the Minister will take, that it is a better allowance than 2s. per week, just as he will say that 2s. is better than 1s.

I am not oblivious of the fact that this Amendment would mean a considerable drain on the fund. We are faced to-day with an industrial catastrophe of the first magnitude. I believe that it will pass over, at least I hope so, in a very short time. But if it does not, then this system of unemployment insurance cannot last. It is bound to be made more effective for the protection of our working people, and of their dependants. It cannot continue on the scale which this Bill lays down. If, fortunately, our trade improves, and our people get back to employment, then this fund will rapidly become solvent. The only question is whether we are prepared to take the risk, and to go on in good times paying a heavy contribution in order to repay what we are borrowing in a period of national emergency.

I am prepared, in moving this Amendment, to take that risk. I am not prepared to take the risk of deteriorating the rising generation, which means that if we neglect our children we are running the risk of turning our population into a C 3 population for a generation to come, but I am prepared to take the risk of facing an increase, if necessary, in the contributions to meet this increased charge, and I ask the Minister to approach those who pay these contributions, the workers who are fortunate enough to be in work and their employers who have never refused to pay their fair share of contribution for the solvency of this fund, and to ask them whether they are not willing, in this time of national emergency, to put up a contribution which will properly take care of the rising generation of this nation.


I beg to second the Amendment.

The case is one which hardly needs any words of mine to support. On the question of finance, which I take to be the difficulty which the Minister may raise when he comes to reply, he will admit that 3s. is not a satisfactory allowance on which to keep a child, and I submit that the contention of my hon. Friend, that we had better defer the end of the deficiency period rather than refuse this act of justice, is a sound one. I submit from the White Paper which has been submitted, having made allowances for the expenditure involved by the Amendments upstairs, that the scheme is not bankrupt by any means and that by the end of March next year there would be a, balance of over £2,000,000. I know that that is required in order to reduce the deficiency, and wipe off a debit balance, but on the working of the year, up to the end of March next, there is actually a credit balance which it is suggested should be used for paying off the deficiency. But I submit further that as unemployment is reduced in a very short time there will be a considerable balance accruing from contributions which are at present being paid by all parties.

It is estimated that in a couple of years if unemployment should fall to 6 per cent., which is higher than the pre-War average taken over a period of years, there will be a balance in the fund of over £20,000,000 a year, that is, assuming that contributions are kept up to their present rate. I submit it is better to give adequate benefits and retain the present contributions, which are paid willingly in a time of trade depression, and which therefore would be no undue burden when trade revives, in order to give adequate provision to the worker for his children and his home. I know that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, in increasing the benefits which he is giving, to do away with the overlapping, which arises at the present time, of the unemployed benefit being supplemented by grants from the guardians; I do think that you want to give adequate maintenance to the unemployed worker, and that when making an allowance of 3s. it will be very much easier for the worker to refrain from going to the guardians, and this will have the advantage of stopping overlapping and stopping the drain which is such a burden on local rates. For these reasons I hope that the Minister will see that justice is done, even though the deficiency period has to be deferred for a short time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Amendment of the hon. Member covers the Amendment which I have put down to increase the amount to 2s. 6d., and is it your intention to call on me to move that Amendment, in case the Amendment now under discussion is either withdrawn or defeated?


I do not propose to call the following Amendment, unless the House arrive at something like an agreement by which that can be done. Otherwise, I think that this Debate will be sufficient to meet the views of the House.


With very great regret, I am going to ask the House not to accept this Amendment, and, in doing so, may I give the House some evidence of the difficulty which I have. If I had accepted all the Amendments in Committee, they would have meant an increased expenditure of something like £25,000,000 a year. Every individual Member thought his individual Amendment was the most important, but yet it was obviously impossible for me to accept all Amendments of that description unless I were prepared to face an increase in the contributions, which I believe would be fatal to all hope of getting the Bill passed. If I am going to choose between the different Amendments, I must choose what appears to me to be an Amendment which will remedy the greater injustice. I am prepared later in the Debate, on the part of the Government, to accept an Amendment which will mean a greatly increased expenditure. I am going to state frankly to the House before that decision is taken what the financial circumstances will be.

The Amendment in question is that which reduces the waiting period from six days to three. That will mean—I hope that I am in order in referring to it, but I think that it will elucidate the point—an added expenditure of £4,500,000 a year, which I think is equivalent to saying that the end of the deficiency period will be put further back, and it is extremely doubtful whether there will be an end of the deficiency period in any reasonable time, unless there is a considerable decrease in unemployment. I thought it well to tell the House that, because it will make them understand why I must say now that I must reluctantly decline to entertain any other Amendment which means increased expenditure, because I think that I have gone as far as the House would wish me to go, and certainly as far as the contributors to the scheme would desire. In view of the fact that I am prepared on behalf of the Government to accept the Amendment to reduce the waiting period from six days to three days, I hope that my hon. Friends will not press me to accept another Amendment which will mean increased expenditure. I am aware that this Bill is not perfect. I am also perfectly aware that in the normal course a man with a wife and three children is going to get an increase of 6s. a week. I ask the House to take those facts into consideration, and I would request the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I desire to make a few remarks, because the Amendment to which I have referred is on the same principle as this Amendment. I was extremely disappointed at the reply of my right hon. Friend. When the 1s. for the child was originally proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) I moved an Amendment to increase that amount to 2s. 6d. It was seconded by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), and every Labour Member in the House at that time—this was in the Coalition Parliament—supported that proposal that the amount should be 2s. 6d. I am sure if the Minister for Labour had been in the House then he would have supported that proposal. The whole case for increasing the allowance for the child is overwhelming. No child can be kept in a Poor Law institution for the amount for which the right hon. Gentleman is asking unemployed workmen to keep them.

My right hon. Friend says "I am doing all I can. The finance is very difficult. I am accepting an Amendment to reduce the waiting period to three days." That is very good news, but I think that it is much more important to have sympathy extended to the children and families of such parents who have been out of work for a long period, than to reduce the waiting period in the case of families who have been in employment. These have had some resources, whereas the families who have been out of employment for a long time have used up all their resources and the children are bound to suffer. My hon. Friend the Member for Middles-brough (Mr. T. Thomson) spoke of the meals required by a child in the day. He did not make any reference to the clothing and boots of the child, but those things wear out during a long period of poverty and privation, and some other provision is needed.

The whole conception on which my right hon. Friend builds his financial scheme is one of a long continued period of unemployment. He knows that unless this Government can provide work and reduce unemployment in the country it will not remain in office. That is obvious. It will not get the support of hon. Members below the Gangway, and, unless it has made new friends on the other side who believe in doles rather than in work, hon. Members opposite will not support the Government, and it will go out of office. It is not fair for the Government, in view of the statements which it has made, to bank on a great amount of unemployment extending over a long period. Therefore I think that we are justified in taking the risk of increasing the amount of the allowance for children in the terms of this Amendment. I hope that my hon. Friend will not withdraw his Amendment, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen who in Parliament in 1921 voted for increasing the amount for children will now support the same principle and vote for this Amendment.

7.0 P.M.


I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in the position in which he finds himself. I have been in the same position myself, though in these more gracious days he is defending 2s. while I had to defend 1s. My right hon. Friend does not suggest that 2s. a week is enough to keep a child, but he says, "This is all I can run to. "I was in the same position, although I had 2,000,000 of people to provide for and another 1,000,000 on short time. One shilling was all I could do. Hon. Members seem to think this is a magic lamp; you have only to rub it, and all sorts of things will happen. It is not. The waiting period is to remain as it is and not to be increased to six days. If this scheme could have been left where my right hon. Friend found it, it would be solvent next October. I personally should not have left it as it is. I should have raised the children to 2s., and I am sorry we could not do more than we did at the time. That would have carried it on. It would have been solvent then about a fortnight into November. First of all, my right hon. Friend wiped out the gap, then he made young fellows and young women eligible, and he made aliens eligible, and he made a continuous benefit. Now he proposes to extend the benefit. His Bill proposes to run the solvency period up to about June, 1926. He says, "I am going back to three days." That will carry it up to June, 1927. Then there is another Amendment which is not susceptible of calculation. He does not know what it will cost. It will be out of order to mention it now. Where that is going to land us, I do not know.

I heard a phrase from my right hon. Friend which very much shocked me. He said, "I do not know whether this thing will ever get solvent," or words to that effect. That is rather a serious thing to say. It only carries out what I have been trying to impress upon him, that you are going to put this thing on the rocks. If you want a non-contributory scheme, you are doing very well. Workpeople pay at the present time 9d. and employers 10d. If this scheme could have been left where it was before the close of this year, men would have come down to 6d and women, paying 7d., would have come down to 5d. and we should have been able to give additional benefits. You are rather trying their patience when for three years you compel them to make these payments, and in many cases they bear no relationship to their unemployment risks. I heard one complaint, an individual complaint, when we raised it to 9d. One workman and one employer, that was all. I thought it was very fine.


The right hon. Gentleman seeks to go into rather a general discussion on the finance of the Bill. The question here is 2s. or 3s.


I was going to conclude with what that might cost. It seems to me, with great respect, rather germane to the matter. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us what it would cost. My recollection is that it would cost £1,250,000. Without it, you have pushed the solvency period on three years. You cannot go on doing that. People will get weary. As a matter of fact, all this clamour for contracting out arises from the fact that they saw a long vista of paying these heavy sums. My hon. Friend would be well advised, although I do not presume to advise him, to meet the Minister by accepting this £4,500,000 against the £1,250,000. I should close with the Minister and withdraw this Amendment.

Brigadier-General Sir H. CROFT

I only want to refer for one moment to the attitude of those who moved this Amendment. I think it is generally known in the country at large that the party which sits opposite likes to be regarded as the party of retrenchment and always warns the electors that this country can never recover until we can cut down expenditure in every direction. The Mover of the proposal is quite content to contemplate even increased contributions in order to provide this fund. That fact should be realised. We cannot have it both ways. The party cannot be a party of retrenchment and yet continually pile on the agony on industry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) told us what we did not want was doles. The House must realise that this policy in the long run is, in effect, a policy of doles. Here it is proposed to put this increased burden of £1,250,000 on industry, and we have been told that £4,500,000 is already to be added. I do not know whether this is for electioneering purposes or not, but these burdens are going to smash industry. We scrapped £2,500,000 of revenue. On the other hand, we increased the burdens. I hope the Minister will not be drawn in the direction indicated, because if we follow that path it simply means our industry cannot recover.


It is admitted in all parts of the House that 2s. per week would not maintain a child. Unless you give an adequate amount, people must go to the Poor Law. It is the only place they have to go. Even with a full allowance under this Bill, there must be hundreds of thousands of people who will find it insufficient. It is foolish to talk of any insurance Bill as though the amount given will maintain a wife and family. It will not. Is it better that money should come direct from the State or from contributions or from the Poor Law? It has to come from one or the other. People have got to live. It is coming from the Poor Law or other funds, and if this House says it will come from any other sources than the Poor Law I, as a Poor Law guardian, welcome anything which will prevent a man applying to the Poor Law. Any step which will be likely to remove families still further from application to the Poor Law I welcome. Do not let us deceive ourselves and the public. I hope my hon. Friend will not withdraw the Amendment.


May I make a suggestion to the Minister of Labour? He has already intimated to the House that he is prepared to accept an Amendment further on which is going to cost the fund £4,500,000 per annum. As I understand this Amendment, it is suggested that it will cost £1,250,000 per annum. Might I suggest to the Minister if he could, instead of having the waiting period as he suggests, three days, make it four days, and accept this Amendment. It will then cost roughly the £4,500,000 which he is prepared to give on the waiting period, and we shall have 3s. for the children. Might I put that before him as an alternative suggestion and ask if he will not consider it? I know it is a short notice, but I think the matter is worth considering, in that you are giving the child something extra and you are giving the men something extra. I doubt if it will cost more than the £4,500,000 the Minister is prepared to concede.


No. Regretfully again, I must stick to my decision. The concession that the Cabinet is prepared to give and the Amendment we are prepared to accept will mean that the present overdrawn condition of the fund will be likely to remain for a considerable time, which will postpone the end of the deficiency period and prevent any reduction of the contribution. I have done a great deal in this way. It would be easily possible for me to give way to my heart's desire and to go even one further than hon. Members, but the Cabinet has decided what it will do. It will support the Amendment which will mean an increase of £4,500,000. I cannot accept this Amendment, regretful as it may be to myself, and if it be forced to a Division, I shall vote against it, and if it be carried I shall have to reconsider the position.

Question put, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 123.

Division No. 148.] AYES. [7.15 p.m.
Ackroyd, T. R. Atholl, Duchess of Batey, Joseph
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke Attlee, Major Clement R. Beckett, Sir Gervase
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Austin, Sir Herbert Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Baker, Walter Berry, Sir George
Alden, Percy Balfour, George (Hampstead) Betterton, Henry B.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Alexander, Brig. Gen. Sir W. (Glas.C.) Banton, G. Blades, Sir George Rowland
Alstead, R. Barclay, R. Noton Blundell, F. N.
Ammon, Charles George Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Bondfield, Margaret
Apsley, Lord Barnes, A. Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Barnston, Major Sir Harry Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Brassey, Sir Leonard Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Potts, John S.
Briscoe, Captain Richard George Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Brittain, Sir Harry Hartington, Marquess of Raffety, F. W.
Broad, F. A. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Raine, W.
Bromfield, William Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne) Rankin, James S.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hayday, Arthur Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Brunner, Sir J. Hemmerde, E. G. Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Buckle, J. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Raynes, W. B.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South) Remnant, Sir James
Bullock, Captain M. Henn, Sir Sydney H. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Burman, J. B. Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough) Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Butt, Sir Alfred Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Calne, Gordon Hall Hodges, Frank Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)
Cassels, J. D. Hoffman, P. C. Romeril, H. G.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.) Ropner, Major L.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northrn.) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hudson, J. H. Sandeman, A. Stewart
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) Isaacs, G. A. Savery, S. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich) Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Chapman, Sir S. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Scurr, John
Charleton, H. C. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Sexton, James
Church, Major A. G. Jephcott, A. R. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Clarke, A. Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Clarry, Reginald George Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sherwood, George Henry
Clayton, G. C. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Climie, R. King, Captain Henry Douglas Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withington)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Lamb, J. Q. Simpson, J. Hope
Conway, Sir W. Martin Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)
Cope, Major William Lane-Fox, George R. Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Costello, L. W. J. Laverack, F. J. Snell, Harry
Courthope, Lieut -Col. George L. Law, A. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lawson, John James Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)
Crittall, V. G Leach, W. Stamford, T. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Lee, F. Stanley, Lord
Crooke, J. Smédley (Deritend) Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Curzon, Captain Viscount Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Sutcliffe, T.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Loverseed, J. F. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll) Lowth, T. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lunn, William Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) McCrae, Sir George Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) McEntee, V. L. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Dawson, Sir Philip McLean, Major A. Tout, W. J.
Deans, Richard Storry Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Turton, Edmund Russborough
Dixey, A. C. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Dixon, Herbert Makins, Brigadier-General E. Viant, S. P.
Dodds, S. R. Mansel, Sir Courtenay Vivian, H.
Dukes, C. March, S. Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Duncan, C. Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Eden, Captain Anthony Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Edmondson, Major A. J. Meller, R. J. Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.
Elveden, Viscount Middleton, G. Wells, S. R.
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) Mitchell R. M. (Perth & Kinross, Perth) Weston, John Wakefield
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) Whiteley, W.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Wignall, James
Falconer, J. Morris, R. H. Williams, A. (York, W.R., Sowerby)
FitzRoy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A. Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North) Muir, John W. Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)
Gates, Percy Murray, Robert Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)
Gibbins, Joseph Nixon, H. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Gibbs, Col, Rt. Hon. George Abraham Oliver, George Harold Wilson, Colonel M. J. (Richmond)
Gillett, George M. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh Windsor, Walter
Gosling, Harry Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Greene, W. P. Crawford Paling, W. Wise, Sir Fredric
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Palmer, E. T. Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wright, W.
Grundy, T. W. Pease, William Edwin Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward
Guest, J. (York. Hemsworth) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) Perkins, Colonel E. K. Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E. Perry, S. F.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Pleiou, D. P. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Ponsonby, Arthur Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Warne.
Ainsworth, Captain Charles Aske, Sir Robert William Birkett, W. N.
Allen R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.) Ayles, W. H. Bonwick, A.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Wilfrid W. Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Briant, Frank Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury) Phillipps, Vivian
Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby) Haycock, A. W. Pringle, W. M. R.
Buchanan, G. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Rathbone, Hugh R.
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Rea, W. Russell
Chapple, Dr. William A. Hindle, F. Rees, Sir Beddoe
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Hogbin, Henry Cairns Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hood, Sir Joseph Remer, J. R.
Collins, Patrick (Walsall) Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie Ritson, J.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton) Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Scrymgeour, E.
Darbishire, C. W. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) Jewson, Dorothea Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Dickie, Captain J. P. John, William (Rhondda, West) Spence, R.
Dickson, T. Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East) Spero, Dr. G. E.
Duckworth, John Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Stephen, Campbell
Dunnlco, H. Jewitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools) Sunlight, J.
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern) Kay, Sir R. Newbald Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Tattersall, J. L.
England, Colonel A. Kenyon, Barnet Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Kirkwood, D. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Ferguson, H. Lumley, L. R. Thornton, Maxwell R.
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H. Mackinder, W. Thurtle, E.
Galbraith, J. F. W. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow. Govan) Waddington, R.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Maden, H. Wallhead, Richard C.
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas Martin, F. (Aberdeen & Kinc'dine, E.) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton) Webb, Lieut-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)
Gilbert, James Daniel Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome) Millar, J. D. Wintringham, Margaret
Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Wolmer, Viscount
Groves, T. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Gwynne, Rupert S. Moulton, Major Fletcher Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale) Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wragg, Herbert
Harbord, Arthur Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Hardie, George D. Owen, Major G. Tellers For the Noes.—
Harney, E. A. Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) Mr. Linfield and Colonel Penry
Harris, Percy A. Perring, William George Williams.

I understand that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) does not, in view of the announcement of the Minister of Labour, desire to move his next Amendment.


The announcement of the Minister of Labour had reference, I think, to the reduction of the waiting period. I desire, however, to move my Amendment with regard to the allowance to the parent or guardian in relation to a child attending an educational institution.


I will call on the hon. Member to do that.


I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, at the end, to insert the words (d) where the child is 14 years of age and is attending an educational institution during the whole day five shillings per week shall be paid to the parent or guardian until the child is 16 years of age. I do not know that this Amendment requires very much elaboration. There has always been a feeling on our part in favour of the child between 14 and 16 years of age attending an educational institution being enabled to receive the full benefit. We desire to see justice done to the child and at the same time to assist the unemployed parent or guardian who is maintaining that child, it may be, under circumstances of very great difficulty. There are in this House yet Members who can recall the Debate which took place here when it was first proposed to give to the dependent child an allowance that would enable the parent to maintain it, and I think some of us can also recall the strenuous resistance with which the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr.Macnamara) stuck to his guns on that point in the same way as the Minister of Labour has stuck to his guns to-day and resisted every attempt made by Members in this House to bring the child from 14 to 16 years of age within the scope of receiving the allowance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell shakes his head.


The proposal was accepted.


After a Debate it was accepted, but the point is that there has always been an endeavour on the part of a number of Members to get the child brought under this provision. We desire now to see that child's allowance increased. The child between 14 and 16 years of age who is being kept at an educational institution is in a different category, both with regard to age and with regard to the passing to and fro the dress that it requires, and, very often the taking of meals from home, simple and meagre as those meals may be. Not only in the interests of the family which is undertaking some sacrifices to keep that child at school while the head of the family is unemployed, but in the interests of the child itself, we consider that the amount of allowance given in respect of that child should be increased from 2s to 5s.


I beg to second the Amendment.

When the Bill was originally introduced there were provisions in it for children between the ages of 14 and 16 years, but in its wisdom of its unwisdom this House decided by an overwhelming majority to cut that provision out of the Financial Resolution. Everyone of us, I am sure, is in favour of improved education for the child over 14 years of age. We all know hundreds of cases of parents who have made a struggle, even with small wages, to provide further education for their children. Anyone who has any acquaintance with secondary school teaching in public authority schools knows the tragic tale that is told of the parent who, while in work, makes a sacrifice to keep his child at school. But when unemployment comes the school course has to be cut short for the sake of the very few shillings that the child can earn. The Amendment provides a method of over coming most of the difficulties in the original proposition of the Bill. It will continue the education only of the children whose parents have made a sacrifice and who have become unemployed while the child was at school. I could mention hundreds of cases not only of the disorganisation that the withdrawal of a child causes in school life, but of intense hardship Very often a father takes his boy or girl away from a secondary school, and within a month or two he gets fresh work and feels that the child has been sacrificed. The Amendment will help really deserving people who wish to help their children


I am sorry that my hon. Friend is going to force me into the Lobby again. I must stand to my guns. I am accepting a really big Amendment to the Bill by reducing the waiting period and by increasing the bridge from three weeks to six, and there I must call a halt. I would oppose this Amendment altogether apart from general financial grounds, because I am afraid that it will have a very reactionary effect. Those who recollect the Debates in this House on the proposal to insure children between the ages of 14 and 16 will remember the talk about psychology and obscurantists and the rest of it. I venture to ask those who believe in those ideas what they think this would do so far as a really genuine national effort to give children a chance is concerned. I think the whole system of the education of children between 14 and 16 is too big a question to be dealt with inside the scope of an Unemployment Insurance Bill. I am afraid that your obscurantist authorities, who you said would take the wording of the Bill as stereotyping what they ought to do, would take this proposal as stereotyping what they ought to do in another way. It would be a very bad thing to encourage the idea that the education of children between 14 and 16 can be dealt with in an Unemployment Insurance Bill.


There is no desire to take the children out of the control of the Education Acts. This Amendment would merely extend the principle which has been established already in previous Unemployment Insurance Acts, or, rather, it would extend the amount of such principle as is already established. There is no obscurantism about it.


The question of the education of children between the ages of 14 and 16 years is altogether outside the scope of the 1s. or 2s. per week paid to an unemployed workman. It ought to be dealt with by another Ministry. As far as benefits are concerned, they ought to be uniform. I am sorry that I am forced into the Lobby against my hon. Friend, but the declaration which I have made holds good. The concession of the £4,500,000, and the six weeks' bridge instead of three weeks, must be the limit of the concessions which I can make.


I do not think my right hon. Friend at all understands what has been put to him. In the Unemployed Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provision) Act of 1921, we put in this definition: The expression 'a dependent child' means any child under the age of 14 years who is maintained wholly or mainly at the cost of the person claiming the grant, or any child between the ages of 14 and 16 who is under full-time instruction in a day school and is so maintained as aforesaid. If this is obscurantism it was begun in 1921. Of course, it is nothing of the kind. It says to the parent, "Well, at 14 this 2s. will stop, but if you like to keep the child at a school between 14 and 16, you will get the 2s." That is splendid. It is not obscurantism. Now my hon. Friend says, "Make it 5s." That is far more educational still. The point is that we really cannot go on piling charges on this Bill. The Fund cannot stand it. We shall smash the whole thing to pieces. 2s. a week between 14 and 16 is quite excellent as an encouragement to keep a child at school—not to put it on the labour market. I would like to see the amount 5s., but you cannot take it out of this Fund. Go to the Board of Education. They have maintenance allowances, and spent £750,000 last year. That is where you can get the money. By this proposal you will be ruining the Fund even earlier than it will be ruined as it is.


It is a great pity that there should be a system of submitting Amendments which obviously tend to destroy the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The first duty of this House, in relation to this Bill, is to safeguard the Fund. In answer to a question put by me the other day the Minister stated that the Fund owes over £7,000,000 at present. The first duty of the House is to bring the Fund back to solvency at the earliest possible moment. Certain Amendments, in relation to which a strong appeal can be made to sentiment, tend to burden the Fund still more. The right hon. Gentleman has said that instead of the Fund being solvent in June, 1926, as was originally contemplated, the new charges put upon it will, as far as can be estimated, prevent its being solvent until May or June, 1927. Nobody in this House seems fully to appreciate that the Fund is created by contributions from employers and employed and from the State. When you are legislating for unemployment insurance you ought to have regard for the interests of the contributors to the Fund as well as for the interests of the beneficiaries under it. The employers are contributing a very substantial proportion of this Fund, but in all the discussions that take place very little regard is had to their interests. The House ought to safeguard the interests of the employers who have generously borne their share of this burden, though for them no one in the House has a single word of sympathy. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of his evident desire to extend his Bill to the utmost, is resisting these Amendments. If this Amendment is carried to a Division it will certainly get substantial support from this side of the House.


I think that, as has been stated, the Minister of Labour has missed the point of this Amendment. Suppose an employed man has a child who has already been sent to a higher educational institution. If subsequently that man becomes unemployed while the child is between the ages of 14 and 16 years the proposal of the Amendment is that the allowance in respect of the child shall be 5s. per week as long as the child continues to go to school. Any hon. Member who is interested in educational work in a constituency where there is a considerable amount of unemployment must know that complaints are constant from schools and from parents that owing to unemployment, children have had to be withdrawn from secondary schools. It is suggested that this is a question for the Board of Education. I take the line that maintenance grants for education ought to be given even when the parent is fully employed, if that parent could not reasonably be expected to support the child whilst at school. This proposal only asks the House to encourage the parent who has already accepted the responsibility of keeping a child at school for secondary school purposes. It seeks to encourage that parent in a time of severe hardship and to give opportunities for better organisation and development in the schools.

The Minister may say, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) said, that the fund will not stand it, but I should like to hear from the Minister what would be the cost of the concession. I do not think an extraordinary number of children will be in the position of having to discontinue their educational courses because of parents being unemployed, and we do not intend that children should be continued in elementary schools after they are 14 in order to get this advantage. This proposal is to assist in cases where higher education is being given. The Minister may suggest that the proposal is obscurantist, like the proposal to introduce insurance for children between 14 and 16. I think this is an entirely different proposal. It applies to children already in a higher institution in regard to whom you already admit a responsibility of 2s., and we desire to increase the amount. The proposal is in line with the Income Tax arrangement- concerning children up to 16 years of age. In respect to children who are at school up to 16 years of age, a rebate is allowed in connection with the Income Tax. I trust the Minister will seriously consider this Amendment because I do not think the amount involved can be very large, and if the fund will not stand it, then I fear the fund will not stand many of the other charges which are proposed in other Amendments.


We ought to consider exactly where we stand in regard to this matter. Proposals are being made which everyone of us would like to support if we could see a possibility of carrying them, but we must be guided by the capacity of the fund to bear the proposed charges, and we have had placed before us an actuarial estimate which shows that there is only £100,000 a year to spare, indicating that the position is most precarious. I cannot see how anybody can vote for increased expenditure who is not desirous of wrecking the scheme, and I protest strongly against this scheme being made the subject for a sort of Dutch auction between the various political parties with hon. Members getting up one after the other proposing either increased contributions or increased benefits. I have no doubt if the Minister were to give way, the, next Amendment would propose to increase the amount still further, and while everyone would like to see better benefits and greater facilities given to the unemployed, we must have some regard to the position of the fund and the necessity for continuing unemployment insurance. The first thing we should do is to place the fund in a solvent position and get rid of the £7,000,000 liability. Then we can talk about increased benefits. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister a short time ago from these benches, very often took part in Dutch auctions of the sort to which I have referred; I admire his pluck in taking a firm stand on this matter, and I hope he will continue to take that stand.


I appeal to the Minister to run away from his guns on this occasion. Members in all parts of the House two or three weeks ago made a great appeal on behalf of the children; to-night we appear to be forgetting the children and to be thinking only about £s. d. A number of us voted on the last occasion with very heavy hearts against the 3s., and some of us had not the courage to vote one way or the other, but on this Amendment there is something more to be taken into account than the stability of the fund or considerations of money at all. When an Estimate has been overspent there is such a thing as a Supplementary Estimate, and if the fund were to get into difficulties through giving the children what is now asked it should be easy for this rich country to find the money and make up the fund. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister, and to the Members of the House however from another point of view. I ask them to consider the wholesale demoralisation of young children which is going on. No man who has anything to do with industrial areas can fail to be appalled at the shocking waste of young life which is going on. I do not know what it costs to educate a child in an elementary day school. The effort put in by the teachers cannot be measured or valued, but one can value the £s. d. involved, and you are wasting that money in the case of thousands of children in the industrial areas. All we ask is that the mother of a child should have approximately enough to keep the child at school. I have listened to hon. Members in this House talking about good parents who struggle to keep the children at school. I know thousands of good parents who are utterly unable to keep the children at school; I know mothers who are obliged to drive the children out to work to get the means of livelihood and the work to which these children go, is generally of the "dead-end" variety. Especially is that true in the part from which I come, and it is because this proposal would give the mother, at least, enough to enable her to keep the child at school that I beg of the Minister to reconsider the whole matter and let us do this little act of justice to the children.


No, I cannot reconsider the matter. I have gone to what I consider to be the very limit of concession that can be made with safety to the scheme for the moment and safety to the scheme for the future. I have to envisage the time two years hence when this Measure will lapse, and I have to consider who will be standing here when it lapses and what the result will be. I can easily see the scheme being overloaded, and the overloading being made an excuse for cutting down what we are doing to-day. Apart altogether from financial considerations—and I have never even inquired into the cost—I think this is the wrong place in which to deal with what is purely an educational problem. That is the wrong way of dealing with a matter concerning the education of children between the ages of 14 and 16. I would call attention to the fact that in the insurance scheme the principle of the same benefits for the same contributions has been departed from, in that the married man with children gets more, in proportion for the same contribution, than the single man. I have not interfered with that proposal, and I do not intend to do so, but, frankly, I consider that this Amendment, apart altogether from what it would cost, is quite wrong in connection with an unemployment insurance scheme. The problem is purely educational; it should be dealt with by the Board of Education and should not be in any way specially dealt with in this unemployment scheme. If the Amendment is forced to a Division, I shall reluctantly vote against it, but vote against it I must, because the absolute limit of concession has been made by the Government, when one considers the ramifications of this Measure and what the effect is likely to be, two years hence, if the burden put upon it happens to be more than the contributions will bear.


I only intervene because I have a personal interest in this matter. It was on my Motion that the House agreed that we should not force children into the unemployment insurance scheme, in which the great bulk of their contributions would go to adults and not to their own benefit. We then asked my right hon. Friend if he could not see his way to bring in some kind of Resolution by which some benefit could be attained for children between 14 and 16, which I believe the whole House desires irrespective of party. Here, obviously, is an opportunity, and an opportunity which can be taken without increasing the charges on the Insurance Fund at all. I make no complaint of it, but I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman, without consultation with any party, stated that, having had applications for money which would extend the deficiency period, he proposed to accept a demand that the waiting period should be reduced to three days, which would cost him £4,500,000, and therefore he could give nothing else. He should consult the opinion of the House, apart from party, as to whether, as a matter of fact, that is the best way of dealing with £4,500,000. I am sure the hon. Member, who made that proposal in Committee, would be willing to modify the Amendment on the Paper, so that less money might be paid from the Fund, and something might be done for the children. No one in the House imagines that what the Amendment suggests is not a good thing in itself. With the exception of three Members the House voted with me when we rejected the unemployment insurance proposal for children, and the House is under an obligation to do something for these children. I earnestly ask the Minister to see if he cannot modify the proposal with regard to the waiting period and accept the Amendment.

8.0 P.M.


I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision, particularly in view of his own statement that he has not considered the cost. I believe it is true, on the figures used in this Debate, that this Bill is carrying just now all that the funds can actuarially stand on the present contributions, but that is only true on the assumption that we are adding to expenditure without putting any income in, and I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman can keep three boys or girls at school by giving an extra 3s. a week to the Unemployment Fund then a new actuarial factor comes in. If the keep- ing of these children at school takes one unemployed off the Fund and puts him into a job that he and his schoolboy son are presently competing for as unemployed persons, if it takes three boys and puts them on the Fund at 3s. a week each and takes the father off at 25s., that is a new actuarial factor which is worthy of consideration by the Minister, and I ask him if he will not seriously consider it from that point of view, which is essentially unemployment and not education, and take this risk. After all, insurance is always a gamble. I admit that, generally speaking, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who engage in that business arrange in this particular form of gambling that the bookmaker always wins, but I do not know that it is necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to take that view. In insurance there ought to be a real risk for the people who are holding the risk as well as for the people who are insured, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take it in this case.


This Amendment has been very strongly pressed, and the only grounds upon which the Minister has resisted it are, first, that it will make the fund bankrupt and, secondly, that it is altogether outside the provisions of an Unemployment Insurance Bill. He has not given us any estimate of the cost. I have looked at the proceedings in Committee when this question was formerly discussed, and I observe that on that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary gave no estimate. I think the House should know exactly what it will cost. We wish to give the right hon. Gentleman credit for the concession that he has agreed to make, but it may be that in this matter he may readjust that concession in order to meet this Amendment. He has promised to reduce the waiting period to three days. May he not modify that concession and, instead of reducing it to three days, simply reduce it to four days, and then there would be ample money with which to make this concession? It is infinitely more in the public interest that adequate provision should be made for the education of the children of the unemployed men during this period than that there should be a day more or less on the waiting period. I am sure that hon. Members above the Gangway would in the main agree that this concession is of more value in the public interest than a day more or less in respect to the waiting period.

If this provision is not made, it is very likely that you are going to increase the numbers of the unemployed. If a boy of this age is taken from school, he is competing in the labour market and is increasing the difficulties from the point of view of unemployment. I think the case which was mentioned by one hon. Member is one which would appeal to Members on all sides of the House. It is the case of the man thrown out of work, with a boy between 14 and 16 years of age in a secondary school, but the unemployment pay is inadequate to provide for the family, and in those circumstances the parent is driven to the necessity of withdrawing that child from school, breaking his chance of further education, and probably embittering that child for life. If that child, who has an aptitude, presumably, for further education, is withdrawn from school simply because of his parent's misfortune in being out of employment, it is going to embitter that child for the future, and he is going to feel that he has a wrong against society, and I suggest to hon. Members opposite that it is not to the interest either of their party or of the State as a whole to multiply the number of people who are adolescent and who feel that they have wrongs of this kind against society. The Minister's contention that this is outside the unemployment insurance scheme has been met by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), who, I regret to say, however, threw his shield over the Minister in resisting this Amendment. He cannot be blind, as he was not blind before, to the importance of maintaining these children at school, and I think he might join us in pressing on the Minister to give way.


I would like to say that, with regard to the cost of this Amendment, if it were carried on the assumption of 1,000,000 unemployed, the cost would be about £80,000. I wish to put two points to the House, however. The Debate on this side has assumed that the great urgency of the matter is to enable these parents to continue their children's education, but there is no substance in that point, from the point of view of unemployment insurance, because you are only going to pay the 5s. as long as the father is unemployed. Assuming that the child is at school, you then differentiate between one child and another. The father may be employed, but he may be having almost as hard a time as the person who is unemployed, and the principle we have been endeavouring to maintain in the Act is to see that the benefits shall be equally distributed. The principle we had in view in our Clause dealing with children between 14 and 16 was to afford reasonable provision for all children unemployed between those ages who had left the care of the education authorities. I am a little astonished now that the House appears to be in favour of differentiating between those children. A child itself may be unemployed, but if the father is employed there is no chance for that child to get the advantage of this grant. It. is the unemployed child that we want to get hold of, and if it is a question of keeping the child at school, that is a matter for the Education Ministry. On that ground alone, I shall go into the Lobby against this Amendment. To keep the child at school is the business of the education authority; to deal with the unemployed child is the business of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


The Parliamentary Secretary's argument would have carried greater weight with the House if we could have had an assurance that the Government were determined at a very early date this Session to deal with this question through the Board of Education. When the House dealt with this matter on the Financial Resolution, we had on the Treasury Bench, in joint charge of

this section of the Bill, the President of the Board of Education. It was evident that the Government regarded this as a matter affecting the Board of Education as much as the Ministry of Labour, and I think we must ask that the Ministry should deal with this matter in a wider spirit than merely in connection with the framework of this Bill. When the Financial Resolution was discussed, the whole House was anxious to do something to promote further education for these children, and I am sure the Government would have the whole-hearted support, not of one party only, but of all parties, if they would make a promise that this matter should be dealt with this Session through maintenance scholarships under the Board of Education. If this is not done, I am quite sure that we have no other option than to vote for this Amendment. I am convinced that the House will not accept the view that the charge will be so large. The number of parents, unfortunately, who will be able to make use of it will be all too few. We ought to encourage every parent under the difficult circumstances of to-day to keep his children at school. I should like to add this further point, that when the Financial Resolution was brought forward the Government were prepared to make a Treasury grant in respect of the children's contribution, but that grant has disappeared, of course, and that money, which the Government were prepared to vote in the interests of the children then, I think we have a right to call upon them to devote to this particular purpose now.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 233.

Division No. 149.] AYES. [8.13 p.m.
Ackroyd, T. R. Climie, R. Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke Cluse, W. S. George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.) Collins, Patrick (Walsall) Gilbert, James Daniel
Alstead, R. Cove, W. G. Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Asks, Sir Robert William Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.
Ayles, W. H. Darbishire, C. W. Groves, T.
Baker, Walter Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Barclay, R. Noton Dickie, Captain J. P. Harbord, Arthur
Barnes, A. Dickson, T. Hardie, George D
Batey, Joseph Dixey, A. C. Harney, E. A.
Birkett, W. N. Dodds, S. R. Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Bonwick, A. Doyle, Sir N. Grattan Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Bramsdon, Sir Thomas Dunnico, H. Haycock, A. W.
Briant, Frank Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby) England, Colonel A. Hillary, A. E.
Buchanan, G. Falconer, J. Hindle, F.
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Franklin, L. B. Hoffman, P. C.
Chapman, Sir S. Galbraith, J. F. W. Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich) Morel, E. D. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Jewson, Dorothea Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Spence, R.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Mosley, Oswald Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East) Moulton, Major Fletcher Spero, Dr. G. E.
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby) Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale) Stephen, Campbell
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Murrell, Frank Sunlight, J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools) Oliver, George Harold Tattersall, J. L.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley) Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Kenyon, Barnet Owen, Major G. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton. E.)
Kirkwood, D. Patlinson, S. (Horncastle) Thornton, Maxwell R.
Lansbury, George Phillipps, Vivian Viant, S. P.
Laverack, F. J. Plikington, R. R. Vivian, H.
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North) Potts, John S. Wallhead, Richard C.
Linfield, F. C. Pringle, W. M. R. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Loverseed, J. F. Purcell, A. A. Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)
McCrae, Sir George Raffan, P. W. Whiteley, W.
Mackinder, W. Raffety, F. W. Williams, A. (York, W.R., Sowerby)
Maden, H. Rea, W. Russell Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Marley, James Rees, Sir Beddoe Windsor, Walter
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple) Wintringham, Margaret
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Ritson, J. Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Maxton, James Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford) Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Scrymgeour, E. Wragg, Herbert
Millar, J. D. Scurr, John
Mitchell, R. M. (Perth & Kinross, Perth) Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withington) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Montague, Frederick Simpson, J. Hope Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. Nichol.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Crittall, V. G. Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ainsworth, Captain Charles Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)
Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas.C.) Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert Hobhouse, A. L.
Ammon, Charles George Dalkeith, Earl of Hodges, Frank
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Atholl, Duchess of Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Attlee, Major Clement R. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northrn.)
Austin, Sir Herbert Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Hudson, J. H.
Banton, G. Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Dawson, Sir Philip Isaacs, G. A.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Deans, Richard Storry James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthber
Beckett, Sir Gervase Dixon, Herbert Jenkins, W (Glamorgan, Neath)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Dukes, C. Jephcott, A. R.
Berry, Sir George Duncan, C. John, William (Rhondda, West)
Betterton, Henry B. Eden, Captain Anthony Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Edmondson, Major A. J. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern) Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Blades, Sir George Rowland Elveden, Viscount King, Captain Henry Douglas
Blundell, F. N. Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Law, A.
Bondfield, Margaret Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Leach, W.
Bourne, Robert Croft Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Lee, F.
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart Ferguson, H. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E. Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Brass, Captain W. Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North) Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Brassey, Sir Leonard Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Lowth, T.
Briscoe, Captain Richard George Gavan-Duffy, Thomas Lumley, L. R.
Broad, F. A. Gibbins, Joseph Lunn, William
Bromfield, William Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham McEntee, V. L.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Gillett, George M. McLean, Major A.
Brunner, Sir J. Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Buckle, J. Gosling, Harry Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Greene, W. P. Crawford Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Burman, J. B. Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) March, S.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Greenwood, William (Stockport) Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Caine, Gordon Hall Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Cassels, J. D. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Meller, R. J.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) Grundy, T. W. Middleton, G.
Charleton, H. C. Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Church, Major A. G. Gwynne, Rupert S. Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Clarke, A. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Morris, R. H.
Clarry, Reginald George Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Muir, John W.
Clayton, G. C. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Murray, Robert
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Compton, Joseph Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Conway, Sir W. Martin Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne) Nixon, H.
Cope, Major William Hastings, Somerville (Reading) Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Hayday, Arthur O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) Hemmerde, E. G. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Craik, Rt. Hon, Sir Henry Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South) Paling, W.
Palmer, E. T. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Waddington, R.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Shepperson, E. W. Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Sherwood, George Henry Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Perkins, Colonel E. K. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Perring, William George Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Perry, S. F. Sinclair, Col.T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast) Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.
Pleiou, D. P. Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Wells, S. R.
Ponsonby, Arthur Snell, Harry Wignall, James
Raine, W. Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper Spoor, B. G. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Raynes, W. R. Stamford, T. W. Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kenningtn.)
Remer, J. R. Stanley, Lord Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Remnant, Sir James Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Sutcliffe, T. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) Wise, Sir Fredric
Romeril, H. G. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.
Ropner, Major L. Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S Wright, W.
Rose, Frank H. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward
Roundell, Colonel R. F. Thurtle, E. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Tout, W. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Turner, Ben TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Sandeman, A. Stewart Turton, Edmund Russborough Mr. John Robertson and Mr.
Sexton, James Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Warne.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question, put.