HC Deb 18 July 1924 vol 176 cc815-31
Mr. HARNEY

I beg to move, in page 6, line 42, to leave out the word "cease," and to insert thereof the words be suspended until the expiration of one year from the termination of the deficiency period referred to in the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1921. The Amendment is put in this form so that there may be no doubt in the mind of any person that the desire of those who support the Admendment is not in any way to introduce contracting out until after the deficiency period has come to an end. The real importance of the Amendment is that it is not so much merely to keep the door open for contracting out as to ensure that the door shall be kept open for an unprejudiced discussion of contracting out on a future occasion. It is necessary, in order to understand the few points that I have to put before the House, to give a very brief account of the history of this Clause. In 1911, Unemployment Insurance was initiated in Part II of the Act. Part I, as we all know, dealt with health. A different principle was applied to each Part Health Insurance was to operate through existing organisations—approved societies; Unemployment Insurance was to operate directly through the State. The first Act was a fragmentary and tentative Measure. So matters continued until 1920, when a comprehensive Act dealing with Unemployment Insurance was carried through. It was a very elaborate Measure, and, although we have retained the basic principle that Unemployment Insurance shall be operated directly through the State, in two Sections it provides for insurance by other bodies—by joint industrial councils, by industries themselves, or otherwise.

There were two methods of doing it. One was that laid down in Section 18 of the Act—the method called contracting-out. The other was supplementary. It was an individual system that was in the nature of a supplement to the general system. When that Act came into operation—some time, I think, in November of that year—we were all in more or less of a panic at the alarming increase of unemployment. It became obvious that the Act could not be carried out in its entireity without the finance giving way. It had to be buttressed up by Treasury grants, and that necessitated the passing of two Acts in the following Spring, one in March and one in July, 1921. The effect of those two Acts, as regards this Clause, I can put in a couple of sentences. They provided for a Treasury grant, then of £10,000,000, and now largely increased. They provided, because it was desired to keep intact the principle of insurance, that that Treasury grant should be worked off by additions to the contributions that were paid, and they were to be paid into what was called a deficiency fund. Then, most important of all, they provided that, whilst this state of financial emergency, if I may use the expression, existed, while the deficiency fund lasted, nothing should be done to divert any of the rivers which fed the central pool, and that, as separate industrial or group insurance would withdraw funds from the central pool, Section 5 of the second of those Acts was passed, which it is necessary for me to read, because I have to dwell a little upon it. Section 5 of that Act states that: The power mentioned in Section eighteen of the principal Act"— that is the contracting-out Section— to make special orders approving or making special schemes shall not be exercised during the deficiency period. It is quite obvious that when the matter was before Parliament no suggestion was put forward that contracting out was not a good thing, but in the circumstances it was considered advisable that it should remain in abeyance during this period. In express words, therefore, it was stated that it should not continue during the deficiency period, and by implication it says that when the deficiency period is over it shall again be possible. That was the position, and is the position at this present moment. Now this Bill comes along, and in Clause 7 these words are used: The power of the Minister under Section eighteen of the principal Act to make special orders approving or malting special schemes shall cease. The words are absolute and comprehensive. If the Clause goes through in its present form the House of Commons commits itself to this declaration, that the principle of contracting out, whether it be done by an approved society, by a trade union, by an industry, or by a group of industries, shall cease now and shall cease for all time That is what the Clause says.

We object to that, and we object to it on several grounds. The first thing that I should like to put to the House is this: Between the time when contracting out became allowable, namely, November, 1920, and the time when contracting out was suspended, namely, March of the following year—a few months—there was but one scheme got through. It was not that other schemes were not making violent efforts to get through but there was not time. But one scheme that got through, that for insurance workers, is estimated on all hands to have been an unqualified success. The insurance people shall no longer get the three-tenths contribution that heretofore they were getting—that works out at about £11,000—because they have been so effective and so complete in their organisation that it is found thay are able to stand alone. That is the only experience. [An HON. MEMBER: "Banks."] I do not believe the banks are through.

Sir K. WOOD

Yes.

Mr. HARNEY

Am I right in saying that they also are doing well?

Sir K. WOOD

They have not had sufficient experience.

Mr. HARNEY

The one test of contracting out that has had sufficient time is the insurance worker, and that has been an unqualified success. Here is a method of carrying on insurance laid down in the Act of 1920, with an elaboration of provision covering three pages of the statute, tried once with great success and we are now told, because it has been tried with great success here and now let us give it up for ever.

The next point is this. The principle involved in contracting out is a very big question, but it has never been debated. It was not debated in the Act of 1920 because that was more or less an agreed Measure. It was not debated on the Bill of 1921 and it has not been really debated on this Bill. Only a few words were said on the Second Reading. So now you are asked to condemn at once, without trial and without hearing, a method that opens up a very broad field for guidance and for experience in reference to this wholly novel thing of unemployment insurance. It does not stop there. It would be bad enough if under the circumstances I have unfolded we were simply to say, "though it has done well in the past we can see no reason for altering the view we formed in 1920 and departing from the assurance we implied in the Act of 1921, we will stop it." But is is far worse. This Clause says it shall cease. But it has ceased. It shall continue to cease under the Act of 1921 until the deficiency fund is worked out. When will that be? When this Bill came to Committee first it was thought, from the actuary's statement, that that period would be June, 1926. Then there were these boys' and girls' contributions cut out. That made the actuary say it would go on a year further. Then what are called the "strike benefits" came in and, dealing with these, the actuary said, "That will have the effect of extending the period to a time that is insusceptible of calculation." How do we stand now? It is admitted on all hands that the deficiency period must continue for three or four years hence. Why are we asked to-day to say a thing shall cease, that is now inoperative, at the end of a period three or four years in advance, when possibly it may be operative? It is a puzzling question. Nor does it even stop there, because the Minister of Labour said in Committee—he was slightly wrong in law—that the effect of a certain Amendment which had been made in Clause 1 would bring it about that the whole Bill would go into the melting pot in June, 1926, and yet we are now solemnly asked to commit ourselves to a declaration of a contingent policy in the future where it is certain that even the very policy that in advance we are condemning can never come into operation before the whole matter of which it is a part is reconsidered and redealt with.

When one finds himself faced with such an extraordinary position as that one is forced to ask some questions. Why is it being done? Why this energy to get this contingent declaration which never can be effective? The Minister himself falls back upon very bad arguments. One was this. He says, "Why worry about getting this Amendment through when nothing will be done?" My answer is, "Why worry about putting this ridiculous Clause in?" The next argument was this. If you now carry your Amendment it will dislocate and upset the whole Bill. I do not know much about this House—I hope I shall in time—but I think the Financial Resolution upon which a Money Bill of this kind is passed is only in force for a year. But the contracting out Clause cannot possibly have any operation for three or four years. What, then, has the financial structure of the Bill to do with it? There was one other argument that greatly affected me. It was not so much used by the Minister as by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camberwell, to whom we all look up as an expert. He put it this way. There is no real hardship done in preventing contracting out under Section 18 because you can still have your double insurance. That is quite right. Though the right to have a supplemental scheme has been in existence ever since 1920, there never has been a single instance where a supplemental scheme has been adopted or even talked about. The answer is very obvious. You can get employers and employés to be willing to make contributions to one scheme, but they do not see why they should be called upon to contribute to two.

When you get a Clause like this one apparently needlessly and certainly prematurely forced upon the House, and when it is backed up by reasons that are so bad that they crumble up at the first attack—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will not and cannot attempt to justify the arguments upon which he defended this Clause in Committee—it is time for the House to beware, and to say "Your reasons do not explain your zeal. Is there a concealed reason? We have had the bad reasons. Why do you keep secret the good ones?" The real reason underlying this Clause is that hon. Members above the Gangway believe—it is their view quite honestly held—in the triumph of the State over the individual. They desire, on every possible occasion, to broaden the radiation of the forces which cover all the activities of the country towards the centre, the State, and they say, "If we now establish definitely that the only system that is recognised in this country in regard to Unemployment insurance is where it is done directly by the State, then we are doing something to lay down the lines right up, so to speak, to Government House from all industries, so that later, when we get this big comprehensive measure embracing all social services—

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK

Have not the hon. Member's own leaders produced a scheme in reference to mines?

Mr. SPEAKER

I hope that the hon. and learned Member will look at the clock. We have a great deal of work still to do.

Mr. HARNEY

I accept the hint which you have given to me, Mr. Speaker. It is a most enticing subject, and there are many things that I would like to say. But I think I have said enough to ask the House seriously to say, "Is it justifiable now, when there is no necessity, when the question will have to be reconsidered, to commit ourselves, once for all, to a declaration which will not only close the door upon contracting out but greatly prejudice us in arguing that contracting out should be considered when the whole matter comes up before Parliament again."

Sir K. WOOD

I beg to second the Amendment.

I have been associated with the scheme which is already in existence, and which the hon. and learned Member has said has worked very well. Insurance by industry is not an ignoble suggestion or idea. The idea that a trade should look after its own employés is a very good one. In the scheme which I had the honour some time ago to help to form it has been found that, in the first place, it has promoted a great deal of goodwill in the industry itself. The employers and the men have met together and the spirit has been excellent throughout. The scheme has worked with a minimum of expense, the expenses of management have been very low, and the scheme has also worked with great benefit to those people who are unemployed. Therefore, as far as the only scheme of which we have had any experience is concerned, it has certainly worked very well.

I am thoroughly in favour of keeping the door open. I do not see any reason why in a temporary Bill of this kind, the Minister should seek permanently to close the door against insurance by industry. When the time does come to promote further schemes, as I hope the House will agree to do, some modification will have to be made. There is a great objection to insurance by industry under particular schemes at the present time because you may be left with a number of people in the pool, and that is very unfortunate for them. In future these special trades which have schemes of their own may be in a position to make a contribution, as I think they should, to those people who are left. In any event, all that we are asking for is that the Minister of Labour should leave this matter open for a reasonable period.

The right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) was quite right in Committee when he said that it would be impossible and impracticable at the present time to suggest that special schemes should be sanctioned. We cannot do that while the Unemployment Insurance Fund is in its present state. The Amendment has been designed with a view to meeting that objection; it may not do so, but it has been designed with that worthy object in view. The idea is that no special scheme shall be sanctioned until one year after the end of the deficiency period. Anybody who wishes to give these schemes a chance, but who believes that they ought to be modified, will agree that the House will be acting reasonably to-day in keeping the door open. This is not a matter on which there is any question of party politics. A large number of Members of all parties have spoken to me on the subject and have said that while they believe in the system being maintained they think that the door should not be closed. I hope the Minister will not finally close the door on insurance by industry.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I am most anxious that the Minister should get his Bill, and therefore I have taken no part in the discussion up to the present time. The benefit period now running will be exhausted on Wednesday week. Therefore this Bill must come into operation quickly or people will get no benefit. I am glad to hear the Minister say that he thought that a Bill of this importance should have a short time for discussion on Third Reading. Therefore I intervene for a moment or two only on this question of contracting out. I listened with profound interest to the earnest and emphatic speech of my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment, and of the Seconder, but, though it grieves me to the quick, I must oppose both of them is a few words. When contracting out was put into the Bill in 1920, there was a great deal of discussion in the air as to insurance by industry. It is a very fine conception, and it did appear to all of us that, if industries were responsible for their own unemployment, they would see what they could do to keep it down to a minimum. Therefore Section 18 was put into the Bill of 1920.

Then early in 1921, finding ourselves overwhelmed with the pressure of unemployment, we had to say: "No more contracting out until the deficiency period closes." One industry got off, the insurance industry, and another has since got off, the banking, but the door was closed because we wanted the money of the low risk industries to help the high risk industries. Therefore we closed the door. That is where the matter stands at this moment and it should stay there, in default of some change being made, until the deficiency period is closed, which will be about Easter, 1927. Now this Bill says that contracting out ceases from that now on. The issue between us is, shall we leave the door open, without prejudice, until the end of the deficiency period, or shall we say that there shall not be any more contracting out? It does sound fair and reasonable to say "leave it open," but see what is going to happen.

We had a very interesting discussion in Committee on the proposal to leave the door open and it was beaten by, I think, 25 to 18, and if we now decide that we will leave it open, after having decided upstairs to close it, what is going to happen? Not industries but firm after firm will come and say, that after this discussion there was a presumption that they had a fair chance to go out at the end of the deficiency period. It will not be without prejudice. They will want to go out. They have done very well. The employers have paid 10d. and the men have paid 9d., and they have paid it cheerfully, though it bears no relation to their own unemployment risk, but they now find, looking at it not by industries but by firms, that they can cover their insurance for 3d. or 4d. a week, and I am afraid that if we leave this open now after the deficiency period closes they will come and say, "You gave us a chance to go out at the end of the deficiency period. We have been at work for two years, we have got a first class scheme, we can get the same benefit for half the contributions—"

Sir K. WOOD

It would require an Act of Parliament for that.

3.0 P.M.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I am sure that they will use this as evidence that it is not without prejudice. They will come and want to jump the claim, and all these low risk industries will go out of this great national scheme and all the high risk industries will be left by themselves. I am a bit of a Socialist in this. There is no Karl Marx in it. It is far superior to that. It is not national insurance, if you collar all the great industries and leave these poor people to look after themselves. I appeal to the Minister to stand firm. I am afraid that he will be beaten. I will go with him into the Lobby if there is a Division, but if the Minister feels that he must give way to this pressure he has got to make it perfectly clear that, if we leave this door open these people cannot come in two years, because they want to get off on the cheap, and leave the bottom dog to look after himself. It would be fatal to any insurance. I hope that the Minister will stick by his guns.

Mr. SHAW

This, I think, is an Amendment which is not at all and cannot be of party lines. On the merits of the case we shall find supporters and opposers in all parts of the House. The question is simply, is this the better way of dealing with unemployment insurance or is insurance by industry the better way? The question is, should this scheme be a national scheme or should the Minister have power to sanction a scheme of contracting out?

Mr. HARNEY

That is not the question.

Mr. SHAW

If that be not a fair way of putting the question I frankly agree that. I do not know what is a fair way.

Mr. HARNEY

I addressed myself to the question that the operation of the previous Section should now cease. The point was "now." The point was not as between national and industry insurance.

Mr. SHAW

Very well. I will try to tell you why I said now. I have been considering, when drafting this Bill, the whole condition of affairs, not merely for three months or six months but for some distance ahead. I began as a convinced believer in the principle of insurance by industry, and I first addressed myself to the constituent parts of the scheme—that is the State, and the employers and the workers. So far as the employers and workers are concerned I could best ascertain their views—and the only way I have of ascertaining their views was by ascertaining them from their organisations. There can be no question, I think, that it is to the advantage of the State to have the scheme as large as possible and containing as many "good lives," so to speak, as possible in order that the claims falling on the funds may be as low as possible. Not only is the size of the scheme important from the point of view of the "good lives," but it is important from the point of view that the larger the numbers the lower is the working expense per head. From the State point of view there are no two sides as to the advantage being in favour of the larger national scheme.

Then I approached the Confederation of Employers and I asked them to be kind enough to give me their ideas on this subject. They did so extensively, and, if I may say so, with great clearness, and I found that their organisation was definitely in favour of the national scheme and opposed to industries contracting out of the schemes. That was the second side of the triangle. So far as the organised workers were concerned, I asked their opinion equally, and I found them divided roughly into two equal parts. So that, of my three-sided triangle, 2½ sides were in favour of the national scheme and half a side in favour of insurance by industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who were the organised workers?"] The Trade Union Congress. They did the same for me as the employers, and I found them divided.

Mr. H. SPENCER

Who were the employers?

Mr. SHAW

The Confederation of Employers.

Mr. SPENCER

I have never heard of them.

Mr. SHAW

The gentlemen whom I saw certainly bulked very largely in the commercial world—rather more, perhaps, than my hon. Friend. Another thing that presented itself to me was this: There are certain industries now in a very depressed state. There are other industries which have just emerged from a state of depression, but one cannot see whether in the near future they will find the depression which they are not now experiencing. I asked myself certain practical questions. What would it have meant if some of these industries had had their own schemes? Would they have been solvent? Could they have carried on, or would they have come to the national scheme in a state of bankruptcy, asking to be taken in? Let me give a few figures. There is one industry in which the workers expressed their very strong desire to have a system of insurance by industry. It has had 40 per cent. of its people unemployed. Taking the present rate of benefit, and assuming an average of 18s.—the average of 18s. would, of course, be exceeded—the contribution for every person in that trade would have been 12s. a head per week in order to pay the benefit. I ask hon. Members, can we face a contingency like that? If this industry had had its desire granted when it wished, these people would have been faced not long after with a position that would have meant for every person working 12s. a week in order to pay the benefit. That was the cotton-weaving trade.

Mr. H. SPENCER

They want insurance by industry now.

Mr. SHAW

I do not know what they want. They have been considering these figures recently. Take the present state of affairs. I leave out the casual workers, the bottom dogs, those who have been worst hit. I take three staple industries, not of a casual character, which are now suffering severely—the engineers, iron and steel workers, shipbuilding and ship repairing workers, and the cotton textile trade. I find that if these industries had their own insurance organisation at the moment, the engineers would be paying, roughly, 3s. per week per person. With 6¾d. from the State, if the State gave it, they would still have 2s. 5¼d. to pay for every man. Workers in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing trade would at present be called upon to pay 6s. 6d. per head for every man working in order to pay the benefits under this Bill. The cotton textile trade would be contributing at the rate of 3s. 3d. per week per person. Those figures show what would or could take place if insurance by industries came into operation. Then I have to face the powerful argument put up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara). Who will ask for exemption? Obviously it will be those trades which are called sheltered, which are less subject to fluctuation—trades in which calculations have been made and it has been found better for them financially to be outside. You would be left with a residuum in your national scheme, small in numbers but extremely heavy in cost, and your last state would be worse than your first. Finally, a word about the financial side. At the present moment the cost of the administration of this scheme is roughly about 8 per cent. On the general basis there can be no hope of any saving on the mere cost of administration, because 8 per cent. is a pretty low cost of administration for a scheme involving such a large amount of work, care, and checking.

Mr. SPENCER

Eight per cent. of what?

Mr. SHAW

Of the contributions; that is the cost of the whole administration. I faced this situation frankly, and in view of present conditions and of the conditions that are likely to obtain in the future and the possibility at some time of grouping together our different systems of insurance and bringing them under one head, I thought the best thing we could have was a scheme which was general in character.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME

I only intervene in order to say why I propose to vote for the Amendment. It is not that I disagree with the general arguments advanced by the Minister of Labour and by the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara); it is because I do not think either of them is directing attention to the real problem involved. If the only issue we had to decide was whether we were going to allow free contracting out by any firm or industry, as against a comprehensive national scheme, then I would be dead against contracting out every time, because it would break the fund, and, having broken the fund, would break the system. That really is not the issue before us now, and in supporting this Amendment I would say that if, at any time, now or in the future, any firm or industry sought to contract out without doing what is fair to the general fund I would, in every case, vote against allowing them to do so. What the Minister asks us now to say is, "Let us give no industry or no firm in the future any chance of making a proposition which may not only be attractive to itself but also fair to the fund. I do not propose at this stage to argue whether it is possible in the future for firms or industries to make a proposal which is attractive to themselves and also fair to the fund, but the point has certainly not been sufficiently examined even by the firms themselves. I quite agree they have been asking too much; they are just as much at fault as the applicants at the other extreme. They want to get out on the cheap, but they must not be allowed to do so. The Minister, however, would preclude them from reforming their ways and from coming forward with alternative propositions which would be fair to him. I do not think that is the right thing to do. If this were a final and conclusive Bill I should hesitate in regard to this matter, but it is a temporary Measure. I do not know why there is any Clause dealing with this point, after the announcement by the Minister in regard to the deficiency period. I believe that, for everybody concerned, it is academic. I, personally, shall cast my vote against free and indiscriminate contracting out, but in favour of giving a period of consideration, both to the Minister and to the industries concerned, to see whether they cannot, before we consider this matter again, devise schemes which are fair to the Fund as a whole and interesting to themselves.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD

As the Minister says, in regard to the trade unions which are, so far as the workers' side of the subject is concerned, the most interested in this question, one may take it for granted that if they are divided, they are divided not so much from the point of view of industries as from the point of view of political impressions and ideas. What you find is really that those old-fashioned trade unionists, who believe in the unions as voluntary institutions, believe that they could with their employers in every industry make schemes such as any Government would adopt and would be prepared to meet the liabilities connected with them, provided the workmen and the employers themselves had the management of them, and provided the expensive bureaucratic method of distributing the benefit at present employed by the Ministry of Labour was entirely done away with. On the other hand, the other element, who are in favour of a Socialistic conception of society, say: "You must not allow this insurance to go into file hands of the voluntary trade unionists or the employers, but you must make it a State question, and we will not allow any contracting out or anything of the kind." I admit that there is no majority for either side and that we are really, as the Minister said, completely divided in these two conceptions, but what I object to in the attitude of the Minister is this, that while the trade unions who represent the manual working class of this country more directly than any other institution are divided, the Socialistic element have prevailed upon the Minister to peg down their claim by an Act of Parliament.

Mr. SHAW

May I say that there is not a word of substance in that statement?

Lieut.-Colonel WARD

Therefore, what I protest against is that the Minister should use the House of Commons for the purpose of deciding this issue, which is actually in dispute among the trade unions themselves, because, if it be once declared that there is to be no contracting out in the future, there is no doubt—and the Minister knows it very well—that to a certain extent he will damp down the efforts that are being made to draft schemes that will meet the objections of his Department for future insurance by industry. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he will damp down much of the effort that is being made now among trade unionists to evolve schemes that would meet every one of the objections that have been put forward, either by himself or by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), and I object to that. I think it unfair that an Insurance Bill that is required within the next few days should have had a con- tentious matter like this, not contentious as between different sides of this House, but among the trade unions themselves, included in it. I think it would have been infinitely better to have left the field clear, and not for the Minister to have used his authority in this way, so that if we eventually came to the conclusion that insurance by industry was not possible, we could admit it and come forward and say so. If, on the other hand, we thought that it was possible, we could come forward and say so, and ask this House to carry out. whichever we believed to be correct, after the fullest discussion given to it. This is prejudicing a question in dispute amongst trade unionists, and, as a trade unionist of pretty well as long a standing as any Member of this House, having been an official of a trade union for nearly 40 years, I say I am justified in standing here and protesting against prejudicing a discussion that is going on in our own internal organisations.

Mr. SPEAKER

I hope the House will be willing now to come to a decision. I want to remind the House that it is

necessary to recommit the Bill, in respect of one of the Amendments which the Government are going to accept., before we take the Third Reading.

Mr. MASTERMAN

Honestly, I only want to speak for three minutes, to make a general appeal to the whole House, and I guarantee not to exceed that time, and my remarks shall not be controversial. Every statement for or against contracting oat, I submit, is entirely irrelevant to this Amendment. All we are asking for is this—and here we have all the parties, I think, prepared to agree—that there should be a suspension. Even your appeal shows it is quite impossible for us to discuss contracting out in the time allowed. Let us, therefore, suspend—which is all my hon. Friend asks—for a year after the deficiency period, until we have further knowledge, and then we can debate this.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 171.

Division No. 172.] AYES. [3.24 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) Morris, R. H.
Alden, Percy Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Alstead, R. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Mosley, Oswald
Ammon, Charles George Harbison, Thomas James S. Naylor, T. E.
Ayles, W. H. Hardle, George D. Nichol, Robert
Baker, Walter Harris, Percy A. O'Grady, Captain James
Banton, G. Hastings, Somerville (Reading) Oliver, George Harold
Barnes, A. Hayday, Arthur Paling, W.
Batey, Joseph Hayes, John Henry Palmer, E. T.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Henderson, A. (Cardiff, south) Perring, William George
Bondfield, Margaret Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Perry, S. F.
Broad, F. A. Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enflld.) Pethick-Lawrence, F. w.
Brunner, Sir J. Hillary, A. E. Potts, John S.
Buchanan, G. Hodges, Frank Purcell, A. A.
Buckle, J. Hoffman, P. C. Raffan, p. W.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Hogge, James Myles Raffety, F. W.
Church, Major A. G. Hudson, J. H. Raynes, W. R.
Clarke, A. Isaacs, G. A. Richards, R.
Climie, R. Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Cluse, W. S. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Ritson, J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Jewson, Dorothea
Costello, L. W. J. John, William (Rhondda, West) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Cove, W. G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwich)
Crittall, V. G. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.) Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lansbury, George Romeril, H. G.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Law, A. Rose, Frank H.
Dukes, C. Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North) Scrymgeour, E.
Duncan, C. Leach, W. Scurr, John
Dunnico, H. Livingstone, A. M. Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lowth, T. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Egan, W. H. Lunn, William Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) Sherwood, George Henry
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas McEntee, V. L. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Gilbert, James Daniel Mackinder, W. Smillie, Robert
Gillett, George M. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome) Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Greenall, T. March, S. Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Marley, James Snell, Harry
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Maxton, James Spence, R.
Groves, T. Mills, J. E. Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Grundy, T. W. Montague, Frederick Spero, Dr. G. E.
Stephen, Campbell Viant, S. P. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Wallhead, Richard C. Willison, H.
Sullivan, J. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Thorne, w. (West Ham, Plaistow) Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Thurtle, E. Welsh, J. C. Windsor, Walter
Tillett, Benjamin Westwood, J. Wright, W.
Tinker, John Joseph Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)
Turner, Ben Whiteley, W
Turner-Samuels, M. Wignall, James TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Varley, Frank B. Williams, Lt.-col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.) Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.
Warne.
NOES.
Ainsworth, Captain Charles Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.) Greene, W. P. Crawford Philipson, Mabel
Ashley,Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Gretton, Colonel John Phillipps, Vivian
Aske, Sir Robert William Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Atholl, Duchess of Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Rathbone, Hugh R.
Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peer
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Harland, A. Rea, W. Russell
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstapie)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Harris, John (Hackney, North) Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne) Remer, J. R.
Beamish, Captain T. P. H. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Remnant, Sir James
Becker, Harry Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Rhys, Hon C. A. U.
Beckett, Sir Gervase Hindle, F. Robertson, T. A.
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Lelth) Hogbin, Henry Cairns Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Berkeley, Captain Reginald Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Ropner, Major L.
Berry, Sir George Hood, Sir Joseph Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Betterton, Henry B. Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.) Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Hore-Bellsha, Major Leslie Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Blades, Sir George Rowland Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Samuel, A, M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Blundell, F. N. Howard, Hn. D.(Cumberland,Northrn.) Sandeman, A. Stewart
Bonwick, A. Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton) Savery, S. S.
Bourne, Robert Croft Howard-Bury, Lleut.-Col. C. K. Slmms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Bowarman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hume-Williams, Sir W. Eilis Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Kay, Sir R. Newbald Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)
Briscoe, Captain Richard George Kedward, R. M. Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Brittain, Sir Harry Keens, T. Starmer, sir Charles
Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby) Kenworthy, Lt.Com. Hon. Joseph M. Steel, Samuel Strang
Buckingham, Sir H. King, Captain Henry Douglas Stewart, Maj. R. S.(Stockton-on-Tees)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Laverack, F. J. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Caine, Gordon Hall Lessing, E. Sutcliffe, T.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Linfield, F. C. Terringfon, Lady
Clarry, Reginald George Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Lloyd-Greame. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Thompson Piers G. (Torquay)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Lumley, L. R. Thomson, F, C. (Aberdeen, South)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Lynn, Sir R. J. Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Cope, Major William Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) McLean, Major A. Thornton, Maxwell R.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Maden, H. Vivian. H.
Dalkelth, Earl of Mansel, Sir Courtenay Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil) Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Dawson, Sir Philip Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.) Wells, S. R.
Deans, Richard Storry Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.
Dodds, S. R. Meller, R. J. White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Duckworth, John Mitchell, R.M.(Perth & Kinross,perth) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Dunn, J. Freeman Morrison- Bell, Major Sir A. C.(Honiton) Wintringham, Margaret
Eden, Captain Anthony Moulton, Major Fletcher Wise, Sir Fredric
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Murrell, Frank Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Elliot, Walter E. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M Nicholson, o. (Westminster) Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Norton-Griffiths, Sir John Yerburgh Major Robert D. T.
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H. Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Gates, Percy Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) Pease, William Edwin Mr. Harney and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendment made:

In page 7, lines 33 and 34, leave out the word "contributions" and insert instead thereof the word "contribution."—[Mr. Shaw.]