§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy)
I shall not take either of the Amendments to Clause 2 on the Paper.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. R. DAVIES
On a point of Order. With reference to my Amendment—in page 2, line 17, after the word "requires," to insert the words(a) the expression 'widow' includes a woman whose husband has for a period of six months after the commencement of this Act been unable to follow his employment on account of continuing physical disability so long as such disability prevents his return to employment—2588 I am not sufficiently conversant with the Rules of the House to know by what action it would be possible to bring an Amendment of this kind under discussion, but, if I am within the Rules of the House, I should very much like to be enlightened as to the reasons why this Amendment, which I regard as a very important one, is ruled out. Might I just explain that last night—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member cannot deal with his suggested Amendment on a point of Order. Under the Standing Orders I am not obliged to give any reason for not selecting an Amendment, but for the hon. Member's benefit I will tell him that it is not in order here, but should either be moved as an Amendment to Clause 43 or as a new Clause.
§ Mr. MARCH
Before Clause 2 is passed, I should like to be enlightened with regard to Sub-section (3), which is as follows:An exempt person and a person engaged in an excepted employment shall be deemed to be insured for the purposes of this Act in the circumstances and to the extent mentioned in this Act.In the case of a large number of councils, whose men would in the ordinary way come under National Health Insurance, they are not under National Health Insurance, having been exempted for a number of years. Those councils have provided from their funds extra benefits for their workpeople, for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the National Health Insurance Act, and, further, many of them have instituted superannuation funds. In some instances, the councils are paying towards the superannuation fund, and in other instances the workmen also are contributing. Does this Clause mean that even councils who are doing that are now compelled to pay contributions under this Act in respect of their workpeople? There are also those who are in excepted trades—trades which it was not thought advisable to bring in when the National Health Insurance Act was passed. Those people have been for a number of years excepted, whether they wanted to be or not, but I take it that now they will be brought in. Will they be brought in on a contributory basis only for the purpose of this Measure, or will they be brought in under the National Health Insurance Act as well? I should like to have a clear explanation with regard to these two points, because, if things happen in the way I think they will, it is going to be a very great hardship upon a number of councils who have gone out of their way to pay larger sickness benefits than the National Health Insurance Act ever contemplated, in order to comply with the conditions of exemption, and also on those who are in excepted trades.
§ Mr. DAVIES
The Committee has now reached what I regard as the second fundamental Clause of this Bill, not only in numerical order but in principle. Clause 2 settles the door through which persons shall enter into the scheme, and I think it will be well that the Committee should understand the situation right away. My hon. Friend the Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) has raised one serious issue already, and I want to 2590 dwell upon another for a moment or two, if I may. The National Health Insurance Act, as consolidated in 1924, determined the meaning of the expression "insured person," and the Bill now before the Committee rests exclusively on the interpretation given in that consolidating Act. Let us see what is the meaning of an employed person, because it is only the compulsorily insured person who is entitled normally to fall within the National Health Insurance scheme. This is what the Schedule to the 1924 Act declares:Employment in the United Kingdom under any contract of service or apprenticeship, written or oral, whether expressed or implied and whether the employed person is paid by the employer or some other person.The scope of this Bill is therefore limited in a very narrow, circumscribed form, merely to those persons who fall within the National Health Insurance scheme, or who have at some time or other been within that scheme for two years and desire now to join as voluntary contributors. Any scheme which provides benefits of any kind whatever to which the State is a contributor is not a scheme that ought to pass this House unless it gives an opportunity to all the citizens within the State to come within its ambit. That is the principle I desire to lay down in anything I have to say on this Clause.
Let me deal first with the type of person who falls within the National Health Insurance scheme. You have the normal case of the man (or woman) who is under a contract of service and is paid wages or salary. He is compulsorily insured under the National Health Insurance Acts. A manual worker, irrespective of his wages—he may receive £3, £5, or £10, though it is very rarely that he gets more than £3 these days—is compulsorily insured for national health purposes, and consequently he will fall under this scheme automatically. The case I want to touch upon, however, is that of the clerk, or shop worker, whose wages are increased beyond the rate of £250 per annum, that is to say £4 16s. 2d. a week. That person automatically falls out from the National Health Insurance scheme unless, of course, he desires to become a voluntary contributor. Why should we have an anomaly of this kind? Here a a manual worker, say, for example, in receipt of £5 a week. His brother, a non- 2591 manual worker, is in receipt of £4 16s. 6d., and merely because he is a non-manual worker he will be called upon, if he desires to come into the scheme at all to pay, not only his own quota, but the employer's contribution as well. When the State comes to the aid financially of any scheme which provides any cash benefit whatever, it should not distinguish in this way.
A fundamental objection I have to the Measure is, that in order to come under this scheme you must come through national health insurance. That is to say, if you want to secure an article you must buy two in order to get one. I think that is wrong in principle. It is like buying half-a-dozen articles in order to get a wedding ring. I do not want this Measure to be a cheapjack affair of that kind.
I know full well the difficulties there are in the way of separating the two schemes—I am too conversant with them —but it appears to me that this Bill shuts out many people who ought to come in. Let me mention some of them. The non-manual worker in receipt of over £250 per annum is definitely cut out unless he pays the employers' contributions as well as his own. Then there is another type of person, the person who is at present unemployed and uninsured. I am glad the Minister saw the error he made last evening and has gracefully apologised to-day. As a matter of fact, I have confirmed what I said last night and could now, if it were necessary, prove that this might happen. I think the case I am going to narrate is above all one that the Committee ought to take an interest in. It is the case of a man who fell unemployed, say, three years ago. He has been continuously unemployed. The approved society, in order to secure evidence that he is genuinely unemployed, writes the Employment Exchange, who say that, though the man has been unemployed for three years, he is not, within the definition of the rules and regulations of the Employment Exchanges, genuinely unemployed. Consequently, the approved society may rule him out at once, and he is no longer a member of the society; and merely because he has been unemployed for two or three years and the approved society rules him out under 2592 the prolongation scheme, he does not come into this scheme at all until he returns to employment once again. I think that is a case the Minister ought to inquire further into.
I have not been satisfied at all on the position of what we term the Post Office deposit contributors, and I should like the Minister to make some statement. They are not many, but they are largely the rejects of the approved societies; people who have been expelled on account of breaking the rules of societies and those who have not been admitted into societies owing to a low physical standard and so forth. These people hand their cards through the Post Office, and all they get out in benefit is the exact amount which they have paid in. It is not an insurance proposition at all so far as they are concerned, even under the original scheme. That is to say, they put into a money box so much, and, when they fall ill or require maternity benefit, all they get out is the actual amount that has been paid in. Those people appear to me to be fit subjects of investigation by the Minister, and we ought to have a statement from him in their interest.
There is also another type of case. I always thought, when the Bill was introduced, that the Government were attempting, in a compassionate way, to do something for the widow; but for the life of me I cannot understand why there is not included in the Bill the case of women who are even worse off than if they were widows with children Take, for instance, the case of a woman whose husband is in a lunatic asylum—a woman with three or four children. Her condition is immensely worse than if she were a widow. She is rot included at all under the scheme. Then there are cases of husbands suffering from epilepsy, cancer, diabetes and diseases of a lingering kind If they are insured and drawing either sickness or disablement benefit from their approved societies, the women folk, who are to all intents and purposes, widows, will be ruled out under the terms of this Clause.
The door to this new scheme, as already stated, is through the National Health Insurance scheme. I want to ask the Minister what would happen in a case like this? The approved society, when it receives an application for membership form in respect of a boy or girl of 16, asks, "Are you, or have you been, suffer- 2593 ing from any disease or physical infirmity?" That is a very natural question. But if the answer is in the affirmative and the person is suffering from spinal affliction or any of these wasting diseases, the approved society rejects the application, and the young person falls automatically to be dealt with as a deposit contributor. If the approved society rejects the applicant, as it must do in the very nature of the case, what becomes of him under this scheme? Is he ruled out merely because he is excluded from an Approved Society?
§ Mr. DAVIES
I shall be happy to receive information on the point. I wanted if possible to insert words in this Clause to include those people who are not included at present under the National Health Insurance scheme. I think that could be done. The difficulties will be many; but when the original Insurance Bill was discussed in 1911 the difficulties foreshadowed in that scheme were many more and 'greater than any which may arise under this scheme. In fact, this is a. very simple scheme in comparison with the ramifications of the National Health Insurance Acts. For instance, you have all the organisation of the National Health Insurance scheme at your hand, the collection of contributions will be a simple matter, and the whole trouble, so far as I am concerned, is that the most deserving cases of all will be shut out" from this Bill when in fact the intention, so far as I understood it, was to cover those very cases where compassion ought to be exercised by the State towards these poor people. It falls short in many other respects. It falls short not only in the amount of benefit payable, not only does it shut out people who ought to be in, but it falls short also in that it excludes the most deserving type of case which a scheme of this kind ought to cater for. I trust the Government even at this late stage will inquire not only into the question of the deposit contributor, but of those hundreds of people who every year are declined entry into approved societies, and who, I think, may be prohibited from entering this scheme on that account. All this looks very well on paper, but when the Act comes to be administered, I feel positive that the anomalies arising there from will be 2594 such that whatever Government may be in power will be compelled to come along not once but may be twice in the next few years to amend this scheme on the lines that I have suggested. I trust the Committee will not lose sight of the points which I have raised, that the scheme is too circumscribed. It admits of only one door through which people can enter. I hope before this Clause leaves the Committee that hon. Members will agree with this declaration, that whenever the State calls upon the Treasury to finance any scheme of social insurance, the door to that scheme should be wide open for all its citizens who care to enter.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I look upon this Bill as a kind of Socialism. A hundred years ago it would have been called rank Socialism. That being the case, it ought to be made universal. It would have been very much better to go the whole way and bring everyone in the country under this scheme. A man may be rich to-day, but in a few years' time he may be poor and his widow and orphans may be left badly off. I know that this is a counsel of perfection and that there are great administrative difficulties. If we do not make the scheme universal, I think the Government should make it as wide as possible. The voluntary classes should be very much enlarged with, of course, an age limit, so that everyone who wishes to come into this scheme as a. voluntary contributor shall be encouraged to do so. The more people you can get in up to a certain age, the better. There are all sorts of classes who might be willing and glad to come into a scheme of this sort. As we get experience it will be necessary to amend the Act, and it may be that non-manual workers, clergy and people of that kind, would be glad to come into the scheme. The principle which the Government should adopt should be to leave the door open as wide as possible.
§ Sir H. SLESSER
This Clause limits the benefits and the obligations of insurance to a very confined number of people. It is true that they are a large number of people in the aggregate, but there are a larger number of people who are excluded from this Bill. The point I wish to make is a vital one. One of the great defects of this legislation is that it imposes by law upon a limited class of 2595 subjects legal obligations which will not be imposed upon the rest. Insured persons within the meaning of this Clause, whether they wish it or not, will have to surrender a certain amount of wages for a certain benefit. Certain persons who are not within this particular Clause will be able, voluntarily, to choose for themselves whether or not this legal obligation shall be accepted. Outside those who may come into this Clause voluntarily there is a vast group who will be entirely free from this legislation.
We are embarking upon a very dangerous principle regarding the liberty of the subject, because we are getting away from the idea that legal obligations are applied with equal force to all citizens. Because by accident a person is employed in certain industries whereby the National Health Insurance Act applies to them, this Bill applies to them, with its obligations and its benefits. I think that system was vicious when it was introduced into the National Health Insurance scheme, but it is too late now to discuss that. The National Health Insurance scheme is now being extended to matters which have nothing to do with industry. Unlike unemployment, unlike disease which has been possibly contracted in industry, this scheme has nothing to do with industry. Therefore, we are in this position, that a, person who is over a certain income will be free to decide for himself whether he is going to be thrifty or not. He can be as thriftless as he likes. He need not insure. He is perfectly free to decide for himself whether his widow shall have a pension or not; but once you fall within the magic circle of poor persons and come within the National Health Insurance Act and this Act, your volition is taken away, an obligation is imposed by Statute, and the person affected has in a very real sense become of servile status. What I object to is, that you are introducing into this country a servile condition which muse end in a servile state. If we are to put obligations on people that they shall be thrifty if they are to receive benefit, then those obligations should apply to every citizen and not merely to one class because they happen to be poor.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Com- 2596 mander Kenworthy) that this is a kind of Socialism. It is a very bad and dangerous kind of Socialism, a sort of Socialism which will lead to what we are beginning to call a servile state. That is, all the compulsion of the State, all the power of the State, and all the wealth of the State is directed to the controlling of a certain limited class of citizens because they are poor. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health laughs. He must admit, because he is a lawyer, that that is so. The whole notion of the law of contract is that all citizens stand equal before the law. In this legislation that principle is no longer true. If you are over a certain income you can be as thriftless and as improvident as you like, but if you fall within the category of those who are poor you are bound by the State and by the law to have certain money deducted from your wages wherever you are employed. Therefore, in this legislation, by imposing these obligations, by providing these benefits, and by making special provision for people whom you think need it because they are poor, you are laying the foundations of a servile state.
If it be true that Socialism of a certain sort leads a man away from free contact to a dependent status, then there never has been introduced into this House a worse or more dangerous type of Socialism than the type of Socialism in this Bill. Hon. Members opposite who are apt to call us by a name which is not officially assumed by our party, that of the Socialist party, would do well to remember that they have taken the worst elements of Socialism and applied them in this Bill by imposing all the power of that bureaucracy and that tyranny and those legal obligations which we true Socialists would avoid by endowing people with a proper quantity of this world's goods, so that they can choose for themselves. It is time the party opposite knew where they stood in this matter. If they believe in the individualism which they so often preach, they would see that this Clause is a negation of individualism because it interferes with the liberty of the subject. If they say that this kind of Socialism is right which puts obligations upon the poor and leaves the rich free, then they are individualists when they are arguing 2597 finance and Socialists of an extreme kind when they are imposing obligations upon the poor. Hon. Members are apt to lose sight of the fact that the obligations which are being imposed upon a limited number of persons under this Bill deprive them of liberty. That is only excusable if you put exactly the same obligations on every citizen, in the Kingdom, whether they be rich or poor, male or female.
Why should this matter end here? I can foresee the time when a Conscription Act in time of danger might be brought in only to apply to people who are covered by this legislation which we are now discussing, so that only persons with incomes of less than £160 a year will have to serve in the war. That may seem an extreme case. It is all in the line of the same vicious principle. Let us all bear these social obligations or let none of us bear them. Under the Education Act the school attendance officer does not call at the houses of the wealthy. The police are less attentive to the crimes which are being committed almost daily by people who are wealthy. They do not investigate and patrol the rich as they patrol the poor. In this Bill you have the principle laid down in law and not merely in practice of differentiation Whether anybody agrees with me or not, I must stand here and protest, as I shall continue to protest as long as I am a Member of this House, against legislation which imposes obligations, burdens, and responsibilities on one class and exempts other classes simply because they have sufficient money to enable them to escape the obligations.
§ Sir K. WOOD
Whether or not the ex-chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Snow-den) approves of the declarations made by members of his party on this subject I do not know. I do not know whether he approves of the announcement made by the late Minister of Health (Mr. Wheatley) that when the Labour party comes into office, as far as the continuation of this scheme is concerned, it will be non-contributory. Now we have it stated on the authority of the late Solicitor-General (Sir H. Slesser) that it is not to be compulsory.
§ Sir H. SLESSER
I said that, be it compulsory or not compulsory, everybody should be treated in the same way.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I was only endeavouring to recall the phrase of the hon. Member when he spoke about a servile state. I should like to address myself to the more serious questions put to me, especially by the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. E. Davies). So far from the hon. Member for West Houghton thinking that this scheme imposes undue burdens and makes the people who are brought within its scope members of a servile class, he pleaded that more people should be permitted to come within the scope of the Bill and to receive the great benefits which the scheme will confer. I am not surprised at the hon. Member doing that I prophesied yesterday that most of the complaints directed against this Bill would be on behalf of those people who, unfortunately, through one reason or another, are shut out from it. The complaints will not be against the scheme, but because certain people cannot share in the benefits which the scheme gives. The real answer to my hon. Friend is this, that this scheme is linked up with the National Health Insurance scheme. I think the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me in this, because I know he considered this scheme, that when you put forward a scheme for widows' and orphans' pensions you have got to link it up with some existing machinery or form new machinery altogether. Anyone who gives a moment's thought will agree that obviously it is convenient and much cheaper and in the long run brings bigger benefits, to link up with some existing organisation. We could, as the right hon. Gentleman said, have linked up the scheme with Unemployment Insurance. For reasons which I think may be obvious to the Committee, we considered that wholly undesirable, and one of the reasons why we did so was that by linking up this scheme with National Health Insurance you got within it the largest number of the industrial population to-day. I suppose there is no scheme which embraces so many of the industrial population as this widows' pensions scheme will do.
The hon. Member referred to Clause 2, and he confined himself to reading that part of the Clause which states that the expression "insured" may mean those people who are insured under the Health Insurance Act, but he omitted to 2599 refer to what comes later on and which saysand in relation to any person who is deemed to be insured for the purpose of this Act.These words have a very significant meaning. They cover not only the people already insured but the people who in other Clauses of the Bill which follow are deemed to have the insured status mentioned in the Bill. By that means, you bring in exempted persons under certain conditions and also under certain conditions persons in excepted employment. If hon. Members will refer to the Actuary's Report and will look at the two tables to which I referred the hon. Member for Middlesbrough to-day, in answer to a question, they can see that within one provision or other of the Bill a very great mass of the industrial population of this country will be able to enjoy the benefits of this Measure. You may say, "Oh, yes, but there are certain classes which are excepted." That is so, but we have endeavoured to meet their case, so far as we properly and legitimately can. Take the case of the small shopkeeper who does not come within the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act on the ground that he is not under contract of service. We have endeavoured so far as we can to meet his case. If the Committee will look at Clause 13 they will see there is a very wide door indeed which is open for other people to come within the provisions of this Measure. It is certainly the easiest method that I know of which permits a voluntary contributor to come into a Measure. If a small shopkeeper, as happens in many cases, has himself been employed in a business of which in later years he has become the proprietor, or if he acquires a business on his own account, and if 104 contributions have been paid in respect of him in insurable employment, then he has the option of coming within this scheme as a voluntary contributor.
§ Mr. R. DAVIES
Why the arbitrary 104 weeks when, in fact, there are thousands upon thousands of people who have passed through the National Insurance Act but who have not had continued membership of an approved society and have made less than 104 contributions?
§ Sir K. WOOD
I think I can appeal to all quarters of the House, that you must have some conditions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Obviously, in connection with any scheme there must be some conditions as a protection for the scheme itself and the only conditions made here are very generous indeed. All they require—and I should state that this covers practically every one of the insured population—is that at some time or the other before, say, they had gone into business on their own account, they shall have been in insurance for two years and have paid 104 contributions. I venture to say that that is not an unreasonable or unfair obligation. At any rate, we shall be able to discuss it when we come to the Clause.
§ Mr. SPENCER
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this? Where a man goes into business, and his income is more than. £250 a year, will he be allowed in under these circumstances?
§ Sir K. WOOD
If he is otherwise qualified, yes. Under that condition, a very large number of other people will be able to obtain the benefits of this Bill.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I am sorry. I will come to the clergy. It is true that, unless at some time or other some clergyman has, we will say, been occupied in the position of a clerk or has been under a contract of service and is able to claim the conditions of this Clause, he will not be able to become a voluntary contributor under the Clause. I am very sorry, but that condition must be made.
§ Sir PATRICK HASTINGS
I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that if a person had been insured for the period required by this Section, 104 weeks, and subsequently ceased to be insured and his income subsequently became increased over £250, he still would be able to become a voluntary contributor. Does the hon. Gentleman really mean that?
§ Sir K. WOOD
I thought that was so, and my hon. Friend has just made inquiries and confirmed it. Even if your income is over £250 a year, providing that some time or other you comply with 2601 the conditions of this Clause, you can come in as a voluntary contributor, and, subject to the payment of contributions, you receive the benefits.
§ Sir K. WOOD
That will be fully discussed on Clause 13. I shall confine myself to the questions that have been put. I want to say a word or two on the suggestions—and if I may say so, one is naturally sympathetic to them—made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton, who I know has had a very great deal of experience of these matters, that you should bring in as many of what you may call the wives and dependants of the incapacitated breadwinner, men in an asylum, or men who have broken down in health. Naturally, one is sympathetic to cases of this kind, but obviously a widows' and orphans' pension Bill is not the place to deal with them. If you want to make further provision for these cases, you have got to do it by means of an Amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act, or by an Amendment to the National Health Insurance Act.
In connection with that, I should like the Committee to know the very remarkable facts in connection with national health insurance which have just been disclosed, and, so far from increasing the provision in respect of people who are incapacitated and entitled to benefit under that Measure, my hon. Friend will find that you can say, as the result of an inquiry into 4,000 valuations of approved societies, that actually in 75 per cent. of the cases it would be possible for the sickness benefit to be increased to 20s. per week and the disablement benefit to 10s. a week. That is a most remarkable and extraordinary state of things, so far as national health insurance is concerned, and we have to dismiss the suggestion which the hon. Member has made of bringing in that type of case. It is only fair to remember the very increased provision which is now about to be made by virtue of the very satisfactory state of our national insurance figures.
Then the hon. Gentleman put the case of the deposit contributor. The deposit contributor is an insured person within 2602 the meaning of Clause 2. Therefore, so far as the case which my hon. Friend has put is concerned, there will be no difficulty, because, providing they satisfy the remaining conditions of the Bill, which will be discussed, they will be able to come within the Act because they are all insured persons within the meaning of national health insurance.
§ Mr. R. DAVIES
When the deposit contributor has exhausted all his funds from the Post Office, and falls out from the National Health Insurance Act, what is going to happen to him then?
§ Sir K. WOOD
I am afraid then he ceases to be an insured person. We ought to induce the very small number of these deposit contributors to become members of Approved Societies. In the very great majority of these cases, if they would only take a little trouble and exercise a little initiative on their own account, there would be no difficulty in their becoming members of Approved Societies. It is largely on account of their failure to take the ordinary precautions of life that they find themselves in that very unfortunate class, which, I am very glad to say, is a very small one indeed. As to the case of the employés of local authorities and how they would stand under their superannuation funds, I will only briefly indicate the reply at the present moment. The position is that an employé of a local authority excepted from National Health Insurance will be insured for widows' and orphans' pensions at proper rates of contributions. That means that at the reduced rates of contributions he will have, according to the terms of his employment, health and old age benefits as good as those under the National Health Insurance Act, and this Bill will confer upon him the benefit of widows' and orphans' pensions. In other words, where there are schemes of local authorities which give as good benefits as those given under the National Health Insurance they are excepted from the provisions of the Act. In those cases, under this scheme they will remain as they are, but they will come in for widows' and orphans' pensions at the appropriate contributions mentioned in the Schedule to this Bill. I have answered to the best of my ability the questions which have been put, and as we have a great deal of work to do, I 2603 hope that the Committee will now let us have Clause 2.
§ Mr. SPENCER
The more elucidation we get of this Bill the greater the difficulties that arise. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) has been trying to get from the Minister the reason why a person earning £4 16s. 6d. a week in a non-manual occupation is not allowed to come in, and the only answer was that he is not a person who is insurable under the Insurance Act. But in answer to questions put with regard to persons who have 104 stamps, and were in an insurable occupation and have gone into an occupation which is not insurable, we are told that if they now desire to come in it does not matter what they have got, even if they have £5,000 a year, they are entitled to come in. This appears to us to be making a very invidious distinction between citizens of the country. One would have thought it the desire of the Minister to get as many persons into this scheme as he could, so long as they complied with the financial requirements of the Bill making provision for these pensions. It seems to us that, instead of being actuated with that desire, the Government have devised a scheme which makes it as difficult as possible for many sections of deserving citizens to get into the Bill. Surely it is not too late for the Minister to consider the desirability of getting into the scheme as many people as possible. I dare say that the Minister would say that in some instances it would not be financially sound to take men in certain periods of their life. But it is conceivable that there may be a man between 40 and 50 years of age who has paid two years' contributions and has gone out of the scheme and now wishes to come back, and he will be entitled to come in while younger people will not be entitled to come in.
If anyone should be compelled to join the scheme at all, it is persons with incomes of over £250 a year, because if they are not running a risk and are not insuring against a risk surely it is most desirable that those people who enjoy this world's goods should be the people called on to make some sacrifice on behalf of those who are less fortunate. I cannot conceive why a person, even like myself, who may have an income of over £250 2604 a year should not be asked to respond to the request to make some provision for those who might be less fortunate than himself. I cannot conceive that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have any objection even if Members of Parliament had been asked to make some contribution to a scheme of this kind, even though they knew that they would never get a single penny out of it. If there is a scheme of a compulsory character all should make some contribution. If we do not want the benefits when we reach the age of 60, and our widows and children do not want the benefits, so much the better for us, but that is no reason why we should not make a contribution to such a scheme as this.
The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill made some comment with regard to the question of the servile State. He put certain questions to my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) on this point. In the matter of insurance the State makes the least contribution, and it assumes the right to impose what conditions it likes and the right to close the door or open it. I for one protest against the State assuming an authority of that kind. There are three partners in this scheme—the worker, the employer, and the State. The State, making the least contribution, assumes the right to impose what conditions it likes. I submit that if in a scheme of this character the State imposes what conditions it likes, it is not a kind of socialism, but an example of the worst kind of bureaucracy imaginable, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would repudiate this as being a scheme of socialism, because, if it were a scheme of socialism, it would be of a contributory character, but the contribution would be one of service and not of money. When the State assumes the right to impose these conditions, I am sure, if the system were submitted to the men who are actually paying, it would be repudiated by them to-morrow.
§ Mr. VARLEY
I am sorry that I did not get in before the Parliamentary Secretary made his remarks, as he could have answered a question which I would like to put. I suppose that we are all expected to have read the Bill and analysed it and compared every Clause with every other Clause, and possibly with the provisions of the National 2605 Health Insurance Act. But I would like to know if there is any special significance in the words "unless the context otherwise requires." All the comments on this particular Clause have had regard to its limited capacity, but I can conceive certain circumstances in which the Clause would be further limited by the application of these words. Are there in the Bill any particular Clauses
§ to which those words have special reference, and, if so, what are they?
§ The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg)
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, 241; Noes, 132.2607
|Division No. 235.]||AYES.||[7.25 p.m.|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Huntingfield, Lord|
|Albery, Irving James||Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Hurst, Gerald B.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Crook, C. W.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Jacob, A. E.|
|Ashley Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Dalkeith, Earl of||King Captain Henry Douglas|
|Atkinson, C.||Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Balniel, Lord||Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Little, Dr. E. Graham|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Dixey, A. C.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Loder, J. de. V.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Looker, Herbert William|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Eden, Captain Anthony||Lougher, L.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Berry, Sir George||Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Lumley, L. R.|
|Bethell, A.||Elliot, Captain Walter E.||MacAndrew, Charles Glen|
|Betterton. Henry B.||Elveden, Viscount||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||England, Colonel A.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Macintyre, Ian|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Everard, W. Lindsay||McLean, Major A.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Fielden, E. B.||Malone, Major P. B.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Finburgh, S.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Fleming, D. P.||Margesson, Captain D.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Ford, P. J.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Meller, R. J.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Forrest, W.||Merriman, F. B.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Meyer, Sir Frank|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Ganzoni, Sir John||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Burman, J. B.||Gates, Percy||Moles, Thomas|
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Goff, Sir Park||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Grace, John||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Murchison, C. K.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Cassels, J. D.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Neville, R. J.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Hammersley, S. S.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hanbury, C.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm., W.)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Penny, Fredrick George|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Haslam, Henry C.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hawke, John Anthony||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.||Perring, William George|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Christie, J. A.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Pielou, D. P.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Preston, William|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Holt, Capt. H. P.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Roman, C. W. J.||Raine, W.|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Ramsden, E.|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Remer, J. R.|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)||Remnant, Sir James|
|Cope, Major William||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Rentoul, C. S.|
|Couper, J. B.||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Salmon, Major I.||Strickland, Sir Gerald||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.||Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Sandeman, A. Stewart||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Sanderson, Sir Frank||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Sandon, Lord||Templeton, W. P.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Savery, S. S.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)|
|Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).|
|Skelton, A. N.||Waddington, R.||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Smith Carington, Neville W.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Spender Clay, Colonel H.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Sprot, Sir Alexander||Waterhouse, Captain Charles||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)||Watts, Dr. T.||Captain Douglas Hacking and|
|Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Wells, S. R.||Mr. F. C. Thomson.|
|Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hastings, Sir Patrick||Sexton, James|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hayday, Arthur||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hayes, John Henry||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Ammon, Charles George||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hirst, G. H.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Baker, Walter||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Smillie, Robert|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Barr, J.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Briant, Frank||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)|
|Broad, F. A.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Taylor, R. A.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kelly, W. T.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Clowes, S.||Kennedy, T.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Clynes, Right Hon. John R.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Connolly, M.||Kenyon, Barnet||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Cove, W. G.||Kirk wood, D.||Thurtle, E.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lansbury, George||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lawson, John James||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lee, F.||Varley, Frank B.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Lowth, T.||Viant, S. P.|
|Dennison, R.||Lunn, William||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Duncan, C.||Mackinder, W.||Warne, G. H.|
|Dunnico, H.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||March, S.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Maxton, James||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Gillett, George M.||Montague, Frederick||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Murnin, H.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Naylor, T. E.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Greenall, T.||Oliver, George Harold||Whiteley, W.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Palin, John Henry||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Paling, W.||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Groves, T.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Ponsonby, Arthur||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Potts, John S.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Hall, Fredk. (Yorks, Normanton)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Windsor, Walter|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Riley, Ben||Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Hardie, George D.||Ritson, J.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Harney, E. A.||Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Harris, Percy A.||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Mr. B. Smith and Mr. A. Barnes.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."2608
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 126.2611
|Division No. 236.]||AYES.||[7.35 p.m.|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Balniel, Lord||Blades, Sir George Rowland|
|Albery, Irving James||Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Blundell, F. N.|
|Alexander, E. E (Leyton)||Barnett, Major Sir Rich||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Brass, Captain W.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Berry, Sir George||Briggs, J. Harold|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Bethell, A.||Brittain, Sir Harry|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Betterton, Henry B.||Brocklebank, C. E. R.|
|Atkinson, C||Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Burman, J. B.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Penny, Frederick George|
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hammersley, S. S.||Perring, William George|
|Calne, Gordon Hall||Hanbury, C.||Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Harney, E. A.||Pielou, D. P.|
|Cassels, J. D.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Haslam, Henry. C.||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Hawke, John Anthony||Preston, William|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.||price, Major C. W. M.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Raine, W.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Ramsden, E.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. Birm. W.)||Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Remer, J. R.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)||Remnant, Sir James|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Holt, Capt. H. P.||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||Homan, C. W. J.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Christie, J. A.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunei||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)||Sandon, Lord|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Huntingfield, Lord||Savery, S. S.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hurst, Gerald B.||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Couper, J. B.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Jacob, A. E.||Spender Clay, Colonel H.|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Jephcott, A. R.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Crook, C. W.||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert||Knox, Sir Alfred||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Strickland, Sir Gerald|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Loder, J. de V.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)||Looker, Herbert William||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Lougher, L.||Templeton, W. P.|
|Dixey, A. C.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harrnan||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Lumley, L. R.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||MacAndrew, Charles Glen||Waddington, R.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Macintyre, Ian||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Elliot, Captain Walter E.||McLean, Major A.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Elveden, Viscount||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel||Watts, Dr. T.|
|England, Colonel A.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Wells, S. R.|
|Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Malone, Major P. B.||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Margesson, Captain D.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Fielden, E. B.||Meller, R. J.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Finburgh, S.||Merriman, F. B.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Fleming, D. P.||Meyer, Sir Frank||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Ford, P. J.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Forrest, W.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Moles, Thomas||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Wragg, Herbert|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Gates, Percy||Murchison, C. K.|
|Goff, Sir Park||Nelson, Sir Frank||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—|
|Grace, John||Neville, R. J.||Major Cope and Mr. F. C.|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Thomson.|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Cape, Thomas|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Barr, J.||Charleton, H. C.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Clowes, S.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Briant, Frank||Cluse, W. S.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Broad, F. A.||Clynes, Right Hon. John R.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Connolly, M.|
|Baker, Walter||Buchanan, G.||Cove, W. G.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Kennedy, T.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Kenyon, Barnet||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Kirkwood, D.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Lansbury, George||Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)|
|Dennison, R.||Lawson, John James||Stamford, T. W.|
|Duncan, C.||Lee, F.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Dunnico, H.||Lowth, T.||Sutton. J. E.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lunn, William||Taylor, R. A.|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Mackinder, W.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Gillett, George M.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||March, S.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Maxton, James||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Greenall, T.||Montague, Frederick||Thurtle, E.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Murnin, H.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Naylor, T. E.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Oliver, George Harold||Varley, Frank B.|
|Groves, T.||Palin, John Henry||Viant, S. P.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Paling, W.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen.|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Warne, G. H.|
|Hall, Fredk. (Yorks, Normanton)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D.(Rhondda)|
|Hardie, George D.||Potts, John S.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Harris, Percy A.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Riley, Ben||Welsh, J. C.|
|Hastings, Sir Patrick||Ritson, J.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Whiteley, W.|
|Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Hirst, G. H.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Sexton, James||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Windsor, Walter|
|Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Sitch, Charles, H.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Smillie, Robert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Kelly, W. T.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.|