§ Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
§ [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1924, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament—
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw)
I want the Committee to give us this Money Resolution and I will explain as shortly as I can exactly what is required. The money power, which we need first, is a money power to provide for a higher percentage payment by the Exchequer, when the deficiency period of the present provisions expires, and we desire then to make the contribution of 70 the State one-third of the whole. I think that there can be two opinions on this point, but there is no need for any very long argument. It is the opinion of the Government that the State's liability for unemployment is as great at least as either that of the individual workers or the individual employers. This is a moderate demand coming from a party which really believes in non-contributory schemes of insurance, and I hope that the Committee will recognise our moderation and give us without demur the power for which we are asking here.
There is, however, one matter into which I think I ought to enter in view of what has been said in other connections. The Actuary's Report is based on certain figures, which we asked him to assume, and those figures were that up till the 15th October there would be 1,100,000 on the live register. I would call attention to the fact that two estimates had previously been made, and it was asserted in the House that because these estimates were so wide of the mark it was possible, in fact probable, that the present estimate was equally wide of the mark. It is true that on the figures shown the estimates made by a previous Minister of Labour appeared to be wide of the mark, but when we examine the actual facts of the case I think that the estimates made were not so very wide of the mark as has been assumed. The figures given were that in 1921 it was estimated that in June, 1922, the fund would have a credit balance of £4,750,000. The fact was that it was £14,750,000 in debt. It was assumed again in connection with the No. 2 Bill that the fund would be almost Solvent in July, 1923, and the fact was that the fund was £15,500,000 in debt.
Those are very striking figures and when given without explanation appear to denote an extraordinary wildness in estimating, but all the facts were not given. The actual estimate was based on a Bill which provided certain benefits. After the estimate had been made the House varied the benefits and the House was never told a word about these facts when these differences in estimates were brought to its attention. A similar thing took place with regard to the second estimate. The discrepancy in that case was due to causes quite different in most cases from those which had been assumed. So I ask the Com- 71 mittee not to assume that these estimates have been so wildly out but to take into account the fact that these differences were largely due to changes made in the House itself after the Estimates had been made.
Obviously in presenting a Bill such as I have had to present, it is of the essence of things that I should tell the Committee all the circumstances. I would not attempt to get any Measure passed without fully stating exactly what the implications are, and I have been very anxious not to attempt to mislead the Committee. I asked the Government Actuary to deal with figures which will bring me well within my estimate, unless something very exceptional occurs. I also asked him to estimate that up to the 15th October, 1924, there would be 1,100,000 people on the live register. The fact is that at the present moment, including a special category of short-time workers whom we have on the list, there are fewer than 1,100,000 on the live register. So I think that I am well within the mark in suggesting that the Committee cannot err if they accept these figures, and that the actual results are likely to be well inside those figures. I estimate, then, that at the end of the deficiency period, in June, 1926, there will be a million people on the live register. I must state to the Committee a figure which will insure me against the charge in future of having deliberately misled the Committee. Then, after the deficiency period has expired, I assume 800,000, and there, again, I think I have given the Committee plenty of room, and that I am well within the figure. No man can tell how many people will be on the live register, and I owe it to those who are going to vote on the proposition to give as definite an assurance as I can that every care has been taken to be well on the right side in the figures that I have given. That deals with point No. 1.
Point No. 2 is a matter on which there is likely to be more controversy. It deals with the provision that I am making for employed persons at the age of 14 and 15 years to enter the scheme. The figures as to the probable cost have been already set out in the Actuary's Report, and I think I may deal with the question of principle, because I have been informed that, not the figures, but the principle 72 itself is likely to be the determining factor in this matter. I ask the Committee to believe that neither I nor the Government have any intention whatever of doing anything that will possibly hinder or hamper educational development, but, as Minister of Labour, I have to look at people who have definitely begun to work. I have promised already to make the widest concession possible to those genuine educationists who are uneasy about this matter, and on Friday last I met a deputation, representative of all the educational bodies in the country with the exception of London, and to them I said—and I am prepared to say it to the House—that if either they or the House will help me in the Committee stage I am prepared to make any concession and to agree to any kind of wording that will give to me or to my Department the right to insure those young persons who have definitely left school and entered industry.
§ Mr. PERCY HARRIS
Could the right hon. Gentleman say why London was not represented? Was there any special reason?
§ Mr. SHAW
I met the representatives of the education authorities, and they assured me that, with the exception of London, every organisation in Great Britain was represented. That was what I understood them to say, and certainly the names of the gentlemen present were a sufficient indication that they did really represent the education authorities of this 73 country. I ask the Committee to give me this paragraph of the Resolution, whether for the moment they believe that as it stands it is good or bad, and to leave it to the Committee stage to determine whether it is or is not good. Obviously, I cannot on a Money Resolution argue—at any rate, I do not want to argue—the merits of the paragraph as it now exists. If I did, I think I could prove that from the genuine educationist's point of view there is nothing of which one need be afraid, with the concessions that I have promised to make in Committee.
The third point of the Resolution is with regard to certain members of the Air Force. Let me explain in just a few words exactly what that paragraph means. It means that when a man is called up to be trained in the Auxiliary Air Force the Government, while he is in training, shall pay a contribution on his behalf, and, when he leaves the training, those contributions will stand to his benefit in the scheme. That is all that the paragraph with regard to the Air Force means. I do not know whether the Committee will expect to have any further discussion of this matter. There has been a considerable amount of discussion on the Estimate. I have told the Committee the reason I have fixed the figures. The only three other things that come into the account are the third to be paid by the Treasury at the end of the deficiency period, the money that I want for the young people between 14 and 16 years of age, and the very minor provision with regard to the Air Force, with which, I think, all the Committee will agree.
§ Lord EUSTACE PERCY
The speech of the Minister of Labour contained at any rate one very interesting statement, the statement that his Department was in favour of an entirely non-contributory scheme of insurance. That, I think, may possibly explain. a good many things in the Bill, the Resolution in respect of which we are discussing, and it draws a very clear line between those of us on this side of the Committee and, I think, hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, who emphatically do not believe in a non-contributory scheme for unemployment insurance or any other kind of insurance and who believe that any such attempt to introduce any system of insurance on a non-contributory basis will 74 lead inevitably to those evils with which we are only too familiar in connection with the Old Age Pension system. The Minister of Labour made another rather curious statement.
§ Lord E. PERCY
I do not think that I shall be in order in discussing them, but, as the hon. and gallant Member, like many others, has, I fancy, spent most of his time during the last two or three years in talking about the evils of the means limit and so on, I think his question, was meaningless. The Minister of Labour made another statement in relation to his Bill which I confess I could not in the least understand. He said that paragraph (a) of this Resolution proposed to raise the contribution of the Exchequer to one-half of the combined contributions because he and the party behind him believe that the interest and responsibility of the Exchequer in Unemployment Insurance is at least as great as either of the other two parties. I will not on this occasion dispute that general statement, but why is it that that principle is to be brought into force after the deficiency period and rot during the deficiency period? At the present time, the Exchequer is contributing rather less than one-quarter of the combined contributions.
§ Lord E. PERCY
I beg pardon. It is more like a third. One of the reasons and one of the justifications urged by the Government for the Measure for which they are taking great credit to themselves is that the Exchequer by this Resolution is now making unemployment a national charge and taking a large proportion of the burden off the shoulders of the local authorities. That is the argument. As a matter of fact, as the Bill stands at present, that is an absolutely illusory statement so far as the deficiency period is concerned. If anybody will examine the average rates per head of Poor Law relief throughout the country, he will see that in respect of the average family of a man and wife and three children, where this Unemployment Bill gives an extra benefit of 6s. per week, the Exchequer's part, namely, one-fourth or rather less than one-fourth, is equal to no 75 more than between 4 and 6 per cent. of the local poor law expenditure. It is a grant-in-aid of no more than between 4 and 6 per cent., and really to take credit in this way for taking a great burden off the boards of guardians is to play with this Committee and with the electors. If the Minister of Labour really believes in equality of contributions why does he not introduce it now during the deficiency period instead of waiting until after the deficiency period, and thus, at any rate, give some substance to the claim of the Government that they are relieving local rates to a very appreciable extent?
I am afraid that I have been led off the main purpose of the Resolution by the remarks of the Minister of Labour, but I confess that for myself I entertain the very gravest doubt and apprehension as to the whole of the policy embodied in this Resolution, and I could have wished that the Minister of Labour had not passed so very lightly over the real crux of the matter we are discussing, namely, the soundness of the finance of this proposal. After all, the Minister of Labour confined himself in justification to saying, "I gave the Actuary what I thought was en outside figure, and therefore I must be quite safe." Even if it was an outside figure, he is not safe on the Actuary's own showing. Let me read to the Committee one passage in the Actuary's Report. The Actuary first says the extra cost of this scheme will be £10,000,000, with a live register of 1,000,000 and £8,000,000 with a live register of 800,000. That is to say, the extra cost is going, roughly, to be £10 per head of the unemployed on the live register. Then he goes on to say:In connection with the Estimates here given, it should be understood that the numbers on the live register, as assumed, will include a certain number of persons who, under previous conditions and failing the exercise of Ministerial discretion on their behalf, would presumably not have remained on the register in the absence of continued benefit rights. The number in this class cannot be estimated, and to this, extent it is impracticable to compute the full value of the concessions proposed by the Bill.As a matter of fact, the Actuary, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's Strike Clause, confesses himself absolutely unable to make anything like an accurate estimate. May I point out to the Com- 76 mittee one rather curious thing about the estimate which he does give I £10,000,000 a year on a live register of 1,000,000 is just about equal, or was when the Actuary drew up his Report, to the whole deficit on the Fund. The increased benefits proposed by the right hon. Gentleman mean that whereas on the existing basis the fund would be completely solvent in one year from now, it will not at any rate be solvent until July, 1926, and, therefore, for a whole year longer, the burden upon the employer and employed, and on industry, will be something like 60 per cent. greater than it would otherwise be. It is a direct tax on industry, a direct producer of unemployment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Does the Noble Lord wish to infer that the workmen's contribution is a tax on industry?"] Of course. The worker and the employer are partners in industry, and any burden which falls upon either or both is a charge on industry. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite really think that you can tax a workman as much as you like without it being a burden on industry? Do they think that the only thing that is a burden on industry is a tax on the employer? These little colloquies add enormously to the length of my speech. I think every fair-minded person will agree that when I talk about the employers' and the employés' contributions being a tax on industry I am perfectly right in so defining it. If the hon. Member does not like it being called a burden on industry, I will call it a burden on the workman. You are putting off by a whole year the time when the workman's contribution will be reduced by 3d. per week and you are, for that year, continuing this tax on the workman. Do hon. Members prefer that as a description of their proposal?
This is not all, because the Actuary foresees something which cannot yet be estimated. At the end of the deficiency period this is going to happen. The increased contribution from the Exchequer is going to be about £5,800,000. The increase benefits on a. live register of 800,000 are going to be £8,000,000. You have an estimated surplus of £1,000,000 if these imponderable factors, which the Actuary foresees but cannot estimate, are wiped out. By the increased benefits you are converting a surplus which would be £9,000,000 into a surplus of £1,000,000, and you are doing that at the expense of the employed, the employer 77 and the Exchequer. That £9,000,000 surplus, as far as I have calculated, is something very like 25 per cent. of the whole annual contributions of the three parties. If you did not increase your rate of benefits you would be able to reduce the contributions proposed by almost 25 per cent. and possibly by more than that, in view of the imponderable factors to which the Actuary has referred. Is it nothing, this burden you are thus placing on the workmen and on the employers? Yet that is the result of it, whatever you may say. Not only does it impose that burden, but it proposes a rate of contribution and a rate of benefit which, on the actual showing of the Minister's figures, will only give you £1,000,000 surplus, a surplus which may disappear by reason of the operation of those factors which the Actuary admits he cannot estimate.
Is that safe business for the insurance fund? I can imagine it may be regarded as safe by those who believe in noncontributory insurance, but it means that the Insurance Fund is not going to be a fund at all. It is going to be an account out of which are paid, year by year, out of the receipts of the year, benefits to the workman. There is no prospect of funding any part of that fund. There is no prospect of building up a strong insurance fund—no prospect whatever. It remains purely an account from year to year—an unfunded Insurance Fund. Those who do not believe in non-contributory insurance are looking forward to the working out of a system of combined insurance, but by the way you are treating this unemployment insurance fund, you are taking away from the employer, the employed and the Exchequer resources which otherwise would be at their disposal for granting additional benefits. You are mortgaging the future in every way, and such mortgaging of the future we cannot view with anything but the gravest dissatisfaction.
On Paragraph (c) there is one point which, I think, has not yet been touched upon. We have had the effect of this insurance of juveniles discussed from the point of view of its effect on the minds of parents—
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
There is an Amendment in my name dealing specifically with paragraph (c). Would it not be more convenient if we, could take this 78 discussion on that instead of having to repeat our speeches over again?
§ Lord E. PERCY
I am only proposing to say a very few words on this subject. We have had this question discussed from the point of view of its effect on the minds of the parents and also from the point of view of its effect on the minds of the local education authority, but we have not yet had it discussed from the point of view of its effect on the mind of the child. I want to suggest to the Minister of Labour this point—the way in which it will bring the juvenile between 14 and 16 years of age into that weekly crush at the Employment Exchanges when drawing benefits. Some of us have seen that crush at certain Employment Exchanges, and we say it is the worst kind of atmosphere into which you could possibly bring boys of that age. [An HON. MEMBER.: "Will you agree to raise the school age?"] I have always been in favour of raising the school age.
§ Lord E. PERCY
If it is a separate part of the Employment Exchange that does not satisfy me, but if they are paid by the Education Authority then my objection largely vanishes. I cannot undertake the responsibility of raising the school age to 15, when the present President of the Board of Education himself says he finds himself powerless to do it. The interruptions of hon. Members opposite have made my remarks somewhat disjointed. All T want to say, in conclusion, is that on this side we do not regard this proposal as financially sound. We are not satisfied that it is. The Minister of Labour has said nothing which can make us regard it as sound. He has provided, in fact, no defence for it whatever. The margin on the Minister of Labour's own showing is small. Even if this proposal does not run this fund into a continued deficit it does place a 79 large continued burden on both employers and employed, and it makes it utterly impossible to put the fund on a really sound and strong basis. With all the burdens which it casts upon industry, upon employers, employed, and the State, it will do nothing to lighten the burden on the local Poor Rate. The proposal is an unsatisfactory one, it is a dangerous one, and it is likely to prejudice the whole future of contributory insurance.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
The Noble Lord has said a good many interesting things, but there is one which profoundly struck me as desirable to be enshrined. I was glad to hear the statement made from those benches that workmen and employers are partners in industry. That is a very interesting thing to have on record from those benches. It is the first time I have heard it admitted, and I repeat it ought to be enshrined, that workmen and employers are partners in industry. Apparently now we are all agreed on that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] When we do agree our unanimity is wonderful. I am much obliged to the Minister for the detailed and careful examination he gave us of this Money Resolution. Paragraph (a) authorised the revision of the proportion to be paid into the Insurance Fund by the Treasury after the deficiency period is closed. The Act of 1911 fixed the Treasury contribution at one-third of the combined contributions of employers and employed. In 1920 we fixed the Treasury contribution in relation to each class of insured person. That is rather a different position. For men it came out at one-fourth of the combined contributions of employers and employed. For women, it came out at more than one-fourth but at less than one-third. For boys between 16 and 18 years of age it came out at exactly one-third, and for girls between 16 and 18 it came out at rather under one-third The Noble Lord was a little in error. The contribution of the Treasury is approximately one-third, not of the whole, but of the combined contributions of employers and employed. Last year's Act provided that when the deficiency period is over and the contributions are reduced, the State's contribution should be definitely one-fourth of the combined contributions. Paragraph (a) says that it shall be one-half of the combined contributions, and one- 80 third of the whole, therefore, after the deficiency period. That is the proposition. For instance, a man would pay 6d. instead of 9d.; the employer would pay 6d. instead of 10d.; and the Treasury would pay 6d. instead of 6¾d I am taking men only.
I very cordially support the proposition. The State certainly has a third party interest in the scheme; moreover, it administers the lot. After the Armistice for a long time the State paid out of work donation on a non-contributory basis. The Act of 1920 brought all that to a close—the non-contributory out of work donation scheme, and turned it down the channel of the Insurance Act. With what result? From that date the Treasury contributed, roughly, between £12,000,000 and £13,000,000 a year, instead of £50,000,000, as it had been doing under the out of work donation scheme. Had the out of work donation scheme continued, the 1921–1922 contribution would have been nearer £100,000,000 than 250,000,000. The Treasury has not done badly out of this. I cordially agree that my right hon. Friend's proposition, after the deficiency period is closed, is a perfectly sound one. All this will not come into operation until the close of the deficiency period, which is fixed by the Actuary for June, 1926. The extension and increase of benefits which have already been enacted or are proposed in this Bill postpone solvency, and keep up the abnormally high contributions, which in many cases have had no relation whatever to the unemployment risk of the contributor, until after that date is reached. If benefit could have been left as it is—I do not say that was possible—solvency would have been reached before the end of this year, and not in a year's time, as was stated by the Noble Lord, and then 9d. a week, taking the men again, would have become 6d., and 3d. would have been saved, which we could have used for the purpose of dealing with old age pensions or of reducing the age at which a man would draw the old age pension. My right hon. Friend took the other line.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
They are paying 9d. now in had times. They could surely pay 9d. in good times. If you had 81 left benefits as they were the contribution would have come down to 6d., and you would have had 3d. left, and you could have left that to stand., and could have applied it to some other benefit. That is the proposition which I am putting. The Minister has taken the other course. The old age pension is 10s. I am not interfering with it. I am saying, "Here is 3d. which you are paying in now, which is not wanted for unemployment insurance. Will you let me apply it to improve the les, pension or reducing the age at which a man gets the 10s., or starting widows' pensions, if you like?" My right hon. Friend says, "I cannot help that; I wish I could. I have to go on adding to the benefits, and, therefore, postponing the date of solvency." My opinion is that we are rather getting this thing into what I might call a topsy-turvy condition. At one end of the line we have 300,000 young fellows, hardy, stout and enduring, vainly walking the streets in the search for work, and subsisting upon the very slender assistance now to be increased by the unemployment benefit, or such relief as the Poor Law gives them. At the other end of the line we have a number of old men, a very much larger percentage than usual, because they came in during the War to take the young fellows' places. They are holding down jobs, but would gladly give them up and retire if they could. Their decent retirement might have been assisted if we had had this 3d. at an earlier date in order to extend existing schemes.
There is a number of us in this House, not confined to any particular part of it, who would have been glad to have facilitated that, and to have taken this 3d. a week by which the unemployment contribution would otherwise have been reduced, and to have applied it in such a way as would have enabled us to let the old men give up toil, and to move the young men up to take their places. But that cannot be done now in any case until after June, 1926. The young fellows are getting this money, as the Lord Privy Seal would probably say, without service in return, and the old men are still hanging on to jobs that they would gladly give up because they have no decent means of retirement before them. The Minister's choice was a difficult one, and if I had been in his place, I do not know that I should have taken any other course. As 82 to paragraph (b), I will not speak at length, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) is to move an Amendment to it.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
It is an Amendment to omit paragraph (b). My right hon. Friend desires to leave out paragraph (b) altogether.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I have no shadow of doubt that the great majority of the members of this Committee very cordially dislike paragraph (b) in its present form, and I warn the Minister that if this Amendment goes to a division I shall feel bound to support it. I appreciate the Minister's motive. What he says in effect is, "Whether I like it or not, these children do go to work at 14 years of age. We do not know where they are, or what they are doing. Let me keep a hand on them if I can. How can I do it? By putting them into the Insurance Act. If they draw my benefit I shall be able to keep an eye on them." He said further, "If you do not like 14 years of age, and think that that will standardise the age at which a child becomes a potential wage-earner, leave it generally; leave it, and say that directly a child has satisfied the educational law and is no longer compelled to go to school, and enters an insurable occupation, it shall be insured under the conditions of this Bill." That would be a better form. But the more many of us think about this paragraph, the more we dislike it. I cannot understand why the Minister has left it in its present form, because he promised that he would take out altogether the reference to the age.
I have nothing to say on paragraph (c), except to comment upon an omission. It is with regard to the agricultural worker. I listened with profound sympathy to my right hon. Friend's kindly reference to the agricultural worker, and I should 83 have thought that he would have taken the necessary power to deal with him. I am not an agricultural representative, and I am speaking only for myself in the matter. I should have thought he would have taken power in the Resolution to bring in the agricultural workers under a special scheme of their own, with reduced contributions and proportionately reduced benefits. Even then, of course, he would probably have wanted to exempt all those who are under a yearly system of hire. He has not taken that power, however, and if he wished to move to do it now he would have to begin all over again. Summarising my remarks, I support paragraph (a). I look upon paragraph (b) with the greatest anxiety, and I should be easier if it were knocked out altogether. As to paragraph (c), I think my right hon. Friend would have been well advised to have taken power, which I think he will find it necessary to take some day, in order to do something to cover, under appropriate conditions, the agricultural worker.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
I rise only for the purpose of elaborating the question which I put to the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) in the course of his speech. It is interesting to know that the Noble Lord and the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), who sits beside him, apparently agree with the Marxian theory of the governing law of wages. I understood from both that if the workman's contribution to the unemployment scheme were made less or turned down altogether, it would result in a reduction of wages. If it does not mean that, the idea of this contribution being a tax on industry is altogether wrong. It either comes from the wages that the workman can get in any case, or it comes because the employer pays it under force majeure, and would reduce wages by the amount that the workman was not compelled to pay. It is a very interesting point. Personally, I think that you could not reduce the wages so easily.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
That was the inference which I drew from the Noble 84 Lord's argument, and when I put a question the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), who was seated beside the Noble Lord, assented by nodding his head. I should like to know how otherwise this can be regarded as a tax upon industry? When one finds hon. Gentlemen on the other side so keen about taxes on industry in relation to this matter, one wonders why they are not equally keen about other and more obvious taxes on industry. We have raised from time to time various points with regard to taxes upon industry, but little notice has been taken of those points by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is wonderful to notice on this occasion the unanimity of opinion with regard to the question of raising the school age. Apparently nobody is in favour of bringing children under this insurance scheme and I have heard more expressions from all parts of the House on the necessity and desirability of raising the school age during this Debate than I ever heard before. But if these expressions of sympathy are genuine it merely shows the rather foolish and futile manner in which hon. Members of this House seek to obtain the reforms which they desire. If we really desire to raise the school age—and I am very much in favour of doing so, and I believe so is my party—and if we have the unanimity which has been expressed to-day, I suggest the time has come to raise the school age at once. Let us have an all-round system of secondary education. That at least would be something of a tangible character, and I suggest that the Minister of Labour should confer with the President of the Board of Education and bring in a Bill amending the Education Act by raising the school age. It would be a tangible asset for this country; not only would it be good for the children but it would be valuable for the community. I am thoroughly convined we still have the unemployment problem before us. It seems to be regarded as a certainty that the margin is not likely to sink below one million, which reminds me of a remark made by the late Prime Minister when he questioned whether unemployment was not becoming endemic instead of epidemic. If it is becoming endemic and if we are to have one million people constantly unemployed, then the sooner we get a number of children out of employment in 85 order to give them a proper education the better for all concerned. Let us give them an education which will fit them to compete in the world market as long as our present system of international competition remains. Only by educating the people can this country maintain itself as a trading nation in face of the world's competition. Other nations recognise that fact. Germany, about which we hear so much, foolishly cut down her education grant but when the War was over she increased it in spite of her poverty, and she is doing all she can to give an education to her children at any rate as adequate as that which was given before the War, and we know that Germany was not behindhand in this respect before the War. When we begin to probe into the elementary causes of this problem, we should consider the desirability of trying to discover and make use of the dormant genius which is lying ready to hand among the children of the country. We should be better engaged in developing that genius by raising the school age and making all-round secondary education possible than by bringing boys and girls under this unemployment scheme. I trust that the expressions of opinion we have heard from all sides of the House regarding this very necessary reform mean that it will shortly be an accomplished fact.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The manuscript Amendment which has been handed by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Neil Maclean) in his own name and the names of other hon. Members—in paragraph (a), to leave out from the word "rate" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert "which will provide full maintenance to the unemployed person and his dependants equal to that which would obtain were he in full time employment"—is out of order because it would increase the charge. I therefore call upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) to move his Amendment.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
May I draw your attention, Sir, to a previous ruling upon an Amendment of a similar character moved by me in relation to a Money Resolution on 24th October, 1921. That Money Resolution was also in connection with an Unemployment Insurance Bill, and a number of Amendments were submitted by various individual Members and officially on behalf of the parties in the 86 House. All the Amendments were ruled out of order with the exception of one which I submitted. Sir Edwin Cornwall, who was then Deputy-Chairman, ruled that my Amendment was in order and the Amendment which I now submit is practically similar and seeks to do no more than the previous Amendment to which I refer. I would therefore ask for reasons why this Amendment is regarded as being out of order.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The reason for my ruling is obvious. The Amendment proposes to take out certain words and to insert other words providing full maintenance for an unemployed person and his dependants equal to that which they would receive were he in full-time employment. It is perfectly obvious that the charge to be imposed for that purpose would be considerably above that stated in the Money Resolution.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
In justification of my request, may I read what occurred on the previous occasion to which I have referred? I then proposed to leave out of the Money Resolution, which was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) and was in terms almost precisely similar to those of the present Resolution, the wordssum which would be produced by weekly contributions paid in respect of insured persons at the rate of threepence in the case of men and twopence in the case of women, boys and girls.I proposed to insert, instead of those words, the wordstrade union rate of wages paid in the district in which the unemployed person resides.That involved a higher rate than was proposed in the Money Resolution, and the Deputy-Chairman, Sir Edwin Cornwall, said:I think that would be in order.The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) then addressed the Chairman and said:You have already ruled that we cannot by any Amendment of this Resolution make it wider than the Resolution passed by the House setting up this Committee. The proposal of the hon. Member now is to extend the amount provided by Parliament to a sum equal to the trade union rate of wages paid in the district in which the unemployed person resides. That obviously is 87 an enormous extension of the decision of House yesterday, and I submit the Amendment is necessarily out of order.THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have looked at it very carefully, and it does not seem to me it is out of order, because the Resolution setting up the Committee deals with the payment of grants, and this Amendment deals with the grant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1921; col. 589, Vol. 147.]
§ Mr. MACLEAN
I am reading from the discussion which took place upon a Money Resolution similar to the Resolution we are discussing here, in the Committee stage which is the same stage at which we have arrived here. I submit it is precisely the same position, the same kind of Bill and the same kind of Money Resolution.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
With a different Chairman, of course, and therefore a different ruling. I think I have submitted sufficient to justify me in asking you, Sir, to revise your ruling, which is in direct violation to a ruling given, as I submit, in similar circumstances on a similar Amendment. I make this suggestion with all deference, because, on the occasion which I am citing, the House had an opportunity for several days of considering the Money Resolution, and Members were enabled to put Amendments on the Order Paper, and there was an opportunity of considering those Amendments prior to the discussion. I apologise that in this case I have only been able to hand in the Amendment in manuscript form, and necessarily that has not given you, Sir, nor the Clerks at the Table, the same opportunity of considering the matter as was afforded on the previous occasion.
§ The CHAIRMAN
This Resolution is submitted under Standing Order 71A, and the King's Recommendation which was signified from the Front Government Bench to-day covers the Resolution. The Amendment of the hon. Member is wider than the Resolution, and for that reason I have ruled it out of order, and for that reason I still think it is out of order.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
On a point of Order. [Interruption.] I am perfectly justified in raising a point of Order. I am rais- 88 ing a question which is contingent upon a previous ruling by a previous Chairman. We, as private Members, have a right to he told why an Amendment which has been ruled as in order on one occasion, should be ruled out of order on another. The previous ruling was never challenged by hon. Members on the other side. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham never challenged the ruling of the Chair.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to support me. The Money Resolution which is before us to-day comes under the same Standing Order as the Resolution which was moved on the 24th October, and we have a right to be informed why this Standing Order should have one application in 1921 and have a contrary application in 1924. I think the Committee is entitled to know the full reasons why these things are being ruled out of order. Otherwise, it would have been possible for those of us who want to express our views on the principle contained in the Amendment you are now ruling out of order to have raised the whole question of that principle in the general Debate that was proceeding before the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) rose to move his Amendment. As soon as he moves that Amendment, it limits the whole scope of the discussion, and I suggest either that you allow my Amendment to be considered to be in order, or go back upon the general discussion and allow us to discuss the principles contained in the Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The Motion to which my hon. Friend has alluded is not exactly on all fours with the Resolution before us to-day. The Resolution, as I have pointed out, is under Standing Order 71A, and there is no record of that in the Records of the House dealing with the previous Motion. I have already indicated why I have ruled the Amendment out of order, because it means a very largely increased charge.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
I am not desiring to enter into any argument, but I have surely a right to know why, as a private Member having rights in this House, which are and ought to be conserved to him as well as to all private Members, this is ruled out by the Standing Order on the ground that it exceeds the sum, when the previous Resolution also largely exceeded the sum which the Money Resolution in those days would also have allowed. Surely that is a perfectly justifiable request to put to the Chairman.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I cannot enter into the mind of my predecessor when he was sitting in the Chair in relation to the matter then under discussion. I have to consider the matter as it presents itself to me now, and under these conditions I have given my ruling that the hon. Member's Amendment is out of order.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
On a point of Order. Do I understand that you base your ruling, Mr. Chairman, on the fact that the reference is to Standing Order 71A (King's Recommendation to be signified)? I understood that this did not appear in the Resolution to which my hon. Friend referred, but, if I may submit to you, it is only a difference in time. The King's Recommendation was signified the day before, and it was to that recommendation that the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) referred on that occasion, and obviously the Chairman of that day had the reference in his mind when he ruled my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) in order on that occasion.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The Motion to which reference has been made was a vague Motion and simply said, "authorise the payment out of moneys," but this Motion before us to-day deals with the amount of contributions and states the definite amount of contribution that has to be taken out of Government money.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
On the point of Order. It is very important to know what precedent in future the Committee will follow in a matter of this kind. Let me submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that on the Motion made on the previous occasion, on 90 the contribution, it is true, was only for a period of six months, but it wasa contribution towards grants to be paid to unemployed workers during a period of six months, not exceeding the amount determined by the Treasury to be approximately equivalent to the sum which would be produced by weekly contributions, paid in respect of insured persons at the rate of threepence in the case of men and twopence in the case of women, boys, and girls."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1921; col. 581, Vol. 147.]There you have the standard laid down as approximately equal to that. Here the Resolution says that it is at a rate not exceeding one half of the aggregate amount. It is only a different standard; the method of computation is different. I suggest that, if the former ruling was right, my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) should be in order on this occasion.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I have pointed out that the Motion referred to on a previous occasion was a most indefinite Motion. The Motion that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) has just read is not the one to which the King's Recommendation was signified, which was on the day before that. I have pointed out that on that Motion the whole thing was quite indefinite, but on this Motion it is quite specific.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
May I ask leave to move to report Progress, in order that we may discuss the ruling that you have just given, and that we may discuss the question that arises on this matter? It is obvious that if we pass on to the Amendment—
§ The CHAIRMAN
I have no doubt the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) knows that. I was going to point out that, if we do not spend too much time on the Amendment which is to be moved, we can go back to the general discussion.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
I am asking your leave to move to report Progress. Are you going to rule me out of order?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I have said that I am not taking the Motion to report Progress, and that is within my right.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
On a point of Order. I wish to give notice that I shall place on the Order Paper a Motion drawing attention to the ruling you have now given, as distinguished from the ruling of your predecessor in the Chair.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
On another point of order. I understand the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) is about to move an Amendment which does not appear on the Paper, and, of course, there is a reason for that. I understand that the subsequent discussion must be confined to that Amendment. We might go on till 8.15 discussing this Amendment, which raises the very controversial question of boys and girls leaving school, and their insurance money, and so on. Would it not be possible to have some further discussion on the general question, as we have no guarantee, and I know it is not in your power, Mr. Chairman, to prevent a discussion on the right hon. Member's Amendment going on for the rest of the time allowed to the Committee? The right hon. Gentleman is the second Privy Councillor upon whom you have called from the bench below the Gangway on this side. Only a Noble Lord spoke previously, and the only back bencher or private Member who has had any chance of intervening so far was the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). Under these circumstances, and especially in view of the fact that this Amendment does not appear on the Paper, and that there may he other Amendments to be moved by the right hon. Member for Rusholme, might we not discuss a little further the general question, which is so important—there are some points that some of us hope to bring up—and then pass on to the Amendment at a later hour?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I noticed that those who did speak on the general question were dealing with this Amendment more or less indirectly, and, therefore, I thought we might as well get on to it at once.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (b). I can assure 92 my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that I have no further Amendments handed in, and I think it is your opinion, Mr. Chairman, and that of the Committee that this specific question, which, as far as I know, is the only question that can be called controversial—and I am not sure that this is controversial—should be disposed of before the Committee continues with the general discussion. I hope very much that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), who spoke with great force in favour of the principle that I am submitting to the Committee, will find it incumbent upon him to support this Amendment in word, and in vote. I can assure the Committee that I will not trouble them at any undue length, but this seems to me to be a vital Amendment. Its object is to remove from compulsory insurance the children between 14 and 16 years of age. I must apologise to the Committee for not having given further notice of the Amendment, but we received this Financial Resolution only on Friday, and there was no means of getting it on the Paper at all for to-day. I, therefore, hope that my apology will be accepted.
I greatly desired, if I could, to leave this controversial matter to the Committee upstairs, as my right hon. Friend suggested that we should do, but when I come to the terms of the Financial Resolution, as it is drawn at present, and having consulted with such authorities as I have been able to consult in the last few hours, I find that, if the Resolution be passed in its present form, it will so limit any possibilities of alteration in the Committee upstairs that it will rule out most of the suggestions which were made, during the Debate last Tuesday, of alternative ways of spending the Government money which they are prepared to give, rather than on compulsory unemployment insurance. Therefore, I want to ask the Committee to join with me in inviting my right hon. Friend to withdraw this particular paragraph of his Resolution, as he could do by leave of the Committee, and to leave the Committee upstairs to debate the question. When he sees what the opinion of that Committee is, it is entirely within his power to bring in a special Resolution in conformity with the desires of the Committee in connection with the treatment of this particular class of children. If he 93 does not do that, and if he succeeds in inducing this Committee to vote with him, there is no means of carrying out the many suggestions which have been voiced by all sides on this subject. I am very much hoping that my right hon. Friend will give way to what I believe is the opinion of all parties. Last Tuesday there was not a single Member of the House who got up to support this proposal, and earnest and eloquent speeches came from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) and the hon. Member for Govan, from hon. Members opposite, and from hon. Members like my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), imploring the Government not to proceed with this particular proposal. Therefore, I submit that I am entirely within the promise I made last Tuesday to the Committee to endeavour, in an entirely non-party fashion, to deal with this scheme of social reform.
In order to make my remarks as brief as possible, let me, if I do not appear to be didactic, draw up under one or two heads our objections to this proposal. The first is that you are taking from the children you insure, under 16, in respect of their insurance money, from those children themselves, and you are paying it over to the insurance of adults. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said that that did not matter, because in future years they might get some benefit from it in the general unemployment plan. I would submit that you should keep to your general unemployment scheme as you have it now, and, if you want more money, give more money from the State, or, if necessary, from the contributory elements to it, but do not try to get more money by taking the children's money. It is not fair. If my right hon. Friend will agree that he will devote the whole of the children's money to the interests of the children in some way or other, then we shall be very glad to consider any scheme in Committee. That cannot be done under this Resolution, because you bring in definitely contributions in respect of employed persons of the age of 14 or 15.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
Every possibility in the world. This does not arise in Committee of Ways and Means. The only reason the right hon. Gentleman brought in this Resolution before the Bill was because the right hon. Gentleman was specially appealed to. Normally, the Financial Resolution comes in after going to Committee. It is a totally different procedure from that arising out of Ways and Means. Therefore, it is possible to withdraw this Resolution and bring in a fresh Resolution, to take money you think you can get for this purpose, and to use it for the purpose we all desire. The Government submitted to us some actuarial calculations as to the amount of money these children would pay, and the amount of benefits they would receive, but, after my right hon. Friend introduced the Bill, he stated he was prepared to modify it in order that none of these children should receive any benefit until they had been 30 weeks employed. Does not that completely destroy the whole actuarial calculations of his Bill? It means that you will take very much more money from the children, and give much less return to the children than in the original Bill. Then my right hon. Friend said he was prepared to raise the age from 14, but the more he raises the age the less benefit these children get. Suppose he raises the age to 15. You then say you will pay no benefits to children of 13 until they have worked for eight months, and there are only four months in which they can receive any benefit. In each case it is taking enormously more from the children than you give back to them. Since last Tuesday I have been looking through the Debates on the great. National Health Insurance, Bill of 1911, and, in connection with the health scheme, we had to resist Amendments made in Committee to lower the age of the children included in the scheme from 16 to 14. We resisted those ideas, and carried the Committee with us in making the starting age 16.
There were two pleas, which are as valid to-day as they were 12 years ago. The first was that if you insured these children compulsorily, the rate of sickness in those ages were so comparatively small 95 that you were taking more from those children than you ought in order to pay for general insurance funds. The second, which was put by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway again and again, was that we should stabilise the age of the commencement of industrial life at 16. We do do not want to do anything now to reduce that stabilised age, which we intend to set forth as an ideal, and work for by every means in our power. The third point—and nothing has been said in Debate which makes me withdraw from it —was very well put my my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Education and the hon. Member for Wellingborough, who has a right to speak for a large number of the teaching profession in this country, and that is that by early and premature insurance of these children, you are both influencing parents and backward local authorities, the parents to send their children earlier to work, and the local authorities to say that it is better they should go to work than raise the age to 15, which they can do with the sanction of the Board of Education. The fourth point is that there are no schools for these children in any way satisfactory, and there is no accommodation for them, if after eight months they go out of employment; and, from the nature of the case, there cannot be any satisfactory schools for them unless a fundamental change be made in the whole manner of applying assistance and relief. Under the conditions proposed you cannot get anything like an education or training for after life, and I once more challenge my right hon. Friend whether he cannot, as an alternative to this, abandon this compulsory insurance, and see if he cannot use the money for providing maintenance for those who need it, so as to keep the children in real schools over 14 years of age before they go out to work at all.
The last reason I submit to the Committee is this. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education told us last Tuesday that he saw no particular harm in this proposition. I think there is harm; I think harm has been done to the children between 16 and 18 whom we have tried to get in in the unsatisfactory school. They go out in a worse condition than they went in, and thoroughly disgusted with anything the State calls education. But in so far as you insure children who are in continual work, so 96 that they pay full contributions from 14 to 16, or 15 to 16, you are offering them no benefit at all. You are taking their money without any return, and you are making it harder for the President of the Board of Education to establish those ideals which he has been preaching up and down the country. Since last Tuesday public opinion has had pretty clear means of declaring itself on this subject. There has not been a single great newspaper, body of teachers, trade union, or any other body which has a right to speak, which has not been definitely opposed to this scheme. Take it back, and consider it a little more. If a scheme is proposed necessitating a Resolution which will meet with the general consent of those in the House who care most for these children, we will be willing to give it all facilities far its passage; but if you pass this Resolution there will be no alternative but compulsory insurance for children between the ages of 14 and 16, or receiving no money at all from the State. Therefore I ask all to join with me in appealing to the right hon Gentleman, and I submit that if he does not see his way to do this I have a right to take the sense of the Committee, regardless of party Whips, as to whether they desire this compulsory insurance for these children.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
On a point of Order. Is the Minister of Labour entitled to reply to criticisms that have taken place on a general discussion of the Bill, or is he merely entitled to reply to anything my right hon. Friend has said?
§ Mr. SHAW
With regard to this Amendment, I think everybody in the Committee is agreed that what we want to do is the best thing for the children. About that there is no question. The only difference of opinion is, what is the best thing to do for these young persons? I myself want to take the sense of the Committee, and in such a way as to give a guarantee that the interests of the children will be properly safeguarded, and not to force an opinion of mine on 97 the Committee, nor, if I may so put it, to have a dogmatic opinion of an educational character forced on the Committee, without regard to other interests which really do belong to the children, and have a great deal to do with their lives as industrial workers. If it were possible to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and still have a practical way of dealing in Committee upstairs with the question at length and in detail, I would accept at once the Amendment, but I am instructed that if I accept this Amendment, this part of the Bill goes out definitely, and we can only deal with children again by getting a fresh Money Resolution. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to leave me this Money Resolution, and to discuss his question upstairs, and I will give him this guarantee, that if the Committee upstairs come to a decision, on the part of the Government, will not ask Parliament to reverse that decision. It can then be argued out in detail.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
If the right hon. Gentleman will leave the question open, and let the Committee discuss it, and he gets a practically unanimous opinion of the Committee, he will have no difficulty in getting all parties to support a Money Resolution in this House.
§ Mr. SHAW
But that would mean bringing in another Money Resolution. What I suggest is, to leave this Money Resolution, and what is decided in Committee I will accept on the part of the Government. Then we need not come to the House again with another Money Resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I am given the powers to have money for these young persons from 14 to 16, you can put the Clause as you like in the Bill to deal with the money, but, if you do not give it to me ipso facto the Clauses come out of the Bill, and I can only replace them by a Money Resolution to be brought before the House again.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
This is my point—I should not have raised it if we could do that. Suppose the Committee want this grant as a maintenance grant for children to be kept at school after 14, we cannot do it under this Resolution. We can do it if the right lion. Gentleman comes down to the House with another Money Resolution.
§ Mr. SHAW
The position boils itself down to this. Is it admitted that if this paragraph be taken out these Clauses with regard to children come out also? If that be admitted, I ask the Committee not to take away this part of the Money Resolution, because that will make it absolutely impossible to go into the matter at all until we know whether we can have a Money Resolution for the things the right hon. Gentleman advocates.
§ Mr. SHAW
Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to suggest that we should draw one so wide that we need not come to the House again? I say that everything you suggest doing to-day can be done under this Clause—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] —just as well as you can do it in any other way. Hon. Members have said that the money from the children under 16 would be paying for the adults. Obviously, the children under 16 are likely to pay as much in contributions as they get in benefit; but when they reach 16 they will have contributions to their credit that will stand them in good stead during the abnormal periods they may have after 16, so that it is not lost money: it simply stands to their credit, and gives them a guarantee of benefit in case of unemployment. I am told that public opinion has been definitely formed. Has it been formed on ex parte statements, or on both sides of the case having been stated?
What is the position of affairs? The position of affairs at the moment is that children from the age of 14 to 16 are in the industrial market, are being unemployed, and are kicking about the streets. The educationist says: "You are going to injure the chances of getting the age increased." I reply to that: "The child is now kicking about the streets, and that child is as valuable to me as a temporarily unemployed person as he is to the educationist who has lost touch, finished with him, and cannot deal with him at all."
§ Mr. SHAW
If the Bill becomes an Act, with this Clause in it, a child that has been definitely working for 30 weeks, and has paid the contributions, is entitled to the benefit. Remember, I am not dealing with any children at all who have not definitely left school. I have already offered to the educationists to adopt a form of words whereby a child, if when he has definitely left school, if he is over statutory school age when he has begun to work, when the school has finished with him, I am allowed to insure him. I do not want to injure the chances of the child. All I want to do is to prevent, if I can, what is going on to-day. After all, the Minister of Labour has as much right to look to the future as has the educationist, to know exactly what these children are doing, what trades they are employed in, and what are the conditions. Ministers of Labour in the future as Ministers of Education in the present will desire to see something ahead. I want to see the day come when the Minister of Labour will be able to help these children in their industrial life just as the educationist is helping them in their school life. We will be able to help to prevent them, I hope, from getting into blind alley occupations.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of working-class children in this country between the ages of 14 and 16 are outside the ken of everybody. Nobody is helping them. Only a small proportion of these children are really helped along the road in the present condition of affairs, and I say to hon. Members, whatever be their ideal, in three, five or ten years hence to raise the age to 16, do not prevent me at the moment from doing what I can in my sphere to help those who have gone out of the school. That is the whole point of the argument. We all of us start out with the same ideal; how best to act so as to help the child. What I have said is that I think my way is the better; but I have said to the educationist: "after you have definitely let the child go from school do not stand in his way of entering into a State scheme of insurance that will give him a guarantee of help for the future." I am prepared to meet hon. Members in every 100 way. I am prepared to meet them in Committee in every way in order to deal with this particular question and in order to prevent the children being pushed into work instead of going to school. All that I am prepared to do, if the educationist will say to me in return: "We have been forced to give the child up, and therefore we will not play a dog-in-the-manger policy and prevent you.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
If under this Unemployment Insurance scheme you pay money to persons who have not yet entered industry is it not possible within the Bill to pay maintenance grants to keep the children at school?
§ Mr. SHAW
This Bill, I explained on Second Reading, is intended to be purely an Unemployment Insurance Bill. It is not an Old Age Pension Bill. It is not an Education Bill. It is not a Special Grants Bill. It is an Unemployment Insurance Bill purely and simply, and I hope the Committee will discuss it from that point of view. I am hoping for the time to come when we shall have coordination, but co-ordination in a form infinitely wider than that suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for North - West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara). At the present moment here is our problem. I am trying to deal with the problem of the moment in such a way as to bring alleviation to the great mass of our people. It was said on the first occasion that the Bill was so drawn as to make it possible for the children to draw benefit almost immediately, with the consequence of giving an incentive to the parents to send them into a blind-alley job with a few weeks' work, for the purpose stated. I said to those who opposed the Bill on those lines: "I will give you an absolute guarantee"—the Bill is watertight now—and I do so now, again— "that this form of words shall be altered so that the child shall not receive benefit under any conditions unless he has wholly left school, and been working for some time." I am prepared to do that. Is there anything wrong about it? Because we have to deal with these children until such times as our ideal has been realised. That seems to me to be the position of affairs.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
A child who has left school at 14 years of age a year ago, and who has been working for six weeks of three months, is now, at the age of 15. 101 unemployed, and will get no benefit when this Bill has passed. Is that not so He must have paid at least 30 weeks of insurance contributions, and that does not help the child of 15.
§ Mr. SHAW
I think the position is perfectly plain. In order to prevent anybody saying that this is an incentive to send the children to work, I say: "No, there shall be no incentive to send the child to work. There shall be no benefit until 30 contributions have been paid." Further, it is, I think, a direct incentive for the parents to keep their children at school. I know something of working-class life. I was one of the children of the masses. I know how these things go. I was a half-timer at 10 years. I know the thing from a practical point of view, and what I am talking about. I say that when the average working-class parent is faced with the alternative of sending his child into work and allowing 6d. per week to be deducted for insurance contributions, he is likely to say, "No, I will allow the lad to continue at school." Incentive is all the other way.
I am told that we are taking money away from the children and giving it to adults. Not at all. Every farthing the child pays into this Insurance Fund will be more than repaid, probably before the boy reaches the age of 21. Experience has proved that there is a lack of employment between 16 and 18 caused by the fact that when a big wage is demanded the boy is sent away and a younger one put in his place. I have got to deal with facts as they are, not with what they may be 10 years or 20 years hence. These are the facts as I see them to-day. I am told that the local authorities and the parents will be influenced in a backward direction by this Bill. I do not for one moment believe it. The fact is that the local authorities now have the newer, if they felt so disposed, to raise the age to 15. Look at the facts in the case. The fact is that the local authorities, though having the power, have not increased the age. It is idle for any of us to blind ourselves to the facts. We are told, too, that we cannot send these children to school, as everyone would like, because there are no schools for them. I want to put this to the educationists: If we got the age raised to 16, where are the schools? How long will it take to get them? During the time we 102 are getting the schools, are these children to pitch about the streets as now I want to put all these points to the Committee, because I believe that arguments genuinely inspired by educational enthusiasm have been based upon wrong premises. The other side of the argument has not been seen. I ask educationists to agree with me. We both desire the best for the children. I say again I will give hon, Members everything they want in Committee to prevent the stereotyping of this age. I will give them everything they want, within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, to guarantee that the child has a fair chance but I ask hon. Members to meet me and to accept what I say that any child kicking abouts the streets, any unemployed child, that some institution shall take him by the hand and keep him. I ask them to meet me and to see if we can alter the Bill so that no child shall he insured unless he or she has definitely left school whatever the age may be. I will alter the Bill on those lines. But I am going to ask the educationists who want the alteration to allow me to have this Money Resolution, and to take my definite assurance that in Committee I will not only respect the views of the Committee, without asking the House to change them in any way at all, but I will do my level best to give every satisfaction so that no child may be kicking about the streets unemployed without some institution taking it up and helping it.
§ Mr. E. WOOD
The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech, as he always does, with great vigour and apparently proceeding from a great and warm heart. I hope, however, he will himself take the advice that he has given on more than one occasion, and that is to remember that no party should pretend to have a monopoly in this matter. I must confess as I listened to his speech, and more particularly that part of it where he dealt with the points of procedure arising out of this Resolution after the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Amendment, it seemed to me that the Committee was nearly as mystified with the right hon. Gentleman as the right hon. Gentleman has been mystified by the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman). Surely the position is perfectly plain. The right hon. Gentle- 103 man appeals to the Committee to give him just the one thing he wants, which is this paragraph (b), and he says that if he gets paragraph (b) he will be prepared to exercise the spirit of the utmost accommodation when the matter gets into Committee to meet the feelings of the Committee as to the best way of dealing with the problem of these young persons. Yes, but he will not be able to do it. He cannot come to this present Committee, put down a Resolution on the Paper, and ask the Committee to vote the money for one purpose, and then, subsequently, use it for another purpose! That is what all of us in all parts of the House—who object to this idea of Unemployment Insurance for these young persons as opposed to education—have pressed. The point is that, once having passed the paragraph, we shall have tied our hands. Therefore I find myself unable to yield to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that we should agree here and now to paragraph (b) and leave the working out of it to be put right upstairs.
I think a great many hon. Members wish to speak, and all I wish to say is that I think we are on the high road to making up our minds on the main point. There are one or two observations I wish to make. In listening to the Debates which have taken place I have been rather struck with one thing. I have no doubt myself that it is very possible to overstate the damage that a provision of this kind would do from the point of view of its reaction upon the minds of parents in encouraging them to prefer industry to education. On the other hand, while I defer to the right hon. Gentleman's experience, and I am naturally prone to give great weight to anything anyone says from their own experience, I do myself find it a rather fantastic exaggeration to suggest that the parent is not going to he deterred from keeping his child at school by the fact that he will have to pay a few coppers a week towards insurance.
The right hon. Gentleman, in making that suggestion, was rather relying upon his own qualities to perform a kind of intellectual conjuring trick. The whole Committee is interested in finding the right solution on this question. I know perfectly well, and we all know, the state of affairs to which the right hon. Gentle- 104 man has referred in which these young children are unable to find employment and acquire bad habits and run about the streets. All that is very undesirable and deplorable, and we all know perfectly well that the juvenile children's centres have facilities for supporting the children who come into them. Therefore, it is with great justification that the right hon. Gentleman has come forward with his Bill. I am bound to say, however, that I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) was right when he developed last week his reasons for thinking that the Government had found in this matter the wrong solution, and I am going to say why. The Minister of Labour says: "You who talk about education say that this proposal is going to have such a deleterious effect upon the education of the children, but how many local authorities are there to-day who have hitherto raised the age of the children attending the schools?" I do not know how many there are, but there are very few. I would like to ask if this proposal is going to make it any easier.
I look upon this matter from the point of view of those who care for education without any fanaticism, and I take a most serious view of this provision. When I had the honour to hold the post of the President of the Board of Education, I received more than one deputation on this subject, and I remember one of those deputations was headed by the present Prime Minister, who urged me to have regard to the scandal of these young Children running about the streets at the school age of 15 or 16. If that was a good thing to press upon a Conservative Minister, why is it not good for the. Labour Government to consider the same remedy which they pressed upon us. I do not express any view as to whether it is or whether it is not possible to raise the school age, but what I do say is, that unless hon. Members opposite were quite clear that it was a wise thing to do, they were not acting with a due sense of responsibility in trying to make me do it.
§ Mr. WOOD
It is impossible to-day to raise the school age for the whole country. I said that when I was on the Treasury Bench and I say it now. The Minister of Labour will remember that his supporters 105 said very different things when they sat in opposition. Therefore, let me make it clear that what they can do, and what they ought to do is to use all the means at their disposal, and all the means in their power, to encourage local authorities, where it is possible, to take advantage of their power to make bye-laws which the President of the Board of Education has said he will be prepared to consider on their merits.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is in favour of allowing the money the Government would grant towards these children to be used by the education authorities for the maintenance of the children who remain at school?
§ Mr. WOOD
The hon. Gentleman has anticipated a conclusion of my speech. I shall express my opinion about paragraph (b) if the right hon. Gentleman goes to a Division on this proposal. What I hope the Minister of Labour will be willing to do is, first of all, to recognise that the suggestion which he makes as to procedure really will not work. I do not ask him to prejudge the question whether those who want to get rid of this paragraph are right or wrong. All we are asking is that we should have the question sent to a Committee, where it can be argued on its merits, and then the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and his friends will be able to make any suggestion they like as to the expenditure of this or any other fund provided by the State or the local authority. All we ask is that the door should not be closed on the possibility of a full discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] There is no air of mystery about what I am saying, and I am trying to state my 106 own view on this proposal. I suggest that unless the right hon. Gentleman can make it plain what is the actual effect of this proposal, I shall record my opinion in regard to paragraph (b) if the matter goes to a Division.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. HERBERT FISHER
I desire to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Wood) in the appeal they have made to the Minister of Labour to withdraw this Financial Resolution, and bring forward another Resolution in its stead. I listened with great interest to the speech of the Minister of Labour. Clearly ho is desirous to do the best thing for the children. We all recognise the honesty and sincerity of his purpose, and if it were technically possible to do what he suggests in Committee, for my part I should be very glad to meet him. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, however, has pointed out an unanswerable objection by saying that the. Minister of Labour will be unable in Committee to do what he seems anxious to do. Therefore I have no hesitation in urging the Minister to withdraw this Resolution. Since our Debate last Tuesday I have given renewed attention to this question, and the more I look into the proposal of the Government the less I like it. At one time I thought there were signs that it would be possible to meet the Minister of Labour by accepting some such Amendment as he has suggested. I am afraid, however, that it will not do. I am afraid that no Amendment will really meet the case which has been put forward from these benches and from the benches opposite against the proposal of the Government. There was a time when children in this country—
§ Mr. SHORT
Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that what he desires to do cannot he done under the Insurance Bill?
§ Mr. FISHER
Not at all. My proposal is that this paragraph should be withdrawn, and that a new Money Resolution, in wider terms, should be introduced in its place.
§ Mr. GREENALL
What would the right hon. Gentleman propose to do with 107 the money under the new Resolution Would it be for insurance or for education?
§ Mr. FISHER
That is, of course, a very fair question to ask, but that is a matter which I hope the Committee will discuss. Some will take one view, and others another, but I desire that the whole question should he submitted to the Committee. The main issue has been discussed so often, so fully, and so adequately, that I do not propose to say very much more upon it, but there are one or two reflections which occur to me. There was a time, not so very long ago, when children in this country went out to work in factories at the age of eight, and I ask myself the question: Supposing that in those days the Government had come down and introduced a Measure for making those children insurable persons ender a general Act of industrial insurance, would such a Measure have promoted or would it have retarded the development of education in this country? I do not think there can be any doubt that, if such a Measure had been proposed in those days, it would have raised a very formidable impediment in the ray of the development of the education of children in this country. I do not desire in any way to take up an exaggerated or fanatical attitude on this question. I agree that there has been exaggeration on both sides, but I submit to the Minister of Labour that he has both exaggerated the advantages of the courses of instruction which he proposes to give to these children, and minimised the possible injury to the development of education which his Measure will involve.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, speaking on this subject last Tuesday, told us that these instruction centres had not had a fair trial, that we had not explored their possibilities; and he intimated that they might be considerably improved. From that I dissent. I think we have explored the possibilities of these instruction centres. I do not believe that they are capable of any great improvement, and for reasons which are essential to the nature of the case. At this moment the average amount of instruction which young persons between 16 and 18 receive in these centres is only five weeks. What can you do in five weeks? Practically 108 nothing. It is education given under the most disheartening, the most depressing, and the most adverse circumstances. It is quite true that possibly, by a great deal of care and trouble, you might introduce a few improvements in these instruction centres, but, if that be so, may I suggest to. the Minister that he should introduce those improvements into those centres which now exist for young persons between the ages of 16 and 18, and that only after he has discovered the extent to which he can improve those centres should he come to the House of Commons with proposals that boys and girls between 14 and 16 should be made insured persons? Surely, it is only common sense to improve the centres so that young persons between 16 and 18 may get some value out of them, before taking this very questionable step, which, in the opinion of the whole educational world, is likely to embarrass and impede the course of secondary and further education.
I think the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Education have both underrated the deleterious effect which their proposal is likely to exert on post-elementary education, and I am really surprised that such a proposal should have come from that particular quarter, because, when I was President of the Board of Education I was continually being pressed by members of the Labour party, and by some Unionists, to raise the school age, and I remember reading with a great deal of sympathy a number of resolutions which were passed in trade union congresses in favour of raising the school age to 16. The Minister now comes forward with a proposal which certainly cannot assist that object, and which, in the view of the whole educational world; is calculated to impede it. The educational world may be wrong. We may be foolish. We may have no experience of school—
§ Mr. FISHER
It has something to do with instruction. We may be wrong, but, at the same time, we assure the Minister that he is taking a great risk, and that he is taking that rid; for very small value—for five weeks' indifferent schooling in a year. That is the value that he is going to get, from this proposal, which runs counter to the whole spirit and 109 guiding principle of our newest educational legislation, which impedes the ideal that progressive educationists throughout the House of Commons warmly cherish, and which is opposed by every member of the educational profession. I have here a letter from a director of education in a great industrial town in the North of England. I asked him for his opinion before the Debate on Tuesday, and he sent me this letter:
"It is, unfortunately, true that in this region"—
that is his own district—even in the secondary school system as it exists now, with free secondary schools and modest maintenance allowances, the temptation to leave school for wages sometimes overpoweringly strong in parents. The child loses his secondary school education, and to substitute unemployment insurance for wages is merely to widen the area and to deepen the intensity of inducement to withdraw children from schools halfway through their secondary school course. I can think of nothing better designed to break into the secondary school system of the country, particularly so far as the children of the workers are concerned, than the Government proposal; and it should he remembered that for 15 years or more the board has been patiently and persistently developing, bit by bit, the facilities for affording secondary education to the children of the working classes. If the money is available for the provision of unemployment insurance for children from 14 to 16, it would, in my judgment, be far better spent in the form of maintenance allowance, conditional on continued education, rather than in a form of inducement to a child to walk out of school and into the streets to receive what is often called money for nothing.That is a very weighty opinion, and it comes from a man who has worked all his life in developing education in our great industrial towns. I put it very earnestly to the Minister of Labour that he should accept this suggestion to withdraw paragraph (b) of the present Resolution, and substitute another in its place.
§ Mr. MAXTON
On a point of Order. I want to put, it to you that, during the course of this Debate, since the Amendment was moved, six speakers have taken part, all from one or other of the Front Benches. I ask, is that a fair distribution of the time of the Committee?
§ Mr. LANSBURY
And may I remind you that three of those Gentlemen made identically the same speeches that they 110 made last Tuesday? I think it is perfectly monstrous.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle)
That is a, matter for the discretion of the Chair, I understand that the Minister is going to make an announcement.
§ Mr. SHAW
I have listened to the discussion, and I think it boils itself down to this, that the opponents of this part of the Money Resolution fear that, if it he carried, they will be hampered and crippled in the Committee in the expression of their views. I have no desire to cripple anyone, and, on the definite understanding which the speeches have plainly given, that it will be understood that in Committee the whole question can be considered without prejudice, I am prepared to accept the Amendment to withdraw paragraph (b) of the Money Resolution.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I am exceedingly sorry that hon. Members should have thought that I or anyone else had spoken too long. I had to move the Amendment, and I had to honour the Committee by submitting what arguments my intelligence might provide, in order that they might accept it. I want to be quite clear as to what are the pledges which my right hon. Friend has suggested he is asking from us, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding in the Committee. We, ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this paragraph and to substitute for it a Resolution drawn in the widest possible manner, in which the money he is now offering to us through this Resolution may be applied to any purpose that the Committee think fit, within the scope of the Bill; and we guarantee that we would not substantially oppose that Money Resolution in they House, But we do not guarantee that we will accept any scheme of compulsory insurance for any boys and girls between 14 and 16. Let that be quite plain. We are prepared to discuss it, but, as at present advised, I should vote against any scheme for insurance, and I should ask that we should be allowed to submit some alternative way of spending the Government money proposed to be spent under this Resolution.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I have not yet spoken in the Debate. I have listened, and I have accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he assents to the elimination of this paragraph from the Resolution. I agree with him that anything that is in order in Committee may he discussed, and we will not object to it being discussed, but I do not want this Committee or the Committee upstairs to be under any misapprehension. It. is impossible for us to give any assent to the discussion of anything which the Chairman upstairs may rule out of order. All we say is that, whatever is in order, we shall have no objection to it being discussed.
I am always to the front in any fray. I am wondering now whether some of my Friends behind the right hon. Gentleman who have seemed by their interruptions, and even by their speeches, to lend sympathy to the Amendment have not been led into a trap. I am extremely doubtful about it, because it appears now that this part of the Resolution is going to be withdrawn by the right hon. Gentleman, who thinks that the money later on to be secured in the way suggested in the Bill could be used in some other way than is immediately suggested, whereas the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman), it is quite clear, moved his Amendment with an entirely different purpose. Although it is known that children leave school at 14, go to work, get unemployed and walk about the streets, with no kind of control and no assistance of any kind, the right hon. Gentleman, attempting to deal at least for the moment with that problem, believing that later on the school age may be raised or that a number of other things might be done, proposes that pending that period something definite should be done to assist these youngsters to enter into the industrial field, and the Minister has accepted the Amendment believing that something was going to be accomplished, whereas it is clear now from what the 112 right hon. Gentleman has said that you have been led into a cul de sac, and that if you carry out what has been suggested nothing is going to be done for the children because the Minister says he will not have them in insurance. Then where is the money to come from? The proposition is that the children should pay a certain sum between 14 and 16, and the employers and the State should pay a proportion. If all the right hon. Gentleman's opposition has really been to the principle of insurance for young persons at any age when once they are forced into the industrial field, I believe him to be wrong. I do not care what education authorities or specialists and people who know very little of our working class conditions have to say on the subject at all. I do not care if the whole teaching profession is in favour of ignoring the right of these children to be considered once they are forced from the school into the factory or the workshop.
The right hon. Gentleman may not have been proposing the right thing. It would have been better, perhaps, to have more elasticity in the Resolution so that the Committee could have dealt with the subject in a different way, either by assisting the parents to continue the children's education or the money secured by those who were inclined to take advantage of a continued system of education. That would have been a sensible way. We might have extended the Resolution, but to withdraw it altogether trusting that the right hon. Gentleman would allow you to go on with the collection of the money, using it for the purpose he and you might wish—he says he will not allow you to collect anything. He objects entirely to children, whether they are continuing at school or whether they are forced from the school into the workshop, remaining derelict until some scheme, I suppose of State assistance apart altogether from insurance, is adopted. That may be good theory, but it is bad practice. It is not Liberal policy. You may be old-fashioned individualists if you like, but that is not really the basis of your policy, to admit that the system drives the child from the school to the factory at 14, and then say, because you have some idea that in the ages to come you will keep the child at school till 16, in the meantime you will do nothing from the period between the 113 14 years' standard and the 16 years' standard, that is not good policy. If my Labour friends take my advice they will absolutely refuse to allow the right hon. Gentleman to accept that interpretation which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme. It is occasionally very necessary that either on one side of the House or the other there should be someone who does not care a damn for any of them.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
I have listened to the speeches, and particularly to the explanations and expositions which have been given with regard to the Amendment. I am one of those who believe that the child should be kept in the school until it is 16. I am one of those who are against the Clause in the Bill which invites the House to insure the young person between 14 and 16, and I am entirely dissatisfied with the Minister's statement that this is going to do something for the child between 14 and 16. As a matter of fact, the child of 14 who enters industry to-day and comes under the scope of this Clause, if it should happen to pass, will not receive any unemployment benefit until it has worked for 30 weeks, which brings the child, even assuming it is fortunate enough to get a situation immediately on leaving school, to practically 14¾ before it is entitled to receive unemployment benefit. But there are to-day large numbers of children under 16 who have left school at 14 but have not yet been fortunate enough to find employment, if it is fortunate for a child of that age to be employed, and the Bill will not affect their circumstances at all. They are left entirely outside the scope of this Resolution and of *the Bill. It is really the child of the future that this Clause, if it is passed, is going to affect. I want to know what the Government is going to do for the child who has left school and is unemployed to-day. It is quite beside the mark to say there are no educational establishments suitable or numerous enough to give facilities for keeping them at school. You can find large numbers of mansion houses up and down the country. You can find in your large towns great houses which their previous occupants declare are now too large or to expensive. Why not pass an Emergency Act taking possession of them for the purposes of education? The right hon. Gentleman 114 the Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), when a Member of a Coalition Government, could pass emergency Measures night after night for all purposes not affecting the conditions or the circumstances of the working classes. You could get the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who was the first Minister of Labour in the Coalition Government, supporting emergency Measures to take things over and control them on behalf of vested interests. Why cannot you do those things now when it is a question of the children of the working classes? I am in favour of keeping the child at school until 16, as is shown by Amendments on the Order Paper. I have put down an Amendment in favour of maintenance grants, for children who are kept at school between 14 and 16, of 5s. a week. I hope hon. Members opposite who have been priding themselves on their love of education will help to carry that Amendment. What is the use of theorising about education for the workers? What is the use of providing teachers for the education of the workers' children unless you are prepared to meet the economic circumstances of the parents and make provision for them which will render it unnecessary to send their children out to work in order to implement their meagre income? I am against children working in industry at too early an age. Those who pride themselves upon being educationists and upon their desire that the children shall be kept at school until the age of 16 have not gone into the question sufficiently well to find out whether the parents are in an economic state to keep the children at school, so that they may imbibe all the benefits of our educational system. The two points which I have suggested ought to commend themselves to the Government., namely, to keep the children at school and to satisfy the parents that they are, at least, going to be placed in a position, so far as their economic circumstances are concerned, that shall enable them to keep the children at school, and give them the benefit of that education which many of us did not secure when we were children.
I do not yield to the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) or to the ex-President of the Board of Education, the right hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. Fisher) in my desire for 115 the education of the children; but very few hon. Members have had the opportunity of reading and studying the effect of the Amendment which has been moved. They do not know the terms of it.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
By omitting the paragraph, you omit the power in this Resolution to get the money necessary for the payment for these children between the ages of 14 and 16.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
The Government have promised to bring up a wider Clause, which will enable us to use the Government's share of the money in the best possible way within the scope of the Bill.
§ Mr. SHORT
On a point of Order. The Committee is now being asked to accept the Amendment on certain conditions; but I submit that if we accept the Amendment it will be impossible upstairs to discuss anything appertaining to this question. The only way in which we can discuss the issues now before the Committee, when the Bill gets upstairs, will be by the right hon. Gentleman bringing in another Money Resolution.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
My appeal at the beginning of the Debate was that the Government should withdraw this paragraph and bring in a Wider Money Resolution. The whole Debate has proceeded on that basis. I understood that my right hon. Friend had agreed to do that. He certainly can do it.
§ Mr. SHAW
In the interests of a fair understanding, let me say that I am accepting this Amendment on the understanding that in Committee I will submit some other Clause, and that every Member of the Committee will have the fullest right and freedom to suggest Amendments. If that be not the case, the appeal made to me is on different lines altogether. If it be the case that by accepting this Amendment I automatically rule out any possibility of dealing with this subject in Committee 116 upstairs, then I withdraw my acceptance of the Amendment, and I will let the matter go to a vote now.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I think we are entitled to a declaration from the Government, saying upon which leg they are going to stand. The right hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to accept the Amendment, and he made a declaration on that point 15 minutes ago. I accepted his statement with the one proviso, which is the correct one—namely, that any proposal made in Committee should be in order. It is, of course, impossible for us in any way to determine what the order of the Committee upstairs may be. The proper course for this Committee is to accept the Amendment, subject to whatever may be decided to be in order by the Chairman of the Committee upstairs.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Whatever the Minister has understood or whatever hon. Members understand, is not as a result of any ruling from the Chair, because I have not been asked to rule on the point. The position, as I understand it, is, that the Government could certainly withdraw the Resolution and bring in a fresh Resolution. If the paragraph be omitted from the Resolution, when the Bill comes before the Committee upstairs, it might not be in order to move or amend the corresponding Clause in the Bill, but I cannot rule on that point, because it is a hypothetical question.
§ Mr. SHAW
May I ask for your ruling on this point? If this Money Resolution be withdrawn can I in Committee upstairs submit a Clause to take the place of the Clause that is now in the Bill dealing with children from the ages of 14 to 16—a Clause which would imply on behalf of the State payment of a different kind, without a preliminary Money Resolution?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would be in order in doing that. A Clause which would increase the charge must be passed as a Resolution in Committee of the Whole House.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
Before the Minister withdraws the paragraph, is it not his duty to ascertain the effect of the paragraph from his skilled advisers, rather than to depend upon a ruling from the Chair upon a hypothetical case?
§ Mr. MACLEAN
I am glad that this argument has taken place, because it brings out very clearly the fact that this Committee does not really understand what has been done or what is likely to happen if we accept the Amendment. It is absolutely necessary that this matter should be discussed before we permit the withdrawal of this Money Resolution. I am in favour of its withdrawal, provided that other means are taken for safeguarding the interests of the children.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
That is what we all want to do, but that is exactly what we shall not be able to do if the Clause be withdrawn. I want to see the children kept at school until the age of 16, but I want at the same time to safeguard the interests of the children and the economic interests of their parents while the children are being kept at school. If we withdraw this paragraph, this Committee will not have authorised the payment of money provided by Parliament as an offset against the contributions of children between the ages of 14 and 16. While it would not authorise such a payment, it would not rule out the employment of children in industry, and those children are being compelled to pay contributions for unemployment insurance. The Money Resolution authorises the payment of money out of the Exchequer, and the Bill, as it received a Second Reading, authorised a levy upon the children between the ages of 14 and 16.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
My hon. Friend suggests that we can impose a contribution upon the children if we do not pass this Money Resolution now. In the Bill Clause 5, which deals with insurance of children, cannot be discussed apart from this Money Resolution and, consequently, a contribution could not be imposed upon children between the ages of 14 and 16 under that Clause without this Money Resolution.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
In that case, it simply means that if this paragraph in the Money Resolution goes out, that particular Clause in the Bill goes out.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
We should still leave the child in industry between the ages of 14 and 16. The Minister of Labour could not do as he thinks he can do, namely, bring in a Money Resolution in Committee upstairs.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
The thing is as simple as can be to those who are familiar with Parliamentary practice. A Money Resolution cannot he carried in Committee upstairs. What we ask my right hon. Friend to do, and what everybody thought he had agreed to do, was done by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury last month under similar criticism, namely, to withdraw the paragraph and bring in a wider paragraph so that we can propose other methods of using this money, not necessarily for compulsory insurance. We could pass the paragraph on the Floor of the House, for which purpose we have offered to give facilities.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is going to consult those interests, so that we may try to make some progress in this important matter, or is it that he is too proud to consult those interests?
§ Mr. MACLEAN
We now understand where we are. We understand what the hon. Member suggests, and what the Minister of Labour wants, and we appreciate the fact that there is a difference between them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) wants to delete this paragraph in order that the Government may bring in a wider paragraph, and says that members of his party, and possibly hon. Members of the opposite side, are prepared to give 119 facilities to pass it provided that it meets with their views. The Minister of Labour says that he will not pledge himself as to the scope of the Resolution which he may bring in. The whole position, so far a-s I can see, is in the air.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
I hope so. I am sorry to see the hon. and gallant Member who supports the interests of the children on another side.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
It is like the weather. I ask the Minister of Labour to state whether in the paragraph which he is prepared to substitute for the paragraph which he has agreed to withdraw, applying as it will to children between the ages of 14 and 16, he will apply the principle of maintenance to those children whose parents are prepared to keep them at school during the time when those parents are unemployed. That is something which we all Want to know; at least I want to know, and others of my colleagues desire to know, because we are not prepared to sacrifice the interests of the children, as far as they go even under this Bill, for some purely hypothetical consideration which might not meet the circumstances in the same degree as we can secure even under the terms of the Resolution which is now being discussed. I would suggest to the Minister of Labour that he should take all the facts of the situation into consideration, and examine the interests of the children much more closely than he has had the opportunity of doing in the short time during which this Money Resolution has been done.
We know that there is no Member of the House who is more desirous than he of securing to children between 14 and 16 the widest opportunities of education, but, taking into consideration all the discussion that has already taken place both on the Bill itself and the Amendment to this Resolution, I am certain that the House would he prepared to give the 120 Minister of Labour the widest possible scope in any amended Money Resolution which he brings forward, which will go to safeguard the economic interest of the parent, and at the same time provide facilities for the continued education of the children. We want to see the children out of industry. The right hon. Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) spoke of the necessity of getting those who are old upon the old age pension list at the earliest possible moment, so that they can go out of industry and be able to provide an avenue of employment for some who are at present unemployed. We agree with that. That has been advocated on these benches years before we came into this House—that is a theory which we have been advocating for many years. But we do not want to have it on a contributory basis. We want old age pensions given to the individual, not because he has had 3d. taken off his unemployment insurance and handed over to an old age pensioners' fund but we want the old people at the age of 65—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is travelling rather wide of the, question under discussion. The question of old age pensions is not in order on this Amendment.
§ Mr. MACLEAN
I appreciate that, but reference was made to it by the right hon. Member, and he was allowed to go on, and I thought that I was going to get the same latitude. As I am not allowed to go into that, may I say that, as far as this Amendment is concerned, we want to see the children taken out of industry? We want to have their educational future safeguarded, but at the same time we want to see those children who have already left school, who may have worked even for a few weeks or may not have been able to find any employment since they left school, children whose ages now are 14, 14½, 15 or 15½, children who are not entitled and will not be entitled to unemployment benefit even if this Money Resolution is passed, taken out of the horrible condition in which they are at present in which they cannot find employment, and have no means of livelihood other than that which their parents may be able to afford, and have no widening of their prospects in life either through the extension of education or a training in trade. We want those children to be looked after equally with those who are 121 at present in school. We want to see the child life of our country preserved and the educational facilities handed on to them, and not kept as the monopoly of any section of the community. That can only be done by the House of Commons, irrespective of Governments, agreeing to give to the child not. merely the education to which it is entitled, but also to give to the parents something that will safeguard the economic circumstances of the home, so that the children will be able, materially as well as intellectually, to derive benefits from their education.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
I think that the Committee is in some doubt on two points. First, as to what were the original provisions of the Bill in relation to the insurance of children between 14 and 16, and second as to what is the present attitude of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) has argued as if the proposals in the Bill were designed to benefit children between 14 and 16, and in that belief he endeavoured to persuade the Committee that the Government in accepting my right hon. Friend's Amendment were doing an ill-service to children between 14 and 16. These observations were based on a misconception of the effects of the provisions of the Bill. The provisions of the Bill are not designed to benefit children between 14 and 16. They are intended to exploit children between 14 and 16. It is only necessary to look at the Actuary's Report on the financial effect of these provisions to see that the children are brought in to make contributions to the Fund and not to get anything out of it.
If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at page 7 of the Actuary's Report he will see that the estimated annual expenditure in respect of benefits to children between 14 and 16 was £280,000. that the estimated annual expense of administration was £120,000 and that the contribution to the cost of approved courses of instruction were £100,000. making a total of £500,000, while on the other hand the income in respect of these children during the deficiency period was to amount to £1,500,000. So that during the deficiency period the Insurance Fund was going to benefit to the extent of £1,000,000 out of these children between 14 and 16. I do not think that the Committee can regard that as philanthropic It is a contribution partly by them, partly 122 by the employers and partly by the State, but the entire annual income is estimated at £1,500,000. If you go beyond the deficiency period you will find that the amount of the income would be £930,000. So there, again, on balance, the children would be contributing to the extent of £430,000.
Mark this also. As my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has pointed out, until a child has contributed for 30 weeks he does not become entitled to benefit. That means that a very large proportion of those children who are unemployed would never in any conditions become entitled to benefit. In certain areas where unemployment is worse, in the area represented by my hon. Friend, or in the Sheffield area, there is no opportunity for employment for any child leaving school. Those children would go on week by week and month by month. They would get no benefit, and there would be no provision for instruction, and nothing would be done for them. You would only take the children in the areas where employment is good. They would come in and contribute, and after eight months' employment they might obtain benefit. But in the really depressed areas there would be no benefit at all to the great majority of those who are unemployed. I think, therefore, that we are entitled to call upon the Government to make some real provision for these children, and it was on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman accepted my right hon. Friend's Amendment that some alternative provision was going to be made that would do some good to those between 14 and 16. But apparently the right hon. Gentleman has no proposal in his mind, no rabbit in his hat, and is quite destitute of expedients. The last edition of the Government's intentions is that, if this Amendment be accepted, then when the Bill goes upstairs to Committee the Committee will be unable to consider any proposals at all so far as children between 14 and 16 are concerned. I suggest that this opportunity should be taken of demanding something better than this from the Government. They have prided themselves on being in favour of non-contributory insurance altogether. In 1921, as my hon. Friend pointed out earlier in the course of this Debate, he moved an Amendment—it was then in order—for non-contributory insurance.
123 He was also allowed to do it in 1922 under another ruling of the Chair, and he was supported on those occasions by hon. Members who are now members of the Government.
The present Secretary of State for War said the Labour party had always been in favour of non-contributory insurance. Here you, first of all, do not give them insurance, and you make them contribute to the insurance of other people. I say that is monstrous. There is no insurance for the child who looks for work and can not get it for eight months at all, and then, if the child gets work, his money to the extent of £1,000,000, during the deficiency period, is taken for the benefit of other insured people. That is a contributory scheme of the worst kind. It is making the children contribute to the insurance of other people. That is done by the people who are advocates of noncontributory insurance. Let me point out what is still more significant. The Labour party have always suggested that they were the only people really interested in raising the school age. Here you have an actuarial report which is based on the permanent employment of children between 14 and 16. It is the whole financial basis of the future of the scheme for the deficiency period. There is, first of all, the basis of bringing the deficiency period to an end, and the expenditure of £1,000,000 a year depends on the continued employment of these children. Beyond that period they are going to depend also on the contributions from children from 14 to 16 to the extent of £430,000 a year. This, it seems to me, indicates that they have no hope and do intention of raising the school age. This financial proposition would never have been made, and this actuarial report never presented to this House if the Labour Government had had the slightest intention of raising the school age.
It is very difficult to speak after so muddling a Debate. At half-past four I had quite a good speech. At six it was on the wane. Now at seven it is nearly gone. I am going to give you the best I have got. I know how difficult the position of the Minister of Labour is. I know that his heart is paved with good intentions. I know there are other places paved with good intentions. This is one of the most 124 amazing things that this House has ever seen. Here we have got a Labour Government afraid of doing what they know in their hearts they ought to do. Sometimes I used to despair of other Governments. I knew perfectly well when the Labour Government came in they could not do a quarter of what they promised, but it never occurred to me that they would run away from such a glorious opportunity as this. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the opportunity?"] The opportunity is this. You ought to know it as well as me, but sometimes I think Members opposite do not know as much as they think they do about unemployment. We have enormous juvenile unemployment. It is one of the problems before us. There is no single authority which deals with children in the country which has not pressed for the raising of the school age. I know it is not practical politics and I know it is not party politics, and that is what the Minister of Labour knows too. That is what the Minister of Education knows, but some of us have dared to face unpopularity for what we thought was best for the children of the country, and we are willing to face it now.
This was the time of all others for the Minister of Education to come before the House and make one of those moving appeals which they make to the constituencies, one of those heartbreaking, rending appeals about the condition of our children. [Interruption.] I would like quiet from the Members for Glasgow at least in the House of Commons. If I were a Member for Glasgow I should be quiet to-day of all others. This is the time when even the most hardened reactionary is really worried about juvenile unemployment. This is the time to come with a scheme to raise the school age, I do not say to 16, but even to 15. It would enormously have helped the whole of juvenile unemployment in the country, and also older unemployment. One of the difficulties is taking children into industry between 14 and 16 and then turning them off. It is an iniquitous thing to do, ruinous to the future of industry. I am not commending that. This is the moment when you might make an appeal to the House. If you have any money to spare give it to the necessitous parents and encourage them to keep the children at 125 school. It is astonishing how a Socialist Government can look their constituents in the face.
This paragraph (b) beats me. I was one who fought hard for juvenile unemployment centres. It is really just a makeshift. We do the best we can, but we cannot do much. What the country needs is to get the whole of the children from 14 to 16 and if possible keep them in school. I think the time will come when people will say it is a positive waste of money to turn the children out from 14 to 16. I do beg the Minister of Labour and the Government altogether to have courage. I would turn them out on this alone and go to the country. I truly would, because we who had to fight in the constituencies know how difficult it has been always fighting against the greedy capitalist who is grinding down the children of the poor. Now you have not got a Capitalist Government, you have got a Labour Government whose heart is aching and bleeding for the children, and yet they dare not raise the school age. I would risk it. Someone said he did not care what the teachers said. I do care what the teachers say. When it comes to a question of the children I go to the experts.
The enlightened mothers. I speak as an enlightened mother. All of the enlightened mothers want their children to be educated and really every mother knows the tragedy of a child who has got ability to benefit by education and cannot get it. If there were anything in the world which would make me want to upset the present system under which I live, it would be to see my child able and capable of taking an education and yet not being able to get it. This is the time, and I do beg of the Government to live up to some of their promises. We know perfectly well they cannot live up to them all. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to go as far as the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Neil Maclean).
I went, where my work led me. I know there are some Members of the Government who believe 126 they can get everything—the Kingdom of Heaven without praying and the best of this world without working.
But this is the Amendment. I do not ask the Government to go so far as some of their inure extreme Members, but I do ask them to go as far as enlightened Members of the House of Commons and certainly people most interested in children throughout the country. This is not going to help unemployment among juveniles. There have been splendid speeches made, and the time is ripe. Be courageous and try. If need be go to the country for those principles which you hold so dear.
§ Mr. SEXTON
In this matter I speak from personal experience. The economic circumstances of my life and the lives of many hon. Gentlemen compelled us to leave school at the age of nine years. They have advanced the age since, but even now in the hurly-burly of life a child generally forgets what it learned at 14. It is all very well to be heroic on this business. The economic condition of affairs in every respect ought to receive first consideration. I have heard speeches since I came into this House to-day from hon. Members who themselves during the last three years have in a business capacity contributed to the reduction of the workers' wages to the tune of £700,000,000 a year. I remember the time when the Lord Privy Seal was employed in a factory at 18s. a. week at a time when he had a small family. How could he be expected under those economic conditions to keep a child at school?
The children are a source of income to the parents. If they are kept at school until they are 16 years of age instead of 14, what will happen? I know cases now where men are not able to keep their children at school, and, in consequence, the children have gone in for the iniquitous system of street trading. These men are only casually employed. They are working from one to three days a week. I am sure from personal experience of the necessity of keeping children at school as long as possible, and I hope that the Minister of Labour will stick to the Clause and get down to 127 the real root of the evil. What is the present economic condition of the workman? He does not get a sufficient wage to send his children to school.
I have heard with astonishment the declarations from the benches opposite—their sudden fatherly interest in the children. Not more than two or three years ago, when the age was advanced from 12 to 14, there was an outcry from hon. Gentlemen representing the present Opposition all over the country at what they called that Socialist proposal. I congratulate them on their conversion now. But they made capital at that time out of the proposal to increase the school age and they preached industrial thrift to parents with 18s. a week, in order that they might get sufficient dividends to enable them to send their own sons to a university to receive a superior education. Then they went to the constituencies and asked the voters to send them back here again to support the same abominable system. Personally, I would
§ be delighted to see the age advanced, but I want to know first what is going to be the economic condition of the child? I want conditions changed, so that we may get some kind of system which will enable the parents to keep the child at school and to live in decent comfort. I hope the Labour Minister will stick to his Money Resolution.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say he had accepted the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That paragraph (b) stand part of the Question."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 3: Noes, 359.129
|Division No. 79.]||AYES.||[7.23 p.m.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Marley, James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hudson, J. H||Lieut.-Colonel John Ward and Mr. Hogge.|
|Ackroyd, T. R.||Bramsdon, Sir Thomas||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke||Brass, Captain W.||Darbishire, C. W.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Bridgeman. Rt. Hon. William Clive||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Broad, F. A.||Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Bromfield, William||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)|
|Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)|
|Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)||Buckle, J.||Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)|
|Alstead, R.||Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Dawson, Sir Philip|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Burman, J. B.||Deans, Richard Storry|
|Ammon, Charles George||Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)||Dickson, T.|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Dixon, Herbert|
|Astor, Viscountess||Caine, Gordon Hall||Dodds, S. R.|
|Attlee, Major Clement R.||Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||Duckworth, John|
|Ayles, W. H.||Cape, Thomas||Dukes, C.|
|Baker, Walter||Cassels, J. D.||Duncan, C.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Dunn, J. Freeman|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Dunnico, H.|
|Banton, G.||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Eden, Captain Anthony|
|Barclay, R. Noton||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Barnes, A.||Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Ednam, Viscount|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Charleton, H. C.||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Church, Major A. G.||Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)|
|Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)||Clarry, Reginald George||Edwards, John H. (Accrington)|
|Batey, Joseph||Clayton, G. C.||Egan, W. H.|
|Becker, Harry||Climie, R.||Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase||Cluse, W. S.||England, Colonel A.|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Falconer. J.|
|Berkeley, Captain Reginald||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray|
|Berry, Sir George||Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Ferguson, H.|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Compton, Joseph||FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.|
|Birkett, W. N.||Cope, Major William||Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Cove, W. G.||Franklin, L. B.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)|
|Bonwick, A.||Crittall, V. G.||Gardner, J, P. (Hammersmith, North)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Gavan-Duffy, Thomas|
|George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)||Lee, F,||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Linfield, F. C.||Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)|
|Gillett, George M.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Sexton, James|
|Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John||Loverseed, J. F.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Gosling, Harry||Lowth, T.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)||Lunn, William||Sherwood, George Henry|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||McCrae, Sir George||Shinwell, Emanuel|
|Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||McEntee, V. L.||Simpson, J. Hope|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Mackinder, W.||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||McLean, Major A.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Smith, T. (Pontetract)|
|Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Groves, T.||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Snell, Harry|
|Grundy, T. W.||Madan, H.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||Mansel, Sir Courtenay||Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.|
|Gwynne, Rupert S.||March, S.||Spoor, Dr. G. E.|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Spoor, B. G.|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Meller, R. J.||Starmer, Sir Charles|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Middleton, G.||Steel, Samuel Strang|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Millar, J. D.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Harbord, Arthur||Mills, J. E.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Hardie, George D.||Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Harris, John (Hackney, North)||Montague, Frederick||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Harris, Percy A.||Morel, E. D.||Sunlight, J.|
|Hartington, Marquees of||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)||Morse, W. E.||Tattersall, J. L.|
|Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)||Moulton, Major Fletcher||Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)|
|Hastings, Sir Patrick||Muir, John W.||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Hastings, Somerville (Reading)||Murray, Robert||Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)|
|Haycock, A. W.||Murrell, Frank||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Hayes, John Henry||Naylor, T. E.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Healy, Cahir||Nesbitt, Robert C.||Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)|
|Hemmerde, E. G.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)||Nichol, Robert||Thornton, Maxwell R.|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Thurtle, E.|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||O'Connor, Thomas P||Tout, W. J.|
|Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||O'Grady, Captain James||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel||Oliver, George Harold||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Hirst, G. H.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Hobhouse, A. L.||Owen, Major G.||Viant, S. P.|
|Hodges, Frank||Palmer, E. T.||Vivian, H.|
|Hogbin, Henry Cairns||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Waddington, R.|
|Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Pease, William Edwin||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Hood, Sir Joseph||Pennefather, Sir John||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)||Penny, Frederick George||Warne, G. H.|
|Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Howard, Hn. D.(Cumberland, Northrn.)||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)||Perring, William George||Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.|
|Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.||Perry, S. F.||Weir, L. M.|
|Hughes, Collingwood||Philipson, Mabel||Wells, S. R.|
|Huntingfield, Lord||Phillipps, Vivian||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Pielou, D. P.||White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)|
|Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)||Potts, John S.||Whiteley, W.|
|James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton||Wignall, James|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Pringle, W. M. R.||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Jephcott, A. R.||Raffan, P. W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Jewson, Dorothea||Raine, W.||Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)||Rawson, Alfred Cooper||Willison, H.|
|Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool.W.Derby)||Raynes, W. R.||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Rea, W. Russell||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Windsor, Walter|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Remer, J. R.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)||Richards, R.||Wintringham, Margaret|
|Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)||Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Kay, Sir R. Newbald||Ritson, J.||Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.|
|Keens, T.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Kennedy, T.||Robertson, T. A.||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Kenyon, Barnet||Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)|
|Kindersley, Major G. M.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)||Wright, W.|
|King, Captain Henry Douglas||Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)||Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward|
|Lamb, J. Q.||Romeril, H. G.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Roundell, Colonel R. F.||Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)|
|Lane-Fox, George R.||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Laverack, F. J.||Royle, C.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Mr. Masterman and Mr. Herbert|
|Lawson, John James||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Fisher.|
|Leach, W.||Savery, S. S.|
Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
§ Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"
We have now got into a position of extreme difficulty. We have been discussing the main Financial Resolution of this very important Bill and a paragraph of the Resolution has now been removed, the understanding being that the Minister of Labour will bring in sooner or later new proposals in order to embody the wider suggestion.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman gave any definite undertaking. I am quite sure that it would be the wish of a large number of hon. Members who voted with the Government that the right hon. Gentleman should have time to reconsider his position. It would be quite impossible for us to continue a discussion on the main question with usefulness or with dignity, when a vital matter affecting the whole principle of the Bill has been cut out.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
I have risen several times to raise a matter affecting my own constitutents, and I know what I am talking about. Although the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is leading the Debate for the other side, he is entirely wrong. Apart from this question of the children, there is the whole question of the scope of a very important and complicated Bill, and we have very little time for such discussion, thanks to the monopolising of time by the Front Benches.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I still submit, in spite of the desire of the whole House to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman, especially when he knows what he is going to talk about, that the only effect of my proposal would be that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be able to start afresh earlier in the day and would be able to make a longer speech than he could make in the time remaining to-night. It is really necessary that we should know what the views of the Government are. The right hon. Gentleman did quite distinctly state that he was going to move in Committee upstairs 132 certain suggestions to take the place of the Clause that must now come out. The right hon. Gentleman now denies that he is going to bring forward another Resolution. The Committee is entitled to know on which leg the right hon. Gentleman is going to stand. In order to give him an opportunity of making a definite statement to the House on the attitude of the Government I move the Resolution.
§ Mr. J. JONES
Some of us sitting on these benches are not satisfied. We do not intend to be always quiet and silent in matters of this character. The question of unemployment is too serious to be allowed to drop as though it was a mere matter of machinery. It is a matter of existence to the people whom we represent, and we are not going to sit down and be continuously lectured by prominent politicians, particularly on the opposite benches—gentlemen who know more about unemployment because they are always unemployed, and are drawing big salaries in return for their unemployment.
§ Mr. JONES
Not trade union leaders, because you could not lead anything; you could not lead a cat to a milk can, and you are not worthy of any pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] It is no good ordering me, because I have never been in order in my life. If I were in order I would tell some of you off. What we are out for, some of us, is to see that questions affecting the lives of the people shall be tackled seriously. You have never tackled them; you have never tackled these problems. I hope that our party will, some time. I am not afraid of being a critic of my own party, because I have worked for over 35 years in the Labour movement, at the street corner surrounded by two men, a boy and a dog. The two men were hostile, the dog was barking, and the boy was humorous at my expense. But we have passed through that period, and now we have a majority of 10,000 in the constituency which I represent. We are not afraid of criticism. But what we want is courage, not to be afraid of the people on the other side, but to stand up to them and tell them what we think of them. I am getting fed up, I tell you straight. I am not going to sit silent on these back benches, and then walk into the Division Lobby. I am 133 quite prepared to sit on the back benches all the time and every time, but I want to say quite frankly that I am going out into the country to tell our leaders that they have got to have courage, and that if they believe in the things that we stand for, they must stand up against these crowds on the other side. If they are not prepared to do that they are not worthy of our continued support. Below the Gangway and above the Gangway, I do not care what gangway they belong to—it ought to be a hangway in my opinion.
We want to say quite frankly that some of us are not here because we want a job in the House of Commons. We are not here for political position. We are here because all our lives we have fought and worked in the Labour movement, believing that eventually, by the exercise of political power, we would be able to introduce industrial opportunity. That is what we are here for. That is what we are fighting for. I appeal to the leaders of our party to have courage, and to fight for the things for which we stand. I am a Socialist in economics, and a democrat in politics, and whether I keep my seat or lose it, I shall fight for those principles as long as I have the opportunity of doing so. We want honesty, we want courage, we want conviction. I have been convicted a number of times, I have been imprisoned more times than I care to remember, but never for anything of which I am ashamed, and I shall go again if necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Some of you should have been there who have not been there. I want you to realise that some of us here are determined that we are not going to be weak or cowardly in the hour of hostility and trial, but that we will fight the battle of the people and fight for democracy, all the time and every time, both industrially and socially.
§ Mr. SHAW
I hope the Committee will not agree to report Progress. Over an hour ago I agreed to accept this Amendment. Since I agreed to accept the Amendment the discussion has proceeded. When I came to the House to-day—probably through no fault of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman)—I knew nothing of this Amendment. It is utterly unreasonable, the Amendment having been accepted, to ask a Government, on the spur of the moment, what its future 134 action is to be, and I suggest that no reasonable man would ask it. The Government must have time to consider this particular matter, but the other parts of the Financial Resolution have no concern with this part, and I ask the Committee to decline to report Progress.
Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD
The present situation is an illustration of a remark which I have heard repeated time after time since I have been in this House—that when there is an absolute majority, almost unanimity on one side in this House, in nine cases out of ten it is wrong. Never was there a better illustration of this statement than we have at present. Take the speech of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones). He states that the Government want courage, determination and conviction, and that they ought to tackle the problem of unemployment in every one of its phases. Yet what has the Committee just decided almost unanimously to do? They have decided that until such time as the Minister brings in a Financial Resolution dealing with persons between 14 and 16 who are unemployed, we can no longer discuss that subject, and can take no part whatever in considering the welfare of these young people. That is what hon. Members have just decided. What is more, hon. Members have knocked out of their own Bill the most important Clause in the Bill. After all, in the case of adults, if a man or woman has strength and vitality unemployment is not such a terrible thing—at least that is how I used to feel when I was unemployed—as it is in the case of persons who are weak and defenceless. By their votes a moment ago hon. Members have deliberately declared the case of the young and defenceless, of these youngsters who have just left school and gone into factory or workshop, is not to be considered further as part of this Bill until the right hon. Gentleman brings forward a further Financial Resolution permitting it to be done. What has been done, as a matter of fact, is such a stupid thing that it now becomes necessary to report Progress because you have put your Bill into such a state of chaos that it is impossible to proceed. For the present you have put out of its four corners the question of juvenile unemployment, and some of the most important provisions for dealing with that phase of the problem ever proposed by 135 any Government. That matter is out of the Bill until we make provision to include it again. Hon. Members have trooped into the Division Lobby to say that this provision shall be struck out of the Bill until the Minister comes forward with the necessary Resolution to enable it to be discussed again. Discussion cannot be allowed now on that part of the unemployed problem which relates to children between 14 and 16. Provision for them has been struck out entirely and deliberately. It is quite clear that not only do the Government and their followers require courage and conviction, but they also want knowledge and common sense.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I entirely disagree with the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. I have been waiting in order to raise other points in connection with this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member says that because this Amendment has been carried by a somewhat large majority, the Bill is in a state of muddle. The Amendment, however, refers to only one Clause out of the 16 Clauses of the sill, and it only means that this one Clause cannot be proceeded with immediately. As soon as the Minister of Labour has come to some agreement with the Treasury and with his colleagues—and I trust with the leaders of the other two parties, or at any rate with those who as a rule take an interest in these matters—another Clause acceptable to the majority of the House can be inserted in Committee on the Bill, in place of the Clause to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers. That is
§ what the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in language of quite unusual exaggeration for him, calls a "muddle." All the rest of the Bill can be discussed, and we have about 20 minutes in which to do it. I hope the Minister will shortly bring in a, new Resolution more acceptable to the House and that some better provision will be made for these children. If we report Progress, then instead of having wasted the greater part of the afternoon we shall have wasted the whole afternoon. This discussion was finished when the right hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to accept the Amendment, but the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) used his undoubted eloquence and powers of persuasion and managed to rouse two or three hon. Gentlemen to go into the Division Lobby. It has simply been a waste of time, and I desire to raise other matters on the Bill, but I see at once that the Chairman is moving uneasily and will probably call me to order if I do so. So I content myself by protesting strongly against the Motion to report Progress. We have wasted enough time already, and for Heaven's sake let us get on. I hope the Motion will be defeated and that we may get on with matters connected with the other 15 Clauses of the Bill.
§ Mr. SHAW rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 122.139
|Division No. 80.]||AYES.||[7.55 p.m.|
|Ackroyd, T. R.||Broad, F. A.||Dodds, S. R.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke||Bromfield, William||Duckworth, John|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)||Dukes, C.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Buchanan, G.||Duncan, C.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Buckle, J.||Dunn, J. Freeman|
|Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)||Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)||Dunnico, H.|
|Alstead, R.||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Cape, Thomas||Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Charleton, H. C.||Edwards, John H. (Accrington)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Church, Major A. G.||Egan, W. H.|
|Attlee, Major Clement R.||Climie, R.||Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)|
|Ayles, W. H.||Cluse, W. S.||England, Colonel A.|
|Baker, Walter||Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Falconer, J.|
|Banton, G.||Compton, Joseph||Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.|
|Barclay, R. Noton||Cove, W. G.||Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)|
|Barnes, A.||Crittall, V. G.||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North}|
|Batey, Joseph||Darbishire, C. W.||Gavan-Duffy, Thomas|
|Birkett, W. N.||Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Gillett, George M.|
|Bonwick, A.||Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Gosling, Harry|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Dickie, Captain J. P.||Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frame)|
|Bramsdon, Sir Thomas||Dickson, T.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)|
|Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Lunn, William||Shinwell, Emanuel|
|Greenall, T.||McCrae, Sir George||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Simpson, J. Hope|
|Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis||McEntee, V. L.||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Mackinder, W.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Smith, T. (Pontefract)|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Maden, H.||Snell, Harry|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mansel, Sir Courtenay||Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||March, S.||Spero, Dr. G. E|
|Harbord, Arthur||Marley, James||Stamford, T. W.|
|Hardie, George D.||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Starmer, Sir Charles|
|Harney, E. A.||Maxton, James||Stephen, Campbell|
|Harris, Percy A.||Middleton, G.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Millar, J. D.||Sunlight, J.|
|Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)||Mills, J. E.||Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|Hastings, Sir Patrick||Montague, Frederick||Sutton, J. E.|
|Hastings, Somerville (Reading)||Morel, E. D.||Tattersall, J. L.|
|Haycock, A. W.||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Hayday, Arthur||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)|
|Hayes, John Henry||Morse, W. E.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)|
|Healy, Cahir||Moulton, Major Fletcher||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Hemmerde, E. G.||Muir, John W.||Thornton, Maxwell R.|
|Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)||Murray, Robert||Thurtle, E.|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Naylor, T. E.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Hillary, A, E.||Nichol, Robert||Tout, W. J.|
|Hirst, G. H.||O'Connor, Thomas P.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Hobhouse, A. L.||O'Grady, Captain James||Turner, Ben|
|Hodges, Frank||Oliver, George Harold||Viant, S. P.|
|Hogbin, Henry Cairne||Owen, Major G.||Vivian, H.|
|Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)||Palmer, E. T.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Hudson, J. H.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)||Parry, Thomas Henry||Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon-Trent)|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Perry, S. F.||Warne, G. H.|
|Jewson, Dorothea||Phillipps, Vivian||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Potts, John S.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)||Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford||Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.|
|Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool,W.Derby)||Raynes, W. R.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Rea, W. Russell||White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)||Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Whiteley, W.|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Richards, R.||Wignall, James|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Ritson, J.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F.W. (Bradford, E.)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)||Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)|
|Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)||Robertson, T. A.||Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)|
|Kay, Sir R. Newbald||Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Keens, T.||Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)||Willison, H.|
|Kenyon, Barnet||Romeril, H. G.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Kirkwood, D.||Royce, William Stapleton||Windsor, Walter|
|Lansbury, George||Royle, C.||Wintringham, Margaret|
|Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)||Scrymgeour, E.||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Lawson, John James||Scurr, John||Wright, W.|
|Leach, W.||Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)||Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)|
|Lee, F.||Sexton, James|
|Linfield, F. C.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Lowth, T.||Sherwood, George Henry||Mr. Spoor and Mr. Kennedy.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Gwynne, Rupert S.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Chilcott, Sir Warden||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Clarry, Reginald George||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Clayton, G. C.||Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)|
|Becker, Harry||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Henn, Sir Sydney H.|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase||Cope, Major William||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.|
|Berry, Sir George||Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Crooke, J, Smedley (Deritend)||Hogge, James Myles|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Hood, Sir Joseph|
|Blundell, F. N.||Davies, Maj. Geo.F. (Somerset,Yeovll)||Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Dawson, Sir Philip||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Deans, Richard Storry||Howard, Hon. D.(Cumberland, North)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Dixon, Herbert||Hughes, Collingwood|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Eden, Captain Anthony||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Huntingfield, Lord|
|Burman, J. B.||Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Ferguson, H.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Kindersley, Major G. M.|
|Cassels, J. D.||Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.||King, Captain Henry Douglas|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Lane-Fox, George R.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Lorlmer, H. D.||Pringle, W. M. R.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|McLean, Major A.||Raine, W.||Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell (Croydon,S.)|
|Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Rawson, Alfred Cooper||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Meller, R. J.||Remer, J. R.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Milne, J. S. Wardlaw||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Waddington, R.|
|Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)||Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)||Wells, S. R.|
|Nesbitt, Robert C.||Ropner, Major L.||Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds,Central)|
|Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Roundell, Colonel R. F.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Pease, William Edwin||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Pennefather, Sir John||Savery, S. S.||Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.|
|Penny, Frederick George||Shepperson, E. W.||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)|
|Perring, William George||Steel, Samuel Strang||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Philipson, Mabel||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser||Colonel G. A. Gibbs and Major Sir|
|Pielou, D. P.||Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)||Harry Barnston.|
§ Question put, accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."140
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 121; Noes 233.141
|Division No. 81.]||AYES.||[8.5 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.||Penny, Frederick George|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Fremantle, Lieut -Colonel Francis E.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Gilmour, Colonel Rt- Hon. Sir John||Perring, William George|
|Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Philipson, Mabel|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Pielou, D. P.|
|Becker, Harry||Gwynne, Rupert S.||Pringle, W. M. R.|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Ralne, W.|
|Berry, Sir George||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Rawson, Alfred Cooper|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Hartington, Marquess of||Remer, J. R.|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Harvey, C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Richardson, Lt -Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Ropner, Major L.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hood, Sir Joseph||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)||Savery, S. S.|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Burman, J. B.||Howard, Hon. D.(Cumberland, North)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Hughes, Collingwood||Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Steel, Samuel Strang|
|Cassels, J. D.||Huntingfield, Lord||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Jephcott, A. R.||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Lamb, J. Q.||Waddington, R.|
|Clayton, G. C.||Lane-Fox, George R.||Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Wells, S. R.|
|Cope, Major William||Locker Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds,Central)|
|Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||Lorlmer, H. D.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George|
|Crooke, J, Smedley (Deritend)||McLean, Major A.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J, H.||Meller, R. J.||Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Deans, Richard Storry||Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Dixon, Herbert||Nesbitt, Robert C.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Colonel G. A. Gibbs and Major Sir|
|Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Pease, William Edwin||Harry Barnston.|
|Ferguson, H.||Pennefather, Sir John|
|Ackroyd, T. R.||Banton, G.||Bromfield, William|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Barclay, R. Noton||Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Buchanan, G.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Barnes, A.||Buckle, J.|
|Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)||Batey, Joseph||Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)|
|Alstead, R.||Berkeley, Captain Reginald||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel|
|Ammon, Charles George||Birkett, W. N.||Cape, Thomas|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Bondfield, Margaret||Charleton, H. C.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Bonwick, A.||Church, Major A. G.|
|Attlee, Major Clement R.||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Climie, R.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Bramsdon, Sir Thomas||Cluse, W. S.|
|Baker, Walter||Broad, F. A.||Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)|
|Compton, Joseph||Jewson, Dorothea||Robertson, T. A.|
|Cove, W. G.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)||Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)|
|Crittall, V. G.||Jones, C.Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)||Romeril, H. G.|
|Darbishire, C. W.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)||Royle, C.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leil (Camborne)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Scurr, John|
|Dickie, Captain J. P.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)|
|Dickson, T.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)||Sexton, James|
|Dodds, S. R.||Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Duckworth, John||Kay, Sir R. Newbald||Sherwood, George Henry|
|Dukes, C.||Keens, T.||Shlnwell, Emanuel|
|Duncan, C.||Kenyon, Barnet||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Dunn, J. Freeman||Kirkwood, D.||Simpson, J. Hope|
|Dunnico, H.||Lansbury, George||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)||Lawson, John James||Smith, T. (Pontefract)|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Leach, W.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Egan, W. H.||Lee, F.||Snell, Harry|
|Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)||Linfield, F. C.||Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.|
|England, Colonel A.||Lowth, T.||Spero, Dr. G. E.|
|Falconer, J.||Lunn, William||Stamford, T. W.|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.||McCrae, Sir George||Starmer, Sir Charles|
|Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||McEntee, V. L.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)||Mackinder, W.||Sunlight, J.|
|Gavan-Duffy, Thomas||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Gillett, George M.||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Tattersall, J. L.|
|Gosling, Harry||Maden, H.||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)||Mansel, Sir Courtenay||Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||March, S.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Marley, James||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Greenall, T.||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Thornton, Maxwell R.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Maxton, James||Thurtle, E.|
|Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis||Middleton, G.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Grundy, T. W.||Millar, J. D.||Tout, W. J.|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Mills, J. E.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Montague, Frederick||Turner, Ben|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Viant, S. P.|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Vivian, H.|
|Harbord, Arthur||Morse, W. E.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Hardie, George D.||Moulton, Major Fletcher||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Harney, E. A.||Muir, John W.||Warne, G. H.|
|Harris, Percy A.||Naylor, T. E.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Nichol, Robert||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)||O'Connor, Thomas P.||Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.|
|Hastings, Sir Patrick||O'Grady, Captain James||Weir, L. M.|
|Hastings, Somerville (Reading)||Oliver, George Harold||Whiteley, W.|
|Haycock, A. W.||Owen, Major G.||Wignall, James|
|Hayday, Arthur||Palmer, E. T.||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Healy, Cahir||Parry, Thomas Henry||Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough E.)|
|Hemmerde, E. G.||Perry, S. F.||Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)|
|Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Phillipps, Vivian||Willison, H.|
|Hillary, A. E.||Pilkington, R. R.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Hirst, G. H.||Potts, John S.||Windsor, Walter|
|Hobhouse, A. L.||Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford||Wintringham, Margaret|
|Hedges, Frank||Raynes, W. R.||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Hogbin, Henry Cairns||Rea, W. Russell||Wright, W.|
|Hogge, James Myles||Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)|
|Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)||Richards, R.|
|Hudson, J. H.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)||Ritson, J.||Mr. Spoor and Mr. Kennedy.|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)|
§ Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I take it that the discussion on thee main question will now be resumed for the three minutes that remain. I have seen a little of what is known colloquially as obstruction, but I have never seen anything to equal what we have experienced this evening. Before the Amendment by my right hon. Friend the Member for
§ Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) was moved, only one private Member, an hon. Member who spoke from the Labour Benches, had any opportunity of discussing the main question, and we have now only three minutes in which to discuss it. I want to deal with a matter that has not been touched upon to-day, and that is the extraordinary policy that the Minister of Labour has continued in making a differentiation in the payments out of the fund to young men and young 143 women when unemployed. There may be some possible case made out for young men and women of 18 receiving different amounts of money, but I cannot see why you should make any difference between the young girl of 16 and the young boy of 16 in this respect. As a matter of fact, I think it is more dangerous to keep the young woman on short commons, with barely enough to live on, than it is to keep the young man short of money, and I am sure that this question has been brought home to my right hon. Friend, with his large experience of the industrial life of the country. I hope he will find time to reconsider this question, as I think it is scandalous that a Labour-Government should continue this policy.
§ Mr. SHAW rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee proceeded to a Division.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
(seated and covered): On a point of Order. When you called on the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman), it was on the express understanding that there would be an opportunity for a
§ general discussion, and because, owing to mismanagement, the Debate on the Amendment has been protracted, surely that is no reason why the Closure should now be applied. It was an express statement in reply to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean).
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman). I pointed out that there had been a tendency to discuss the Amendment on the Main Question, and I thought it better to get rid of the Amendment and come back to the Main Question, That was what I said, but I gave no undertaking.
§ Lord H. CECIL
(seated and covered): On a point of Order. Hon. Members opposite do not appear to be aware of the rule that, until the Question has been put, Members should address the Chair standing. The point I want to put is that it is past a quarter past eight.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The Closure was moved before a quarter past eight, and was put to the Committee. It was the interruptions from this side that carried us past 8.15.
§ The Committee divided Ayes, 230; Noes, 128.147
|Division No. 82.]||AYES.||[8.20 p.m.|
|Ackroyd, T. R.||Cape, Thomas||Falconer, J.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Charleton, H. C.||Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.|
|Adamson, W, M. (Staff., Cannock)||Church, Major A. G.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)|
|Alexander, A V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Climie, R.||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)|
|Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)||Cluse, W. S.||Gavan-Duffy, Thomas|
|Alstead, R.||Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Gillett, George M.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Compton, Joseph||Gosling, Harry|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Cove, W. G.||Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)|
|Attlee, Major Clement R.||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)|
|Ayles, W. H.||Crittall, V. G.||Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Baker, Walter||Darbishire, C. W.||Greenall, T.|
|Banton, G.||Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Barclay, R. Noton||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Grundy, T. W.|
|Barnes, A.||Dickie, Captain J. P.||Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)|
|Batey, Joseph||Dickson, T.||Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)|
|Birkett, W. N.||Dodds, S. R.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Duckworth, John||Hair, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)|
|Bonwick, A.||Dukes, C.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Duncan, C.||Harbord, Arthur|
|Bramsdon, Sir Thomas||Dunn, J. Freeman||Hardie, George D.|
|Broad, F. A.||Dunnico, H.||Harris, Percy A.|
|Bromfield, William||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon|
|Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)||Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)||Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)|
|Buchanan, G.||Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Hastings, Sir Patrick|
|Buckie, J.||Egan, W. H.||Hastings, Somerville (Reading)|
|Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)||Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)||Haycock, A. W.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||England, Colonel A.||Hayday, Arthur|
|Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)||Middleton, G.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Healy, Cahir||Millar, J. D.||Smith, T, (Pontefract)|
|Hemmerde, E. G.||Mills, J. E.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)||Montague, Frederick||Snell, Harry|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Morel, E. D.||Spears, Brig-Gen. E. L.|
|Hillary, A. E.||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Hirst, G. H.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Starmer, Sir Charles|
|Hobhouse, A. L.||Morse, W. E.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Hodges, Frank||Moulton, Major Fletcher||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Hogbin, Henry Cairns||Muir, John W.||Sunlight, J.|
|Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)||Murray, Robert||Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|Hudson, J. H.||Naylor, T. E.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Isaacs, G. A.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Tattersall, J. L.|
|Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)||Nichol, Robert||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||O'Connor, Thomas P.||Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)|
|Jewson, Dorothea||O'Grady, Captain James||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Oliver, George Harold||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool,W.Derby)||Owen, Major G.||Thornton, Maxwell R.|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Palmer, E. T.||Thurtle, E.|
|Jones J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Parry, Thomas Henry||Tout, W. J.|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Perry, S. F.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Turner, Ben|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)||Phillipps, Vivian||Viant, S. P.|
|Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)||Pilkington, R. R.||Vivian, H.|
|Kay, Sir R. Newbald||Potts, John S.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Keens, T.||Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Kennedy, T.||Raynes, W. R.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Kenyon, Barnet||Rea, W. Russell||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Kirkwood, D.||Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.|
|Lansbury, George||Richards, R.||Weir, L. M.|
|Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Lawson, John James||Ritson, J.||White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)|
|Leach, W.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)||Whiteley, W.|
|Lee, F.||Robertson, T. A.||Wignall, James|
|Linfield, F. C.||Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Lowth, T.||Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Lunn, William||Romeril, H. G.||Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)|
|McCrae, Sir George||Royce, William Stapleton||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Royle, C.||Willison, H.|
|McEntee, V. L.||Scrymgeour, E.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Mackinder, W.||Scurr, John||Windsor, Walter|
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)||Wintringham, Margaret|
|Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Sexton, James||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Maden, H.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Wright, W.|
|Mansel, Sir Courtenay||Sherwood, George Henry||Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)|
|March, S.||Shinwell, Emanuel|
|Marley, James||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Simpson, J. Hope||Mr. Spoor and Mr. Warne.|
|Maxton, James||Sinclair, Ma|or Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Clayton, G. C.||Hood, Sir Joseph|
|Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas.C.)||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Cope, Major William||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Craig, Captain C. C, (Antrim, South)||Howard, Hn. D.(Cumberland,Northrn.)|
|Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hughes, Collingwood|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Huntingfield, Lord|
|Banner, Sir John S. Harmood||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovll)||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Dawson, Sir Philip||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Becker, Harry||Deans, Richard Storry||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Berkeley, Captain Reginald||Dixon, Herbert||Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)|
|Berry, Sir George||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Kindersley, Major G. M.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||King, Captain Henry Douglas|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Ferguson, H.||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton. W.)||FitzRoy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A.||Lane-Fox, George R.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Gates, Percy||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.||Lorimer, H. D.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John||McLean, Major A.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Burman, J. B.||Gwynne, Rupert S.||Meller, R. J.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)|
|Cassels, J. D.||Hartington, Marquess of||Nesbitt, Robert C.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Pease, William Edwin|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Pennefather, Sir John|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||Hogge, James Myles||Penny, Frederick George|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Ward, Lt.-Col.A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Perring, William George||Savery, S. S.||Wells, S. R.|
|Philipson, Mabel||Shepperson, E. W.||Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds,Central)|
|Pleiou, D. P.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Pringle, W. M. R.||Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Raine, W||Steel, Samuel Strang||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Rankin, James S.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser||Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.|
|Remer, J. R.||Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Croydon,S.)|
|Ropner, Major L.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Roundell, Colonel R. F.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.||Colonel G. A. Gibbs and Major Sir|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Waddington, R.||Harry Barnston.|
Question put, and agreed to.
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1924, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—
§ Resolution to be reported To morrow.