CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

HC Deb 15 July 1925 vol 186 cc1313-502

Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill further considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 25.—(Provisions where both additional allowance or orphans' pension and compensation wider the Workmen's Compensation Act are payable.)

Mr. HAYDAY

I beg to move, in page 23, line 21, to leave out the word "whether."

I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I discussed at the same time the second Amendment standing in my name, in line 21, to leave out the words "or after." The effect would be that the Minister would have the right to refuse a widows' or orphans' pension only in cases where a fatal accident had occurred between the beginning of January, 1924, and the beginning of the operation of the Bill in 1926. The object of such limitation is to meet what we consider to be the very unjust provision made by this Clause, under which the State refuses to honour an obligation entered into as between the State and the contributor, whereby the benefits for which he has paid shall accrue to his widow or orphans in the event of a catastrophe overtaking him. It appears to us that this Bill ceases to be an insurance Bill in the fullest and truest sense by the introduction of the provision of which we complain. Last night we discussed an Amendment taking into consideration existing pensions. This Clause gives the Minister the right to take into consideration any sums that accrue to the family by way of damages for the loss of the husband and father as a result of a fatal accident occurring during his employment. There is another proposal which proposes to take away the right of unemployed persons.

Whilst this Bill is called a Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill, it does not incorporate the real principles that ought to be embodied in a National Insurance Act. Assuming that one of the great insurance societies in this country were to say to those who pay premiums, "You may meet with a fatal accident in the street through being knocked down by a motor car or a motor omnibus, or you may meet with a fatal injury whilst following your employment. Notwithstanding the fact that we undertook to accept from you a premium and in return to guarantee certain moneys at your death, we reserve to ourselves the right to refuse such death allowance if your family secure from a Court of Law damages for a fatal accident to the head of the family." What should he think of such a society? Instead of being a Bill to assist in the promotion of thrift, it appears to me, in consequence of a provision of the sort to which I am drawing attention, that this Bill militates against thrift, because it makes an unfair distinction as against the family of the man who meets with his death whilst following his ordinary employment and the family of the man who meets his death in the street or from some other cause occurring outside the course of his employment, and for which damages rightly and justly accrue to his family.

4.0 P.M.

You say to the workman, "Although you must pay your premiums under this Insurance Act, if you should be killed at work your widow and orphans can expect nothing from the fund, but if you meet your death in the streets through being knocked down, or as a result of some other accident happening outside the operations of the Workmen's Compensation Acts from 1906 and onwards, that is all right; we will meet to the full the obligations of the Act." Can there be any semblance of justice in that? Surely, if the insured person cares to make provision which may accrue to the benefit of his family at his death and you take that into account, you might just as well say that as the employer has to pay for ensuring the safety of the workman while he employs him you also intend to take that into account as regards the fund under this Bill. Otherwise, what are the reasons for singling out this one type of case? Can it be that you desire to lighten the possible calls on the fund and that you argue that as the employer is bound by law to meet the damages for possible injuries sustained to any of his workmen, the workman shall be penalised because of his contributions to the fund? The workman pays his share equally with the employer for the insurance under this scheme. I cannot therefore understand why we should have such a Clause introduced. Most of the general public assume this to be a widows and orphans' insurance scheme, but it is only so in parts. The exclusion on the need pensions side, this provision with regard to damages in the form of compensation to the family for a workman killed in an accident, and the unemployment donation when a man reaches the age of 65—by all these eliminations, you will find that many of the insured population are excluded from benefits under the Bill. If contributions are called for, response should be made. Surely you are not going to say, where damages accrue in the form of compensation, to which the employers separately insure-they do not undertake the risk themselves: they insure with insurance companies-through a Court of Law, or, when the amount is registered, through the County Court, any more than you dare say in the case of those who have sufficient credit, that because there is a certain income coining into the home it is unwise that it should be augmented from the widows' and orphans' insurance fund, notwithstanding the fact that a premium has been taken out by the employés.

I want the Minister to take the human side. It is not that the widows and orphans look at the sum total of the weekly amount they receive as damages for the death of the husband or father. They would rather have the husband and father with them. Consequently, it cannot be from fear, if compensation comes into the home amounting to 30s. or 35s. a week, in accordance with the number of the family, that you should withhold from them something for which they have contributed and to which in augmentation of their income they have a right. I say that the mere fact of it being an insurance establishes the first elementary principle of right. If I took out an insurance hoping that my family would benefit, I should feel very uneasy in my mind if I were told: "If you die under certain circumstances, they can have the benefit; but, if you die under other circumstances, they cannot have it." In that case, you have no right to take the premium. I could understand you asking for this power if it were a non-contributory scheme, but, if you are only going to make this fund solvent by the exclusion from benefit of those who have undeniable, moral rights, whatever their legal rights may be under this Bill when it becomes an Act, then it seems to me that it is incomplete and is patchwork social legislation. It is not even a real, decent attempt at general social insurance. Indeed, I believe it will lead to great litigation on behalf of those who will assume that they have rights under this Bill but who will find that under certain Clauses powers not exactly clearly or well defined are given to the Minister. I know that by an Amendment in the Minister's name he proposes to make up any difference, but that is totally inadequate. There should be no question of varying the benefits. A common payment is made, and a common benefit should accrue; and, if the head of the household be taken away by accident, the benefits of the Act ought to be applied with greater pleasure, so as to remove permanently from that family any fear or dread in addition to having lost the husband and father.

Mr. HARRIS

This Clause, in my opinion, strikes at the very root principle of the Bill. It has been the great pride of the Government that this is a contributory scheme. The very justification for the contributions is that you get the benefit not from the State as a favour but as a right. Now we understand, according to this Clause, that that is not to be the spirit of the Bill at all, and that beneficiaries are not to get amounts as the result of their contributions as a right, but that their incomes are to be made up out of a fund under this Bill according to where they get their money under other Acts of Parliament and in other directions. That, in my opinion, strikes at the whole foundation of a contributory scheme. The Minister want to ride two horses at the same lime. He wants to have the advantages of a non-contributory scheme, under which, of course, the benefit given out of the beneficence of the community as a whole, and at the same time to have the advantages of a contributory scheme, the contributors finding the funds. If the Minister really insists on keeping this Clause, the whole justification of the contributory scheme—and I personally support it—seems to me to go. I have always felt that the great advantage of the contributory scheme is that the insured persons would feel, just as when they pay to industrial insurance companies they can come and claim their pensions as a right in a court of law, so under such a scheme they would have the same status and the same rights. Apparently, under this Clause, if the breadwinner dies from an accident, the widow has to come cap in hand to the Minister and ask that some of this fund, to which the family have subscribed by their contributions, should be handed over, not as if it were paid by an industrial company, but out of the beneficence of the State. That strikes at the whole justification of the contributory scheme, and I hope; therefore that the Minister will withdraw the Clause.

Sir HENRY SLESSER

I think the Minister, when he gives careful consideration to this Clause, will come to the conclusion that there really are very cogent reasons why it should be withdrawn. Let us consider what really we are dealing with. It is provided in this Clause that compensation on death, which accrues either by agreement or award under the Workmen's Compensation Act, either in whole, or, as I understand the Amendment which the Government are about to move, in part, shall be taken into consideration in dealing with the question of the amount payable under this Bill. What is compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act? It is entirely a private matter of damages to which the employer who at the time of death, which is not the time when the pension necessarily becomes due, becomes liable because he is employing that particular workman.

At the risk of being a little technical, I would ask the Committee to consider how near is the case of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the right to damages under the Employers' Liability Act or at Common Law. The position is this. If a workman is killed while in an employment and if proceedings are brought under the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, as they still can be, or under Lord Campbell's Act, the Fatal Accidents Act, or at Common Law, then the damages which result from that action do not in any way deprive the workman's widow or whoever may be entitled to their full rights under this Bill. It is only where it so happens, as it were, by accident, that they decide, because there was not a defect in the machinery, that their prospects under the Employers' Liability Act are bad and they proceed under the Workmen's Compensation Act —and really it is purely a matter of legal procedure whether you proceed under one Act or the other—that this Clause is to operate and prejudice the rights of the dependants under this Bill. If damages are obtained under the Fatal Accidents Act or under the Employers Liability Act the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary must admit that this Clause, as drawn, has no application, though the facts may be identical.

I repeat this, because the Parliamentary Secretary, who has great knowledge of the law, shakes his head in dissent from something that I have said, though I am not sure what. The facts may be exactly the same. A man may be killed at his work. A piece of machinery may give way, and he may be killed. His dependants may bring an action at Common Law or under the Employers' Liability Act and the money which is thus obtained does not diminish the pension rights in the least. If, however, the widow proceeds to get her compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which is merely a technical distinction and not a distinction in fact at all, then this Clause is to operate. I can understand the Minister saying—I do not say he is right—that where a person is deriving State assistance from one source he shall not get it from another source; I can understand such an argument as was put yesterday as regards the ex-service men, though I do not agree with it. I can understand to a certain extent the argument that the State shall not provide a pension twice over. But what I am concerned to point out is this: These damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act are no more a State contribution than damages given in a breach of promise action or damages for libel, or damages for breach of contract. They are purely a personal matter. If damages are awarded because a man is killed in any way are you going to deprive the widow of her pension?

I do think that we want some explanation why a private obligation of a private person should be allowed to come into this matter. I can imagine an answer which may be given, and I am going to deal with it in advance. It may be said that the employer has to contribute under this scheme, and that as he is contributing to this scheme and bearing a liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, or, conceivably, bearing & liability through an insurance company, it is unfair that he should be burdened twice over. The first answer to that is this. There is no particular reason to suppose that the employer or the insurance company who becomes liable at the time when a man is killed by an accident-is going to the same person, or in any way connected with the group of persons, who come in as a general rule to meet their contributions under this Bill. You might as well say that because a man carrying on business is liable to damages for breach of contract, therefore that should be taken into consideration, as to say that if a man dies, and his widow, who would get a pension, recovers money, that should be taken off. The two things have no relation at all. The liability of an employer for an accident to an employé has nothing to do with it.

This is the Post Office contributory system that the pension should be the property of the person receiving it. There mere accident that somebody else has a private obligation to pay damages at Common Law or under the Status should not be weighed up or set up against the liability of the State. It is a wrong principle, I am sure that the. Minister in considering the matter will admit that, although he is naturally anxious to save any liability which he can yet he does not want to do anything inequitable as this would be. That the Minister has doubts about it himself is shown by the fact that he has put down an. Amendment which says, as I understand it, that where the weekly value of the pension is less than the amount of the allowance or pension under the award the person shall not suffer. That is not enough. We want the whole question of workmen's compensation and damages treated in just the same way as you treat liability to damages under the Employers' Liability Act. I would say that unless you are prepared to go forward-we will chance your not doing that-and say that the Employers' Liability Act ought to go in here too, there is no logic or force in saying that the one particular reservation shall be the Workmen's Compensation Act. There is an equitable case made out here without any obstruction for a reconsideration of what we believe to be an injustice.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood)

The ex-Solicitor-General has put his case very forcibly and I hope that he will forgive me if I dissent from his main contention by endeavouring to draw a distinction between the Acts of Parliament which he has cited, and to give some reasons for the differentiation that is being made. In reference to his remark as to obstruction there has been no question of obstruction during the last few days. In the first place, may I refer to the exact provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act as amended by the Act of 1923. If hon. Members will look at Clause 2 they will see a very different provision altogether from the provision in the Employers' Liability Act and the other Acts of Parliament to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. In this particular Act an endeavour is made not so much to give damages to the children of the man who has been killed as to provide for an automatic increase of a certain percentage to the children by way of allowance and of provision to them for their maintenance, and in support of that view I will ask the Committee to bear with me while I read paragraph (a) in Clause 2 which says: If both the widow or other member of the workman's family and such child or children as aforesaid were all wholly dependent on the workman's earnings there shall in respect of each such child be added to and dealt with as part of the compensation payable under paragraph (1) (a) of the First Schedule to the principal Act a sum equal to 15 per cent. of the amount arrived at by multiplying the average weekly earnings of the workman or where such earnings are less than £1 then In multiplying £1 or where such earnings exceed £2 then by multiplying £2 by the number of weeks in the period between the death of the workman and the date when the child will attain the age of 15 fractions being disregarded. It is an automatic increase given to the children on the same principle and much in the same way as the provisions of this Bill. There is no question of the jury assessing the amount or deciding in a jury box what the amount is to be. Automatically under the provisions of this Bill the children of deceased workmen receive such allowance as is mentioned in the Section.

Sir H. SLESSER

Will the hon. Member add that in assessing damages by the jury all these points are taken into consideration?

Sir K. WOOD

My experience of juries in dealing with these questions leads me often to wonder how they do arrive at the result. Very often they are liable to have their decision upset, but here you have a definite allowance for children. This has nothing to do with widows' pensions, and in such circumstances we say, though hon. Members may disagree, that as the allowance is being received the benefits under this Bill shall not be paid, but it is fair to say-and I hope that hon. Members will not object to the Amendment which has been put down in the name of my right hon. Friend-that where there is a difference which will adversely affect the recipient of the been fit that difference should be made up That is the simple, though it may be deemed by hon. Members opposite an inadequate, reason which has animated the Government in coining to the conclusion to which they have come. It is not an unfair arrangement, and I am reminded that in connection with Health Insurance Workmen's Compensation, as all hon. Members know, is taken into account when one comes to assess the benefit received. In other words, if you are insured compulsorily under the National Health Insurance the man pays, the employer pays, and the State pays contributions, and if a man receives compensation as the result of an injury the proper amount is deducted.

Mr. HAYOAY

In that case if there are £2 or £3 coming in from other friendly societies, that does not count against the obligation of the National Health Insurance?

Sir K. WOOD

Certainly not, but I disagree respectfully with the hon. Member as to the materiality of that observation. What I am pointing out is that Parliament has already decided in connection with the scheme which I suppose is more akin to this scheme than any other-the National Health Insurance scheme-that where a man meets with an accident, though he is compulsorily insured for sickness benefit, a deduction is made on account of the compensation which he receives as a result of his injury.

Sir H. SLESSER

The distinction there is between ill-health and injury caused by an accident.

Sir K. WOOD

I do say that there is a considerable analogy between those two oases, and we are simply following the precedent of the National Health Insurance Act itself. That is the explanation of the Government so far as this particular matter is concerned, but I want the Committee to realise that in this Clause we are not touching widows' pensions. So far as the actual Amendment is concerned, I do not think that anyone will care to press it or vote for it, because the result is this. Under the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite, children of a man who was killed between the 1st January, 1924, and the 4th January, 1926, will be denied allowance or pensions, while children of a man living in similar circumstances after the 4th January, 1926, are unaffected. Whatever views we may have as regards this Clause no one would desire to make that distinction.

Mr. HAYDAY

Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises the difference between dealing with cases where no contribution has been made and cases where contribution has been made. There will be no contributions between 1924 and 1926, and therefore there is not this established contributory right, but after 1926 there is a contributory right.

Sir K. WOOD

I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's explanation, but I must confess that I myself do not care to make the distinction and I hardly think that he is justified in making it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

The explanation of the hon. Gentleman reminds me of the story of the Turkish commander who, when asked for reasons why he did not fire the salute, said that there were fifty reasons. The first was that he had no gunpowder. The hon. Gentleman has given us no reasons at all except the first one, namely, that this proposal is enshrined in the National Health Insurance Act, and therefore the Government intend to carry on the same principle here. The usual objection to Amendments on this side is the question of cash. I would ask whether the Government have any figures or statistics showing what the cost of carrying out this suggestion would be. My impression is that there are not very many cases, and that the amount would not be very great, in view of the Government Amendment to be discussed later. The right hon. Gentleman has met us part of the way. He is prepared to bring the weekly payment up to pension level; he has recognised that there is some justice in the Amendment. I do not know whether he has figures as to what the Government Amendment would cost, or what would be the cost of the proposal in the Amendment we are discussing. I venture to say that in any case the amount is not very great.

I cannot understand why the Government do not propose to touch the widow's pension at all, but propose to make a cut in the child's allowance. What is the logic of that? A widow in good health can earn money. The child cannot, and is the most helpless beneficiary under the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to what was done under the National Health Insurance Act. But we have gone forward since then. This Bill is part of the tribute that is being paid in order to keep the people contented with the present system. The people are asking for more, and you cannot hide from that fact. What was considered just in 1911 would not be considered just now. Fourteen years have passed, and there has been a War during that time. If the people were told of this proposal to dock the children's allowances, they would give an enormous majority against the Government, even if they had to pay a little more in taxes. The Government know that, and they could well justify carrying concession a little further by not touching the children's allowances at all.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD

I venture to address myself to the argument that the Parliamentary Secretary has just brought forward in defence of the attitude of the Government on this Clause. Generally, what is the position? The Government in one or two points have already selected incomes which are secured to people who normally and who, were they not excepted specifically under this Bill, would be beneficiaries under the Pensions Act. Last night they excepted ex-service men and dependants of a certain category who, but for the Clause, would come within the scope of the Bill. This Clause affects another lot of people, the children on whose behalf payments are made under the amended Workmen's Compensation Act. If this were a Bill which plainly stated, "We are going to impose an income limit test," that would be a perfectly understandable position, because the income would be there, and the income being there, the charges under the Bill would be reduced. But why is this particular thing selected? Children, orphans, receive many increments to their income, small increments, no doubt, but still increments. If these increments are being given, not specified in this Bill, children receive them and their benefits under this Bill. There is neither rhyme nor reason for the Government's proposal. It is unfair, and especially unfair to select something which has been granted to children on the merits of the case.

That is a general argument. Let us take the specific argument. The Parliamentary Secretary goes on to reflect upon the fact that this special benefit is given to the children under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and, having been given, the Government decide that the State has done its duty to the children, and only in so far as what has already been done comes short of what would be done here, are they to receive any benefit under this Bill. What does that mean? I found myself, the first time I addressed the House in Committee on this Bill, denying that it was an Insurance Bill. That is quite sound, if you use the word "insurance" with any accuracy. When the Government wants to say that this is an Insurance Bill, it says so. It says that you must pay a contribution, accept your share of risk and your share of the benefits. When, however, it wants to say that this is a charity organisation, it says, "It is not insurance at all." Let us look at the argument. Who pays for the Workmen's Compensation benefit? Not the State, not at all. I will take the legal aspect, not the economic aspect. Who pays for the Workmen's Compensa- tion benefit to the children? The employer. It is his responsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If I expatiated at length on that subject, I could go on for an hour. Let us try a short way home. Who pays for this benefit? It is the employer. The employer also insures the child under this Bill.

Therefore, if the employer, because he is responsible under the Workmen's Compensation Act, finds that his contribution in respect of the children under this Bill is of no use, is not the Government going to relieve the employer of his contribution in respect of these children? Obviously it must. The Government cannot go away and say that it will differentiate in the way that it is proposed. That is not insurance; it is sheer tomfoolery. If there is anything sound and real and substantial in the Parliamentary Secretary's argument, he must assure the Committee that all this was considered, that in deducting these benefits because the employers have provided equivalents in other ways, the employers' contribution has been assessed accordingly. Otherwise he is proceeding on no insurance basis at all when he is assessing the employers' liability. I have been dealing with the narrower point about workmen's compensation. If the workmen's compensation obligation is to be excused the burdens under this Bill, then those who provide for that compensation ought to be excused for the payment.

Here is another aspect. The Parliamentary Secretary said that in dealing with health, when the National Health Insurance Bill was before the House, it was specifically provided that the two benefits should not run side by side— workmen's compensation and national health insurance. Why did he not give us a little more information as to this? He was scanty in his information. The National Health Insurance Act, 1924, Section 16, not only refers to workmen's compensation, but also refers to employers' liability. It also refers to decisions given at Common Law. The reason is obvious. It has nothing to do with the point that the Parliamentary Secretary tried to make to-day. I remember the Debate on the Health Insurance Bill. What was the argument? It was a perfectly sound argument. The National Health Insurance Act was an insurance against ill-health. If a man has his hand chopped off by using a machine in the course of his work, ho is not suffering from ill-health; he has been injured. His case comes under workmen's compensation and employers' liability. Therefore, the insurance was based on the statistics of the experience, not of workmen's compensation cases plus ill-health, but of ill-health cases. The whole thing was kept out of the insurance; the contingency was never contemplated.

If a man sues under the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Employers' Liability Act, or any of the accident Acts, and gets his case, then he is not suffering from ill-health, and his premium payment under this Bill does not cover his case. Suppose, however, that he is suffering from a disease under one of the industrial compensation Acts. Suppose that he has consumption, and it has been decided that he has not contracted consumption under conditions which would enable him to be a beneficiary under any industrial Act. Then he is insured under the Health Insurance Act, and he gets his benefit. That is the statement of a layman, and not of a legal expert. The experience of the National Health Insurance Act has absolutely nothing to do with the provisions made in Clause 25 of this Bill, and it cannot be cited as a justification for the decision of the Government.

Take another point. Is this insurance or not? I come back to that. If it is insurance, the realisation of the risk that has been insured against is private property. You cannot get over that. The Government has no business to say that when a child becomes an orphan, and ordinarily is a beneficiary under this Bill, still, before it enjoys its income, we have to decide how it is to be disposed of. In the most stupid and nonsensical form of Socialism as described by hon. Members, opposite so often, that might have a justification. That is justified only by those whose acquaintance with the constructive theory of Socialism is confined to a two-page leaflet issued by the National Conservative Association. Everybody who has given hours or months or years to the study of the theory knows that that pamphlet is sheer rot, but there it is. What is the case here? There is an insurance against risk. The risk eventuates; the property at once becomes effective, but the Government say "No," not unless we desire it to be so. After we have compelled you to be insured, after we have forced your father to contribute and your father's employers to contribute—even then we are going to decide that we will not give you this benefit. It really will not do, and this Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, who has probably more experience than any hundred Members of this Committee of these industrial questions, should be accepted by the Government and by the Committee.

Sir BEDDOE REES

I have listened to the Debate with a perfectly open mind and I think the case put up for this Amendment is unanswerable on the basis of equity, on the basis of fair play, and certainly on the basis of honour. We have had no answer from the Parliamentary Secretary which would justify the rejection of the Amendment. I do not intend to go into the legal aspect of the question, but the main point to me appears to be that the man when he is in employment is insured against accident. Take the case of the coal industry for example. There the owner pays a certain percentage to cover accident, and should there be a fatal accident the law provides that a certain portion of that compensation shall go to the children. There has been payment for it, and the payment has been made, technically, by the employer, but everybody knows that in one form or another the men contribute their share to the payment for that provision. I should think that it may be about fifty-fifty as between the owner and the men. At least, the men pay a very large proportion of the cost of securing that insurance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Seventy-five per cent."] Whatever it is, there is the payment, and they are entitled to full benefit for that payment. Now we have this scheme of insurance, and here again the man and the owner and, in a certain proportion, the State contribute to certain benefit. I think it unfair and unreasonable to expect that these dependants should be deprived of the full value of the payments made towards that insurance. I fail to see why the Amendment cannot be accepted, and I hope it will be pressed, because there is a vital issue at stake. This is very similar to the Debate of last night. We took up the same attitude on the question of ex-service men, and I think in this case the Minister ought to agree to our proposal. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked what the cost would be, and I think it would help us very much if we had that information. But whatever it is, I do not think the children ought to be made to suffer, and on that ground, if on no other, I hope the Minister will agree to the Amendment, or agree to the deletion of the Clause entirely.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain)

The Debate upon this Amendment is one more illustration of the dangers to which my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) called our attention the other night. The moment you begin to listen to the dictates of your heart, rather than to strict logic, you involve yourself in charges of the grossest injustice and hardheartedness towards other people to whom you have not been so lenient. The speeches which have been made on this Amendment would have had much more force if this were an entirely new proposal which had never been heard of before, but this scheme is adapted from the scheme of the National Health Insurance Act for which the Leader of the hon. Member who last spoke was mainly responsible. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition distinguished between the National Health Insurance Act which he says is true insurance, and this Bill which he describes as "tomfoolery." The right hon. Gentleman knows very well what is in the National Health Insurance Act and he quoted the relevant section himself. But he gave a most astounding account of what the purpose of the National Health Insurance Act was. He said it dealt solely with disease. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ill-health!"] At all events, accident he ruled out as being something quite outside it. Do hon. Members agree?

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS

Yes, I quite agree.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Let me read the relevant section of part of the Section in that Act. Section 10 says: Subject to the provisions of this Act the benefits conferred upon insured persons are .… periodical payments whilst rendered incapable of work by some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement. It does not include only ill-health. It is incapacity for work which is the test.

HON. MEMBERS: "No!"

Mr. GRIFFITHS

If it be an accident, the Statute law says—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I hope the hon. Member will allow me to finish making my point. I have read the words from the Act. It confers benefits on those incapable of work, whether the incapacity is caused by disease or general ill-health or bodily or mental disablement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, that is what the Act itself says. I turn to Section 15 of that Act, which, as the Committee will see, is the prototype of the Clause which we are now discussing. It says: Where an insured person has received … . whether from his employer or any other person any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 .… or under the Employers Liability Act or at common law in respect of any injury or disease the following provisions shall apply. The provisions are that no sickness benefits or disablement benefits are to be paid, unless the compensation he has received from workmen's compensation, etc., is less than the amount which he would receive otherwise under the Insurance Act. If this insurance has nothing whatever to do with the provisions of the National Insurance Act, how is it, when the compensation is not equal to the compensation given by the Health Insurance Act, that Act comes in and gives them the difference? If we had been absolutely logical and had based ourselves entirely upon this Clause we should not only have made the provision which we have made in the Clause under discussion, but we should have taken out also widows' pensions, and we should have included not only the Workmen's Compensation Act but the Employers' Liability Act and Common Law as well. Because we have been rather soft-hearted in this matter, because we have relaxed to some extent, because we have made a change in this Bill which is closely linked with the Insurance Act and improved it from the contributor's standpoint in comparison with the National Insurance Act, we are denounced for not having gone further. It is not an encouragement to make concessions if each one is simply to be made the ground for further demands.

Sir H. SLESSER

If the point is seriously to be maintained that the distinction between disablement by accident and disablement by disease is not made in the National Health Insurance Act, I must ask the indulgence, of the Committee to read what is said by Section 10 which my right hon. Friend has just quoted. In defining sickness benefit it says: Periodical payments whilst rendered incapable of work by some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement. That does not include accident. [HON. MEMBERS; "Disablement!"] Hon. Members will pardon me, but there are a few matters on which I know what I am talking about, and this happens to be one of them. I come now to paragraph c under that Section of the Act, and what do I find? In the case of the disease or disablement continuing after the termination of the period during which sickness benefit may continue. So that disablement benefit is simply a continuation after the period of sickness benefit. When you turn to Section 16 you find it provides that where you are getting disablement benefit through incapacity for work that shall not include disablement which is caused by accident within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, the Leader of the Opposition was perfectly right when he said that the two are complementary. The Workmen's Compensation Act deals with disablement caused by accident and the National Health Insurance Act deals with disablement caused by sickness or with causes of incapacity other than accident.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

How is the difference made up?

Sir H. SLESSER

In this way. If in fact you are getting disablement benefit, then you cannot get the benefit which you would get from the employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That is absolutely clear and distinct. I have only risen to make this point quite clear, that the Section of the National Insurance Act which defines disablement benefit deals with it as continuing disease or disablement—that being disablement other than accident disablement —after the termination of the period during which the sickness benefit operates.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Both are included in Section 16

Sir H. SLESSER

I quite agree. They are included in contrast—the compensation which you get under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the other. You are not to get both, because there are two kinds of disablement, one arising from sickness and one from accident, and if you get the one you cannot get the other. But to say that you are not to get benefits under this scheme because you are getting compensation, is an entirely different proposition, and the Government in the drafting of this Clause, show that they appreciate that the two things are entirely different. It may be due to what the right hon. Gentleman himself has described, as the softness of his heart, but whether the reason be a financial reason or not, you cannot excuse the deprivation of persons of their clear insurable rights by saying that the employer under an entirely different liability has paid them workmen's compensation.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. and learned Gentleman said you can either get compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, or you can get sickness or disablement benefit, but not both. I say that under paragraph (a) of Section 16 you can get both.

Sir H. SLESSER

It says, No sickness benefit or disablement benefit shall be paid to the insured person in respect of that injury or disease in any case where any weekly sum or the weekly value of any lump sum paid or payable by way of compensation.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

It goes on to say, and where any such weekly sum or the weekly value of any lump sum is less than the benefit in question, such part only of the benefit shall be paid. In that case they get both.

The CHAIRMAN

I notice the tendency on both sides to be rather intolerant of legal arguments. I hope hon. Members will endeavour to follow them.

Mr. TINKER

I want to get away from the legal point, and to speak as a layman I think this particular Clause was very ill-drawn. I worked out the figures, and I found a person would be worse off by accepting the position under the widows and orphans' pension. Later on I found that those in charge of the Bill had discovered it also, with the result that they had put down an Amendment to meet the particular point. They made a mistake at first in drawing up the Clause. First of all, as has been stated by the Leader of the Opposition, we pay for workmen's compensation. If you follow the miners' agreement, it comes in the item "Other costs," and I find that we pay something over 3d. a ton; so that we are paying under that head for workmen's compensation, and if this is a Bill on a con tributary basis, at least we are entitled to benefit from both sources for which we pay. That is our claim, and, there should be no objection on the part of the Government to our getting both benefits for which we have paid. It may be said, on the other hand, "Surely you do not want to put a child who has lost his father through an accident in a better position than a child who has lost his father through illness?" That is a sound reason, and if the benefits under this Bill were large enough to put a child in security, I would agree with that, but no one can pretend that 3s. a week insufficient to sustain a child. The hon. Member said 15 per cent., which, on a sovereign, is 3s. a week. In present circumstances, we have many men who are not earning £1 a week, owing to short time and other difficulties. Adding the two amounts together, it would be only 6s. a week, and, on grounds of equity no one can pretend that the child is getting more than sufficient to sustain life. I am still under the belief that the Clause has never been gone into thoroughly by the Government. I do hope, in the face of the opposition, and in the face of the arguments we are putting forward, they will take it back and consider it, and if they cannot go the whole way, they ought to provide, at least, that the child shall not be driven down to 3s. a week. Make it something more than 3s. a week, and I should see some reason for the Clause being put in, but, as it stands, the Minister would be well-advised to withdraw it, and let us deal with the matter in some other way.

Mr. GRIFFITHS

I have listened very carefully to the replies from the other side, and I have never listened to such weak and lame explanations in all my life. I want to lead the Committee back to the position of 1897, where the widow was allowed £300, or an average of three years' wages. I am familiar with hundreds of these cases. The £300 or the three years' wages could be paid over to the widow, and, as a result, some insurance agents approached some widows, and frightened them by saying they would not get the full £300, or the three years' wages, and some of these widows, whose husbands belonged to no trade union, used to settle for £50 or £60. Mr. John Hodge, the late Member for Gorton, in an amending Compensation Bill introduced into this House, gave similar illustrations, and in the Bill it was decided that the £300, or the three years' wages, in future should be paid into Court, and that the Judge, instead of banding over all the money to the widow, should apportion it to the widow and also to the children each week. We said this £300 was not sufficient for women and children, and the Holman-Gregory Committee decided that workmen's widows and children were entitled to £800. We succeeded, in Committee upstairs, in getting £600, and this money is apportioned to the children in increased benefits. The Government's proposal now is to deprive them of the benefits we gave them in Committee. It is wholesale robbery, and I want to warn the Ministers that the Budget and this Bill have been the chief plank in the Forest of Dean. They have had their reply to-day.

The CHAIRMAN

This is not relevant to the argument.

Mr. GRIFFITHS

One has to pack in sometimes. What we want to know now is whether this is insurance, or whether this is a Bill whereby you rob Peter to pay Paul and rob Paul to pay Peter? That is the position so far as we are concerned, and I hope that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members on the other side who are, I think, in favour of our Amendment, will go into the Lobby with us, defeat the Government and make them go to the country on this question.

Major HORE-BELISHA

We have just listened to a very brilliant election speech. This Amendment has followed a very peculiar course. It is noticeable that the Attorney-General has, so far, not taken part in this particular legal discussion, and I do hope he will straighten the matter out. I am sorry he did not hear the argument of the Leader of the Opposi- tion, because it seemed to be very damning. The position is that this Clause seeks to deprive the children of a man who has paid benefits from the benefits for which he has contributed, and it does so on this ground. It says if he is killed under another set of circumstances, against which he has also covered himself, the same kind of benefit cannot be given twice. The grounds upon which that extraordinary position are justified by the Minister are, that the National Health Insurance Act contains a provision which prevents a man from getting compensation for an accident. It is said that that is a logical position, because a man cannot be both in ill-health and suffering from an accident at the same time, whereas the Leader of the Opposition says that the National Health Insurance Act does cover accidents, but only accidents of a particular kind. The Workmen's Compensation Act covers accidents which arise out of a man's employment. If you are riding upon a bicycle and sustain an accident, it is perfectly true it is an accident, but, for the purpose of the National Health Insurance Act, it is considered as being ill-health. Therefore, the National Health Insurance Act is more generous than this Bill, because, although the man is not in the medical sense suffering from ill-health because he has sustained an accident, the Insurance Act says: "We will consider you are a person in ill-health, because, if we do not, you have absolutely no claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and, therefore, will not get a farthing."

Therefore, if my reading of the two Acts be correct—and I have neither of them before me—the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Government falls absolutely to the ground, and he will have to argue it upon some entirely different basis, namely, finance. But, after all, it is not his finance which is at stake in the Workmen's Compensation Act. Last night he refused to give pensions under this Bill to persons who are drawing disablement pensions, and the reason he gave to justify that anomaly was that you cannot pay State money twice over. He has not got that argument here. This money is not taxpayers' money, but is in both instances money for which the man and his employer have contributed week by week, and the right hon. Gentleman is benefiting by a scheme over which he has no control. The Workmen's Compensation Act is not financed by the Government, and yet the right hon. Gentleman wishes thereby to save money under this Bill. I would not object to it so strongly if it were the case of an old age pensioner at the age of 65, because a man could wait for five years and then get something; but. in this particular Amendment the children are at stake, and why should you penalise the children who have been bereft of their parents in circumstances of great sorrow, and who have a double struggle with which to put up, and, therefore, should have a double benefit, if anything at all? To both schemes contributions have been paid.

We have been given no figures by the Minister, but, whatever it might cost, it would make all the difference to these children and would give them a fairly comfortable position, which would recompense them, if anything; could recompense them, for the loss of a father, and would put them on the road of some sort of future; whereas this Bill seems to assume that 10s. is a princely fortune which is the largest sum of money a child can expect to receive. I do hope the Attorney-General will deal with the legal aspect of this matter, and say whether or not it is the ease that the National Health Insurance Act does not give benefit to those who fall within the Workmen's Compensation Act, because it draws a distinction between an accident which arises out of an employment and an accident or illness which arises from some entirely different cause.

Mr. LEE

As a member of the mining industry, I have a question which I wish to raise. The men in the mining industry are peculiarly susceptible to accidents, and they pay not only under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but they pay premiums to other friendly societies, and in some parts of the country they pay premiums to what is known as the Fatal Accidents Society That society pays out benefits in the same way as under the Workmen's Compensation Act, namely, a certain amount per week to the widow and a certain amount to each child. If you are going to take account of one who is drawing under the Workmen's Compensation Act and utterly disregard similar payments received from other societies, you are going to make a distinction between families in the same neighbourhood who may be in these different societies. The Parliamentary Secretary read a Section out of the amended Workmen's Compensation Act, but he was very careful not to say how much the children would draw under that Section. I question whether he knows. He would have to make a mathematical calculation, and he would have to use his pencil pretty freely before he got at the figure, but £300 of the £600, which is the maximum that can be paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act, is put aside for the child, which does not mean that the child would draw the full £300. The most the child can draw is 6s. per week. There is certainly no connection between that and this fund. That was arranged before this was ever thought of at all, and why you should endeavour to alter the payments under this fund or that fund, whichever you intend to touch, because we have got some decent allowance, although not a proper allowance, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, is rather puzzling to my mind

I suggest that the payments that the miner makes under this Bill are more than he receives back in benefits. I know that just now the whole thing is in the melting pot, but we have a peculiar arrangement in the mining industry as to contributions of this character. An hon. Member below the Gangway suggested that payments to this fund were 50–50 as between employers and workmen, but I think he would find that it was nearer 80–20, so that the workmen are not getting anything gratuitously from the Workmen's Compensation Act. They are paying for it, and in addition they pay for whatever benefits they may get under this scheme, and why you should interfere with what is no part of State pay and not interfere with something which may be a part of State pay, I cannot understand. It appears to me that the suggestion made by a previous speaker that this is an attack upon the workmen's compensation, payable to children has some foundation. There seem to be running right through this Bill glaring anomalies whereby you keep back from certain people, who otherwise would be entitled to benefit, certain payments, and this is one of them.

Question put, "That the word 'whether' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 141.

Division No. 284.]	AYES.	[5.21p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Albery, Irving James	Fielden, E. B.	Moore, Sir Newton J.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Finburgh, S.	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Fleming, D. P.	Murchison, C. K.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Foster, Sir Harry S.	Nelson, Sir Frank
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Ganzoni, Sir John	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.).
Astor, Viscountess	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Nuttall, Ellis
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Oakley, T.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Balniel, Lord	Goff, Sir Park	Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell	Gower, Sir Robert	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Grace, John	Pennefather, Sir John
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E.)	Penny, Frederick George
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.	Greenwood, William (Stockport)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Gretton, Colonel John	Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Bennett, A. J.	Grotrian, H. Brent	Perring, William George
Berry, Sir George	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Bethell, A.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Philipson, Mabel
Betterton, Henry B.	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Pielou, D. P.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Plicher, G.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Hammersley S. S.	Pliditch, Sir Philip
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Price, Major C. W. M.
Blades, Sir George Rowland	Harland, A.	Raine, W.
Blundell, F. N.	Harrison, G. J. C.	Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Hartington, Marquess of	Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Brass, Captain W.	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Reid, Capt, A. S. C.(Warrington)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Haslam, Henry C.	Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Briggs, J. Harold	Hawke, John Anthony	Rentoul, G. S.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Ropner, Major L.
Bullock, Captain M.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Burman, J. B.	Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Salmon, Major I.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Hoare, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Caine, Gordon Hall	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hopkins J. W. W.	Sandon, Lord
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Howard, Captain Hon. Donald	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Shepperson, E. W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Huntingfield, Lord	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)	Hurd, Percy A.	Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Chapman, Sir S.	Hurst, Gerald b.	Skelton, A. N.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.	Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Clarry, Reginald George	Jacob, A.E.	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Clayton, G. C.	Jephcott, A. R.	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Kindersley, Major Guy M.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Lamb, J. Q.	Strickland, Sir Gerald
Cooper, A. Duff	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Cope, Major William	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nalan)
Couper, J. B.	Loder J. de V.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Lougher, L.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lumley, L. R.	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Lynn, Sir R. J.	Tasker, Major R. Inigo
		Templeton, W. P.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Dalkeith, Earl of	Macintyre, Ian
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	MacMillan, Captain H.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Turton, Edmund Russborough
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Waddington, R.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Dawson, Sir Philip	Malone, Major P. B.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Manningham-Bulfer, Sir Mervyn	Warrender, Sir Victor
Drewe, C.	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Meller, R. J.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Meyer, Sir Frank	Watts, Dr. T.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Wells, S. R.
Everard W Lindsay	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)	Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)	Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)	Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain
Wise, Sir Fredric	Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)	Margesson.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Hardie, George D.	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stratford)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Harney, E. A.	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Ammon, Charles George	Harris, Percy A.	Rote, Frank H.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Hayday, Arthur	Scrymgeour, E.
Baker, Walter	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barnes, A.	Hirst, G. H.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Barr, J.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Sitch, Charles H.
Batey, Joseph	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Bromley, J.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Buchanan, G.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Snell, Harry
Charleton, H. C.	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Clowes, S.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Stamford, T. W.
Cluse, W. S.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Stephen, Campbell
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Compton, Joseph	Kelly, W. T.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Connolly, M.	Kennedy, T.	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Cove, W. G.	Kenworthy, Lt. Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Kenyon, Barnet	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Crawfurd, H. E.	Kirkwood, D.	Thurtle, E.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Lansbury, George	Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)	Lawson, John James	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lee, F.	Viant, S. P.
Day, Colonel Harry	Lowth, T.	Wallhead, Richard C.
Dennison, R.	Lunn, William	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dunnico, H.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)	Watts-Morgan, Rt. Col. D. (Rhondda)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
England, Colonel A.	Mackinder, W.	Westwood, J.
Fenby, T. D.	March, S.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.	Maxton, James	Whiteley, W.
Forrest, W.	Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)	Wiggins, William Martin
Gibbins, Joseph	Montague, Frederick	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gillett, George M.	Morris, R. H.	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Gosling, Harry	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Naylor, T. E.	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Greenall, T.	Oliver, George Harold	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Owen, Major G.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Paling, W.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Griffiths, T (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Windsor, Walter
Groves, T.	Ponsonby, Arthur	Wright, W.
Grundy, T. W.	Potts, John S.	Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)	Rees, Sir Beddoe	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Riley, Ben	TELLERS FOS THE NOES.—
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Ritson, J.	Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.

Mr. CHARLETON

I beg to move, in page 23, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words "or an orphan's pension."

I move this Amendment in order to bring the orphan children of workmen who meet with fatal accidents into the operation of this Bill. We on this side feel that this Bill is penalising workmen who engage in dangerous occupations, such as miners, railway men, and others, and it really means that in the case of a lad joining one of these occupations at the age of 16, who may lose his wife at about the age of 35, leaving all the children, and who may himself meet with a fatal accident afterwards, he will Have paid, perhaps, for 20 years into the Fund and not receive any benefit. If I have read aright the actuary's report, and as I understood it, this scheme will ultimately be self-supporting. I cannot quite understand that matter, for when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his Bill some time ago he laid emphasis on the fact that the widows and orphans would be amply provided for. It does seem to me that those who most require it will get the least benefit. For this, and the various reasons that have been given, I beg to move the Amendment, and I do not propose to delay the House any longer.

Sir K. WOOD

This Amendment proposes to limit the Clause of the Bill relating to children's allowances. I quite appreciate what has been said by the hon. Member, but I would respectfully suggest that he will not regard it as discourteous if I reply by saying that I shall rely upon the arguments of my right hon. Friend and myself on a previous Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 143.

Division No. 285.]	AYES.	[5.54 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Malone, Major P. B.
Albery, Irving James	Everard, W. Lindsay	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Meller, R. J.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Fielden, E. B.	Meyer, Sir Frank
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Finburgh, S.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Foster, Sir Harry S.	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Astor, Viscountess	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Ganzoni, Sir John	Moore, Sir Newton J.
Balniel, Lord	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Banks, Reginald Mitchell	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Murchison, C. K.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Nelson, Sir Frank
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Goff, Sir Park	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.	Gower, Sir Robert	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Grace, John	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Bennett, A. J.	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E.)	Nuttall, Ellis
Bethell, A.	Greenwood, William (Stockport)	Oakley, T.
Betterton, Henry B.	Gretton, Colonel John	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Grotrian, H. Brent	Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Blades, Sir George Rowland	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Pennefather, Sir John
Blundell, F. N.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Penny, Frederick George
Boothby, R. J. G.	Hammersley, S. S.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Brass, Captain W.	Harland, A.	Perring, William George
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Harrison, G. J. C.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Briggs, J. Harold	Hartington, Marquess of	Philipson, Mabel
Brocklabank, C. E. R.	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Pielou, D. P.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Haslam, Henry C.	Plicher, G.
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Hawke, John Anthony	Price, Major C. W. M.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Raine, W.
Bullock, Captain M.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Burman, J. B.	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.	Rentoul, G. S.
		Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Caine, Gordon Hall	Herbert, S.(York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Ropner, Major L.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	Salmon, Major I.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. A.(Ladywood)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Chapman, Sir S.	Huntingfield, Lord	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Hurd, Percy A.	Sanderson Sir Frank
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Hurst, Gerald B.	Sheffield Sir Berkeley
Clarry, Reginald George	Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)	Shepperson, E. W.
Clayton, G. C.	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Skelton, A. N.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Jacob, A. E.	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Jephcott, A. R.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine C.)
Cooper, A. Duff	Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Cope, Major William	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Couper, J. B.	Kindersley, Major Guy M.	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Stanley Lord (Fylde)
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lamb, J. Q.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Crook, C. W.	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Strickland, Sir Gerald
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert	Loder, J. de V.	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Lougher, L.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lumley, L. R.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Lynn, Sir R. J.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Templeton, W. P.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Macintyre, Ian	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Dawson, Sir Philip	Macmillan, Captain H.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Drewe, C.	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Turton, Edmund Russborough
Edmondson, Major A. J.	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Waddington, R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.	Wheler, Major Granville O. H.	Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)	Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Warrender, Sir Victor	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)	Wise, Sir Fredric	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Watts, Dr. T.	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)	Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain
Wells, S. R.	Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)	Margesson.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Hardle, George D.	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Harney, E. A.	Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Ammon, Charles George	Harris, Percy A.	Rose, Frank H.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Hayday, Arthur	Scrymgeour, E.
Baker, Walter	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barnes, A.	Hirst, G. H.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Barr, J.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Sitch, Charles H.
Batey, Joseph	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Bromley, J.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Buchanan, G.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Snell, Harry
Charleton, H. C.	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Clowes, S.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Stamford, T. W.
Cluse, W. S.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Stephen, Campbell
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Compton, Joseph	Kelly, W. T.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Connolly, M.	Kennedy, T.	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Cove, W. G.	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Kenyon, Barnet	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Crawfurd, H. E.	Kirkwood, D.	Thurtle, E.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Lansbury, George	Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)	Lawson, John James	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lee, F.	Viant, S. P.
Day, Colonel Harry	Lowth, T.	Wallhead, Richard C.
Dennison, R.	Lunn, William	Watson, W. M. (Duntermline)
Dunnico, H.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)	Mackinder, W.	Westwood, J.
England, Colonel A.	MacLaren, Andrew	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Fenby, T. D.	March, S.	Whiteley, W.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.	Maxton, James	Wiggins, William Martin
Forrest, W.	Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gibbins, Joseph	Montague, Frederick	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Gillett, George M.	Morris, R. H.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Gosling, Harry	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Williams, Dr. J. H (Llanelly)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Naylor, T. E.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Greenall, T.	Oliver, George Harold	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Owen, Major G.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Paling, W.	Windsor, Walter
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Wright, W.
Groves, T.	Ponsonby, Arthur	Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)
Grundy, T. W.	Potts, John S.	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)	Rees, Sir Beddoe
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Riley, Ben	Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Ritson, J.

Mr. DENNISON

I beg to move in page 23, line "31, to leave out the words or such earlier date as may be proscribed. I do not propose, in moving this Amendment, in any way to cover the general ethics of the case, for the case has been fairly well covered. The Clause lays it down that the pension is to cease at a date when the Minister receives notice of the award or agreement. If these words that we desire to delete stand part of the Clause it will be permissible for the Minister, not only to stop the pension when the Workmen's Compensation award reaches him, but he may make it retro- spective. It was never, I think, intended that that should be the case, because, after all, the weekly payments have been made under the Workmen's Compensation Act, though the children were not included in the Compensation Act weekly payments. We put forward this Amendment in the hope that the Minister may think it desirable to delete it, and I beg to move.

Sir K. WOOD

The object of the words to which the hon. Member takes objection—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—is to enable the Department to take advantage of the earliest intimation of the award or agreement. That is all that is meant by the words, and I think my hon. Friend will agree with that. If we did not keep these words in we should have to wait unnecessarily.

Mr. MARCH

This is another case where the Government are trying to do their best to see they get all they can out of this Bill, which is supposed to be for the benefit of widows and orphans. In every Clause we come to there are anomalies, and those anomalies are not for the benefit either of the widows or the children. Now the Government want to take power to get an earlier date than that at which the award is given, or—

Sir K. WOOD

No, it is not the date of the award, but the date on which the notice of the award reaches us.

Mr. MARCH

Then it is going to be retrospective when you deal with the orphans?

Sir K. WOOD

No.

Mr. MARCH

Well, that is how it appears to me. We are dealing with what happens when the award becomes operative, and we do not usually find that they do become operative until after the decision of the Court is come to. Usually it is the decision of the Court which arranges what the amount is to be, and, surely, that date ought to give the Ministry sufficient time to conduct their business. It is bad enough when they take action after they know what the orphans have been awarded by the Court, but, presumably, they want to take action immediately they hear that the man is dead, even before the case comes into Court. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is the point of the statement made just now. They want to know immediately the man is killed. Very often months go by before the award is settled. What is going to happen in the meantime. The woman is a widow as soon as she loses her husband, and if her husband has been paying for this benefit, surely, she is entitled to it. It seems to me that all along the line the Government are trying to do their best to prevent either the widow or the children getting the just dues for which the husband has paid. We on this side are entirely against these words, and entirely against the whole Clause.

Mr. TINKER

Suppose a man gets killed and leaves orphans, and the compensation is not settled, and the case has to be fought. Will the children get a pension until the case is settled?

Sir K. WOOD

Yes. As the hon. Member knows, in a large number of cases, the amount is settled by agreement. This Amendment, of course, would not in any way interfere with what was done until a settlement had been arrived at. Whether the widow is entitled to compensation or not, she is not going to be left suspended in the air, as it were. I am afraid I have been at fault in not spending a little more time in explaining the matter. This is only a matter of machinery to get an earlier notification of the award.

Mr. TINKER

I suppose if they paid this money, they would not ask for it to be refunded?

Sir K. WOOD

I think I must make an observation on that case. I notice that the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has not been with us very much in these Debates, is with us, and it is a question which is exciting his interest. Obviously, we must have some power to make adjustments, but we do not want to leave the widow without money.

Mr. J. JONES

In the event of a case coming into the County Court and compensation being awarded to a widow with children, is that widow's benefit to be stopped in view of her benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Sir K. WOOD

As I explained earlier in the day, when I do not think the hon. Member was with us, this particular matter does not affect the widow's pension at all. This Clause deals simply with children's allowances.

Mr. LEE

May I point out a rather serious hardship? As the hon. Gentleman knows quite well, legal processes are very slow, and we have had cases where a widow—or someone acting on her behalf—has had to take her case first to the County Court, then to the Court of Appeal, and after that to the House of Lords; and years may go by before the case is finally settled. I have one case in my mind now. Is she to be asked to pay back all she has drawn?

Sir K. WOOD

The hon. Member must not think that everyone on this side is inhuman, and that we do not intend to work this scheme as sympathetically as we can. In my experience a Court very often orders compensation to be paid pending the decision of the House of Lords. In that event, of course, adjustments will be made. How far one can go back in a case of that kind I should hesitate to say, but certainly we shall not press unduly on the widow in cases of that kind.

Mr. LEE

Would you cover the point by a Regulation?

Sir K. WOOD

We will consider that.

Mr. JONES

Will the hon. Gentleman say what will happen in a case like this? A man loses his life and leaves a widow and children. What is to be the position of the widow and children until the case is finally settled? Our own union has had to take a case to the House of Lords. What is to be the position of the family of the man who has been killed while the case is under consideration in the Courts? It may take months before there is a final settlement.

Sir K. WOOD

In such an event, if compensation is paid pending the final decision, then an adjustment would be made, but there would be no withdrawal or subtraction from the widow's money under this Clause until the amount is actually paid into Court under the award of the Court. That is quite clear.

Mr. JONES

I am asking this question because we have had so much experience of this matter. Supposing when the case goes to the House of Lords the woman loses? What is going to happen then?

Sir K. WOOD

It depends, for instance, on whether the widow has been receiving compensation in the interval. If the House of Lords decide that she is not entitled to the money, the question of whether she has got to pay back the Workmen's Compensation Act money will be a case for the respondents in the appeal.

Mr. LEE

But does not the hon. Gentleman know that they never pay in the interval?

Sir K. WOOD

No, I do not agree with the hon. Member. I have known many cases where the County Court judge ordered payment to be made notwithstanding the fact that the employers were taking the case to appeal.

Mr. LEE

I have never known one, and I have dealt with hundreds of cases.

Sir K. WOOD

I have known many cases. Of course, if the woman is proved not to be entitled to Workmen's Compensation, the widows and orphans will be entitled to their allowances under this Bill.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN

Would the right hon. Gentleman say what happens in a case like this? A fatal accident happens in the first week of January. Proceedings take place on behalf of the widow and children. At the end of February an agreement is arrived at, but that agreement is not registered in Court until the end of March. If there is no meaning in these words, and if they are not intended to be acted upon, what is the use of putting them in at all—if it. does not give the Department power to go back to January for any payments that have been made in the intervening time to go back from January until the end of March when the agreement was registered in Court?

Sir K. WOOD

No money will be stopped from the widow on account of this Clause until the money has been actually paid into Court. When that has been done, obviously adjustments will have to be made, and I do not think anyone will say that is unfair.

Mr. JONES

Yes, we do.

Sir K. WOOD

Well, I do not want to go back upon the main subject which we have been arguing about all the afternoon. I am endeavouring to deal with the one specific matter raised in this Amendment, which is clearly a matter of machinery.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

If these words remain in the Clause, does it not mean that the Department will have the power of taking the whole of the amount that may have been paid in the interval between the first week in January and the last week in March? You say, "Make adjustments." I think I am putting a very plain question. Does it not give you the power to take the whole of the money that has been paid by way of advances from the first week in January until the last week in March?

Sir K. WOOD

Not these words which hon. Members are endeavouring to delete. These are mere machinery words, in order to get early notification of the agreement. As regards the question which the hon. Gentleman has put to me, that is a matter concerned with the Clause itself, but the words which the hon. Member is seeking to have deleted are a question of machinery and nothing else.

Mr. JONES

May I ask if this really means that the Workmen's Compensation Act is going to be a subsidiary part of this pensions scheme? Are the payments which people are going to receive under this scheme to be used as an argument for taking their benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act? That is what we want to know.

The CHAIRMAN

That clearly does not arise on these words.

Mr. DENNISON

I would like an assurance from the hon. Member that these words are for administrative purposes only, and, further, that in a case where an agreement has been come to, and where, prior to that, a widow has been in receipt of pension for herself and her children, nothing of the amount which she has received in the shape of compensation will be deducted from her in the adjustments that may take place after the award. I want to be quite clear upon that.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

As I understand the hon. Member's two questions, the answer is in the affirmative to both of them. It will not deprive the widow of anything. It simply deals with a case where the Ministry has knowledge of an agreement and that the money has been

paid over, but have not had official notification.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN

May I ask the Minister of Health the same question that I asked the Parliamentary Secretary? The Clause speaks about the allowance ceasing to be payable As from the date on which the Minister receives notice of the award or agreement, or such earlier date as may be prescribed by him. That gives him the right to go back to the first week in January to deduct any payments that have been made.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN indicated dissent.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN

Oh, absolutely it does.

Mr. LEE

In the case I have mentioned, where months, and even years, may intervene before a final settlement, and the widow makes a claim under this Bill, and gets her weekly allowance for the children, are we to be. assured that until that award is made she is entitled to that allowance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Yes.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 23, line 38, at the end, add the words Provided that where the weekly value calculated in the prescribed manner of the sum awarded or agreed as aforesaid in respect of a child in respect of whom an additional allowance or orphan's pension, would but for this Section have been payable is less than the amount of that allowance or pension, a sum equal to the deficiency shall be payable as from the date aforesaid by way of additional allowance or orphan's pension, as the case may be."— [Sir K. Wood.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 141.

Division No. 286.]	AYES.	[6.0 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Banks, Reginald Mitchell	Blades, Sir George Rowland
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Blundell, F. N.
Albery, Irving James	Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Boothby, R. J. G.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.	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.	Bennett, A. J.	Briggs, J. Harold
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Bethell, A.	Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Astor, Viscountess	Betterton, Henry B.	Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Buckingham, Sir H.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Balniel, Lord	Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Bullock, Captain M.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Haslam, Henry C.	Perring, William George
Burman, J. B.	Hawke, John Anthony	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Phillpson, Mabel
Caine, Gordon Hall	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Pielou, D. P.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Pilcher, G.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Price, Major C. W. M.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.	Raine, W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Chapman, Sir S.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Rentoul, G. S.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Chllcott, Sir Warden	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Clarry, Reginald George	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Clayton, G. C.	Hudson, Capt. A. O. M.(Hackney, N.)	Ropner, Major L.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Huntingfield, Lord	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Hurd, Percy A.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Hurst, Gerald B.	Salmon, Major I.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n& P'bl's)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cooper, A. Duff	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Cope, Major William	Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Couper, J. B.	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Jacob, A. E.	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Crook, C. W.	Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Shepperson, E. W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Kindersley, Major Guy M.	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Skelton, A. N.
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lamb, J. Q.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Loder, J. de V.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Lougher, L.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Dawson, Sir Philip	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Lumley, L. R.	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan	Lynn, Sir R. J.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Drewe, C.	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Edmondson, Major A. J.	MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Macintyre, Ian	Tasker, Major R. Inigo
England, Colonel A.	Macmillan, Captain H.	Templeton, W. P.
	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Everard, W. Lindsay	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Turton, Edmund Russborough
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Malone, Major P. B.	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Finburgh, S.	Margesson, Captain D.	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Forrest, W.	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Foster Sir Harry S.	Meller, R. J.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Meyer, Sir Frank	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Fraser, Captain Ian	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Watts, Dr. T.
Ganzoni, Sir John	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Wells, S. R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Goff, Sir Park	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Gower, Sir Robert	Murchison, C. K.	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Grace, John	Nelson, Sir Frank	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)	Mewman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Gretton, Colonel John	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Grotrian, H. B.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Nuttall, Ellis	Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Oakley, T.	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Hammersley, S. S.	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Harland, A.	Owen, Major G.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Harrison, G. J. C.	Penny, Frederick George	Colonel Gibbs and Mr. F. C.
Hartington, Marquess of	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Thomson.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Barnes, A.	Clowes, S.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Barr, J.	Cluse, W. S.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Batey, Joseph	Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Ammon, Charles George	Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Compton, Joseph
Attlee, Clement Richard	Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Connolly, M.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)	Bromley, J.	Cove, W. G.
Baker, Walter	Buchanan, G.	Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Charleton, H. C.	Crawfurd, H. E.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)	Kelly, W. T.	Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Kennedy, T.	Sitch, Charles H.
Day, Colonel Harry	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Dennison, R.	Kenyon, Barnet	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Dunnico, H.	Kirkwood, D.	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Lansbury, George	Snell, Harry
Fenby, T. D.	Lawson, John James	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.	Lee, F.	Stamford, T. W.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Lowth, T.	Stephen, Campbell
Gibbins, Joseph	Lunn, William	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Gillett, George M.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Gosling, Harry	Mackinder, W.	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	MacLaren, Andrew	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Greenall, T.	March, S.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Greenwood, A. (Neison and Colne)	Maxton, James	Thurtle, E.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)	Tinker, John Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Groves, T.	Morris, R. H.	Viant, S. P.
Grundy, T. W.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Wallhead, Richard C.
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)	Naylor, T. E.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Oliver, George Harold	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Hall, F. (York, W, R., Normanton)	Paling, W.	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pethick Lawrence, F. W.	Westwood, J.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Ponsonby, Arthur	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Hardie, George D.	Potts, John S.	Whiteley, W.
Harney, E. A.	Rees, Sir Beddoe	Wiggins, William Martin
Harris, Percy A.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Riley, Ben	Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Hayday, Arthur	Ritson, J.	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)	Williams, T, (York, Don Valley)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hirst, G. H.	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Rose, Frank H.	Windsor, Walter
Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Wright, W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Scrymgeour, E.	Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Sexton, James	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Mr. Warns and Mr. Hayes.

CLAUSE 26.—(Provision where pension granted to person in receipt of outdoor relief.)

Mr. LANSBURY

I beg to move, in page 24, line 17, to leave out Subsection (2).

I think I had better read this Clause to the Committee. It provides as follows: (1) In any case in which a Poor Law authority has granted outdoor relief to any person, being a person not in receipt of a pension, and either—

1. (a) such relief would not have been granted if the person had then been in receipt of a pension; or
2. (b) such relief is in excess of the amount which would have been granted to that person if he had been in receipt of a pension;
• the Minister may, if a claim by that person, for a pension in respect of any part of the period during which relief has been so granted is subsequently allowed, treat the pension so allowed as reduced for the purposes of this Act by an amount not exceeding such an amount as the authority certify to have been so paid or so paid in excess, as the case may be, in respect of the period for which the pension, was allowed, and the Minister may pay to that authority the amount by which the pension is treated as having been reduced as aforesaid, so, however, that the total amount to 1354 be so paid by the Minister shall not exceed the amount of the pension in respect of the period aforesaid.

(2) This Section shall extend to the case of a child in respect of whom an additional allowance or orphan's pension is not being paid in like manner as to the case of a person not in receipt of a pension, and shall apply in such a case subject to the necessary modifications. I have read this Clause to the Committee because when I first saw it I plead guilty to not having been able exactly to understand what it meant, and yet poor people are expected to know that there is such a Clause, and they will be expected to see to their outgoings, so that when the pension time arrives they will know that a large portion of it has to be paid back. The effect of this Clause is that if a person whose husband dies goes to the parish to get poor law relief when the pension does come through in three weeks or a month after the amount she has received up to 10s. a week, or supposing she has been getting 10s. a week, it will be paid to the authority that has to pay the amount. It does not become payable to the person entitled until the money which the authority has paid has been paid back. Surely that is the meaning of this Clause. One of the sub-sections applies to children, and I want to say, first of all, that the ordinary man and woman paying into this fund will not know that there is any such provision; and secondly, that when a woman goes to a board of guardians to get relief, she will take it and spend it, and will be banking on getting her pension when the time comes for the money to be paid. It seems to me rather mean to want to take this back. I have always thought that was so in regard to widows' pensions connected with the Army and Navy, because those pensions are dealt with in exactly the same manner. I know it will be said that the woman ought not to get double assistance, but we are always very careful to see that the poor should not get too much.

Just think that, whatever the woman may get from the State ultimately, there is no hon. Member sitting opposite who would say that any widow will be able to bring up her children and herself on the money provided by this Bill. Anybody who gives a minute's thought to these things knows that that will be impossible. The Minister thinks that because of this Bill people will be more thrifty, and will make provision for themselves and add it to the pension, but there will be multitudes who will not be able to make any addition to the pension, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, and every Poor Law authority will tell him, that this sum of 5s. for the first child and 3s. for the next is absolutely inadequate for maintaining the children, whether they are young or whether they are children of 10 to 14 years of age. We ought to recognise that a few weeks will elapse before the woman can draw the pension, even if the Poor Law authorities do give her a few shillings relief, and the few pounds, say £5, £6 or £7 that would come to her when her claim has gone through should be a little nest-egg left to help her to carry on. It is not as though the State were paying this money, or as though it came out of the Exchequer in any way. It will come from the boards of guardians, and I believe—I am speaking in the presence of many members of boards of guardians—that the average board of guardians would be quite willing that this money should not be paid over. I think that this provision is on all fours with the one that the Committee has just carried. It is attempting to prevent the poor from getting too much, to prevent them from having a little extra. At the risk of being considered an extravagant person, I always feel that, when a poor person does get a small advantage, such as a widow would occasionally get under the terms of this Bill by getting a lump sum in pension at the end of, say, a fortnight or a month, that is money that we might very well leave to her and allow her to enjoy it. Therefore, I hope this Amendment will be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman.

Before I sit down, there is just one other question that I should like to ask. I did not want to detain the Committee on the main Amendment to the last Clause, but perhaps I may be permitted to ask the right hon. Gentleman now whether he can tell us, if this Amendment or any of these Amendments were carried, what would be the cost to the Exchequer? In this case he will not save anything at all, I admit, because if I understand the Clause rightly, he is only going to see to it that the local authority gets the money. It seems to me that it might be left to the local authorities, who, I am perfectly certain, would not want to penalise women in this way. If it is not out of order, I should very much like to know what the proposal we made on the last Clause would have cost the Exchequer had it been carried?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I think that nearly the whole of the hon. Member's observations were rather wide of the Amendment which he has moved, because they appeared to me to be directed rather to what he supposed the Clause as a whole would do than to the particular exception to the working of the Clause which he desires to make, and I confess I do not understand why it is desired to make that exception, or why the hon. Member did not confine himself merely to arguing against the provisions of the Clause. May I just point out what the effect of this Clause really is? Where a woman is in receipt of a pension under this Bill, and then applies to the guardians for relief, the guardians will take into account the fact that she is in receipt of that pension in considering what relief they will give to her. The next case is the case of a woman who is entitled to a pension but has not actually begun to receive it. Why should that woman be put in a better position than the first woman, who has actually begun to receive her pension? That is exactly what the hon. Member has been arguing. I say that, as between woman and woman, that would not be fair, and, indeed, it would be an inducement to a woman to withhold her claim to a pension as long as possible, in order that she might get, not only the pension, but also a full amount of relief from the guardians. That does not seem to me to be fair either to the guardians on the one hand or to the other woman on the other hand, and I cannot think the hon. Member has quite appreciated what the effect would be if this Clause were not passed.

Mr. LANSBURY

As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, no board of guardians would give assistance without inquiring whether the woman applying for it was a widow or not, and why she was applying.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The question would be whether she was in receipt of income from pension or not, and she might not have applied for the pension.

Mr. LANSBURY

The guardians will see that she does.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

In that case this will not do any harm. It cannot possibly have any effect whatever, because the case will not arise. What the hon. Member would really be doing by his Amendment would be to say that the principle which is provided in this Clause shall

apply in the case where a widow is herself in receipt of a pension, but that it shall not apply in the case where allowances are payable either in respect of children of a widow or in respect of orphans, in which latter case, of course, the allowance will be paid to some other person than the parent. Why the distinction should be made I do not see at all, but, in any case, exactly the game observations apply to the case where allowances are paid to orphans or children as in the case of a pension.

Mr. HARNEY

I hope the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) will not persist in his Amendment. It seems to me that nobody in reason could object to this Clause. All that the Clause says is that, where a pension is accruing but not paid, and in the meanwhile the guardians have given assistance, the guardians are to be recouped what they have paid out of the pension when it is eventually paid.

Mr. LANSBURY

I should not have moved my Amendment had we been permitted to move the next Amendment, to leave out the Clause, but, of course, that would have destroyed the Clause altogether.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 124.

Division No. 287.]	AYES	[6.21 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Brown, Maj. D. C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Crook, C. W.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Buckingham, Sir H.	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Albery, Irving James	Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Bullock, Captain M.	Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Curzon, Captain Viscount
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Burman, J. B.	Dalkeith, Earl of
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Davidson, J. (Hertl'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Caine, Gordon Hall	Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yaovil)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Balniel, Lord	Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Banks, Reginald Mitchell	Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Dawson, Sir Philip
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)	Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)	Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.	Chapman, Sir S.	Drewe, C.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Edmondson, Major A. J.
Bennett, A. J.	Chilcott, Sir Warden	Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Bethell, A.	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Betterton, Henry B.	Clarry, Reginald George	England, Colonel A.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Clayton, G. C.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Blades, Sir George Rowland	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Blundell, F. N.	Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Everard, W. Lindsay
Boothby, R. J. G.	Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Brass, Captain W.	Cooper, A. Duff	Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Cope, Major William	Fielden, E. B.
Briggs, J. Harold	Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Finburgh, S.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Forrest, W.
Foster, Sir Harry S.	Loder, J. de V.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Laugher, L.	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Fraser, Captain Ian	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Lumley, L. R.	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Ganzoni, Sir John	Lynn, Sir R. J.	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Shepperson, E. W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	MacDonald, R. (Cathcart)	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Goff, Sir Park	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Gower, Sir Robert	Macintyre, Ian	Skelton, A. N.
Grace, John	Macmillan, Captain H.	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Gretton, Colonel John	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Grotrian, H. Brent	Malone, Major P. B.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Stanley, Hon O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Margesson, Captain D.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Hammersley, S S.	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Storry Deans, R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Meller, R. J.	Strickland, Sir Gerald
Harland, A.	Meyer, Sir Frank	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Harney, E. A.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Harrison, G. J. C.	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Hartington, Marquess of	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Haslam, Henry C.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Hawke, John Anthony	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Templeton, W. P.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Murchison, C. K.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Neville, R. J.	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)	Turton, Edmund Russborough
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Nuttall, Ellis	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Oakley, T.	Waddington, R.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Owen, Major G.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.	Pennefather, Sir John	Warrender, Sir Victor
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	Penny, Frederick George	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Huntingfield, Lord	Perring, William George	Wells, S. R.
Hurd, Percy A.	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Hurst, Gerald B.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)	Pielou, D. P.	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Plicher, G.	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Jacob, A. E.	Price, Major C. W. M.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Jephcott, A. R.	Raine, W.	Wise, Sir Fredric
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Joynson-Hicks. Rt. Hon. Sir William	Rees, Sir Beddoe	Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York. W.R., Ripon)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.	Reid, D. D. (County Down)	Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
King, Captain Henry Douglas	Rentoul, G. S.	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Wragg, Herbert
Lamb, J. Q.	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)	Major Sir Harry Barnston and
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Captain Donglas Hacking.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Harris, Percy A.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughten)	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Day, Colonel Harry	Hastings, Sir Patrick
Ammon, Charles George	Dennison, R.	Hayday, Arthur
Attlee, Clement Richard	Duncan, C.	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bliston)	Dunnico, H.	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Baker, Walter	Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Hirst, G. H.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Gibbins, Joseph	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Barnes, A.	Gillett, George M.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Barr, J.	Gosling, Harry	John, William (Rhondda, West)
Batey, Joseph	Greenall, T.	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Grenfell, D. R, (Glamorgan)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Broad, F. A.	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Kelly, W. T.
Bromley, J.	Groves, T.	Kennedy, T.
Buchanan, G.	Grundy, T. W.	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Charleton. H. C.	Guest, J. (York, W.H., Hemsworth	Kenyon, Barnet
Clowes, S.	Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Kirkwood, D.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Hall, F. (York, W. R.. Normanton)	Lansbury, George
Compton, Joseph	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Lawson, John James
Connolly, M.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Lee, F.
Cove, W. G.	Hardle, George D.	Lowth, T.

Lunn, William	Scrymgeour, E.	Viant, S. P.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Sexton, James	Wallhead, Richard C.
Mackinder, W.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Warne, G. H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
March, S.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)
Maxton, James	Sitch, Charles H.	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)	Westwood, J.
Morrison, R, C. (Tottenham, N.)	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Naylor, T. E.	Snell, Harry	Whiteley, W.
Oliver, George Harold	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Paling, W.	Stamford, T. W.	Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Stephen, Campbell	Williams, Or. J. H. (Llanelly)
Ponsonby, Arthur	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Potts, John S.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Riley, Ben	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)	Windsor, Walter
Ritson, J.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)	Wright, W.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)	Thurtle, E.	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Rose, Frank H.	Tinker, John Joseph
Salter, Dr. Alfred	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
		Mr. MacLaren and Mr. Hayes.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

Before we part with the Clause I think there is at least one observation that ought to be made upon it. We on these benches have declared from the commencement that the pensions and allowances under the Bill are wholly inadequate and that many people, if not most of those who will be in receipt of these pensions and allowances, will have to have recourse to the Poor Law. In fact, the Clause supports to the hilt the point of view we have put forward, because it states quite clearly, and in fact the Government itself in inserting it has admitted the whole of the claim we have made that these pensions are totally inadequate and will relieve in part only the expenses of the local authority. We should not be true to ourselves if we allowed it to pass without making the comment that the pensions are shown by the Clause itself to be totally inadequate.

Mr. J. BAKER

It has been said that no one objects to the Clause. I strongly object to it in its present form. It seems to me that the Minister of Health had a generous impulse and then regretted it and has devised all the means he can imagine to minimise the benefits which in his generous mood he wanted to provide. We have had other Acts of Parliament quoted as a reason for minimising the benefits under this Bill wherever they could be used as a reason for minimising them. I have attended as often as I could, but I have not heard a single Act quoted by that side of the House to increase the benefits under the Bill. In this Clause there is a provision for a, pension if the person entitled applies for it within a given time. The Department realises that it will work slowly and it wants time to pay that pension. It realises that it is dealing with poverty-stricken people who may have to apply to a board of guardians, and probably will in most cases. But the Minister of Health is nominating himself into the office of a super-relieving officer and is going to make all the inquisitorial inquiries which we have been objecting to to find out exactly the income of all these people and he says, "That is over 10s. a week; we shall have to have some of this back." I am not an expert on the Old Age Pensions Act, but I understand that under that Act if an old age pensioner went into an infirmary or a workhouse the guardians themselves could not take that pension until the pauper had been in that institution for at least three months. The Minister is going one better than the worst board of guardians in this country and says, "I am going to claim the right to take that pension from the moment that you have that other relief." If a woman has to apply for relief after she has got the pension the guardians will ask for her income and reduce the allowance accordingly. He makes a difference between the woman who gets the pension first and the woman who is so poor, so distressed and so destitute that she had to apply before he could pay the pension. He is making provision in the next Clause to cover that up because if the woman does not got her claim in, though the pension may be accruing, within one month or, at the latest, two, that claim can only be paid from the date on which it was granted. He is therefore safeguarding his interests. Now we have the picture of a woman who has lost her husband and has been under extra expense; She is in great trouble. She may not think of applying for the pension unless she has some friend who is not so troubled, who is interested in her welfare. The two months expire. She is only entitled to a pension then from the date of the application. But the Minister wants to come on, if I read this aright, and say, "You have received so much: that matter must be adjusted." I protest against these restrictive Clauses. I thought for one we were going to get a Parliament with a generous mood towards the poorest of the poor, the defenceless widow and orphan, that was going to treat them decently. The Minister cannot withdraw this Clause altogether, but I hope he will undertake to give us something better than we have here. If he had given some suggestion of an adjustment to help that woman in her great time of trouble we might have had more sympathy with it. I protest against the Clause, and if it goes to a Division I shall vote against it

CLAUSE 27.—(Date of commencement and end of, and mode of paying pensions.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy)

The first Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Ernest Evans), in page 24, line 23, at beginning, to insert new Sub-section: (1) The administrative machinery for the collection of contributions and the payment of benefits under this Act, shall, subject to the provisions of this Section and in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be that of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, and the Minister shall have power to make regulations modifying and extending the administrative provisions of that Act in such directions as may be required. is covered by Clause 10. The next four Amendments all deal with very much the same question. If we take a debate on the first it must not be repeated on the next three.

Mr. JOHNSTON

I beg to move, in page 24, line 25, to leave out the words "one month" and to insert instead thereof the words "two months."

The first Sub-section is a fine, healthy specimen of an unnecessary effusion of words. At any rate I find myself in the position that I have to read it three or four times before I can understand what it means. If I understand it aright, it means that a pension shall be payable if the claim is made before the expiration of one month from the date upon which the claimant became entitled to the pension. If the claim is made within one month from the date, the pension accrues from that date, but if more than a month should elapse before the unfortunate claimant is able to make her claim the pension is not payable from the date of entitlement but only becomes payable from the date upon which the claim is made. I cannot for the life of me understand why the right hon. Gentleman should put this Clause into his Bill at all. No decent, self-respecting insurance company, certainly no friendly society, would attempt a thing like this. I can imagine 20 or 30 sets of circumstances in which it is literally impossible for a claimant to make her claim within a month from the date upon which she becomes a widow. Take the case of a casual worker who goes away on tramp to look for a job. He moves about from place to place. He is accidentally killed, perhaps on the railway. His death is not discovered until more than a month, perhaps two or three months afterwards, yet the Government says this poor woman shall not be entitled to draw her pension except from the date upon which her claim is made. It may be proved that the man died earlier. "No matter," says the Government. "We will not pay the pension from the date of death, but only from the date on which this poor unfortunate woman was in a position to make her claim." I should have thought the experience of the Ministry of Pensions would have taught the Government a lesson. Every one of us is aware of cases where the claim was not made within 12 months of the date upon which death took place; and whilst it may be said those cases occurred during the War, when it was frequently difficult for the widow to obtain proof, or even knowledge of the death, in ordinary civil life hundreds, if not thousands, of similar cases arise. Take a marine engineer. In numbers of cases men are lost at sea. Men are lost when they go away to jobs in a foreign land. The widow may not know until more than a month has elapsed. The Ministry goes out of its way and takes special pains to do what no insurance company or friendly society in the land would attempt to do, that is to refuse payment from the date of entitlement and only grant it from the date on which the widow was able to make a claim. I trust the Minister will see his way—it will cost a mere bagatelle—to wipe this small but unnecessary and irritating blot from his Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. Member has ransacked his imagination to discover cases in which this Clause would bring hardship upon poor unfortunate people, and he wishes us to understand that this hardship will be removed if we alter the period from one month to two months.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Not all, but some of the hardships.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

It is not desirable that we should allow a claim to be made at an indefinite period after the widow becomes entitled to a pension. The longer the time that elapses since the death of her husband, the more difficult it is to investigate a claim and find out what is the real entitlement of the applicant. If you are to talk about people who have died in remote parts of the Empire, that case will be still more difficult to investigate than one which happens close at home. The only point at issue is as to whether the time that we have provided in the Clause is reasonable or not. Has the hon. Member looked up the precedent of the old age pensions scheme? In that case, the pension only becomes payable from the date when the claim is made, and in no case does it go back to the date on which the applicant was entitled, unless the applicant has made the claim on that date. Therefore, we have gone one better than the Old Age Pensions Act. I suggest that to put in one month is reasonable. From the date of the beginning of this Act, before its provisions are widely known and people understand that they have only to go to the Post Office to make their claim, we thought that a little longer time might be permitted, and we have put in a period of two months from the date of the beginning of the Act. After that date, everybody really has a chance of finding out what is their position.

Mr. HARNEY

I am inclined to agree, with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, although I do not see much difference between one month and two months. It might be justifiable under the Old Age Pensions Act, which relates to a direct grant from the State, to say that the pension shall begin when the applicant applies for it, because the Government are masters of the situation; they are giving away something for nothing, but here we are dealing with a contractual obligation. Persons pay money in order to buy benefits, and whether they apply within a month or six months, the fact remains that they have bought the benefit. In ordinary insurance, unless the period fixed by some statutory regulation has elapsed, they are absolutely entitled, whether they apply early or late. I can well understand that stale applications always involve more clerical work and put the Ministry to some expense, but why the amount of that extra expense should be measured by the amount that should be payable between the time when it was due and the time when the application was made is a matter which I am wholly at a loss to understand.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

This is not merely a question of expense. We want to stimulate people to put in their claims as early as possible.

Mr. HARNEY

I agree. First of all, a stale application involves greater expense. Consequently, the Minister wants to urge people to make their applications early, by placing a penalty upon belated applications. It seems to me that the penalty is wholly disproportionate to the crime. The crime is a very slight one, and the amount of the penalty is in many cases greater than the crime. If people neglect for, say, six weeks, to make application, although they might have put it in earlier, they are penalised to a small extent, but if people are very old and distracted and there is everything to excuse them, and they are six months late in putting in their application, they are very heavily penalised. There is no justification for that, and my submission would be that we should allow the pension to be payable, as it is legally due, from the date when it arises. A provision might be put in the Bill saying that persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, have been unreasonable in regard to sending in their applications might have to pay some small sum as a penalty. As the Clause stands, it is unfair and hits hardest the people who probably least deserve it.

Mr. BECKETT

I am astonished at the reception that the Amendment has had from the right hon. Gentleman. I thought it was time that he gave another concession on this Bill and that this email matter, in terms of finance, afforded such an opportunity when he might have celebrated his long abstention from concession by giving us something. Instead of that, he has treated us probably to the most ingenious of all the very ingenious arguments which he and the Parliamentary Secretary have competed with each other to give to us on this Bill. He told us that he cannot accept our Amendment, because it is only slightly less wicked than his original proposal. He says that his proposal may be bad, but that our Amendment will not help very much. That is an extraordinary reason for rejecting an Amendment.

There are many cases of people who will be very unfairly treated by the inclusion of this period of a month. If we allow them two months, it would make a considerable amount of difference. A widow may lose her husband suddenly and she may be distraught and, like women often do, she may have depended entirely on her husband to attend to her affairs. A month may pass before she realises that she has a right to make an application for a pension. There is no one in this House who works on a technical plea of this sort to put a woman in a very unhappy condition which might deprive her of her pension for a month or six weeks or two months. There are cases, such as the Mover of the Amendment suggested, where the death is not known in time to make a claim within a month. There are cases of casual workers and men whose occupation takes them from place to place, and abroad. You may have cases of parents dying suddenly and leaving children in a strange town. The relatives or friends will have to fetch the children, and they may not know what the man's employment was, where he was employed, and whether he was an insured man, and before they can pick up the whole chain of circumstances the time may have passed and the children will be penalised. The Minister justifies that by the very extraordinary statement that he wishes to encourage the widow or the orphan to put in their claim promptly.

This provision will be equally hard in regard to old people. There is probably no Member of any party who is not constantly receiving letters from old people in his constituency saying, "I only found out a little while ago that I am 71. I thought I was 69," and asking what one can do for them. Hon. Members know the extreme difficulty that very often arises in finding out the age of these old people, and establishing their claim to a pension. If an insured man who has contributed all his life gets to 65 and is obscure about his age, and thinks he is 63 and then it takes him a month or more to find out his age, he is to be penalised. The Minister appears to think that we can only point to one or two isolated cases, but, if it were not that one did not wish to keep the Committee at great length, one could go on quoting case after case of people to whom this provision will mean a very hard condition. There are people who have reached an old age and are slow to do things for themselves, there are children who, obviously, cannot look after these things themselves, and there are widows who are affected at a time when they are least capable of dealing with their affairs, and unless within a month of the death of the breadwinner they make their application they are to be penalised. I hope the Minister will see whether he cannot in some way meet this serious objection.

Sir PATRICK HASTINGS

It may be that I have missed the provision, if provision there be in the Bill, but so far as I know there is nothing in the Bill which prevents this Clause from being obligatory. Supposing a claim is not made before the expiration of a month, then the Minister is in difficulty in regard to allowing payment to be made. In other Acts, for instance, the Workmen's Compensation Act, there is nearly always a provision which says that, provided the Minister is satisfied that the failure to put in a claim is due to some legitimate and unavoidable circumstance, he has the power to relax the stringency of the rule. There is a good deal to be said for the Minister's contention that the mere variation from one month to two months does not affect the matter very much, but he might consider whether he could see his way to meet the gravamen of the Amendment by moving to insert some provision such as I have suggested. Of course, the onus of proof might be put upon the applicant to show that there was reasonable cause for delay in the making of the application. Supposing a widow was proved to have been ill at the time of her husband's death, and it was physically impossible for her to put in a claim. Why should it not be possible in such a case to bring into operation a proviso such as is common in other Acts that where the Minister is satisfied that the failure to make the claim was due to some reasonable cause he should have power to relax the stringency of the rule?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I do not think that is an unreasonable request, and I promise to give it very favourable consideration and see what I can do on Report to meet the point.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 25, to leave out from the word "when" in line 30 to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words but for the provisions of this Section it would have included such additional allowance. 7.0 P.M.

I need not to say more than just a few words about this Amendment. It meets the case of the pre-Act widow, the widow who may be entitled to a pension for herself and allowances for her children, if she has children, who are under the age of 14. It is provided in Sub-section (3) of this Clause that where the date on which a pension would begin to accrue under this Act is a day in the week other than that prescribed as the day in the week on which the weekly payments on account of pensions of that class are to be made, the pension shall not begin to accrue until such prescribed day. You might have the case of a widow who has one child under 14, and that child dies before the prescribed day on which the allowance would be payable. In that case, not only would the allowance in respect of the child be lost, but the widow's allowance also would be lost. The words which I propose to insert here are to protect the widow in that case, and give her the allowance for six months after the death of the child.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 28.—(Claims and appeals.)

Miss WILKINSON

I beg to move, in page 25, line 40, after the word "referees," to insert the words, "of whom at least one shall be a woman."

I do not want to spring a bombshell upon the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will find it possible to accept this Amendment. He will realise that these referees will often have to decide very difficult and delicate questions relating to the claims that will come before them, and that the women that they will have to consider will be women who have just passed through a very terrible period in their lives. I am sure the Minister will agree that it will be much better if, when these women come before the referees, there is at least one woman who would be able to deal with them and take up their case. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is becoming part of our general practice where women's cases are to be dealt with. I want to ask the right, hon. Gentleman whether he can see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I did not know the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) was going to move this Amendment. I think the point is already met, because under the Regulations providing for the procedure before the court of referees it is also provided that wherever a woman is concerned in an application to the referees there shall be joined with the referees a woman assessor, and that woman assessor will be a woman who has special competence for dealing with insurance cases. That practice is in force now.

Miss WILKINSON

The right hon. Gentleman says that the woman would be an assessor. Well, the difficulty, of course, with assessors is that their advice may or may not be taken by the referees, and I was anxious to put this Amendment in this particular way to include women among the referees so that she would not merely be a lady whose advice may or may not be taken, but that she should have equal status with whatever men were there judging the case. It is an important matter of principle.

Mr. R. DAVIES

I am not going to challenge the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, but I am not quite clear that under the Regulations which are referred to in this Clause 3 woman will be brought in in every case. If it is found later on that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member is necessary to meet the point that she has made, will he be good enough to remember that point when we are on the Report stage of the Bill?

Mr. HARNEY

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when we were dealing with Sub-section (2) of Clause 21, something was said, rather indefinitely, about provision being made for seeing that woman who became disqualified or liable to become disqualified would have an opportunity of having an appeal. This is the appropriate Clause to deal with that, and I see that an Amendment I had on the Paper—in page 25, line 37. after the word "award" to insert words "or decision" —is struck out. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman in some way or other is going to make provision that a woman shall not be disqualified without having an opportunity of being heard.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I do not quite understand why the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not moved. If it had been I should have accepted it. I shall see that it is put in on Report. In regard to the other point, the body of referees is a body of legal gentlemen, barristers, and there might be some difficulty if we were to insist that one of them should always be a woman.

Miss WILKINSON

There are several women barristers.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I would not mind taking this point a bit further, and I promise to do so, but, while the assessor must in every case be a woman where a woman is concerned in the application, there might be some difficulty in insisting that one of the referees should be a woman, who would in every case have a controlling voice in the decisions of the Court.

Miss WILKINSON

The right hon. Gentleman has put that point, but I do want to point out that in so many cases it is assumed, when you are speaking of legal bodies, that they must always be gentlemen. We have now bodies of legal ladies, and this is the kind of work which is emphatically their sort of job. If the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind, I shall be willing be withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Miss WILKINSON

I beg to move, in page 26, to leave out lines 1 to 8 inclusive.

This Amendment is on a slightly different matter, and it is one on which I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain what he meant by the statement which he made previous to the time when I withdrew my Amendment on Clause 21 with regard to cohabitation. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that what I was asking for would be covered on Clause 23, and I thought that was so, but I did not notice that after the word "conclusive" in page 25, line 44, there was not a full stop but a colon, and that over the page there were provisoes. There are three provisoes in regard to the award. People will not be able to make an appeal first if it is on a matter on which the Minister's decision is final under the Act; secondly, on any matter which by this Act is a matter within the discretion of the Minister: and thirdly what is obvious and what is already happening under Section 89 of the Insurance Act.

Mr. HARNEY

That is only keeping the door open.

Miss WILKINSON

I want to be quite sure, and I moved this Amendment in order to have an explanation from the Minister that these provisoes do nothing to militate against the right of a woman to appeal on this cohabitation Clause, or on any other matter in the Bill. We do not want to find, when this Bill is passed and when some of us wish to take up cases where we feel that very real hardship has been done, that the appeal is barred because it is stated to be a matter within the discretion of the Minister. This seems to me to be a very dangerous Clause, and I would like to have an explanation from the Minister as to whether he could see his way to give us some absolute guarantee that on these matters the woman shall not be debarred from making her appeal.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The words that the hon. Member uses seem to carry us still further, so far as the limiting point in Clause 21 is concerned, and I must protect myself. In Clause 18 there is a provision that the decision of the Minister is to be binding and final. We have already passed that Clause, and it is quite impossible, she will see, that an appeal should lie against a final and conclusive decision. Again, this proviso says that matters which are left in the discretion of a Minister are not to be subject to an appeal. That, of course, is Clause 6, where the Minister has to decide certain cases where children's allowances are to be diverted. But so far as Clause 21 is concerned I am advised that nothing in this proviso will in any way prevent the woman under Clause 21, Sub-section (2), from making an appeal to the Court of Referees where proceedings under Clause 33 have not been made, and where her pension has been stopped by reason of alleged cohabitation. I am not quite certain whether the words of Sub-section (2) in Clause 21 are as clear as might be, and I have already given an undertaking to the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) to look into that.

Mr. HARNEY

Sub-section (2) of this Clause is really quite in order. It neither takes away nor gives anything, so it is all right.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I am very glad to hear that it is all right.

Miss WILKINSON

This hon. Member is not so easily satisfied, by this concurrence of opinion among the gentlemen. What I am concerned about is somehow to see that these women are not going to be done out of their rights, because of scandalmongering among their neighbours. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have been moving Amendments consistently throughout this Bill to protect these women. I am very glad to have his assurance that he is going to safeguard the women so far as Clause 21 is concerned, but with regard to Clause 6 there is this difficulty again, that it is this type of case that may come before the Minister, and I gather that you may have a woman's pension taken off for presumably immoral conduct, and she may find herself without an appeal. I do not want to press this Amendment as it stands, but I do want to say that it does seem to me urgent that we should have this appeal safeguarded at every point. If we do not, we shall find ourselves when this Bill has gone through with all sorts of people left out and the appeal absolutely impossible for them. We had a similar sort of case under the Ministry of Pensions. There are very bad cases. We are most anxious to have no Statute-barred cases under this Bill. I would ask the Minister whether he would not be prepared to take this Clause back and re-draft it so that it might come up again on the Report stage.

Sir P. HASTINGS

I am sorry that I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) who said that this Clause was all right. I take a very serious view of this Clause. There are three different cases to which this proviso applies. The first is the decision of the Minister where the Act makes it final and conclusive. I do not profess to have every word of the Act in mind, but there is no Clause in this Bill which expressly gives a discretion to the Minister in any matter whatever. The only way in which any discretion arises is by the use of the word "may." If the Minister looks at Clause 21, on which I think he intends to give the right of appeal, he will find the words that if the woman is convicted the Minister may cancel the pension.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. and learned Member perhaps is not aware of the, fact that that Sub-section has gone out.

Sir P. HASTINGS

I am much obliged. I have read the wrong portion of it, because there are many Clauses—I have marked a great many of them, 6, 17, 23, quite a number—in which there would appear to be a discretion given to the Minister. Take 6 first. There the only words are that a representation has been made, the Minister may direct. That is in line 10. Lower down in Subsection (3) and again in Sub-section (4), he may direct. They are all on different points. I think that it ought to be made quite clear. Is it intended, where the Act says the Minister may do something, that that is to be a matter within his discretion? If so, that applies to practically every one of these Clauses. The difficulty I feel is, that where discretion is given by a Clause as in Clause 21, or in Clause 23, under which there may be orders prescribing what may be the effect of a woman being resident in different parts of the country, a discretion is given to the Minister, and it would relate to a pension, it would be an award or decision in respect of a pension from which there would be no appeal. Therefore, it seems to me that there would be no appeal given by Clause 28.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Is the hon. and learned Member referring to Clause 21, Sub-section (2), or is he suggesting that this liars an appeal under it?

Sir P. HASTINGS

We have passed Clause 21.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I thought that that was the point which the hon. and learned Member was discussing.

Sir P. HASTINGS

No, as I understand, the point which we are discussing is this, in what places there are appeals, and I think that the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) is anxious to know in which cases of decisions by the Minister there is an appeal. So far as I understand it, there is to be no appeal in any case where a Minister may make an order. They are all, I understand, to he discretionary, within the meaning of this proviso. If that be so, it would appear to cut out cases in which the Minister may make Regulations dealing with various matters. For instance, under Clauses 17 or 23, and in many other oases, apparently, there is to be no appeal from any of them. If that be so, I think that a great many people were under the impression, as I certainly was, that this Clause was not intended to apply to cases where the Act expressly stated that the matter was within the discretion of the Minister. For that reason I have been looking through the Bill to see if there are any cases in which dis- cretion is given to the Minister, otherwise than I have stated, and I can find none. The Minister will find the proviso curiously worded in that portion which uses the words "final and conclusive." The words are any matter as to which the decision of the Minister is by this Act made final and conclusive. It continues or any matter which by this Act is a matter within the discretion of the Minister. There is an enormous number of Acts of Parliament in which discretion is expressly given—such and such a matter shall be left to the discretion of the Minister—and I understand, reading this Clause, and the proviso that it was limited to cases in which there was an express discretion given to the Minister by the Act. Now that he says that it is intended to cover every case where you have the word "may" it makes it very much wider. A great many hon. Members did not quite appreciate it. I certainly was under the impression that it simply affected matters in which something was loft to the discretion of the Minister.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I am advised that there is only one case in which express discretion is given to the Minister, and that is under Clause 6, but we have amended Clause 6 and made provision for hearing any person who is concerned. So far as the regulations or orders are concerned, there is no appeal against them. They have to be laid on the Table of the House.

Sir P. HASTINGS

I was referring to things which the Minister might have to decide under the order. For instance, under Clause 27, the discretion turns upon the right of the Minister to make regulations as to residence out of the country.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

This proviso says or any matter winch by this Act is a matter within the discretion of the Minister. Therefore we are not applying the matter of discretion of the Minister by regulation.

Mr. HARNEY

The proviso neither gives nor takes away anything.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

So far as Subsection (2) of Clause 21 is concerned, that modifies the discretion of the Minister. There is no discretion there at all.

Miss WILKINSON

I wish to make the matter clear. It seems to me that you may have two cases like this. You may have the case of a woman who is cohabiting with a man, and, as the Minister says, her pension stops. But suppose you have a case under Clause 6, where the local authority claim that the woman is not fit to bring up her children, because she is engaging in immoral conduct, and is cohabiting with several men—you may put it like that—in one case you have an appeal, and in the other you have not. It seems to me that the two cases are on all fours. What we are trying to secure is that we shall not have a woman's pension taken away from her without her having the right of appeal. In one case does the Minister mean to say, because somebody may appeal before him on the woman's behalf, that that is sufficient to do away with the woman's right of appeal, because if so would it not be the case that you have two different sets of authorities under the Bill? The Minister judging one case, and an almost exactly similar case being sent before the Court of Referees.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I do not know whether we are in order in discussing again Clause 6, but the hon. Member is incorrect in saying that the two classes of case to which she refers are identical or even similar. In one case the pension is going to be taken away, in the other case under Clause 6, there is no question of taking away the pension. The question is whether the pension is to be paid to the woman, or to some other person in the interests of the children. What we have provided is that the woman shall have an opportunity of stating her case to the local authority, and if the local authority have not given her the opportunity of stating her case personally, then the Minister shall give her that opportunity. In that way the mother's interests are protected.

Mr. HARNEY

I wish to clear up what I think is a misapprehension. All I said was that this proviso does not affect the case where the Minister has discretion, and it is unnecessary to say so. If the Minister has discretion there is no appeal from his discretion, but of course I accept the assurance which the Minister has given.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 29.—(Regulations.)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 26, line 22, after the word "Treasury," to insert the words so far as relates to matters with respect to which the Treasury so direct. This Amendment is intended to meet a number of matters on which Regulations are being made.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T. THOMSON

I beg to move, in page 26, line 37, to leave out the word "four," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirteen."

Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) authorises the Minister to make payments before a pension is authorised between the time the claim comes in and the date of final adjudication, for a period not exceeding four weeks. A month is not a sufficiently long time to provide for the negotiations that may take place, and this Amendment suggests a period of 13 weeks. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot increase the period of 13 weeks, perhaps he will increase the very limited period of four weeks. All of us who have experience in connection with claims made for unemployment insurance or pensions know that often a considerable time elapses between the original making of the claim and its final settlement. Four weeks is a very limited time, and as the matter is entirely within the discretion of the Minister, he will not be giving anything away by agreeing to an extension of time.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Four weeks is considered to be sufficient for the purpose, but if the hon. Member likes to make his Amendment "six" instead of "thirteen," I will accept it.

Mr. THOMSON

I would suggest eight weeks, but I will take the six.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 26, line 37, leave out the word "four," and insert instead thereof the word "six."—[Mr. T. Thomson.]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 26, line 41, at the end, to insert the words (d) for providing for the apportionment as between the appropriate national health insurance fund and the pensions account of sums received on account of contributions; and. The purpose of this Amendment is to make an apportionment between the different funds in the case where there are stamps of the same denomination used for different purposes.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 26, line 43, and in page 27, line 1, leave out the word "contributors," and insert instead thereof the word "persons."— [Mr. N. Chamberlain.]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 27, line 13, at the end, to insert the words (f) for applying with the necessary modifications to deposit contributors the provisions of the National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Act, 1921.

Mr. R. DAVIES

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has brought in this Amendment. He will probably remember that we raised the issue of the deposit contributor during recent Debates. The money available under the prolongation of Insurance Act of 1921 for the ordinary member of an approved society comes from a given source. I am wondering whether the money for the purpose here will come from the same source, and whether the deposit contributor in this case will fare quite as well as the member of an approved society. Will there be any differentiation in making up the amounts which will retain this person in benefit? I would like to see the deposit contributor in the same position as the member of an approved society.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

There is one other point which is still rather in doubt. This Prolongation of Insurance Act has become a Statute upon which vast issues will depend, on which in fact the whole of the rights of hundreds of thousands of persons will depend. Yet that Act is merely an annual Statute, which was originally timed to come to an end in 1922, but has been renewed each year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. I have already heard suggestions from some societies that they wish the Prolongation of Insurance Act to be brought to an end before very long.

Sir K. WOOD

Which societies?

Mr. LEES-SMITH

They were informal suggestions. Is it intended that this Act shall be continued from year to year merely as an annual Statute? I would like to know whether the Government has any intentions on that matter, and in case of the disposal of the Prolongation of Insurance Act, how they would deal with the situation that arises.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), there is no money required for this purpose. In reply to the other question, it is the intention that the Prolongation of Insurance Act should be kept in existence for the present.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 (Regulations by Registrar-General) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3I.—(Co-ordinating power of National Health Insurance Joint Committee.)

Amendment made: In page 28, line 21, at the end, add the words Unless reciprocal arrangements are made with Northern Ireland under this Act. and are for the time being in force."— [Mr. N. Chamberlain]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 (Pensions under Act to be inalienable) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 33.—(Penalty for false statements and repayment of sums overpaid.)

Miss WILKINSON

I beg to move, in page 29, line 29, to leave out Subsection (5).

We have had, right through this Bill. statements from the Minister as to new crimes that he is proposing to add—crimes for which people, and particularly women, can be punished. Under this Clause the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to take away a right that a husband and wife have in common-that they shall not be called as witnesses against each other. I am aware that there is a very limited number of cases in which a woman may be called to give evidence against her husband or a husband called to give evidence against his wife. This right under common law has been so jealously guarded that, the Minister ought not, without very grave reasons indeed, to add to the number of cases in which the right may be forfeited. Before this right is done away with, we should have a very good reason assigned by the right hon. Gentleman. I think he would be well advised to withdraw this Sub-section. I speak as a very new Member, but one really gets horrified as one sits in this House day after day and learns the number of new things for which we are constantly asked to punish people. Here we are continuing to do that; we are proposing to take away common law rights that have existed for generation after generation.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I confess that I am not altogether surprised that

the hon. Member has moved this Amendment. I fully expected that it would be moved from some quarter of the House in any case, because, at first sight, it does seem a very strong order that a husband or wife may be called as a witness, the one to give evidence against the other. The real explanation is that you have to try to protect your insurance scheme against fraud, and that in many cases the wife or husband is practically the only person who can give evidence which will enable you to clear up a case. This fact has been recognised already. Possibly the hon. Member is not aware that in the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1922, in Section 11, there is a precisely similar provision. Therefore, we are not creating a new precedent, but following an old one.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word ' be ' in line 30, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 128.

Division No. 288.]	AYES.	[7.42 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Goff, Sir Park
Albery, Irving James	Chapman, Sir S.	Gower, Sir Robert
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Chilcott, Sir Warden	Grace, John
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Clarry, Reginald George	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Clayton, G. C.	Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Gretton, Colonel John
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Grotrian, H. Brent
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Cooper, A. Duff	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell	Cope, Major William	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Hammersley, S. S.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bethell, A.	Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert	Harland, A.
Betterton, Henry B.	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Harrison, G. J. C.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hartington, Marquess of
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)	Haslam, Henry C.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Hawke, John Anthony
Blades, Sir George Rowland	Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Blundell, F. N.	Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Handarton, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Drewe, C.	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Edwards, John H. (Accrington)	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Brass, Captain W.	Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Herbert. S. (York. N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	England, Colonel A.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Brings, J. Harold	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Briscoe, Richard George	Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Everard, W. Lindsay	Hopkins, J. W. W.
Buckingham, Sir H.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Fielden, E. B.	Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Bullock, Captain M.	Finburgh, S.	Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Fleming, D. P.	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Burman, J. B.	Forrest, W.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Foster, Sir Harry S.	Huntingfield, Lord
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Kurd, Percy A.
Caine, Gordon Hall	Fraser, Captain Ian	Hurst, Gerald B.
Campbell, E. T.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midl'n & Peebles)
Cassels, J. D.	Ganzoni, Sir John	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Jacob, A. E.
Jephcott, A. R.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Nuttall, Ellis	Storry Deans, R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Oakley, T.	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Styles, Captain H. Walter
King, Captain Henry Douglas	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.
Lamb, J. O.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.	Pennefather, Sir John	Templeton, W. p.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Little, Dr. E. Graham	Perring, William George	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Loder, J. de V.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Lougher, L.	Pielou, D. P.	Turton, Edmund Russborough
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Pilcher, G.	Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.
Lynn, Sir R. J.	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton	Waddington, R.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Price, Major C. W. M.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Rees, Sir Beddoe	Warrender, Sir Victor
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Macintyre, Ian	Rentoul. G. S.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Macmillan, Captain H.	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Watts, Dr. T.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Rice, Sir Frederick	Wells, S. R.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
MacRobert, Alexander M.	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)	Wiggins, William Martin
Maitland, Sir Arthur O. Steel-	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Malone, Major P. B.	Ropner, Major L.	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Margesson, Captain D.	Ruggles Brise, Major E. A.	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Mailer, R. J.	Sandeman, A. Stewart	Wise, Sir Fredric
Merriman, F. B.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Womersley, W. J.
Meyer, Sir Frank	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Wood, Rt. Hon. E.(York, W. R., Ripon)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley	Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Shepperson, E. W.	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon B. M.	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)	Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Skelton, A. N.	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Moore, Sir Newton J.	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Wragg, Herbert
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n& Kinc'dine, C.)	Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)
Murchison, C. K.	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Neville, R. J.	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Captain Douglas Hacking and
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)	Major Hennessy.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Groves, T.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Grundy, T. W.	Oliver, George Harold
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)	Paling, W.
Amman, Charles George	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hardie, George D.	Ponsonby, Arthur
Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)	Harris, Percy A.	Potts. John S.
Baker, Walter	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Hastings, Sir Patrick	Riley, Ben
Barnes, A.	Hayday, Arthur	Ritson, J.
Barr, J.	Hayes, John Henry	Robinson. W. C (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Batey, Joseph	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Scrymgeour, E.
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Hirst, G. H.	Sexton, James
Broad, F. A.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Bromley, J.	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Shepperson, E. W.
Buchanan, G.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Charleton, H. C.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Clowes, S.	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Sitch, Charles H.
Cluse, W. S.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Compton, Joseph	Kelly, W. T.	Snell, Harry
Connolly, M.	Kennedy, T.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Cove, W. G.	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Stamford. T. W.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Kenyon, Barnet	Stephen, Campbell
Dalton, Hugh	Kirkwood, D.	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Lansbury, George	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lawson, John James	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Day, Colonel Harry	Lee, F.	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Dennison, R.	Lowth, T.	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Duncan, C.	Lunn, William	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Dunnico, H.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Thurtle, E.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Mackinder, W.	Tinker, John Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph	MacLaren, Andrew	Viant, S. P.
Gillett, George M.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Wallhead, Richard C.
Gosling, Harry	March, S.	Warne, G. H.
Greenall, T.	Maxton, James	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Montague, Frederick	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Naylor, T. E.	Westwood, J.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Whiteley, W.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.	Wilson, H. J. (Jarrow)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)	Windsor, Walter	Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. B.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)	Wright, W.	Smith.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN

I beg to move, in page 29, line 30, after the word "may," to insert the words "with his or her consent."

Possibly I am championing a hopeless cause in this Amendment after the Division which we have just had, but move it in the hope that between now and the Report stage, what I say may have some influence upon the Minister in charge of the Bill. Nor do I like to run away from an Amendment which I have put on the Paper. I feel strongly against this part of the Bill. Here we have an offence which may possibly be committed either by a husband or a wife and without his or her consent, husband or wife, as the case may be, can be called upon to give evidence against the accused partner. I disagree with the argument of the Minister, and with every respect, he only seemed to strengthen my opinion against the Clause as its stands. He said he desired to have this provision retained in the Bill because it is the only way of convicting a husband or wife in these cases. I think that is a very serious matter to have on the Statute Book a Clause which is admitted by the responsible Minister to be the only possible way of convicting a husband or wife, and which does so by putting the other partner into the witness box. We do not wish to encourage perjury in our courts of law. I only speak as a bachelor, but I put it to any married man in this House that if he were called upon against his will to give evidence against his wife, it would only be human nature to tell a lie if he thought it would get her off. I should not think very much of the husband if he did not, and yet if he did, he might make himself liable to a charge of perjury. I go further and I put this proposition to any legal Member of the House. If either husband or wife were charged with perjury and found guilty and if the perjury had been committed in a case of this kind in which either husband or wife had given evidence unwillingly, I do not believe there is a Judge on the Bench who would send that person to prison. My Amendment does not go as far as that of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson). It will be possible under my Amendment to call a husband or wife for the prosecution; and all I seek to provide is that they should not be called one against the other without consenting to give evidence.

Mr. STORRY-DEANS

I support the appeal of the Mover of the Amendment, and I hope the Government will see their way to reconsider this matter before the Report stage. Anyone who has practised in the courts of law knows that there are two alternatives in this matter. If the husband and wife are a happy and united couple, then husband or wife will lie up to the hilt in order to get the other party off in court, and I agree with my hon. Friend that any husband or wife who would not do it would be a most despicable person. On the other hand, if the husband and wife do not agree, and are leading a life of disunion, and if one wants to get rid of the other—as occasion ally happens—then this Clause lends itself to a sort of matrimonial blackmail. That is the dilemma in which you are placed in cases of this sort, and it should cause the Government to reconsider their position. This Clause is not vital to the Bill. If it were I would not support the Amendment, but I think it expresses what I would call the departmental view, which is that you should obtain convictions. That is not my view. My view is that there are many things more important than punishing people for technical offences, and I appeal to the Government to reconsider the Clause.

Sir K. WOOD

Naturally I attach great weight to the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken, and whose wide experience in legal matters we all know, but I would point out that this Amendment—to which I noticed the hon. and learned Member did not address himself—proposes to insert the words, "with his or her consent," which would make this provision useless, and I would remind the Committee that the provision is for the protection of the fund. Although I belong to what is called the lower branch of the legal profession— so-called I think because the fees are lower—I think the hon. and learned Member will agree with me that this Amendment, if carried, would be practically a reversal of the decision which the Committee has just made. Therefore, I must ask the Committee on the same grounds on which they rejected the last Amendment to reject this Amendment also. I would point out that it is only when it has been shown to the satisfaction of the court that there has been an offence, whatever the evidence may be, that any conviction follows. If, as the hon. and learned Member has suggested, wife or husband in every case is going to stand by the accused partner, then no consequences can follow. It is only when an offence has been committed that conviction will take place.

Miss WILKINSON

Surely the hon. Gentleman admits that perjury is a serious consequence.

Sir K. WOOD

I am referring to what has been said. It is said that the husband or wife will stand by the accused partner in every case, and I point out that if that was so no convictions would follow.

Miss WILKINSON

Does the hon. Gentleman mean that a lie does not matter if it is not found out?

Sir K. WOOD

No. The hon. Member must certainly not put that upon me. I have not made the statement that if husbands or wives are called in respect of their own domestic difficulties and troubles, they are going to commit perjury. That was the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. All I am saying is that if they are going to take up the attitude suggested, no evil consequences under this Bill so far as they are concerned will follow.

Sir R. NEWMAN

With all due respect, I do not agree with that statement at all. A husband or wife may commit perjury and in the hands of a clever King's Counsel may be broken down on cross-examination and a perjury charge may follow.

Sir K. WOOD

I must say that if that sort of thing happens I am one of those who believe that where perjury has been committed consequences must follow. I think the Committee ought to have in mind also the protection of this fund. It is very easy to say that a husband or a wife ought to be protected, but it is only when an offence has been committed that they are liable to any consequences and it is a matter of equal importance to endeavour to protect this fund as far as we can.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. HURST

With great respect, I submit that my hon. Friend is wrong. This Amendment would not render the Clause nugatory, because it would still enable the wife to be a, competent witness. This Amendment, while allowing the husband or wife to be a competent witness, would not compel them to give evidence against one another. I believe in going back to Conservative principles. One of the old fundamental principles of our common law, which has been incorporated in Statutes repeatedly, and has been hardly impinged upon by any legislation in modern times, is that husband and wife cannot be compelled to give evidence against one another. It is deeply rooted in English law, and is based, not upon caprice, but upon a great principle dear to Members on this side, namely, the sanctity of the home. What will be the effect on any English home if a husband or wife is forced to give evidence against his or her spouse? It is bound to lead to disturbance in the home, bad blood and ill-feeling, and will rankle, and I say, before you impinge upon one of the elementary principles of English law, you want a far stronger case than my hon. Friend has made out. The number of cases in which the Sub-section could be applied is exceedingly small, and it seems altogether an insufficient reason for interfering with what has been one of the historic principles of English law, which is based, not on mere caprice or legal technicalities, but on long experience as to what effect husband and wife giving evidence against each other would have upon them and the home. For that reason, I doubt whether any lawyer in the House, or, indeed, any Conservative would vote against the Amendment.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT

I only want to add my plea to the Minister to accept this Amendment. I endorse most thoroughly every word which has just been said by my hon. and learned Friend that this is a most unusual thing, and it offends against, I will not say the Conservative principle, but against that great principle of civilised human nature, that husband and wife are one, and to make it compulsory for one to give evidence against the other, particularly in cases of this kind dealing with pensions, on which the family have to rely, is, to my mind, almost beyond comprehension, and I cannot really imagine how my hon. Friend has ventured to defend this Clause, as he has done, and I hope He will reconsider it. Unfortunately, when these comparatively small points, but still points of great importance, arise in the Committee stage of a Bill, it is impossible to get any very considerable number of Members present who know really what is going on, and who vote otherwise in accordance with the Whip's directions; but this is a matter of principle, and I very much regret to say that I shall be obliged—it is the first time it has happened in this Parliament —to vote against the Government if they do not give in on this point. Even if we do not succeed, I hope the Conservative Members who have heard this discussion will take the same course. I would, however, make a further appeal to the Minister in charge to see if he cannot accept a slight Amendment to which we attach enormous importance, and which could make no difference whatever to the successful working of the Clause as a whole.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I must say I think my hon. and learned Friend has put his case very forcibly, and it is one to which I am personally quite prepared to give further consideration. I will undertake to pay attention to the arguments which have been used, and to reconsider this matter between now and Report, but I do deprecate the introduction of this particular Amendment in the Clause. It does not seem to make sense, and we have just defeated an Amendment to leave out the Sub-section altogether, which was the point to which my hon. Friend addressed himself.

Mr. D. HERBERT

I want people to be competent to give evidence, but not to be compelled to give evidence.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

That shows I have not fully understood the point before us, and I should like to give further consideration to the matter.

Sir R. NEWMAN

In these circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 34.—(Power to remove difficulties.)

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I beg to move, in page 29, line 44, at the end, to insert the words Provided that all orders made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it, praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder. This Clause is one to which we on these benches take the greatest objection, and is one to which, I think, we shall find objection is taken from the opposite benches, and one on which, I hope, the feeling of the Committee will have some effect upon the mind of the Minister. It is a Clause which gives the Minister power to make certain Orders, and the Amendment is of a very simple character, laying it down that, before these Orders become finally operative, they shall be laid upon the Table of the House for 21 days, and that if a Resolution be passed against them, then the Minister may annul them. If the Committee will read this Clause, they will see how extraordinary the nature of it is. It is, in fact, what we have called the, Mussolini Clause, and by it the Minister of Health is obtaining wider powers than Mussolini is claiming at this moment in Italy. That is not an exaggeration. In order to explain what I mean by that, may I read the Clause to the Committee? If in any respect any difficulty arises in bringing into operation this Act, the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, may by order do anything which appears to be necessary or expedient for bringing this Act into operation, and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect: And then, at the end, the Minister has these powers conferred for about 18 months, which means that the Minister may do anything in connection with this Bill as soon as it becomes an Act. He may raise the contributions if he wishes. He may diminish the benefits if he wishes. He can wipe out any Amendment we have carried. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, he can do anything that is "necessary or expedient."

Captain A. EVANS

This Clause only allows the Minister to do anything necessary to bring the Act into operation. Once it is brought into operation, he has no right to interfere with any Amendment carried.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I understand that, but the Minister proposes to take 18 months before that.

Captain EVANS

Not after the Act is brought into operation.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

Until the Act is brought into operation the Minister may do anything. It means that, presumably, for about 18 months the Minister will have greater powers than this House itself possesses. I think I can predict the reply that the Minister is going to make. He is going to point out that the provision occurred originally in the National Health Insurance Act, and that it has been lifted from that Act into this Bill, and that the National Health Insurance Act period was longer. But the National Health Insurance Act was carried by a Minister who ought not to be quoted as a precedent at all. I think he was a Minister who would go as far as the House would allow in a direction of this sort.

Sir K. WOOD

He was supported by the Labour Opposition.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I happen to have looked up the Debates of 1911 referring to this, and the hon. Member's statement is absolutely inaccurate. It is evident he has not read the Debate or recollected what happened. I may say, broadly, what happened was, that this Clause was carried in 1911, not under the Guillotine but in the early afternoon, without a single Member raising the point at all.

Sir K. WOOD

You were in Opposition.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

My hon. Friend still does not understand the position. He says we were the Gentlemen oppo- site. Does he not realise that his party were the Gentlemen opposite in 1911? This Act of 1911 was carried by the Liberals. The Conservative party was the Opposition, and, in allowing a proposal of this sort to pass without a word of debate, the Conservative Opposition gravely neglected its duty. Fortunately, the Opposition now is reasonable and efficient, and we cannot ourselves adopt the slip-shod methods which were good enough for the party to which the hon. Member belongs. The fact is, that there was a great deal more reason for incorporating this provision in the Insurance Act of 1911 than there is for putting it in this Bill, and the reason, as I have no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary knows, is that the Act of 1911 left this House in a state of chaos. I believe it was so stuffed with Amendments that it was doubled in size in passing through this House, and it was only by scouring the Civil Service of all its most able officials that it was brought into operation at all.

Under those circumstances, there might have been some reason for these extraordinary powers, but that is not the case here. This is a much simpler and shorter and more concise Measure, and while we have opposed it, I do not think it has been rendered unsymmetrical or damaged by the Amendments which have been carried. As was said in the last Debate, we are at a strategic disadvantage. We cannot get any general sense of the Committee at this stage of the Debate or at this time of the evening, but we have put down a very modest Amendment, simply asking that these Orders should be laid on the Table of the House for 21 days and, if a Resolution is passed in either House asking that an Order should be annulled, the Minister, if he thinks it politic, should accept the opinion of the House on the matter.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. Member, with a slipshod practice which I am surprised to find in him, has attempted to attach to a Clause that is narrowly limited a general proviso that refers to all Orders that may be made under this Bill. Probably he had not looked to see what Orders might be made under the Bill.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

Yes, I had. There is Clause 29.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

There is an earlier Clause, and if he had looked he would have found that in Clause 17 the Minister has power to make Orders, and in that case the Orders go through the procedure which he has advocated for all Orders. It is, therefore, not necessary to alter anything in respect of Orders made under Clause 17. Clause 29, which he mentioned, is not a Clause which gives the Minister power to make Orders.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

Regulations.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Regulations are not Orders, if he will allow me to direct attention to his own Amendment, which deals, not with Regulations, but with Orders. There are only two places in the Bill where Orders can be made. One is in Clause 17, where already the procedure which the hon. Member desires to adopt is laid down, and the other is in this Clause, which we are now discussing, and there is also an Amendment which I have put down to Clause 40, in which again the Minister may make an Order, and although these provisions are not therein inserted, I am quite prepared to put them in in that case. Now let us take this particular Clause with which we are dealing. The hon. Member says that this power was first put into the National Insurance Act, 1911, and ho does not want to take that as a precedent, because the Minister who introduced it was, I understood him to mean, capable of driving a coach and four through anything. But the hon. Member has not gone far enough back in his researches. This Clause started, not in 1911, but in 1888, and it is not only in the Local Government Act, 1888, and the National Insurance Act, 1911, but it is also in the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

Is it really anything to which any hon. Member need take exception? It is obvious that, in bringing into operation a scheme of this vast magnitude, which requires the setting up of new machinery, there may be difficulties which cannot be foreseen, and all that this Clause does is to allow the Minister to make modifications in the machinery and in the statutory requirements and matters of that kind to enable him to get the Act to start. I may point out that, as it is an emergency provision, the hon. Member's proposal would stultify the whole purpose of the Clause, and would make it impossible to do the very thing which it purports to do. Therefore, I hope I have convinced him that really we have taken, or are prepared to take all the measures that are necessary to see that Orders of a general character which are made by the Minister shall go through the full procedure that he has in mind, except this particular one, because if that procedure were adopted in this case, it would make it impossible to carry out the purpose for which this Clause is designed.

Major TASKER

I think the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the difficulties mentioned in the wording of this Clause 34 showed optimism, and I think he will find that they are more like barbed wire entanglements than anything else. I would appeal to him to give consideration, between now and the Report stage, to the question whether, instead of acting, as is provided in lines 39 and 40, "with the consent of the Treasury," the Minister should consider the desirability of using voluntary agencies such as exist under the Old Age Pensions Act. It appears to me to be entirely unnecessary to give power to the Minister, who in turn is governed by the Treasury. There seems to be the closest analogy between this Bill and the Old Age Pensions Act, and after 15 years' experience I am bound to say that I am only voicing the sentiments of my colleagues when I say that we have not unbounded faith in the Treasury. We do not regard them as custodians of the public purse. In London, we expended money in accordance with their ruling, and we had run into debt, but the Treasury did nothing to help us, and let us get out of our own trouble. To show that they do not exercise control, the London Old Age Pensions Committee did reorganise their re-establishment, and they wiped out a debt of £1,200, saving the country £3,000 in the case of a full year.

If this scheme is to be administered by the Minister "with the consent of the Treasury," I confess I have not very much faith in it. How do the Treasury appoint their officials? They issue secret instructions. We do not know what those instructions are, we cannot ascertain them, and, as far as we know, every officer is appointed under the Interpretation Act of 1871. I apprehend the same difficulty here. If you want to know how and why a certain decision is reached, you will be told it is the secret instructions of the Treasury. I submit that there ought to be nothing secret. People are contributing to this Fund, and—

The CHAIRMAN

The words referring to the Treasury are already passed, and the only question now is whether Orders, made with or without the consent of the Treasury, shall be laid before Parliament.

Major TASKER

Yes; it is because personally I object to the Minister having to get the consent of the Treasury. I am attempting to show that the Treasury—

The CHAIRMAN

We cannot go into that point at the moment, as to whether or not the consent of the Treasury should or should not be required. The question now before the Committee is to whether the Orders should or should not be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

Major TASKER

Then I shall take the opportunity of referring to the matter on the Third Reading.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

Just one word in addition to what has been said. The Minister told us that if this proviso were carried it would prevent him making any use of the Clause on the ground that the time that was taken up would be so long that he would fail to get the emergency measures that he proposed. That is not my reading of the Amendment. The Amendment especially provides in the last line but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder. Therefore, as I read the Amendment, the Order made by the Minister prevails until it is annulled. The contention, therefore, that this would be a delaying

proposal seems to me to be quite devoid of foundation. I myself cannot see any difficulty in the way of the Minister accepting a proviso to this effect, because it does enable him to make these Orders and to enforce them. It only provides that these Orders shall be laid before the Houses of Parliament and that such operation as has already taken place shall not be rendered invalid in consequence. The number of cases in which there is a likelihood of the Order of the Minister being annulled is exceedingly small. This just preserves to Parliament what seems to me to be the rights of Parliament.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

There is a point that my right hon. Friend might be prepared to consider. I recognise that in administering a matter of this kind there is a difference between the various kinds of Orders and Regulations which are required for that administration. There are usually two kinds of sections inserted dealing with the making of Orders and Regulations. I myself think that the form in which my hon. Friend has moved his Amendment is a practical form in view of the wide powers that it is proposed to take, but would the right hon. Gentleman not consider in view of what he said, and especially in view of what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for East Islington (Major Tasker). that it is advisable that in any Acts of Parliament there should be some such provision? If he is not prepared to accept the Amendment, will he be prepared to accept an Amendment which shall provide that the Order shall be laid before Parliament as from the date of the Bill becoming operative?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 125; Noes, 216.

Division No. 289.]	AYES.	[8.31 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife. West)	Clowes, S.	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Cluse, W. S.	Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Gibbins, Joseph
Ammon, Charles George	Compton, Joseph	Gillett, George M.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Connolly, M.	Gosling, Harry
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Cove, W. G.	Greenall, T.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillary)	Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Barnes, A.	Dalton, Hugh	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Barr, J.	Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Griffiths. T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Batey, Joseph	Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)	Groves, T.
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Grundy, T. W.
Broad, F. A.	Day, Colonel Harry	Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Bromley, J.	Dennison, R.	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Buchanan, G.	Duncan, C.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Charleton, H. C.	Dunnico, H.	Hardle, George D.
Hastings, Sir Patrick	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, M.)	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Hayday, Arthur	Naylor, T. E.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Hayes, John Henry	Oliver, George Harold	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Owen, Major G.	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Paling, W.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Hirst, G. H.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Thurtle, E.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Ponsonby, Arthur	Tinker, John Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Potts, John S.	Viant, S. P.
John. William (Rhondda, West)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Wallhead, Richard C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Riley, Ben	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Ritson, J.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Kelly, W. T.	Rose, Frank H.	Westwood, J.
Kirkwood, D.	Saklatvala, Shapurji	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Lansbury, George	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Whiteley, W.
Lawson, John James	Serymgeour, E.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Lee, F.	Sexton, James	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Livingstone, A. M	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Lowth, T.	Shiels, Dr. Drummond	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Lunn, William	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)	Siteh, Charles H.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Mackinder, W.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)	Windsor, Walter
MacLaren, Andrew	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)	Wright, W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
March, S.	Snell, Harry
Maxton, James	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Montague, Frederick	Stamford, T. W.	Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Warne.
Morris, R. H.	Stephen, Campbell
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Hopkins, J. W. W.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Dawson, Sir Philip	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Albery, Irving James	Drews, C.	Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Duckworth, John	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., H.)
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Hume, Sir G. H.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Huntingfield, Lord
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)	Hurd, Percy A.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell	Evans, Capt. Ernest (WELSH Univer.)	Hurst, Gerald B.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Everard, W. Lindsay	Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'ni & p'bl's)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Fanshawe Commander G. D.	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Fleiden, E. B.	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Bethell, A.	Finburgh. S.	Jacob, A. E.
Betterton, Henry B.	Fleming, D. P.	Jephcott, A. R.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Foster, Sir Harry S.	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Blades, Sir George Rowland	Fraser Captain Ian	Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Blundell, F. N.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Boothby R. J. G.	Ganzoni, Sir John	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Lamb, J. Q.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Brass, Captain W.	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Little, Dr. E. Graham
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Goff, Sir Park	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Briggs, J. Harold	Grace, John	Loder, J. de V.
Briscoe, Richard George	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E.)	Lougher, L.
Brockleband, C. E. R.	Greenwood, William (Stockport)	Lynn, Sir R. J.
Buckingham, Sir H.		MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Macintyre, Ian
Bullock, Captain M.	Grotrian, H. B.	Macmillan, Captain H.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Burman, J. B.	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	MacRobert, Alexander M.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hall. Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)	Maitland, Sir Arthur D/ Steel-
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Malone, Major P. B.
Caine, Gordon Hall	Hammersley, S. S.	Margesson, Captain D.
Campbell, E. T.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Meller, R. J.
Cassels, J. D.	Harland, A.	Merriman, F. B.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Harney, E. A.	Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Harrison, G. J. C.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Chapman, Sir S.	Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Chilcott, Sir Warden	Haslam, Henry C.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Clarry, Reginald George	Hawke, John Anthony	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Clayton, G. C.	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Morden, Col. W. Grant
Cobb. Sir Cyril	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Murchison, C. K.
Collox, Major Wm. Phillips	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Neville, R. J.
Cope, Major William	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert	Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Nuttall, Ellis
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Oakley, T.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Waddington, R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Pennefather, Sir John	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)	Warrender, Sir Victor
Perring, William George	Skelton, A. N.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)	Watts, Dr. T.
Pielou, D. P.	Spender Clay, Colonel H.	Wells, S. R.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Price, Major C. W. M.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)	Williams, c. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Rawlinson Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel	Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Rees, Sir Beddoe	Storry Deans, R.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.	Wise, Sir Fredric
Rentoul, G. S.	Styles, Captain H. Walter	Womersley, W. J.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid	Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Rice, Sir Frederick	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)	Wragg, Herbert
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Ropner, Major L.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Turton, Edmund Russborough	Lord Stanley and Captain Viscount
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.	Curzon.
Sandeman, A. Stewart

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. LEES-SMITH

May I put a question to the Minister of Health with reference to his speech, which I did not quite follow? He referred to some other Clause in which, I understood, there is no such provision as that which I propose, but in which he suggested he would insert such a provision. It was difficult for me to follow what he said. Would he say what the other Clause was, and whether the provision is there already, or whether he is going to insert it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I am referring to Clause 40. I have on the Paper an Amendment to insert a new Sub-section (5), which has reference to the expenses incurred by a local education committee or a maternity and child welfare committee, and I have provided there that in the ease of a county council, if the Minister by order so direct, the expense may be an expense for special county purposes. That is the matter I am referring to. It is not in the Bill as printed.

CLAUSE 35.—(Exemption of certain widows from health and unemployment insurance.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. R. DAVIES

I desire to oppose this Clause, for the following reasons. It is a Clause exempting widows both from health and unemployment insurance. I have read it very care- fully, and, as far as I gather, there are two classes of widows who will be entirely thus excluded-the widows of persons who die after the commencement of the operation of the Bill, and widows now in receipt of Service pensions in respect of the late War. I am not clear whether women who are in receipt of Service pensions include women whose husbands are disabled, or whether this is confined to widows only. Even if those two types only are included in this Clause, I think we ran make out a very strong case for its deletion. I will reduce a case to the concrete, so that the Committee may see how it works. Take the case, first, of a woman who is childless, and who loses her husband after the commencement of this Act. She will receive 10s. per week for life by way of pension under this Measure. That woman will obviously go into industry, but in spite of the fact that all the other workpeople around her are compulsorily insured for National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance purposes, she is not entitled to insure under either of those two schemes. It seems to me that there must be something wrong in such a provision. The fact that she is entitled to receive 10s. a week ought not to deprive her of other benefits, if she cares to pay for them. I also fail to understand why a widow is ruled out of the Health Insurance scheme, because that will prevent her obtaining sickness benefits, disablement benefit, or, maternity benefit-I do not know whether that case would arise-or any additional benefits provided by approved societies. There is still a bigger factor. Although she gets 10s. a week as a widow's pension in respect of the insurance contributions paid by her dead husband, she is deprived for life of any medical benefit at all under the panel system of the Health Insurance scheme.

This Clause contains a very much more important provision than I apprehended when I read it first. Can the hon. Gentleman give us an idea—I have not found it in the actuary's report—as to how many women there are in the first category, say—those who become widows after the commencement of the operation of this Act? If he cannot tell us the number of women of the type who would fall into this category for the first year, I am sure he is totally unable to say how many there will be in the second or third year, because this is a growing number. There are thousands, I should say scores of thousands, of women who, if they were not in receipt of this 10s. a week widow's pension would automatically and compulsorily be insured for National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance purposes. To deprive these women of the benefits of those two schemes merely because they are in receipt of that 10s. a week is a monstrous thing to do, and, in my view, this Clause ought not to be added to the Bill.

Let me pass to the other part of the case, which refers to women with children under 14 years of age who become widows after the commencement of this Act. If at all possible, those women ought to remain at home to mother their children. The idea of a widows' pension scheme that I always had was one that would give a pension sufficient to allow a woman who became a widow to mother her children in her own home. The pensions given under this scheme are totally insufficient to provide for the case I have mentioned. Take the ease of the widow with children under 14. That woman would be compelled to do something; and so far as Lancashire is concerned, she will enter industry in the mill or the factory after the death of her husband.

The case was made out at the commencement of the Debate that the childless widow would be a competing factor in the labour market. Surely if the argument was good enough that this typo of widow would compete in the labour market as cheap labour, she would be a much more attractive factor in the workshop if the employer is not called upon to pay any insurance payments in respect of her. We ought not to deprive these women of benefits in the way the Clause intends. I apprehend that this Government is guilty of one idea that ought to be dispelled for good —the idea that a large number of our people are becoming over insured. There is a deadly fear in this Government that the working people will receive too much money from the several schemes. I do not myself dismiss the idea of over insurance, but there is not a single one of our working people insured under any scheme yet provided who has reached the stage of being over insured, and I do not think 10s. a week ought to stand in the way of these widows being included for health and unemployment insurance.

I turn now to the second category where the wife of the ex-service man is included in this Clause, or where it is the case of a widow of the service man. I cannot understand in this case too why that type of widow should be excluded from health and unemployment insurance, because surely they also will enter industry. I ask the Minister in charge to give us an explanation of why these thousands of women are to be excluded. I know full well that all widows who fall into these two categories will not enter into industry, but scores of thousands of them will be excluded entering these two schemes who ought to be included by virtue of the fact that they will require the benefit probably more than any of the type of women who are included.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg)

The hon. Member who has just sat down expressed some difficulty in understanding why the Government include this Clause in the Bill. I think I can explain it to him, and I hope at the same time I may be able to relieve some of his anxiety. The reason why the Government include this provision is because we feel that, where women are by virtue of this Bill already in receipt of a widow's pension, then it is not necessary to ask of them that they should contribute for further sickness or employment benefit when they have already got the widow's pension provided; for them under the Bill. The hon. Member said they would be deprived of medical benefit, but he is mistaken about that, because, being exempt persons, they are still entitled to medical benefit.

Mr. R. DAVIES

Will a person not connected with National Health Insurance at all be entitled to medical benefit?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I am not quite sure on that point, but I will make inquiries. The hon. Member said that there would be an undue preference shown for these women in the labour market because the employers would have to pay less insurance, and that there would be a tendency to employ cheap labour. The answer to that question is that the employer does pay and the widow is exempt. The employer is still liable to pay the whole contribution just the same as he does in the case of a widow of an insured person. The widow gets off her share, but the employer pays just the same, and so that danger has been safeguarded against. The hon. Member asked whether it applied to the wives of ex-service men and my reply is "no." I think those are all the points put to me. With regard to the first case put by the hon. Member, here you have a person provided with a pension not as large as one would like it to be, but it is 10s., and we do not think that it is unreasonable in all the circumstances to make them contribute a weekly sum to ensure a further pension in the case of the double event of getting sick and unemployed. She would still benefit and draw her widow's pension, but we exclude her from that class. We do not relieve the employer from any liability and we do not remove her from the category of medical benefit. I think I have answered all the questions put to me except the one which I reserved and here is the answer. If employed within the meaning of the Insurance Act, being an exempt person, he will be entitled to medical benefit.

Mr. MACKINDER

Take the position of a widow who has not been employed. She has no chance of getting medical benefit unless she becomes employed. Surely that is an inducement to women who may manage to squeeze a little extra earning by washing or doing light work to become an employed person in order to receive medical benefit. On the other hand, the widow who stays at home who makes a little money by cleaning here and there has no possibility of getting medical benefit.

Mr. ALEXANDER

The right hon. Gentleman has not given us the information we asked for with regard to the numbers. I regard it as being of some importance that we should have the estimated numbers in respect of these two categories to whom this Clause will apply. Then I think the Attorney-General, in his reply with regard to exempt persons, said that of course the argument used by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) was already met by the fact that the employer was not exempt from contribution. I think the Attorney-General has failed to realise two points. First, that the employer will be compelled to pay in respect of persons who are otherwise exempt, and you will be placing a charge upon industry for which no benefits will accrue in respect of those in his employ. The right hon. Gentleman has not met the point which was made by the Member for Westhoughton with regard to this effect upon employment. Those who have experience in wage negotiations know that even the smallest additional charge per week by way of insurance affects such negotiations. Supposing that, in this case, widows, because of the very meagre amount of the pension given under this Bill, go back into industry. This class of widow is to be exempt from contributions, both to Unemployment Insurance and to Health Insurance, it may be to the extent of 6d. or rather more per week, and it will follow that very often they will be prepared to work for a slightly lower figure than those other classes of women who will be compelled under the law to pay these contributions, and we may be—I know it is only slight, but we have to keep our eye on these things—we may be in such a position that we are tending to bear down the general level of wages in industry. In fact, my hon. Friends again and again, during the Debates on this Bill, have pointed out that the pension is so meagre that widows will probably be driven into industry in greater numbers than has yet been realised, and, because they are getting some pension, they will probably be prepared to work at a lower figure, in many cases, than women who are not in receipt of any pension at all. I shall be glad, before we come to a decision on this, if the Attorney-General or the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to these points.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that I omitted to give him the figures. The figures are in the actuary's report in column 4 of Table III on page 14. The widows who are contributory pensioners-those are the people who come in-are 10,000 in the first year, and the number goes on increasing, of course, until in 1965 it reaches a, very large number, namely, 1,305,000, which is the biggest figure that appears in the Table. The figure would obviously increase year by year. It is only, as the hon. Member will realise, the contributory cases that we have to take here, because the non-contributory ones are exempted by the proviso in the Clause. Then the hon. Gentleman put it to me that there was really an objection to the payment of contributions, first of all because it was a charge on industry. He will forgive me for saying that that is a little changing the ground. The hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. R. Davies) attacked me on the ground that we were not charging those contributions. He said that that was very wrong, because the effect would be to tempt employers to employ these people. I answered him by saying that that was a mistake, because we were charging contributions, and the next hon. Member gets up and says that that is very wrong because a charge is being imposed

on industry for no benefit. That, of course, is not quite accurate, because, although it is true that the employer pays the contribution, he pays exactly the same contribution in respect of these people as in respect of every other employé, and the money goes not into the coffers of the State, but into the Pension Fund, and, therefore, it does go towards providing pensions and other benefits. At any rate, it is a little difficult to satisfy both hon. Members.

The other suggestion was that the widow will be driven into industry by the provisions of this Bill, and will work for less than she otherwise would. The hon. Member will forgive me if I remind him that the widow here is getting 10s. a week more than if there were no Bill, and, therefore, that would hardly drive her into industry. So far as it goes, we hope that in some cases it may enable her to come out of industry. Another question that was put to me was as to widows who do not get employed, but who are carrying on-taking in washing, or something of that kind, was, I think, suggested. They would not be employed persons, and, therefore, could not come into health insurance or any other insurance, and with regard to them the answer is that which I gave earlier. I cannot hope to have satisfied the hon. Members, but I hope I have tried fairly to answer the questions which have been put to me.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 252: Noes, 125.

Division No. 290.]	AYES.	[9.0 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Curzon, Captain Viscount
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Buckingham, Sir H.	Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Albery, Irving James	Bullock, Captain M.	Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Burgeyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Burman, J. B.	Dawson, Sir Philip
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Burton, Colonel H. W.	Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Drewe, C.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell	Caine, Gordon Hall	Duckworth, John
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Campbell, E. T.	Edmondson, Major A. J.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Cassels, J. D.	Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)	Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Bethell, A.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Betterton, Henry B.	Chapman, Sir S.	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer. J
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Chilcott, Sir Warden	Everard, W. Lindsay
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Clarry, Reginald George	Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Blades, Sir George Rowland	Clayton, G. C.	Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Blundell, F. N.	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Fielden, E. B.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Finburgh, S.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Fleming, D. P.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Cope, Major William	Forrest, W.
Brass, Captain W.	Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Foster, Sir Harry S.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Briggs, J. Harold	Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)	Fraser, Captain Ian
Briscoe, Richard George	Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ganzoni, Sir John	Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Little, Dr. E. Graham	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Loder, J. de V.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Goff, Sir Park	Lougher, L.	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Grace, John	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)	Lynn, Sir R. J.	Shepperson, E. W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Grotrian, H. Brent	Macintyre, Ian	Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Macmillan, Captain H.	Skelton, A. N.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Hall, Vice-Admlral Sir R.Eastbourne)	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n s Kinc'dine, C.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Hammersley, S. S.	Malone, Major P. B.	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Wlll'sden, E.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Margesson, Captain D.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Harland, A.	Meller, R. J.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Harrison, G. J. C.	Merriman, F. B.	Storry Deans, R.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Haslam, Henry C.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Styles, Captain H. Walter
Hawke, John Anthony	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)	Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Murchison, C. K.	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir w. Mitchell-
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Neville, R. J.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Turton, Edmund Russborough
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Nuttall, Ellis	Waddington, R.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)	Oakley, T.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Hopkins, J. W. W.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Pennefather, Sir John	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Watts, Dr. T.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	Perring, William George	Wells, S. R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Wiggins, William Martin
Huntingfield, Lord	Pielou, D. P.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Hurd, Percy A.	Pilcher, G.	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Hurst, Gerald B.	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)	Price, Major C. W. M.	Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Hawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel	Wise, Sir Fredric
Jacob, A. E.	Rees, Sir Beddoe	Womersley, W. J.
Jephcott, A. R.	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Rentoul, G. S.	Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Rice, Sir Frederick	Wragg, Herbert
Kennedy A. H. (Preston)	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
King, Captain Henry Douglas	Roberts, Samual (Hereford, Hereford)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Lamb, J. Q.	Ropner, Major L.	Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord
		Stanley.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Fenby, T. D.	Kirkwood, D.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Gibbins, Joseph	Lansbury, George
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Gillett, George M.	Lawson, John James
Ammon, Charles George	Gosling, Harry	Lee, F.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Greenall, T.	Livingstone, A. M.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Lowth, T.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Lunn, William
Barnes, A.	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Ab'ravon)
Barr, J.	Groves, T.	Mackinder, W.
Batey, Joseph	Grundy, T. W.	MacLaren, Andrew
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Broad, F. A.	Hall, F. (York, W. R, Normanton)	March, S.
Bromley, J.	Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Maxton, James
Buchanan, G.	Hardie, George D.	Montague, Frederick
Charleton, H. C.	Harney, E. A.	Morris, R. H.
Clowes, S.	Hastings, Sir Patrick	Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, North)
Cluse, W. S.	Hayday, Arthur	Naylor, T. E.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Oliver, George Harold
Compton, Joseph	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Paling, W.
Connolly, M.	Hirst. G. H.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Cove, W. G.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Ponsonby, Arthur
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Potts, John S.
Dalton, Hugh	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Riley, Ben
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Ritson, J.
Day, Colonel Harry	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Dennison, R.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Rose, Frank H.
Duncan, C.	Kelly, W. T.	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Dunnico, H.	Kennedy, T.	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Kenyon, Barnet	Scrymgeour, E.

Sexton, James	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)	Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Sitch, Charles H.	Thurtle, E.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Smith, Ben (Sermondsey, Rotherhithe)	Tinker, John Joseph	Wilton, R. J. (Jarrow)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)	Viant, S. P.	Windsor, Walter
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)	Wallhead, Richard C.	Wright, W.
Snell, Harry	Watson. W. M. (Dunfermilne)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Stamford, T. W.	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Stephen, Campbell	Westwood, J.	Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)	Whiteley, W.

CLAUSE 36. —(Exemption of certain widows from health and unemployment insurance.)

Mr. HAYDAY

I beg to move, on page 30, line 21, to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "shall" in line 22

This Amendment proposes to deal with such part of the Clause as denies the right of unemployment benefit to an insured person having reached the age of 65. I suggest that this is a very serious step for the Government to take under such circumstances as I shall demonstrate. Here it is possible for an employed person to have been paying unemployment contributions for 12 or 13 years without ever having drawn any benefit, by reason of having had continuous employment, or having claimed a refund of such contributions, thereby still having, when bordering on the age of 65, a considerable amount of credit standing to his account under the unemployment insurance part of the Health Insurance Act. This Clause proposes that should such an insured person fall out of employment near the age of 65 after the commencement of this Bill, whatever credit may have accrued to his account, must be entirely lost and the insured person refused the benefit of such contributions. Having reached the age of 65 he must then come on the old age pension part of the Bill. Let me point out what that means in money values. Having contributed for a number of years he would have been entitled, as an unemployed person seeking full time employment being available for such employment and willing and able to perform it, to 18s. a week so long as he remained unemployed and was available for such employment. At once his 18s. under the Unemployment Act becomes 10s. under the Pensions Act. The injustice of this is rendered more serious owing to the fact that such an insured person cannot now apply for a refund of contributions standing to his credit. He must give up the whole of those contributions. He may, indeed, be one of those youthful middle-aged men available and readily re-absorbed into industry as soon as the opportunity presents itself. He will again be reabsorbed into industry possibly, but in each successive period of unemployment is not looked upon as an unemployed person within the meaning of the Unemployed Insurance Act but as an old age pensioner under this present proposal, so that you can quite see the difficulties that such an insured member is confronted with.

I suggest that it is cruel and unkind in the extreme, because at 65, if married, and with a wife less than 65, there would be an additional 5s. unemployment benefit for the wife. That would make 23s. per week, for which he has paid the higher contributions that came along and were imposed upon him when the fund showed a deficiency. I have not made the calculation, but I suggest it is possible for many pounds to stand to the credit of such an insured person in the Unemployment Fund and because, forsooth, he is 65 when this Bill becomes an Act, and operates as from the early part of next year, the income to the home is to be 10s., his old age pension, as against the possible 23s. for which he has made provision compulsorily under the Act. One can well see the serious hardship imposed in the Bill, because now oven were he to say "I must now appeal to the Guardians," if he goes there there, is another Clause which says the guardians must take the whole of these things into consideration, and they may not grant such relief as they would otherwise have done were it not for this money accruing, so that there is an handicap. There is a suggestion that the standard of living must be much lower than the one even established by the unemployment benefits under the Bill. I suppose we shall be told this is really a simplification Bill and is intended to draw in the rough fringes where there is a possible overlapping under Health, Unemployment and the present Bill. But in taking off those trimmings every time you attempt to prevent an overlap you are instituting to a much harsher degree the handicap and confusion prevailing at present in the minds of those who ought to be accepted to benefit under those respective Acts, and particularly the Unemployment Act, without any question. Is this Bill a reward for service? I could understand to some extent, but not entirely, if it were a case of an unemployed person having exhausted benefit for which ho had established a stamp right under the Unemployment Insurance Act. But this is not a question of extended benefit in cases over 65 years of age. I could understand the suggestion, although I do not entirely agree with it, but it would be fairer than the present proposals, if you said, "You have exhausted your right, and instead of conceding extended benefit, for which there is no established stamp right, we propose to pay you an old age pension at the age of 65 under this Bill." But so long as the person has an established stamp right, you have no right to introduce a Clause in this Bill, under a proposal for pensions for widows, orphans and old persons, to wipe out years of self-sacrificing contributions made by an insured person, and thereby to reduce the liability on the Unemployment Fund.

Is that the reason why you are proposing to reduce the contributions in regard to unemployment insurance in order to soften the handicap of the employers' contributions towards this particular pension? Has there been any agreement between the Government and the interests represented from the employers' side, and no consultations with the workers' side of the contributing element to the fund? You say to the employers, "We will reduce your liability." I have heard it said from the benches opposite that the employers need have no fear of the increased burden of contribution towards this fund, because it was the intention of the Government to lighten their burden in regard to the Unemployment Fund. You are lightening their burden there, but you did not say that you were going to lighten the responsi- bility of the fund, under this Bill, to meet its obligations. If that is the only way you have for bringing the Unemployment Fund to a state of stability and wiping out its deficiency, I am sorry for your human outlook in dealing with those who have contributed faithfully, on the expectation that they would have rendered to them at least the value of the contributions which they had made to the insurance scheme.

In 1911 you entered into a bargain for contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and you extended it in 1920. You said, "So long as you pay your contributions and conform to the conditions, we shall conform to our responsibilities and obligations and we shall see that the fund is used for that purpose." Now, you come along and you lead the people to believe they are going to have old age pensions at the age of 65, and that you are going to wipe out the, inquisitorial inquiries into the means limit. At the same time, you subtly introduce into a Bill of this kind a cruel intention, and instead of giving them 18s. a week when they are 65 you cut them down to 10s. You ease the Unemployment Fund of a liability and you ease the Old Age Pension Fund of a liability. I ask the Minister to take serious account of this matter. There are several unfair proposals in regard to need pensions and orphans who are dependants of persons killed through fatal accidents, and now you are imposing a hardship upon an unemployed person who reaches the age of 65.

Do not be so unfair in your dealings with these people. These people have been the stand-by of the nation in industry. You have cut enough of them out of unemployment pay by reason of their having turned the age of 60 and not likely to be re-absorbed. You have done enough damage to those people. Do not increase the damage by cutting down their allowance, whilst they have a stamp right, established by contributions, from 18s. to 10s. Where there is a wife in the house under 65, instead of the amount being 23s., for which contributions have been paid, they are only to receive 10s. It is hard, cruel and harsh. It is not a method of which any British Government ought to boast, or ought to be proud of introducing into a measure of social amelioration. It is misleading people into the idea that they are being protected and defended in the days of their decline and hardship. You cannot expect a working man at the age of 65 to have accumulated sufficient to invest, and from the interest of which he can make up the difference between 10s. and 18s., or possibly 23s., for himself and wife. As a thrifty man he has done his best, but under this Bill he is to be treated in a cruel manner, and the sooner people outside know of the cruelty, the better. The very least thing that the Government should do is to establish a right to claim a refund, with interest, of the amount standing to his credit before he is cut entirely adrift from the only resources open to him. Instead of giving these poor people a stable boat to carry thorn through the rough weather you are giving them a shaky old boat with a bucket or a pail, which may cause them to loosen their hold and sink into oblivion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

We have had some very hard things said about ourselves and about this Clause by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hay-day). He has spoken of our hard, cruel, harsh, unkind conduct. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members may say "Hear, hear," but one wonders whether the real object of the speech was conveyed in the concluding remarks, when he said that he wanted the people outside to know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Why not? Why should not they know the facts and not the misrepresentations which we sometimes hear from Socialist orators? There is, possibly, a more charitable view, and one which I would prefer to take, and it lies in the belief that the hon. Member has misunderstood the whole scheme of unemployment insurance. That is not an uncommon misconception. He spoke repeatedly of people who had paid for unemployment insurance for a long time without becoming unemployed. He spoke of the men who had paid in and had certain amounts standing to their credit. He said that everyone should get at least the value, plus interest, of their contributions to the Unemployment Fund. Of course, if you run an insurance company or an insurance scheme on the basis that everybody who pays in must get out at least what he paid in, it would follow that no one could get out more than he paid in, and what would happen to unemployment insurance?

Mr. HAYDAY

That is if he has occasion, having fulfilled his part, to claim on account of unemployment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The hon. Member will forgive me if I grossly misunderstood him. I think he finished up by saying that the very least we could do was to refund to these people the full amount they paid in. That was the least we could do. How much more we could do I am not clear. What I want to point out to the Committee is that no insurance scheme in the world was ever run on that basis. It is the essence of insurance that people are insured on an uncertain risk which will fall in varying degrees of intensity upon different persons who enter into the scheme. Some will get more out than they put in and some will put more in than they get out. Take an extreme case. Supposing one insures against accidents and sickness all one's life and then lives to a healthy old age and then dies. You have been paying in every week for it, may be, for many years to cover a risk which never happens, and the result is that you get nothing for all the money you have paid in. But it is a complete fallacy to suppose that you do not get the value of your contributions. The value is that you are covered against that particular risk. So it is when people pay in to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. This Clause merely provides that when people reach the age of 65 and become by virtue of this Bill entitled to a pension of 10s. a week, they shall from that date cease to have to pay any contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and cease, of course, equally to have any right to claim unemployment benefit. In my submission there is nothing unfair or harsh or unkind or unreasonable in that proposal.

It is, of course, an essential part of the financial scheme of the Bill, because although the employé cease at 65 to pay in any contributions to the unemployment fund and although it is true that the employer's contribution ceases to be paid to the unemployment insurance fund, the employer continues to pay the equivalent, the same amount as he did before, only that the amount goes to the credit of the widows' and orphans' pensions fund and so enables that fund to be kept up. With equal logic the hon. Member might have protested against the proposal that, after 65 sickness and disablement benefit should cease, and, indeed, there was an Amendment which has not been moved which proposed to continue both. That was worked out actuarially, and I am told by the Actuary that the pension benefits which are given to these people between 65 and 70 are worth 3½ times as much as both sickness and unemployment benefit put together, so that the Committee can see how unkind and harsh we are in conferring this benefit. I am told, further, that if the full proposal had been made that this Clause be omitted and sickness and unemployment benefits were to go on just as before, in addition to old age pensions, it would involve an additional increase in contribution of 2d. a week for every man, and 1d. a week for every woman. I do not suppose anybody seriously proposes that that additional burden should be laid on the scheme. I hope that explanation will satisfy those who are really anxious to be satisfied, that this proposal is neither unjust, unreasonable, nor unfair.

Mr. SEXTON

I only want to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, not a legal point, but simply an ordinary common-sense point. Reading this Clause it appears to me that it would be compulsory for a man at 65 to retire from industry. I want the right hon. Gentleman to help me. He is anxious that the public should know the facts. So am I. Does it follow from the right hon. and learned Member's speech that if a man is willing to work after 65 the employer is bound to pay in the full contribution to the State1? If so, is that not compelling the man to retire because the employer will have to pay bigger contributions for him?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

No, Sir. There is no question of compelling anybody to retire and there is no question of increasing contributions. I was proceeding to explain that the employer will continue after the man is 65 to pay the same contributions as he did before, [An HON. MEMBER: "If he continues to employ him and not otherwise?"] Of course, if he continues to employ him and not otherwise, he will continue to pay the same payments as he did before. but there will be this difference, that the destination of the payment that will be given not to the unemployment insurance fund, because there will be no more insurance against unemployment, but it will go into the pensions fund, but the payments will be exactly the same as before.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON

The right hon. Gentleman gives us a very ingenious defence of the Clause with regard to the ethics of insurance. He said, the essence of insurance was varying risks. Might I suggest to him that another essential part of insurance is sanctity of contracts? Is it not a fact that when these various people took out their insurance policies under the 1910 and 1911 Act it was then understood that if they continued their contributions they would receive unemployment benefit up to the age of 70? Therefore, I submit that they entered into their contract with the State, and that contract provided in effect that they should have unemployment insurance benefit up to 70, if not afterwards. There was no limit then that they should have to stop at 65, and because you subsequently bring in another Measure that may be perfectly right, and no doubt is. for policies taken out after that date, surely it does not invalidate policies taken out prior to that date. In the ordinary insurance world, if such a. proposal were brought forward it would meet with condemnation from all business men. Here is a contract entered into for the payment of certain premiums and for certain benefits to be paid. If it so happens that up to the age of 65 the worker has the misfortune not to draw anything—I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he has no cause of complaint against the insurance, because he has the good luck not to require it—but if after the age of 65 he happens to have a misfortune and to fall out of work, surely he has the right to claim the full measure of unemployment benefit when that happens? I cannot see how any private insurance company could possibly justify the breaking of a bargain which has been entered into previously by saying we will give you some other policy which we think is as good for you, but which was not in the bargain. It may be desirable for everybody to retire at 65. [An HON. MEMBER: "Even the Attorney-General!"] That is not the question we have to consider, but surely it is a great interference with the rights of individual liberty for this or any Government to say in effect: "You must retire at 65!" That is the sum and substance of this particular Sub-section.

I do appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider the position and, having regard to the fact that, if my assumption is correct, a contract was entered into with all insured persons that they should have unemployed benefit so far as they fulfilled their part of the bargain, you have no right to say that, because you introduce a pensions Bill which will give them a pension at 65, they must be denied the rights which otherwise would accrue to them. It does seem to me a case unanswerable in justice and in equity.

Mr. BROMLEY

The Attorney-General said he hoped that we on these benches would be satisfied. I am afraid that that shows the standard of intelligence for which we are generally given credit by the opposite side. Surely hon. Members opposite must realise that large numbers of us who have had the administration of trade union funds are not caught quite so easily. The very form of the words which we are discussing proves clearly that the whole thing is a three card trick. It is the old dodge of political people to profess to be giving something to the working classes in this country, and then to take it away. The more this Measure is examined, the more the people of the country, whether we on these benches tell them or not, will realise by their own intelligence that they are being duped. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest in his argument, not so much the mutuality which he claims for all insurance schemes, but that everyone was going to live to 65 to be in this position. May I remind him that a large number who have paid upon a mutual understanding will never receive the benefit for which they have paid, people who are sufficiently fortunate not to be in this great pool of unemployment. There are others who pass away happily from the toils of this great Christian land of ours before they reach that age, and their payments will go to the benefit of these people.

This is not only offering with one hand and taking away with the other, but it means forcing these men who have had no opportunity of preparing for old age into unemployment, when they may be fit for employment, on a very miserable amount of money indeed. It is taking away from them a proportion of that which they have paid, and scrapping them with an unlivable wage. This Measure would receive commendation from these benches if it were compelling the wage earner of 65 to go into comfortable retirement with a living retiring allowance. But it is not that. But it is to save these few paltry pounds, while they have given away within the last few weeks, millions to people who do not want it, to the detriment of these other people. It is something which the much abused trade unions would not do. We have benefits for which the men pay in addition to superannuation, men who can continue at work beyond our superannuation limit, and are entitled to sickness benefit and other benefits which are greater. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) has said, we are not so cruel—I know the right hon. Gentleman objected to the word—as to say that we can save a few shekles from a man by forcing him to receive an old age pension on which he cannot live, and that the other benefits which he should receive we are going to take from him. We would not stoop to that.

I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and those on the Front Bench to consider this and see if they are not rather riding for a fall. They suggest that we may tell the country. The country will know. Working people are not quite as ignorant or foolish as they used to be a few years ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The applause from the Government Benches may suggest that we can be caught napping sometimes, but while you may fool all the people some of the time, and some people all of the time, you cannot fool all the people all the time. In these circumstances, apart from the retribution that is coming, here is a contract entered into. Working people have paid on a mutual understanding of benefit, and here you profess to give a benefit by taking away a greater benefit. It is not in accordance with what we hear about British sense of fair play. I do not know whether the attendants keep it out of this Chamber, but it does not percolate here as much as I would like to see it. If it had not been for the benefits, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and old age benefit, paid by the trade unions of this country, you would have had the whole thing about you years ago. As we have stood in the breach so long, and now the State itself is attempting in a very stinted manner to do something, do not let it be said that the most powerful Government for years has sunk to this position of giving wealth to the wealthy, and a few weeks later, when professing to give something to the class which we have the honour to represent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—it is true: we do represent them—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member seems to be founding a large argument on a very restricted Amendment.

Mr. BROMLEY

I agree that it is a restricted Amendment. Possibly, within the procedure of this House, it does not mean a great deal, but we see what it means to our people outside. We appeal for people who are robbed of their rights under an honourable agreement for which they have paid, and which they will not receive, and this is as cruel as my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has stated. I appeal to the Government to do justice to people who are very short of justice.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON

I am wondering what the country will think of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose memory goes back to last year, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to give to people over 70, who were earning wages, any further consideration with regard to old age pensions. I remember the howl of indignation which came from hon. Members opposite, and how they claimed that old men of 70 could work and that they ought to have something at the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enable them to go on. Probably, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has said, the Government are doing this by agreement with the employers without ever consulting the ordinary workers. Let it be remembered that in everything which the trade union does, the old people have the first consideration, even without paying any contributions, so that they may have enough to have a reasonably comfortable existence at the end of their lives.

This Clause means that 90 per cent. of the workers of this country will be pauperised at the age of 55. What can a man or a woman of Go do with 10s. a week? It will not pay for a shelter above their heads. They will be left to the mercy, and, in many instances, more than the mercy, of their own fellows, who have always looked after these people. Common justice demands that these people, having made a contract with the State, should have a right to existence and should have that for which they have paid. But you are taking it away. The country has told you in the Forest of Dean that you are on the wrong lines as far as the workers are concerned. We are out to do our best to make it possible that every man and every woman, when he or she can toil no longer, will have a subsistence that will keep him or her in common decency. I will certainly do my best to tell the country exactly what this Government has done in this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON

There is one point that has been overlooked. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said it was very unfair that people at the age of 65, who had credit standing to their names under the Unemployment Insurance Act, should not be allowed to get any refund. That was the effect of what he said. He certainly referred to a refund, and asked the Government to consider the possibility of allowing these people to get a refund. I would remind him that the right to future refunds under the Unemployment Insurance Act was abolished by the Labour Government last year, and, therefore, if he has any complaint on that score, it certainly does not lie against the present Government.

Mr. MACKINDER

I do not think the Government ought to make the position of any person worse, by the passing of this Bill, than it was previously. That should be an accepted principle. Let me show what may happen. When this Bill is passed you may find people either drawing unemployment benefit at 65, or on the verge of drawing it. As has been said, a man and his wife may be drawing 23s. a week, for which they have paid. Immediately on the passing of this Bill you are going to cut that down from 23s. to 10s.

Mr. BUCHANAN

The hon. and gallant Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson) usually tries to be smart. In this case he has failed. He blamed the Labour Government for abolishing the refund. The Labour Government at any rate did not stop the insurance and stop the refund also. That is what this Government is doing.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON

This Government cannot stop something that was stopped last year.

Mr. BUCHANAN

The learned Attorney-General, who speaks for the Government, said "This is an insurance fund." Let me remind him that when a man or woman pays a contribution and enters into this fund, there is a contract on both sides. The contract with the Government is under the Unemployment Insurance Fund, which provides that if a man complies with certain regulations and conditions he shall, if unemployed, receive in return certain benefits for certain contributions paid. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act there is no time limit in regard to age in any part of the Act. The only question to be answered is, "Are you looking for work genuinely or not? If you are doing that and are eligible for work, you are entitled to receive unemployment benefit." But under the guise of this widows' pension scheme the Government is introducing an alteration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, with which we are not dealing to-night. The Government come along and say: "The contract into which you entered to pay under the Unemployment Insurance Act is broken, not by an amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act, but by a new Act dealing with widows' pensions and old age pensions." The hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley) has stated what is the trade union method. The union with which I am connected pays 18s. unemployment benefit and 12s. superannuation benefit over the age of 60. A man if he wants to work and is looking for work, but is unemployed, can draw the 18s. a week if he desires to do so. It is his prerogative to choose which benefit he will draw, because he has paid for both. I cannot understand an insurance scheme which provides that, when a man has paid for benefits, he should be denied those benefits when he needs them. If a man had no intention of working again I could understand it, but if he is unemployed merely for the time being the Government is acting wrongly in taking the benefit from him. This Bill is taking money from people under false pretensions, and then at the age of 65 denying them benefits. The hon. Member for Barrow compared this with the three card trick. People who play the three card trick generally go to gaol if they are caught. Those in Governments who rob the people usually get sent to the Lords. They talk about peace and indulge in sentiment about working people, but they are bigger hypocrites than the three card tricksters, and they deserve a worse fate.

Mr. CECIL WILSON

Let me put one question. A man and his wife get 23s. per week under the Unemployment Insurance Act. If a man reaches the age of 65 and under this Act gets only 10s. per week, where is he to get the rest of the money to meet the cost of living for himself and his wife? They cannot live on 10s. a week.

Mr. DUNCAN

I listened carefully to the speech of the learned Attorney-General and I must confess that I was amazed by it. It would be very interesting indeed if the learned Attorney-General were compelled to face a man of 65 who was forced from the unemployment benefit scheme and whose 23s. a week was reduced to 10s. It would, indeed, be a very interesting spectacle to see the Attorney-General set about explaining to that man in what way the difference was brought about. There is always one thing to be remembered in connection with insurance schemes brought into operation by the Government. They are not mutual schemes at all; they are compulsory schemes. If these schemes were made voluntary schemes I question whether 500 people in this country would pay a single cent towards them. Let us examine the position into which the Government have put themselves. They are passing an Act of Parliament which compels, from which there is no escape except by death or emigration. That seems an utterly brutal method to adopt. When people have been compelled by Act of Parliament to pay their contributions, when certain benefits have been dangled before their noses, benefits to which they were to be entitled at the age of 65, and then when, without any consultation with them-they are not to be listened to for a moment-when behind their backs, by another Act of Parliament, 13s. is taken away from the man who is entitled to 23s., without any explanation, the policy of the Government is incomprehensible. The man has paid for these benefits, but at the last moment, when he reaches the age of 65, 13s. is to be taken from him. When I was a youngster I was taught to honour my father and my mother so that my days might be long in the land. It seems to me that this is a scheme for swindling fathers and mothers. I am amazed.

The speech of the learned Attorney-General to-night might have been made by the director of an insurance company. May I remind the Attorney-General that this is not insurance on the basis of an accepted or voluntary arrangement. It is a compulsory insurance system from which there is no escape. There is no question of invitation or agreement to pay: you compel people to pay and when they reach the age of 65, you tell them, "Instead of paying you 23s. we are going to pay you 10s." I cannot understand the Attorney-General seeking to persuade the Committee that this arrangement has anything of fairness, reason, common sense or justice in it. If he were the unfortunate person who had reached 65 and was met with this situation, he would put up the best speech he ever made in his life against that kind of thing being put across him. I do not know if there is even sense in appealing to those in charge of the Bill, but here is an obvious injustice. Take the case of the man who reaches 65 years of age and is receiving unemployment benefit for himself and his wife. How is it possible to explain to this man that

he is to come under this pension scheme and that he is to be reduced from 23s. to 10s. How is he to live on 10s.? I ask the Committee to note that it is done without any consultation at all. Even according to the Attorney-General himself the employers' contribution is to be diverted from the unemployment scheme and is to go to this pension scheme, and the man is not to be consulted at all. I have seen men over 70 working in the workshops of this country and doing some of the hardest jobs a man can do. I have known a man working a 50-ton steam hammer in a blacksmith's shop at the age of 72, and yet these are the people on whom the Government seek to impose this Clause. This scheme is unjustifiable, and, if I may say so, with all respect to the Attorney-General's skill, he made about the most foolish case in its favour I have ever heard put up in this House.

Mr. CECIL WILSON

May I have an answer to my question?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Will the hon. Member kindly repeat his question?

Mr. WILSON

If a man is getting 23s.-18s. for himself and 5s. for his wife-when ho conies to the age of 65, where is he to get the other 13s. when this 23s. is reduced to 10s., or, otherwise, how is he to live?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

If he has got 23s. unemployment benefit he will draw it for a limited time, and thereafter get nothing, whereas under this Bill he gets 10s. a week for life, and when his wife reaches 65 she gets another 10s. a week.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 131.

Division No. 291.]	AYES.	[9.59 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Betterton, Henry B.	Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Bullock, Captain M.
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Albery, Irving James	Blades, Sir George Rowland	Barman, J. B.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Blundell, F. N.	Burton, Colonel H. W.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Boothby, R. J. G.	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Caine, Gordon Hall
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Campbell, E. T.
Ballour, George (Hampstead)	Brass, Captain W.	Cassels, J. D.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell	Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Barclay-Harvey C. M.	Briggs, J. Harold	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. H. (Ladywood)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Briscoe, Richard George	Chapman, Sir S.
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Chilcott Sir warden
Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Brooke, Brigadler-General C. R. I.	Clarry, Reginald George
Bethell, A.	Buckingham, Sir H.	Clayton, G. C.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)	Pielou, D. P.
Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Plicher. G.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.	Price, Major C. W. M.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Climb., N.)	Rawllnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Reid, Captain A, S. C. (Warrington)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Hume, Sir G. H.	Rentoul, G. S.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Rice, Sir Frederick
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert	Huntingfield, Lord	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Hurd, Percy A.	Robert!, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Hurst, Gerald B.	Ropner, Major L.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)	Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl')	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Salmon, Major I.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Dawson, Sir Philip	Jacob, A. E.	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Jephcott, A. R.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Joynson-Hicks. Rt. Hon. Sir William	Shepperson, E. W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth	Kennedy, A. R. (Pneston)	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Everard, W. Lindsay	Lamb, J. O.	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Fielden, E. B.	Little, Dr. E. Graham	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Finburgh, S.	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Fleming, D. P.	Loder, J. de V.	Stanley. Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)
Foster, Sir Harry S.	Lougher, L.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Foxcroft Captain C. T.	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Storry Deans, R.
Fraser, Captain Ian	Lumley, L. R.	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Lynn, Sir R. J.	Strickland, Sir Gerald
Ganzoni, Sir John	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Styles, Captain H. Walter
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Macintyre, Ian	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Macmillan, Captain H.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Glyn Major R. G. C.	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-	Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Goff, Sir Park	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Gower, Sir Robert	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Grace, John	Merriman, F. B.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Greenwood, William (Stockport)	Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Waddington, R.
Grotrian H. Brent	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. -Walter E.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. Eastbourne)	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hammersley, S. S.	Morden, Col. W. Grant	Watson. Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Hanbury, C.	Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)	Watts, Dr. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Murchison, C. K.	Wells, S. R.
Harland, A.	Neville, H. J.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Harrison, G. J. C.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Haslam, Henry C.	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Hawke John Anthony	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Nuttall, Ellis	Womersley, W. J.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henley)	Oakley, T.	Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Wragg, Herbert
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.	Pennefather, Sir John
Herbert, S. (York. N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Perring, William George	Major Cope and Captain Margesson.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Clowes, S.	Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Cluse, W. S.	Gibbins, Joseph
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Gillett, George M.
Ammon, Charles George	Compton, Joseph	Gosling, Harry
Attlee, Clement Richard	Connolly, M.	Greenall, T.
Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bliston)	Cove, W. G.	Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Barnes, A.	Dalton, Hugh	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Barr, J.	Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Groves. T.
Batey, Joseph	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Grundy, T. W.
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Day, Colonel Harry	Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Dennison, R.	Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Broad, F. A.	Duncan, C.	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Bromley, J.	Dunnico, H.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Buchanan, G.	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Charieton, H. C.	Fenby, T. D.	Hardie, George D.

Harney, E. A.	Morris, S. H.	Stewart, J. (St, Rollox)
Hastings, Sir Patrick	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Hayday, Arthur	Naylor, T. E.	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Hayes, John Henry	Oliver, George Harold	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Paling, W.	Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Thurtle, E.
Hirst, G. H.	Philipson, Mabel	Tinker, John Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Ponsonby, Arthur	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Potts, John S.	Viant, S. P.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Richardson, R. (Ho'ghton-le-Spring)	Wallhead, Richard C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Riley, Ben	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Ritson, J.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Rose, Frank H.	Westwood, J.
Kelly, W. T.	Saklatvala, Shapurji	Whiteley, W.
Kennedy, T.	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Kirkwood, D.	Scrymgeour, E.	Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Lansbury, George	Sexton, James	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Lawson, John James	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)
Lee, F.	Shiels, Dr. Drummond	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Lowth, T.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Wilton, B. J. (Jarrow)
Lunn, William	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Windsor, Walter
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Ab'ravon)	Sitch, Charles H.	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Mackinder, W.	Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)	Wright, W.
MacLaren, Andrew	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Snell, Harry
March, S.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Maxton, James	Stamford, T. W.	Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Warne.
Montague, Frederick	Stephen, Campbell

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. WALLHEAD

This Bill contains many bad points, and in the course of the discussion the Committee have passed certain things that are not a credit either to this House or to the legislation of the country as a whole. But in all the long discussion that has taken place on this Bill, there has been nothing quite so shameful passed by this Committee as this Clause which is now being put. The case against the Clause has been fairly stated by the various Members who have taken part in proposing the Amendment. I should say there are few gentlemen sitting on the Government side who have relatives who will fall under the lash of this particular Clause, but on this side there are plenty who will be affected by the operation of the Clause we are passing now, and if any excuse were needed for the fight we propose to put up over this Clause it is to be found in the statement I have just made. That we should pass a law under which men are to be deprived of benefit for which they have been made to pay is an incomprehensible act. in the opposing of which, I think, fair-minded men ought to participate. This Clause is the most indefensible of the whole Bill, and there are many indefensible Clauses in the Bill. It is one that takes money from men. I regard the Bill to a large extent as one for the organisation of poverty. It is to make men poorer at one end so that they may be bettor off at the other, but it is a nine to one chance whether the man ever gets to that point at all, and, when he arrives at the point, he hag one-ninth chance that he will not be deprived of the benefits for which he has paid. I consider the Committee are doing a shameful, a cruel thing, in thus depriving men of the benefits for which they have paid, and, so as far as we on these benches are concerned, we shall fight this with all the power we have at our disposal-and we have a little-before the people as a whole in the country and explain what exactly this means. The Home Secretary smiles at a statement of that character, but may I point out to him that we have been rather effective in the Forest of Dean, where, certainly, the Government banked on winning, because everything was supposed to run in their favour, but I think this Bill to a large extent has gone against them. We have explained what this moans, and people are not calling for it quite as much as the Government expected. The cumulative effect of the whole will be to bring the Tory party into ruin.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must confine himself to the particular Clause.

Mr. STEPHEN

Is it not in order for an hon. Member to deduce the ill-effects this will have on the fortunes of the Government?

Mr. WALLHEAD

I am addressing no appeal to the Government. I think appeals are wasted. The one way to get over the difficulty of the unemployment question, they think, is to shift people off one fund on to another. It is all a piece of financial juggling. The people do not escape. You are adding other burdens to local authorities.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

This is a Second Beading speech on the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN

On a point of Order. Surely a Member is entitled to argue that this will put a, burden on local authorities? If a Member can prove that at a particular date a man who is unemployed becomes 65 on that day, he will only receive 10s. in place of 23s., thereby causing the local authority to add to the amount, surely it is in order to argue that that will add to the cost of Poor Law administration?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Certainly that would be in order, but that is not what the hon. Member is doing.

Mr. WALLHEAD

I was trying to meet the argument of the Attorney-General, that when you take men off a fund, giving them 23s. a week, and, instead, give them 10s., the Government are conferring a benefit. He said: "That man would pass out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and here we have the Government, in the goodness of their heart, providing him with a fund of 10s. upon which to live." They cannot live on it, and they must go to the Poor Law authorities, and to that extent the burden on the already overtaxed local authorities is being increased. The whole thing is a shameful procedure. It is a crying shame that a House of rich men, which has given millions to rich men, should now deprive helpless poor men and women, at the end of their lives, with one foot in the grave, of the possibility of living in comfort and decency. I oppose the Clause with all the power I have at my command.

Mr. T. THOMSON

I cannot think the Committee fully appreciates what it is doing in passing this Clause, because it seems entirely contrary to all sense of fair-play and of the sanctity of contracts to which we are accustomed in our public life. Here we have a workman paying in, for 10 or 15 years, to an Unemployment Insurance Fund, who may have drawn no benefit whatever, and when he reaches the age of 65 and happens to fall out of work, possibly for the first time, then he is deprived of any benefit whatever. I submit that when these men entered into these original payments, it was on the understanding that they would get whatever unemployment benefit was due when they fell out of work, and because you have since passed another Act to give them old age pensions at 60, that does not relieve you from moral and financial responsibility towards them. If any breach of contract such as this took place in a private insurance company, we should have hon. Members opposite up in arms protesting against it.

Then you have the case of a man, say, of 64, who may be out of work, and drawing 18s. for himself, 5s. for his wife, and 2s. or 4s. for his children, say, 27s. a week. If he has not drawn any benefit up to the age of 65, then, in the ordinary course of things, he will get at least two years' standard benefit from the period when he first began to draw the benefit. The Attorney-General suggested that these men ought to be very grateful to the Government for giving them 10s. instead of 18s., which would expire directly. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman spoke without his usual thought and caution, because if such a person has not hitherto drawn any benefit, I submit that his standard benefit would run for nearly two years, at the rate of 27s. a week, if he had two children. To tell such a man he is going to be deprived of that benefit, and offered instead a paltry 10s., is not playing fair with those who are insured under the scheme, and is not in keeping with the. ordinary sense of British justice. It is a most unfair thing, and I hope the Government, before the Report stage, will reconsider the matter.

Mr. NAYLOR

I have not troubled the Committee much by taking up time on this Bill, but I feel so strongly in regard to this Clause that I hope the Committee will forgive me for offering one or two observations, especially as I have behind me some experience of the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would like to remind the Minister that he is making a most important and drastic change in the conditions governing the unemployment benefit, and as regards the national health insurance benefit, but I want to refer particularly to unemployment insurance as administered under the present Act. Is the Committee aware that under the present Act the man who has reached the pensionable age of 70 can still go on drawing State unemployment benefit. Has it not been the assumption that when a men reaches the pensionable age of 70 or 65 that he is no longer able to work? If the pension awarded to the man at 65 or 70 was anything in the nature of enabling him to live upon what he received as a pension there would, of course, be no necessity for him either to go on working or to be on unemployment insurance. Here, however, you are introducing what you call an improvement by reducing the age at which an insured person can receive a pension, but at the same time you are taking away from that class of men between the ages of 65 and upwards! Men of 70 are still able to take State unemployment benefit, but you are taking away more than you are giving.

What is the position in regard to the man of 65 when he is thrown out of work? We all know that an employer on occasion looks round to see how many men in his establishment are of a pensionable age, who are getting old, and, therefore, unable to produce to the same extent as they were able to do in their younger days. And a number of men from 50 to 65 are usually selected to discharge in the slack period. Once these men are out they may never hope to get back again into regular employment. There is, however, a prospect of their getting work of some kind. If we were in the position that a man thrown out at 65 was not likely to get employment there might be some justice in telling him that he could not take, or that it would not be right for him to take, any further State insurance benefit: but then these men are the surplus of the labour market. It is possible for a man of 65 and beyond, up to 70, to get casual employment. He gets it and desires to continue to earn that additional income week by week, and that is more than the benefit he now receives under the Unemployment Act, and it would represent considerably more than he would get if this Clause is part of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the injustice will be remedied to a large number of men who are thrown upon their beam ends late in life, but are still in the possession of sufficient health and strength to enable them to carry on as casual workers. I trust they shall be allowed to do so; otherwise it means that you are throwing these men entirely on their trade union funds, and without any assistance from State funds towards which they have contributed the whole of their lives.

Most men when industry is normal expect to be in employment, and insure against the time when they may be unemployed. But the time comes, in the declining years of their lives, when they are unemployed. It is at that time that the Minister will step in and say: "You cannot draw any more unemployment benefit because you have reached an age when you are privileged to take an old age pension of 10s. a week." There is no other name but robbery to be given to that proceeding. It means more, possibly, than the Minister ever imagined when he had the Clause drafted. It is quite likely, in my opinion, that the Government overlooked the fact that under the present Act an unemployed man can continue to draw benefit even after he is 70 years of age. While the Minister cannot agree, of course, to the elimination of this Clause, I hope that when the Bill comes before the House on Report stage he will make some modification of the Clause, so as to prevent a great injustice being done to deserving men who have the right, in my opinion, to claim this benefit irrespective of their age.

Mr. WESTW00D

This Clause is the culminating point of a series of robberies for which no "cat burglar" would take credit. The "cat burglars" we have been reading about have only been robbing the rich, but this is the culminating one of a series of Clauses in which the Government are deliberately seeking to rob the poor. I want to enter my protest against this Clause. It is all very well for hon. Members on the other side to smile when we suggest that this is robbery. I am prepared to make the assertion that not 2 per cent. of hon. Members on the other side have any relatives who will lose through this particular Clause being passed, but I have one, and that is the reason I am going to make a fight in connection with this Clause, and I want to appeal to my friends to join me. It may be all right to take away any Poor Law relief that may have been given to some of those who may be unfortunate enough to call upon this particular scheme for benefit; it may be all right to reduce benefits in connection with ex-service men and their dependants, which we have done, because none of those things were paid for, they were given by the State; but this is something for which contributors have paid.

My father is still working practically every day. He has paid for health insurance till 70 years of age. He has drawn not more than 30 weeks' sickness benefit since the National Health Insurance Act came into operation. He paid his contributions because the Government who passed the National Health Insurance Act guaranteed him health insurance benefit until he was 70 years of age. Now the Government of the day are deliberately seeking to rob my old parent of those things for which he has paid. He has also paid for unemployment benefit, not only until he is 70 years but for as long as he is able to work. To the best of my knowledge, he has not drawn one week's unemployment benefit, although he has paid unemployment insurance contributions since the system

applied to the miners in 1920. I know if I were to call hon. Members opposite robbers individually I should be called upon to withdraw it, and so I cannot 3o that according to the Rules of the House, but collectively they are responsible for this robbery by passing this Clause. The Government of the day will go down to history as one of the greatest set of tricksters this country has ever known, deliberately robbing the poor to try to make their balance-sheet balance so far as this particular scheme is concerned. I enter my protest and I want to make an appeal to our Front Bench, and to every Member of the Labour party, to put up a fight and compel the Government to move the Closure so far as this particular Clause is concerned, so that the country shall understand the way in which the Government are robbing those who have paid for health insurance, are robbing the unemployed, and are placing increased charges upon boards of guardians and parish councils throughout the country.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 131.

Division No. 292.	AYES.	[10.29 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Finburgh, S.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Caine, Gordon Hall	Fleming, D. P.
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Campbell, E. T.	Foster, Sir Harry S.
Albery, Irving James	Cassels, J. D.	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Chadwick. Sir Robert Burton	Fraser, Captain Ian
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Chilcott, Sir Warden	Ganzoni, Sir John
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Clarry, Reginald George	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Astoury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Clayton, G. C.	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ballour, George (Hampstead)	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell	Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Goff, Sir Park
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Couper, J. B.	Gower, Sir Robert
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Grace, John
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Bethell, A.	Crook, C. W.	Gretton, Colonel John
Betterton, Henry B.	Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Grotrian, H. Brent
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Crookshank. Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Blundell, F. N.	Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. Eastbourne)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)	Hanbury, C.
Brass, Captain W.	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon, William Clive	Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Harland, A.
Briggs, J. Harold	Dawson, Sir Philip	Harrison, G. J. C.
Briscoe, Richard George	Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Haslam. Henry C.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Hawke, John Anthony
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Buckingham, Sir H.	Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxt'd, Henley)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Bullock, Captain M.	Everard, W. Lindsay	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Burman, J. B.	Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Hennlker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Fielden, E. B.	Herbert, S. (York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy	Morden, Col. W. Grant	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Murchison, C. K.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Hopkins, J. W. W.	Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.	Neville, R. J.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Storry Deans, R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)	Strickland, Sir Gerald
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Nuttall, Ellis	Stuart. Crichton-, Lord C.
Hurst, Gerald B.	Oakley, T.	Styles, Captain H. Walter
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Jacob, A. E.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Jephcott, A. R.	Pennefather, Sir John	Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Tinne, J. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Perring, William George	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Waddington, R.
King, Captain Henry Douglas	Pielou, D. P.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Lamb, J. O.	Plicher, G.	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)	Price, Major C. W. M.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Radford, E. A.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Little, Dr. E. Graham	Raine, W.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Rawilnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk, Peel	Watts, Dr. T.
Loder, J. de V.	Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)	Wells, S. R.
Lougher, L.	Rentoul, G. S.	Wheler. Major Sir Granville C. H.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Rice, Sir Frederick	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Lumley, L. R.	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Lynn, Sir R. J.	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Ropner, Major L.	Wise, Sir Fredric
Macintyre, Ian	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Womersley, W. J.
Macmillan, Captain H.	Rye, F. G.	Wood. Rt. Hon E. (York, W. R., Ripon)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Salmon, Major I.	Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Sandeman, A. Stewart	Wood, Sir s. Kill- (High Peak)
Margesson, Capt. D.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Wragg, Herbert
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)
Merriman, F. B.	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-	Shepperson, E. W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)	Major Cope and Mr. F. C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)	Thomson.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Greenall, T.	Mackinder, W.
Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)	Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	MacLaren, Andrew
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Ammon, Charles George	Groves, T.	March, S.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Grundy, T. W.	Maxton, James
Baker. J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)	Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)	Montague, Frederick
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Morris. R. H.
Barnes, A.	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Barr, J.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Naylor, T. E.
Batey, Joseph	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Oliver, George Harold
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Hardie, George D.	Paling, W.
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Harney, E. A.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Broad. F. A.	Harris, Percy A.	Ponsonby, Arthur
Bromley, J.	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Potts, John S.
Buchanan, G.	Hastings, Sir Patrick	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Charleton, H. C.	Hayday, Arthur	Riley, Ben
Clowes, S.	Hayes, John Henry	Ritson, J.
Cluse, W. S.	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Rose, Frank H.
Compton, Joseph	Hirst, G. H.	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Connolly, M.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cove, W. G.	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Scrymgeour, E.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Sexton, James
Dalton, Hugh	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Day, Colonel Harry	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Dennison, R.	Kelly, W. T.	Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Duncan, C.	Kennedy. T.	Sitch, Charles H.
Dunnico, H.	Kirkwood, D.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Lansbury, George	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Fenby, T. D.	Lawson, John James	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Lee, F.	Snell, Harry
Gibbins, Joseph	Lowth, T.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Gillett, George M.	Lunn, William	Stamford, T. W.
Gosling, Harry	Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Ab'ravon)	Stephen, Campbell

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)	Warne, G. H.	Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)	Windsor, Walter
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton), E.)	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.	Wright, W.
Thorne, W. (West Han, Plalstow)	Whiteley, W.	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Thurtle, E.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Tinker, John Joseph	Williams. David (Swansea, E.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)	Mr. Wallhead and Mr. Westwood.
Viant, S. P.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 37.—(Consequential Amendments of Insurance Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. BUCHANAN

The point I wish to put deals with the agents who are working with the approved societies, and I wish to ask if it is not possible for the Government to secure the operation of something like a Fair Wages Clause dealing with the conditions under which these men work. A large number of these men are employed by the approved societies and they receive certain payments out of the contribution the State makes to them. Is it not possible for the Government to insert some kind of Clause which would secure for these people at least decent conditions? It may be said it cannot be done in this Bill. Assuming that is so, would not the payment of the grant for administrative expenses afford an opportunity for securing that every agent shall at least be paid a decent wage?

Mr. MARCH

I should like to put another question with regard to Sub-section (8), where it states: Any certificate of exemption granted under the National Health Insurance Act, 1919, shall, as from the commencement of this Act cease to have effect, and the word 'and any certificate of exemption granted under the National Health Insurance Act, 1919, may be renewed as if that Act had not been repealed.' Does that mean that where corporations and firms have already had an exemption certificate, that certificate ceases, and they have to apply for a new exemption, including National Health Insurance benefit and also this widows' and orphans' benefit? It does not seem to me to be quite clear as to what those societies would have to do.

Sir K. WOOD

With regard to the remuneration of agents, I am afraid the hon. Member's assumption is correct, that it does not arise in connection with this Bill. This is a Bill grafted on to the National Insurance Act and any question of the remuneration of agents arises on that Measure. So far as the exact duties are concerned which will be imposed on the societies in connection with this Measure, they only relate to the giving of certificates as to the status of the particular individual to see whether they comply with the conditions of the Bill. Again, in that matter the question of the employment of agents does not arise. So far as Sub-section (8) is concerned, reference is made there to Section 133 of the Insurance Act, and probably the hon. Member was not aware of the provisions of that Measure. Section 133 is to the following effect: Nothing in this repeal "— This Clause may be repealed as far as the Schedule 16 concerned, shall affect any order, rule, regulation of scheme made, certificate issued, … or approval given under any enactment repealed by this Act, and every such order … . shall continue in force, and, shall, so far as it could have been made, …. under this Act, have effect as if made, … . under the corresponding enactment of this Act, and any certificate of exemption granted under the National Health Insurance Act, 1919, may be renewed as if that Act had not been repealed. I will examine the matter again. It is a very technical matter, but the hon. Member need have none of the apprehensoins he has mentioned. I will look into the matter and confer with him.

Mr. R. DAVIES

This Clause deals with the cancellation and variation of the reserve values. Does it either accelerate or postpone the redemption of the reserve values under the National Insurance Act?

Mr. STEPHEN

I am not content with the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary. Would it not be possible to include after the words "subject to the consent of the Treasury" a proviso, "subject to the Fair Wages Clause in connection with the employés of an approved society"? Possibly the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to inform me of the reason why that cannot be included. We are grafting this scheme of contributory insurance on to the National Health Insurance scheme, and there are many things in connection with this scheme. I cannot see why it should be impossible for a gifted individual like the Parliamentary Secretary to be able to put in some proviso which will be a protection to these employés. If the Government has the will, they will be able to bring forward some modification on the Report stage to provide for the protection of the employés.

Sir K. WOOD

In regard to the question of reserve values raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) I am informed that the Clause has no material effect. In reply to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) I can add nothing to the reply I have given.

Mr. MACKINDER

On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that where Government grants are made there is a qualification that standard rates must be paid to the people employed?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of Order.

Mr. MAXTON

I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary is treating this matter with seriousness. He tells us that the approved societies have no additional duties imposed upon them.

Sir K. WOOD

The agents.

Mr. MAXTON

Who is doing the work? The approved societies do not operate through Divine agencies. Everything they do has to be done by paid employés, and we know from experience that these poor fellows in many societies, and in some insurance companies in which the hon. Member is keenly interested, and for whom he has fought very strongly in this House, are doing the work for miserably low and scandalous wages. The Government is bringing forward a Measure which is attempting to stop one sore of the social system, or to apply some slight ointment to the sore. Why, then, should they create another sore? This will mean that men who are already overworked and underpaid in insurance work will have extra duties east upon them, without extra remuneration. The interests of the society are safeguarded; it is to receive additional payment from the Treasury for any additional work that it may have to do. But the fellow who is doing the work, already very grudgingly and very much overwrought, is to receive no consideration at all; and the ingenuity of the Minister and his Under-Secretary fail to see any way to safeguard the rights of these men.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Is there no reply or anything?

CLAUSE 38.—(Consequential Amendments of Unemployment Insurance Acts.)

Amendment made: In page 32, line 23, leave out Sub-section (1).—[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 33, line 8, at the end to add the words: In the case of persons to whom a special scheme made or approved under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1924, applies, the provisions of this Act relating to unemployment insurance shall have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say, references to liability to be insured and contributions under the said Acts, to unemployment benefit, and to the unemployment fund shall be respectively construed as references to liability to be insured, and to contributions and benefit under the special scheme, and to the fund constituted thereunder. This Amendment is only to make it clear that the provisions of Clauses 35, 36 and 38 apply also to certain schemes which do not come under the Act. There are. two schemes: one is in the banking industry and the other in the insurance industry.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 39—(Amendment of Old Age Pensions Act in relation to persons in receipt of pensions.)

The CHAIRMAN

I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is not moving the two Amendments down in his name, but is moving an alternative Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 33, line 12, after the word "Act" to insert the words or would have been so entitled but for the provisions of this Act relating to service dependants' pensions. If the Committee will look at Subsection (2) of this Clause they will see that it deals with the case of Service dependants' pensions. As the Bill was drafted, these Service dependants' pensions were to be taken into account considering whether the person in respect of such pension was or was not entitled to an old age pension under the Old Age Pension Act on arriving at the age of 70. Under the two Amendments which are on the Paper we had proposed to improve upon that arrangement so far as Service dependants' pensions were concerned, and where those pensions have been increased by virtue of this Act in the Clause we discussed last, we are now going to guarantee them, at any rate, that they should have as much under the Old Age Pensions Act as they would have by virtue of that increase. Last night we were discussing the service dependants' pension, and I was pressed very closely by various hon. Members in all parts of the Committee to do something to meet the difficulties which they saw under that Clause, and I had to explain that, to my regret, it was impossible for me to accept the Amendment then before the Committee, because it would have wrecked the Bill. But we have sought on looking again through this Clause for an opportunity of doing for the service dependants who are in receipt of pensions something of a smaller character than was asked of me yesterday, which would not put an undue strain on the resources of the Exchequer. The point to my mind is this. The view of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee was that where old age pensions are given they should, wherever possible, be free from inquiries as to means and from disability as to means. The course pressed on us was to make a very great concession, and to say that these service dependants' pensions should not have any connection with the old age pension. That is to say we were asked to relieve the old age pensions of any liability in respect of these service pensions. As the Clause would not affect the finances of this Bill, but would affect the expenditure under the Old Age Pension Act, I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, and I am happy to be able to inform the Committee that I have his concurrence with this Amendment, which is designed to bring about a great concession in connection with service dependants' pensions.

Mr. R. MORRISON

Has the right hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the cost of this concession?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

In the time at my disposal I have not been able to ascertain the exact cost, but I am told that it will not be excessive.

Mr. WHEATLEY

The Committee is interested to know that the pressure brought to bear on the right hon. Gentleman and the Government last night has compelled them to devote some of their time since then to considering the claims of the people whose case was advanced so well from this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect us to express any definite settled opinion on the proposal which he now submits. We have had no opportunity of seeing the wording, much less considering it. We shall have that opportunity between now and the Report Stage, and we shall then be in a position to estimate how far this Amendment meets the claims which we have brought forward on behalf of these pensioners.

11.0 P.M.

Mr. B. PETO

I cannot agree with what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). I do not for a moment believe that this Amendment is brought forward because of pressure from any quarter of the Committee, but we believe that it is proposed merely on account of the genuine expression of opinion with regard to what most of us thought was a weakness in this Bill. I am sure that we are extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for this gratuitous concession. I do not think that any quarter of the Committee could possibly have expected in the early hours of this morning that he could possibly have found a solution of the matter. In contrast with the right hon. Member for Shettleston, I do not desire to look into this concession, to see whether it is satisfactory. I am satisfied to take the word of the right hon. Gentleman that he is carrying out what we requested last night, and I wish to express to him my gratitude and that of those who acted with me on that occasion.

Major HORE-BELISHA

Does this concession, which everyone will welcome, apply to old age pensions at the age of 70 or at the age of 65?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

It applies to old age pensions under the Pensions Act at 70. There is no means test with regard to the pension at 65 years.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 33, line 20, leave out Sub-section (2).—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 40.—(Local authorities.)

Captain GARRO-JONES

I beg to move, in page 33, line 32, after the word "borough," to insert the words "and of a Metropolitan borough."

It has been said of successive Clauses of the Bill that each is the worst Clause in the Bill. That remark, I should say, applies to Clause 36. If I refrain from such a description of Clause 40, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be any less inclined to make some concession on the Amendment which I am moving. The Amendment will have the effect of making the Metropolitan boroughs the local authorities for the administration of this Bill. I am aware that there are further Amendments on the Paper calculated to have the same effect. I would not be averse from the inclusion in my Amendment of the Common Council of the City of London, because the same considerations which apply to the Metropolitan borough councils apply with equal force to the Common Council. I move this Amendment because the Metropolitan borough councils already have at work the machinery for the administration of this Bill. In the Maternity and Child Welfare Committees set up under the Act of 1918 there is the machinery. If those committees are employed the effect would be to reduce the complexity of local administration and to reduce the number of irritating and vexatious inquiries that tend to be made by officials in local government areas.

It is very irritating when different people, strangers, are empowered to make calls for various objects on the occupants of private houses. It is one argument in favour of the Amendment that it would have the effect of reducing the number of these calls. I know the Minister is going to say that while the London County Council is the proper authority to administer this Measure, they will be able to delegate their powers. I submit the practice of delegating the powers of the London County Council to the Metropolitan borough councils can go too far. The Metropolitan borough councils art-bodies of the highest importance, and administer large sums of public money, and they have shown themselves fully qualified to carry out the duties assigned to them. I draw attention to a recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Government of Greater London which sat in 1923. In page 76, paragraph 20 of that Commission's Report dealing with suggestions made by the representatives of the London County Council, the following passage will be found: The principles governing the London County Council proposals were that the local authorities—(the metropolitan borough councils)—should be entrusted with the most important powers possible and they should not be asked merely to exercise delegated powers conferred upon them by the Central Authority but should, so far as possible, be independent of that authority. I think that is a full answer in advance to the Minister's reply that the London County Council will be able to delegate its powers. A Local Government Act, passed in 1899 on the joint representation of the Metropolitan borough councils and the London County Council, provided that certain powers should be transferred to the borough councils, but that Act is practically a dead letter, and I believe in no single case have the authorities come together.

Mr. WILLIAM GREENWOOD

On a point of Older. Is it in order that a Welsh solo should be sung while an hon. Member is speaking?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

If that is being done, I suggest that it should be stopped.

Mr. LANSBURY

Might we have more of the windows opened? It is very sultry, and we lock like being here all night. I am sure that the Minister of Health will agree.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN

Perhaps that accounts for the difficulty of hearing of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. W. Greenwood).

Captain GARRO-JONES

I do not object to the little accompaniment to my monologue, but I hope hon. Members who wish their voices to be heard will get up and support me. In no single case has the London County Council agreed to transfer its powers to the metropolitan borough councils. It is not because they do not believe that borough councils ought to have the powers, because they practically recommended that the powers should be transferred, but when it comes to doing it of their own accord, it is the general experience that the London County Council is a very jealous upholder of its own powers. I believe that possibly the objection to the Amendment is that local authorities might follow the example of Poplar. I do not think there need be any expectation or fear—according to one's point of view—that such will be the case. The metropolitan borough Councils have shown themselves fully competent, and I do not see why we should offer them the slight of excluding them from the duties to be carried out under this Measure.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

This is not really a question which ought to raise large principles of a distribution of powers between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs The real object of the Amendment which the hon. Member has moved, I think, is incorporated in the Amendment I have put on the Paper. I am proposing to insert the words Provided that where the council of any non-county borough or urban district is both a local education authority and an authority for the purposes of the Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918, that council shall, as respects that borough or urban district, be the local authority for the purposes of this Act to the exclusion of the county council. We are dealing hero with children up to the age of 14. The officers of the maternity and child welfare committees deal with children up to the age of five, and I think it must be fairly obvious that the proper officers for the local authority to employ to deal with children from five to 14 are the school attendance officers, and it is obviously for the reason that we have two classes of officials we want to bring in for this purpose that I cannot accept the Amendment, because a metropolitan borough is an authority under the Maternity and Child Welfare Act, but is not the local education authority.

Captain GARRO-JONES

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to have two sets of officials to carry out these duties, one under the Child Welfare Act and the other the attendance officers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I think probably that is the way it will be worked.

Captain GARRO-JONES

If so, does he consider this duplication necessary— to have one official in the case of the child under five and another for children from five to 14, each official to be entrusted with the power of dealing with this Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

That is already the power now.

Captain GARRO-JONES

Is there any reason why we should perpetuate that?

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The next three Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb)—in page 33, line 33, after the first word "council" to insert the words in the case of the City of London, the Common Council, in the case of a metropolitan borough, the metropolitan borough council. the hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Sir H. Greenwood)—in page 33, line 33, after the first word "council," to insert the words in the case of a borough, a metropolitan borough, or an urban district the council of which exercises powers under The Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918, the council of such borough or district. the hon. Member for West Middles borough (Mr. T. Thomson)—in page 33, line 33, after the first word "council," to insert the words in the case of a metropolitan borough, non-county borough, or urban district for which a maternity and child welfare committee have been appointed the council of the metropolitan borough, non-county borough, or urban district, as the ease may be. and one later on, all deal with the same subject, which is dealt with in an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. It will probably save the time of the Committee if we take the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Health.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 33, line 33, at the end, to insert the words Provided that where the council of any non-county borough or urban district is both a local education authority and an authority for the purposes of The Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918, that council shall, as. respects that borough or urban district, he the local authority for the purposes of this Act to the exclusion of the county council. I do not think I need say any more than I have said already.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 33, line 34, to leave out Subsection (2).

I want to make it clear that a local authority can delegate its power to its education committee and to its maternity and child welfare committee for carrying out these purposes, and that in that case the expenses incurred will be expenses for which an Exchequer grant should be available, and in the case of a county council there is power provided that special expenses for county purposes shall be charged on such part of the county as may be provided by the order.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 34, line 4, at the end, insert the words: (4) A local authority for the purposes of this Act or a sanitary authority with which a county council have made arrangements under the last preceding Sub-section may, if the authority is a local education authority or an authority for the purposes of The Maternity and Child Welfare Act. 1918, delegate their powers and duties under this Act to the education committee or to the maternity and child welfare committee of the authority, or if the authority is both a local education authority and an authority for the purposes of the Maternity and Child Welfare Act partly to one such committee and partly to the other, as they think fit; and such delegation may be made subject to filch restrictions and conditions, if any, as the authority think fit. In page 34, line 2, leave out from the word "authority," to the word "of," in line 3.

In page 34, leave out lines 5 to 7, inclusive, and insert instead thereof (5) Any expenses incurred by a local education committee or a maternity and child welfare committee in the execution and performance of any powers and duties so delegated shall be defrayed as expenses incurred in aid of elementary education or under The Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918, as the case may be and any expenses incurred by a local authority for the purposes of this Act in the execution and performance of their powers and duties which have not been delegated to a local education committee or a maternity and child welfare committee, and any similar expenses of a sanitary authority, so far as they are not met by payments by the county council shall be defrayed as follows: (a) in the case of a county council, as expenses for general county purposes or, if the Minister by order so directs, as expenses for special county purposes charged on such part of the county as may be provided by the order."— [Mr. N. Chamberlain.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 (Provisions as to posthumous children) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 42.—(Decennial reports and revision of contribution).

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 31, line 13. at the end, to insert the words Provided that nothing in this provision shall be construed as preventing the Treasury from requiring additional reports to be so made at such times during the currency of any decennial period as they think fit. This is in fulfilment of an undertaking I gave, when an Amendment was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh 'Mr. W. Graham) on Clause 11, that I would put; down an Amendment to provide that further reports might be made during the currency of a decennial period.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I beg to move, in page 36, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (2).

This Amendment is one on which we propose to take a Division. The Clause that we have now reached is one that provides that the contributions shall be increased per year until they finally come to 1s. 3d. for the men and 7d. for the women; not far from double what they are at the present time. Of course we object, as we have in toto objected to contributions, and we naturally object to contributions which are nearly double the present rate. I am not going over the old ground on this object. We want to raise points that it has been impossible to deal with in any previous stage of the Committee. It is very difficult to gather how the matter stands from the report of the Actuary, but I think I am substantially correct in saying that these increased contributions are not necessary—at any rate are not wholly necessary—merely for the purpose of providing for the benefits in this Bill —merely for the widows' and orphans' benefits, and the old age pension at 65: the reason that these contributions are to be increased is that in the operation of this Bill, eventually, the whole increase may be used to put the old age pension at 70 from a non-contributory on to a contributory basis! We must raise that point now. In our opinion this proposal in the Bill to put the old age pension at 70 on to a contributory basis is one of the most reactionary stops in the social legislation of the last generation. It is practically to repeal the principal Act on which, up till now, every party in this House has been agreed. The report of the actuary shows quite clearly what is going to happen! A lad who enters insurance next year at 16 and begins to pay contributions is not paying simply for the benefits under this Bill. Part of his contributions are being paid in order to provide old age pensions for the future.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN indicated assent.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

That is so in the Actuary's report. The proportion is increased. Well, the right hon. Gentleman will correct me later. The proportion is increased until, gradually, stage by stage,: he whole of the expenses of the old age pensions will have been transferred on to industry and the poor, and wealth as wealth will have been relieved. I am not going to argue it at any length, but I will merely say that this is not a part of the Bill on which the Government has enlarged either on the Second Reading or previous stages. I have no doubt that when the Bill has passed there will be, quite rightly, a great educational propaganda by the Minister of Health in order that the Bill may be understood by the people; and on this part of the Bill I think we can promise the right hon. Gentleman that we will contribute a little assistance. It is for the purpose of beginning to help the Minister of Health in this matter that I now move this Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The point at which I thought it necessary to shake my head was, perhaps, a small one, but it is just as well to be accurate in these matters. The hon. Member stated that a youth who entered insurance at the age of 16 would be contributing not only to the benefits under this Bill but his share of the old age pensions. Well, the inaccuracy in that case is that he would not be contributing at the rate at which he begins his contributions. There is no increase in his contributions, and therefore no contributions towards the cost of old age pensions, until the year 1936. It is a small point, but it is as well to be accurate. I am not going to argue the case for this Clause, because I am quite satisfied that I shall not convince hon. Members opposite that it is advisable that all pensions should be of a contributory nature, nor do I think it necessary to argue that point for the purpose of convincing hon. Members on this side that it is a desirable thing. But I may just point out this. First of all, the Clause begins Unless Parliament otherwise determines— The party opposite have got 10 years in which to build up a case and get the country to return them to power. I do not suppose they will succeed in the first ten years. Perhaps in the course of the next 10 years they may get a chance, and if not there is another 10 years after that. If they can get the opportunity, it will be possible for them, when the time comes, for one of those increases, to persuade Parliament not to make it.

I think I need add only this other word, so that there may be no misunderstanding. I have had some calculations made to sec how long it would be before anybody obtaining the old age pension would have contributed anything towards that pension, and I find that 38 years will have elapsed from now before anybody in receipt of an old age pension at 70 will have contributed one penny towards it. So it does not seem to me that this is a matter of very pressing urgency.

Mr. HARRIS

I think it ought to be pointed out how very exceptional it is for a paragraph of this kind to be in a Bill. Of course we cannot bind future Parliaments. Any House of Commons at any time can not only alter this Clause but repeal the whole Bill when it becomes an Act. It is lather unnecessary to make the statement: Unless Parliament otherwise determines, and I think it is rather a novel principle to insert in a Bill.

But there is a much more serious side to this Clause. It has been established since 1908 that old people get the old age pension at 70 as a right. That has become an accepted principle with all parties; it has ceased to be a matter of controversy, although I know when the Measure was before Parliament in 1908 there was a section of the House who would not take any active part in it, though they would not oppose the original proposal to give old age pensions to all old people as a right. Now we are going to have that grafted on a contributory scheme, dealing with quite other questions. It is a serious matter in a Bill of this kind to take away the rights of people that have been recognised not only in this country but throughout the Dominions. In Australia and New Zealand they continue to get their old age pensions on a non-contributory basis. I am not opposed to a contributory basis with regard to orphans and widows because it shows that the British people recognise their obligation to the old people of TO years of age.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG

I understand that nobody who comes under this Act

will be eligible for an old ago pension until they have contributed for 38 years. I want to know if this Bill will cover all the people in the country. There are large numbers of people not covered by insurance. Some of them will live up to the age of 70, and they will be entitled to an old age pension although they will not have contributed to National Health Insurance. Will those people be entitled under this Bill to their old age pension?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

It is very difficult to say what will happen 38 years hence, but if no alteration be made in the present Act, the difference between those people referred to by the hon. Member and those who have contributed would be that in the former case they would be subject to the means test, whereas those who contributed would not be subject to that test.

Mr. STORRY-DEANS

Are we to understand that the old age pension at 70 to people not insured is left precisely by this Bill in the same position as they are now?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

If not insured, certainly.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 114.

Division No. 293.]	AYES.	[11.35 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Agg-Gardncr, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Buliock, Captain M.	Dawson, Sir Philip
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Albery, Irving James	Burman, J. B.	Duckworth, John
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Burton, Colonel H. W.	Edmondsen, Major A. J.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Campbell, E. T.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Evans. Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Everard, W. Lindsay
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Sallour, George (Hampstead)	Clarry, Reginald George	Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Clayton, G. C.	Fielden, E. B.
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Finburgh, S.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.	Fleming, D. P.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-	Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Forrest, W.
Bethell, A.	Cooper, A. Duff	Foster, Sir Karry S.
Betterton, Henry B.	Cope, Major William	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Couper, J. B.	Fraser, Captain Ian
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Blundell, F. N.	Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Ganzoni, Sir John
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Crook, C. W.	Gault Lieut. -Col. Andrew Hamilton
Boyd-Carpenter. Major A.	Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Gibbs Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Brass, Captain W.	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Briggs, J. Harold	Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert	Goff, Sir Park
Briscoe, Richard George	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Grace, John
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Dalkeith, Earl of	Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.	Gretton, Colonel John
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)	Grotrian, H. Brent
Buckingham, Sir H.	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Shepperson, E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Margesson, Captain D.	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)	Meller, R. J.	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Hammersley, S. S.	Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hanbury, C.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Harland, A.	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Harrison, G. J. C.	Morden, Col. W. Grant	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Haslam, Henry C.	Murchison, C. K.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Hawke, John Anthony	Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph	Storry Deans, R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Neville, R. J.	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Strickland, Sir Gerald
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Newton, Sir D, G. C. (Cambridge)	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Honeage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Nuttall, Ellis	Styles, Captain H. Walter
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Oakley, T.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.	Pennefather, Sir John	Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Penny, Frederick George	Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Tinne. J. A.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Hume, Sir G. H.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Waddington, R.
Huntingfield, Lord	Philipson, Mabel	Wallace, Captain O. E.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Pielou, D. P.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.	Pilcher, G.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Jacob, A. E.	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton	Water-house, Captain Charles
Jephcott, A. R.	Price, Major C. W. M.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Radford, E. A.	Watts, Dr. T.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Raine, W.	Wells, S. R.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Rawilnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk, Peel	Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Lamb, J. O.	Rentoul, G. S.	Williams, Herbert G. (Heading)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Rice, Sir Frederick	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Little, Dr. E. Graham	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)	Womersley, W. J.
Loder, J. de V.	Ropner, Major L.	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Lougher, L.	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York. W. R., Ripon)
Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman	Salmon, Major I.	Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Lumley, L. R.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Lynn, Sir R. J.	Sandeman, A. Stewart	Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Wragg, Herbert
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Macintyre, Ian	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Macmillan, Captain H.	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)	Major Sir Harry Barnston and
MacRobert, Alexander M.	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley	Major Hennessy.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Gosling, Harry	Lansbury, George
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Greenall, T.	Lawson, John James
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Lee, F.
Ammon, Charles George	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Lunn, William
Attlee, Clement Richard	Groves, T.	Mackinder, W.
Barnes, A.	Grundy, T. W.	MacLaren, Andrew
Barr, J.	Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Batey, Joseph	Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	March, S.
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Maxton, James
Broad, F. A.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Morrison. R. c. (Tottenham, N.)
Bromley, J.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Paling, W.
Buchanan, G.	Hardie, George D.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Charleton, H. C.	Harris, Percy A.	Ponsonby, Arthur
Clowes, S.	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Potts, John S.
Cluse, W. S.	Hayday, Arthur	Rees, Sir Beddoe
Compton, Joseph	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Cove, W. G.	Hirst, G. H.	Riley, Ben
Crawfurd, H. E.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Ritson, J.
Dalton, Hugh	Hore-Belisha,. Leslie	Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Rose, Frank H.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Day, Colonel Harry	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Duncan, C.	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Scrymgeour, E.
Dunnico, H.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
England, Colonel A.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Fenby, T. D.	Kelly, W. T.	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Kennedy, T.	Sitch, Charles H.
Gibbins, Joseph	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Gillett, George M.	Kirkwood, O.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)	Viant, S. P.	Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)	Williams, Dr. J. H (Llanelly)
Stamford, T. W.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Stephen, Campbell	Westwood J.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.	Windsor, Walter
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)	Whiteley, W.	Young, Robert (Lancaster. Newton)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)	Wiggins, William Martin
Thurtle, E.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Tinker, John Joseph	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)	Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 43.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. KELLY

I beg to move, in page 35, line 26, to leave out the word "twenty-eight," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-six."

This is to provide that the appointed day shall be 1926 instead of 1928. A little earlier in the evening hon. Members opposite cheered very loudly when the Minister was prevailed upon to do something with regard to pensions, and to increase what had been promised in the earlier stapes of the Debate. Surely when this was introduced into the Bill, that old age pensions should operate in 1923, so far as those who had reached 65, they might consider that good work by seeing that these people have every opportunity of handling, drawing and spending the pensions during the year 1926 and onwards. If it is a good thing it ought not to be held up. We may be told the intention is that contributions have to be paid for some time before this benefit is to be received. Surely a person who has reached 65, and has been engaged in industry, has contributed quite enough to the upkeep of the country to warrant that he should be given the old age pension next year instead of having to wait until 1928. I have wondered whether or not there is some virtue in the year 1928. I have wondered whether or not it is the intention of the Government to make an appeal to the country at that time. If that is in their mind, and if that is the reason why they are keeping back from the old people their old age pension, they can hardly suggest to those of us who sit on these benches that we are endeavouring to make any party capital out of the pensions for the aged. Seeing that the Government have

thrown many of their employés in Government Departments out of work, people who are on the borderline of 65, I hope they will pay regard to these people and say that, instead of keeping them in the condition in which we now find them, they will give them an opportunity of drawing their pension at the beginning of next year. I hope the Minister will not say that he cannot afford it; that he has conceded all that he can possibly concede. I hope that with regard to these old people he will agree to let them have their old age pensions at an earlier date, instead of keeping them in a state of privation for a further three years.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

It seems remarkable that, after denouncing this Bill so much, and speaking of the many hardships which its conditions will inflict upon the people, the hon. Member and his friends are now asking that these conditions shall come into operation two years earlier.

Mr. KELLY

The benefits.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

There is a. good reason for fixing the date as 1928. We are following the principle adopted in the National Health Insurance Act. We have provided that there shall be a two years period of waiting, as in the case of the National Health Insurance Act, which was arranged for a very much smaller benefit known as the disablement benefit. There is a further reason for not accepting this Amendment, and that is, that to bring this part of the Bill into operation in 1926 it would cost another £20,000,000.

Question put, "That the word 'twenty-eight' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 96.

Division No. 294.]	AYES.	[11.50 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley	Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Albery, Irving James	Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Bethell, A.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Betterton, Henry B.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Plicher, G.
Blundell, P. N.	Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir H. (Eastbourne)	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Boothby, R. J. G.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Price, Major C. W. M.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Hammersley, S. S.	Radford, E. A.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Hanbury, C.	Raine, W.
Brass, Captain W.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Rees, Sir Beddoe
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Harland, A.	Held, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Briggs, J. Harold	Harrison, G. J. C.	Rentoul, G. S.
Briscoe, Richard George	Hawke, John Anthony	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Rice, Sir Frederick
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Buckingham, Sir H.	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Ropner, Major L.
Bullock, Captain M.	Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)	Salmon, Major I.
Burman, J. B.	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Campbell, E. T.	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Chadwick Sir Robert Burton	Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Hume, Sir G. H.	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Clarry, Reginald George	Huntingfield, Lord	Shepperson, E. W.
Clayton, G. C.	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Jacob, A. E.	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Jephcott, A. R.	Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Cooper, A. Duff	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cope. Major William	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)	Lamb, J. O.	Stanley, Hon. O. F.G. (Westm'eland)
Crookshank, Col. C de W (Berwick)	Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Storry Deans, R.
Cunliffe Joseph Herbert	Little, Dr. E. Graham	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Strickland, Sir Gerald
Dalkeith, Earl of	Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Davidson, J. (Hertt'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Loder, J. de V.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.	Lougher, L.	Styles, Captain H. Walter
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Lumley, L. R.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Dawson, Sir Philip	Lynn, Sir R. J.	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Duckworth, John	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Tinne, J. A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Macintyre, Ian	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Macmillan, Captain H.	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
England, Colonel A.	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Evans, Captain A (Cardiff, South)	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Everard, W. Lindsay	Margesson, Captain D.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Watts, Dr. T.
Fielden, E. B.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Wells, S. R.
Finburgh, S.	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Fleming D. P.	Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Forrest, W.	Neville, R. J.	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Foster, Sir Harry S.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	William, Herbert G. (Reading)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Fraser, Captain Ian	Nuttall, Ellis	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Oakley, T.	Wise, Sir Fredric
Ganzoni Sir John	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Womersley, W. J.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Wood, B C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Pennefather, Sir John	Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Penny, Frederick George	Wood, E (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Glyn Major R. G. C.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Goff, Sir Park	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Wragg, Herbert
Grace, John	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Gretton, Colonel John	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grotrian, H. Brent	Philipson, Mabel	Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Pielou, D. P.	Thomson.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Bromley, J.	Duncan, C.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Buchanan, G.	Dunnico, H.
Alexander. A V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Charleton, H. C.	Fenby, T. D.
Ammon, Charles George	Clowes, S.	Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Barnes, A.	Cluse, W. S.	Gibbins, Joseph
Barr, J.	Compton, Joseph	Gillett, George M.
Batey, Joseph	Dalton, Hugh	Greenall, T.
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Bread, F. A.	Day, Colonel Harry	Groves, T.

Grundy, T. W.	MacLaren, Andrew	Stephen, Campbell
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Naylor, T. E.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Handle, George D.	Paling, W.	Thurtie, E.
Harris, Percy A.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Tinker, John Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Ponsonby, Arthur	Viant, S. P.
Hayday, Arthur	Potts, John S.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Hayes, John Henry	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Riley, Ben	Westwood, J.
Hirst, G. H.	Ritson, J.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)	Whiteley, W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Rose, Frank H.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Saklatvala, Shapurji	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)	Shleis, Dr. Drummond	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Windsor, Walter
Kelly, W. T.	Sitch, Charles H.	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Kennedy, T.	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Kirkwood, D.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Lawson, John James	Smith. H. B. Lees- (Keighley)	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Lee, F.	Stamford, T. W.	Warne-
Lunn, William

Question put, and agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I beg to move in page 35, line 28, after the word "stepchild," to insert the words "or adopted child."

I faring this matter forward because it seems to me that the adopted child is sadly neglected in this country. Adoption has become a regular practice, and we are behind most countries in the world by not recognising it. If a man adopts a child and makes himself responsible for that child, pays for its education and looks after it and keeps it, and that man dies, that child is not provided for under this Bill. I bring this Amendment forward in the hope that the Government will take the earliest possible opportunity of bringing the adopted child within the law as represented by this Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I have every sympathy with the object of my hon. and gallant Friend. I was myself a member of a committee which investigated this subject. But, as he is aware, there is no such thing, legally, as "adopting" a child in this country. The Committee that sat on this subject has reported. If, and when, Parliament sanctions giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee the adopted child will have a legal status. Then will be the time for Parliament to decide what alteration shall be made.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 3G, line 35, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section: (4) Where a child born before the marriage of his parent has been legitimated by virtue of the subsequent marriage of his parents the child shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a child born of the marriage. 12 P.M.

This Amendment is necessary now in the case of Scotland and will be necessary in the case of this country if further legislation is passed allowing legitimation by marriage.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 36, line 35, after the words last inserted, to insert a new Sub-section: (5) For the purposes of this Act, any period during which a person served in the naval, military, or air forces of the Crown during the late war shall, if he was entitled to be insured whilst so serving, be deemed to he a period during which he was insured, and contributions shall be deemed to have been paid in respect of Lim for every week during that period. In the great War men who were not insured in civil life were allowed to remain uninsured while in the Army. The Amendment will treat these men as if they had been insured.

Amendment agreed to

Clause, as amended clod, order to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 44. —(Application to Scotland).

Amendments made: In page 37, line 21, after the word "and" insert the words "save as otherwise hereinafter provided."

In page 37, line 39, at the end, insert the words, Provided that where any of the powers and duties of the local authority are executed and performed by the committee, or joint committee, administering the scheme of maternity and child welfare under The Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915, in operation within the district of the local authority, any expenses incurred by that committee, or joint committee, shall be defrayed as expenses incurred under that scheme.

In page 37, line 42, at the end, insert (a) Regulations may be made by the Registrar-General with the approval of the Scottish Board of Health requiring every person giving information to a registrar of births, deaths, and marriages of a birth, death, or marriage to furnish in writing, to the best of his knowledge and belief, such information for the purposes of this Act as may be prescribed, and any person refusing so to furnish such information or knowingly making any false statement or representation with reference to such information shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. The provisions of Section six of The Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages (Scotland) Act, 1854, with respect to regulations thereunder being laid before Parliament shall apply to regulations made under this Subsection.

In page 38, lines 8 and 9, leave out the words "including copies of, or extracts from the registers under their charge."

In page 38, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).—[Sir John Gilmour.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 (Short title, extent and corn-men cement) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to modify existing superannuation schemes.)

(1) Where at the commencement of this Act any superannuation scheme has been established otherwise than by Act of Parliament, including a scheme established under powers conferred by Act of Parliament whereby benefits are provided corresponding to any of the benefits secured by this Act, and the pension authority are desirous, in consequence of the passing of this Act, to modify the scheme as respects insured persons who may become entitled to corresponding benefits under or by virtue of this Act, but under the instrument regulating the scheme are unable to do so without undue delay or expense, the pension authority may submit to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies proposals for conferring on them the powers necessary for the purpose, and the Chief Reistrar may confirm the proposals, subject to such conditions, if any, as he thinks fit to impose, and thereupon, subject to compliance with such conditions, if any, the pension authority may modify the scheme as respects such persons as aforesaid by reducing the amount of the benefits payable under the scheme and the contributions payable thereunder, and by making such other alterations in the scheme as may appear to them expedient in consequence of such reductions.

Provided that where the pension authority is a local authority this sub-section shall have effect as if for references to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies there were substituted references to the Minister.

(2) Where at the commencement of this Act any superannuation scheme has been established by Act of Parliament whereby benefits are provided corresponding to any of the benefits secured by this Act the pension authority may submit to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies an amending scheme for reducing, as respects insured persons who may become entitled to corresponding benefits under or by virtue of this Act, the benefits payable under the scheme, and the contributions payable thereunder, and may make such other alterations in the scheme as appear to them expedient in consequence of such reductions; and the Chief Registrar, after giving persons affected by the proposed scheme or their representatives the opportunity of objecting, and after considering any such objection, may confirm the scheme; and on any such scheme being so confirmed the Act by which the scheme is established shall have effect subject to the provisions of the scheme:

Provided that where the pension authority is a local authority this Sub-section shall have effect as if for references to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies there were substituted references to the Minister.

(3) Where by any public general Act in force at the commencement of this Act provision is made for the establishment of a general scheme of superannuation whereby persons in return for contributions payable thereunder become entitled to benefits corresponding to any of the benefits secured by this Act, any local authority or combination of local authorities which is at the commencement of this Act, or has hereafter become or propose to become a pension authority to which the first-mentioned Act applies may submit to the Minister a scheme modifying the first-mentioned Act so far as it relates to insured persons who may become entitled to any of the benefits secured by this Act and who may also become entitled to receive from the pension authority corresponding benefits under the first-mentioned Act: —

1. (a) by reducing the superannuation allowance payable under the first-mentioned Act to any such person by such amount as may be specified in the scheme, not exceeding the amount of the pension to which he and, if he is married, his wife may become entitled under or by virtue of this Act;
2. (b) by reducing the contributions payable under the first-mentioned Act by any such person by such amount as may be specified in the scheme;

and the scheme may make such financial adjustments (including any alteration in any annual charge payable by the pension authority which may have been fixed under the first-mentioned Act) as may be appropriate in the circumstances, and the Minister, after giving persons affected by the proposed scheme or their representatives an opportunity of objecting, and, after considering any such objections, may confirm the scheme, and upon any such scheme being so confirmed the first-mentioned Act, in relation to the pension authority and such persons as aforesaid, shall have effect subject to the provisions of the scheme.

(4) No alteration in any particular scheme, or in any general scheme in its application to any particular pension authority shall be made by a scheme under this Section which will prejudicially affect the solvency of the particular scheme, or of the general scheme, in its application to that authority or increase the liability of the person (if any) liable for the solvency thereof.

(5) The powers conferred on a pension authority by a scheme under this Section may include power to pay on behalf of any person in receipt of a superannuation allowance) from the pension authority any contribution under this Act or the Insurance Act payable by such person and, if they think fit, to deduct the amount thereof from the superannuation allowance payable to him.

(6) This Section shall not, nor shall any scheme thereunder, affect the benefits of or contributions by any person in respect of whom contributions under this Act are payable at the rate mentioned in Part IV of the First Schedule to this Act or in respect of whom no contributions under this Act are payable.

(7) For the purposes of this Section the expression "local authority" means the council of any county or municipal or metropolitan borough or urban or rural district, and any board of guardians, and any other local authority within the meaning of The Local Loans Act, 1875, and the expression pension authority" means any local authority or combination of local authorities or other body of persons administering a superannuation scheme, and the expression "Act of Parliament" includes a Provisional Order confirmed by Act and an order having the effect of an Act."—[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause is so long and the hour is so late, that I do not want to detain the Committee by going into it unnecessarily There are in existence a number of superannuation schemes, and it has been pointed out to us that, unless we make some provision to prevent it, people who are contributing to these schemes and have also come under the operation of the Bill, may find themselves, between the two, obliged to contribute for benefits which would be beneath the remuneration that they are now receiving. In other words, they would be over-insured. They would be glad if they could have their scheme so modified that the contributions may be reduced, and the benefits reduced accordingly. Therefore, this new Clause is moved, allowing existing schemes to be modified in that way, reducing she contributions and the benefits, so long as the reductions are not more than would reduce the benefits by the amount of the benefits provided in this Bill. Provision is made in regard to representations for any modification of the schemes.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN

Is the Clause purely permissive, or does it put it in the power of the Minister to bring any individual under an existing superannuation scheme down to not more than the 10s. provided in the Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The procedure will be voluntary on the part of the authority administering the superannuation scheme. These schemes are largely local authority schemes. They cannot bring down the superannuation allowance to the amount of the benefits under this Bill. They can reduce the superannuation allowance by an amount not exceeding the benefits receivable under this Bill. That leaves them in the same position.

Mr. MACLEAN

Is it going to be purely permissive, or is it going to be done compulsorily by the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

This is a permissive Clause.

Mr. GILLETT

I wish to know whether under this Clause the Minister retains any power in relation to a local authority which has started a scheme under which men have been exempted from the insurance scheme. Supposing it is decided to bring such a scheme to an end, does not the Minister retain any power on behalf of the workers who come under that scheme, to reverse that policy? It seems to me an exceedingly important point, if a scheme can be brought to an end by a local body and the men concerned have no say in the matter. The Minister should have some power of intervention on behalf of the workers before a scheme is brought to an end.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

A scheme cannot be brought to an end. It can only be modified, and that modification of a scheme must first be submitted to the Minister and approved by him.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to reciprocal arrangements with other parts of His Majesty's Dominions.)

1. (1) if provision is made by legislative enactment in any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain for the establishment therein of any scheme of National Health Insurance and of pensions substantially corresponding to those provided by virtue of the Insurance Act and this Act, the National Health Insurance Joint Committee may, with the consent of the Treasury, make reciprocal arrangements with the authority administering such scheme whereby periods of insurance contributions paid and residence in one country shall, for the purpose of qualification for pensions in the other country, be treated as if they had been periods of insurance contributions paid and residence in that other country, and whereby pensions payable by one country shall be payable to persons whilst resident in the other country.
2. (2) Prevision may be made by regulations under this Act for directing that this Act shall, in relation to or in connection with any persons affected by any arrangements made under this Section, apply, subject to such modifications and adaptations as may be prescribed and may make provision for any necessary financial adjustments.
3. (3) For the purposes of this section the expression "country" means Great Britain on the one hand and any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain which has made such provision as aforesaid on the other hand.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Brought up, read a First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of bank officers and others.)

No person shall be compelled to insure under this Act who is engaged in clerical work under any banking or other corporation or company where the average salary of the clerical staff of the corporation or company paid to persons of forty years of age exceeds two hundred and fifty pounds per annum.— [Mr. Basil Peto.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. PETO

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I do so in virtue of representations made to me by the Bank Officers' Guild. They point out that young men joining the staffs of banks, insurance companies and analogous corporations arc, at first, paid very small salaries, perhaps from £90 to £100 a year, and by the time they reach 30 years of age, in almost every case, their salaries exceed £250 a year. Therefore, at 30, they automatically go out of the provisions of this Bill, and as regards widows' pensions or orphans' pensions this is merely asking them to pay contributions which, though small, are material in relation to a salary of £90 or £100 a year. Owing to the fact that a vast majority of bank employés, by reason of their salaries being over £250 a year by the time they reach the age of 30, come outside the scope of the Act at that age, the Pensions Bill resolves itself into a compulsory levy upon them without any corresponding benefit. The Attorney-General will probably say that under an insurance scheme you cannot strike a winner every time, and that somebody has got to pay or the rate of insurance would be very much higher. That is true, but this is a special case, and I think it deserves consideration from the Government as to whether it is fair that people in these professions should be asked to contribute to widows' and orphans' pensions for people in another sphere of life altogether. It does not seem to me to be fair.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment. It is a mistake to think that, because after these people have joined when their salaries are small and they rise above £250, they are thereby necessarily deprived of benefit. They can remain voluntary contributors and continue to draw benefit. But if they are left out. it is again a mistake to think they will come in as voluntary contributors. The effect of this Clause as moved would be that all bank clerks would be cut out of the Bill.

Mr. PETO

That is what they ask.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

If the hon. Member agrees that there are substantial benefits conferred by this Bill, he would be very sorry to cut this class of people out of its operations. We could not possibly agree that in the case of people engaged in clerical work they should be given the option of coming In or not, as they pleased, when the whole scheme of the Bill in regard to other classes of the community is that it should be made compulsory. That would be an unfair differentiation between clerical and manual workers.

Mr. PETO

I hope the explanation will be as satisfactory to the Bank Officers' Guild as it appears to be to the Committee. I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Committee to administer funds.)

For the purposes of administering the funds as provided by this Act there shall be constituted a National Statutory Committee consisting of twenty-seven members, appointed as hereinafter mentioned. Of the said twenty-seven members—

Nine (one of whom shall he chairman, two of whom shall be women, and not less than three shall be representatives of labour) shall be appointed by the Minister of Health;

Nine (two of whom shall be women) shall be appointed by the contributing employers or by associations represented by them;

Nine (two of whom shall be women and five of whom shall be representative of the trade unions appointed either direct or in co-operation with the general Council of the Trade Union Congress) shall be appointed by the individual contributors.

All members of the National Statutory Committee, with the exception of the chairman, shall be contributors to the fund.

There may be paid to the chairman, out of the funds, such salary as the Minister of Health may determine.

All other expenses of the committee (including such travelling expenses to members of the committee as the committee may determine) shall be paid out of the funds at the disposal of the committee.

Nine members of the National Statutory Committee shall constitute a quorum.

The statutory committee may appoint subcommittees consisting cither wholly or partly of the members of the statutory committee, and may delegate to such sub-committees, with such restrictions as they think fit, any of the powers and duties under this Act.

The statutory committee shall regulate their own procedure.

The Ministry of Health shall provide such clerical and professional assistance as the statutory committee may require, and the committee, with the consent of the Ministry of Health, may determine such salaries or remuneration as may be considered adequate.

For the purpose of assisting the statutory committee in the execution of their duties a local committee shall be established for every county and. county borough and for every borough or urban district.

The constitution of a local committee shall be such as may be approved by the statutory committee, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:—

The number of members of a local committee shall be twenty-one;

Seven shall be appointed by the council of the county or borough or urban district, but the members so appointed need not be members of the council; Seven (not less than two of whom shall be women) shall be appointed by the local employers;

Seven (not less than four of whom shall represent the local trade union organisations) shall be appointed by the local individual contributors;

Not less than two of the representatives in each of the three sections shall be women and all members of the local councils shall be contributors to the fund;

Each local committee shall appoint its own chairman;

Nine shall be a quorum.—[Mr. N. Maclean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MACLEAN

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

What I am anxious to accomplish in this Amendment is that those who are contributing to the scheme should have some say in the administration, direction, apportionment, and control in regulating the expenditure of the Fund. With this object I have moved this new Clause in order to give democratic control over the money. The Minister of Labour intimated that he was about to set up a Committee, and made a statement that it was to be set up with the object of going into the circumstances and methods of working the Unemployment Insurance Act. This Committee, he says, is to be composed of the three different sections who are contributing to the Insurance Fund, namely, the State, the employers, and the employés. It is to be representative of all the classes that are building up the Fund. If it is advisable to set up such a Committee, even though of a temporary kind, of the three sections of the insurance scheme, surely it is equally advisable to set up a Committee of the three sections for this particular Fund, which is to make up the pensions scheme we are discussing. I hope the Minister will accept the Clause, which embodies a new principle I am trying to bring into the insurance scheme. it is the principle that the people who pay ought to have representation in the administration of the Fund. I hope the Minister will accept the Clause as I have put it down, or that he will himself, on the Report stage, put something into the Bill which will give the control I seek to have.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

This proposed new Clause seems to me to be fantastic. So far as I can see there is a central Committee of 27 persons and local Committees all over the country, which, I calculate, will mean the employment of some 30,000 persons. I cannot understand the necessity for this. The benefits under this Bill are not discretionary; they are being paid for by certain definite payments. While there is a discretion in the hands of the Minister, there is an appeal to an independent body of referees. I think the administration of a scheme of this kind should be in the hands of the Minister who is responsible to Parliament. These Committees, scattered all over the country, so far as I can see, are supported by no one.

Mr. DUNCAN

When the insurance schemes were first started the object was to secure some form of democratic control for them. My objection to State schemes such as this is that they are all

growing into purely the autocratic principle. We have had Committees of an advisory character. My hon. Friend who has moved this Clause has asked the Minister to be good enough to consider this matter, and to see if he cannot suggest some plan other than the one suggested, whereby some Committee of this kind might exercise some oversight. Obviously the people coming under this scheme might be consulted to discover their opinion, so that the Minister might have that for guidance in the future. This kind of Committee existed during the War, as we are all aware, and nobody on this or that side of the House will deny that those composing these Committees performed, on behalf of the State., service that was of an exceedingly valuable character. I suggest that in this question there is room for some consideration for the bulk of those concerned in the scheme. It seems to be a very lopsided arrangement that the actual control is left in the hands of the Minister, and those who contribute the bulk of the money are not to be considered in any form at all.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 196.

Division No. 295.]	AYES.	[12.28 a m
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Ammon, Charles George	Hardle, George D.	Potts, John S.
Barr, J.	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Broad, F. A.	Hayday, Arthur	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Cluse, W. S.	Hayes, John Henry	Sitch, Charles H.
Dalton, Hugh	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Hirst, G. H.	Tinker, John Joseph
Day, Colonel Harry	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Duncan C.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Watts-Morgan. Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dunnico. H.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Westwood, J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Whiteley, W.
Gillett, George M.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Greenail, T.	Kelly, W. T.	Windsor, Walter
Groves. T.	Kirkwood, D.
Grundy, T. W.	Lawson, John James	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)	Lunn, William	Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. Beckett.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark. N.)	MacLaren, Andrew
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Blundell, F. N.	Campbell, E. T.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Boothby, R. J. G.	Chadwick, Sir Robert Surton
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Clayton. G. C.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Brass, Captain W.	Cobb, Sir Cyril
Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley	Briggs, J. Harold	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Briscoe, Richard George	Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Balniel, Lord	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Cooper, A. Duff
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Courtauld, Major J. S.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Beckett. Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Buckingham. Sir H.	Crawfurd, H. E.
Benn. Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Bethel, A.	Burman, J. B.	Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Bird. E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Burton, Colonel H. W.	Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N)	Ropner, Major L.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Hunting field, Lord	Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Kernel Hempst'd)	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Salmon, Major I.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.	Jacob A. E.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Jephcott, A. R.	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Dawson, Sir Philip	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks. W.R., Sowerby)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Shaw. Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Duckworth, John	Lamb, J. O.	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.	Shepperson, E. W.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
England, Colonel A.	Little, Dr. E. Graham	Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-&.-M.)	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Kandsw'th)	Smithers, Waldron
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)	Loder, J. de V.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Everard, W. Lindsay	Laugher, L.	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Lynn, Sir R. J.	Stanley, Lord (Fyide)
Fielden, E. B.	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Finburgh, S.	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Fleming, D. P.	Macintyre, Ian	Storry Deans, R.
Forrest, W.	Macmillan, Captain H.	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Foster, Sir Harry S.	Mac Robert, Alexander M.	Strickland, Sir Gerald
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Margesson, Captain D.	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Fraser, Captain Ian	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Styles, Captain H. Walter
Ganzoni, Sir John	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Gauit Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton	Neville, R. J.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D, L. (Exeter)	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Nuttall, Ellis	Tinne, J. A.
Goff, Sir Park	Oakley, T.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Grotrian, H. Brent	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Pennefather, Sir John	Warrender, Sir Victor
Hall. Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)	Penny, Frederick George	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Watson, sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Hammersley, S. S.	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Wells, S. R.
Hanbury, C.	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Wheter, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Feto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Harland, A.	Philipson, Mabel	Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Harrison, G. J. C.	Pielou, D. P.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Hartington, Marquess of	Pilcher, G.	Wilson. Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Hawke, John Anthony	Price, Major C. W. M.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichffeld)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C, M.	Radford, E. A.	Wise, Sir Fredric
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Raine, W.	Womersley, W. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Roes, Sir Beddoe	Wood, B C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Rentoul, G. S.	Wragg, Herbert
Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Hope. Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Rice, Sir Frederick	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hopkins, J. W. W.	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)	Captain Douglas Hacking and
Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)	Major Cope.
Horlick, Lieu.-Colonel J. N.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Widows of persons in Civil Service employment.)

The widow of every person who has been engaged in any Civil Service employment for a period of not less than fifteen years, and who died before the commencement of this Act or who dies within two years after the commencement of the Act, shall be entitled to the widow's pension provided by Section one of this Act ns if her husband had been a person who had complied with the statutory conditions of the Act. provided that the terms of his employment did not include the provision of a pension for his widow, and the ato of his remuneration at the time of his death or retirement from the service did not exceed two hundred and fifty pounds per annum.—[Mr. B. Peto.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. PETO

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I apologise for having to move another New Clause, but I think I shall be able to give reasons to the Committee why this matter should be carefully considered before we part with this Measure. The New Clause is perfectly clear, but if the Committee will allow me I will read it again. It is as follows:— The widow of every person who has been engaged in any Civil Service employment for period of not less than fifteen years, and who died before the commencement of this Act or who dies within two years after the commencement of the Act, shall be entitled to the widow's pension provided by Section one of this Act as if her husband had been a person who had complied with the statutory conditions of the Act, provided that the terms of his employment did not include the provision of a pension for his widow, and the rate of his remuneration at the time of his death or retirement from the service did not exceed two hundred and fifty pounds per annum. The people I have specially in mind are the widows of police officers who retired from the force before September, 1918. The Minister of Health two days ago, in moving his Amendment to Clause 15, was particular to point out that it was necessary for him to move that amendment in order to take out of the Bill police officers who were already providing in respect of their widows and children benefits better than those provided by this measure. The words he used were these: Paragraph (a) is designed to deal with the case of a policeman who has had every-thing provided for him that will be provided under this Bill. If that ex-policeman, having retired from police employment, and having the benefit accrued to him from his super-animation allowance, including provision for widows and children takes up in-surable employment, he is out of the Bill." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1925; col. 1005, Vol. 186.]

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

Will the hon. Member give the reference?

Mr. PETO

It is in the OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1005, on 13th July. If it is desirable and necessary for the Government to move an amendment to exclude these police officers who are provided for under the Police Pensions Act, owing to the fact that they retired after September, 1918, then surely it is necessary we should have an amendment to provide for those police officers who retired before September, 1918. and for whose widows and children no provision is made at present. The position with regard to them is not clear. Many of them will no doubt be able to come in under Clause 14, but I hope the Attorney-General will tell the Committee what particular class of police officers are about to get the advantages of this Bill. Some of them may be in insurable employment, but many are crippled by long years of service, and are unfit to enter employment. Some of them no doubt will be able to come in as voluntary contributors. I have one case of a man who was suffering from angina pectoris, which is a disease—

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

We did not hear the malady from which the man was suffering.

Mr. PETO

Angina pectoris, which hon Members know is a disease which may—[Interruption.] I want the Committee to consider seriously the position of a man under this Bill who has to retire. To get a pension for his widow he has to make 104 contributions. He joins and commences to pay them. I want to know what his position is if he pays 100 contributions and then becomes a victim to this dread disease. He has paid for nearly two years, only to find that his sacrifice is in vain. The position is not satisfactory with regard to these people, and I am thinking particularly of the wife of such a man. Take the wife of a police-constable who has had 29 years of service, during the whole of which he has been on duty in an isolated station, where his wife has had to search the female prisoners, answer the telephone at all hours of the day and night, provide meals for her husband at all hours, and do other work, quite unremunerated by the State. I quite admit the advantages of giving pensions to people in industrial employment, but I want to know why it is not possible to include such a widow as the one I have referred to, who has really given a. life of service to the State, and for whom, owing to the fact that her husband retired before a certain arbitrary date, no provision is made as far as I can see under this Bill. We may be told that Clause 18 of this Bill provides for pensions for the widows of those who die before the commencement of the Act. So far as these old people are concerned, that Clause does nothing. It requires that they should have children under 14 years of age. None of them are in that position, and therefore that particular Clause might just as well be out of the Bill. These are old people, and I ask the Attorney-General to give serious consideration to these cases, and at any rate to give me the assurance, if, as he may say, these cases ought to be dealt with under a Police Pensions Bill, that a Police Pensions Bill will be introduced into this House without any further delay if ho cannot see his way to what I think is a short and simple solution of the difficulty and include them under this Clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I am sorry not to be able to deal with the various hard cases which my hon. Friend has put forward. This is a Clause which proposes to deal with the widows of persons in Civil Service employment, and the short answer to it is that the police are not anything of the kind. They are not civil servants at all, and if the Clause were carried it would not have any effect on the position whatever. If my hon. Friend will produce a Police Pension Bill I will certainly consider it, but the Committee will not expect me, without any previous notice, to give a definite pledge as to what particular course we will take in regard to police pensions, which is not a matter that this Clause deals with at all.

Major HORE-BELISHA

It is rather unfortunate that the learned Attorney-General should take his stand upon a legal technicality of this kind. My hon. Friend, the Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto) has moved the Amendment and justified it with great lucidity, as is his habit. He wanted to move the substance of this Clause as an Amendment to one of the particular Clauses, and it was ruled from the Chair yesterday that if he did so, he would lose his right to move this as a new Clause, and it is very unfortunate for him, and still more unfortunate for the class of persons that he represents, that the Attorney-General, bringing to bear all his penetrating legal knowledge, should discover that the new Clause would not affect the objects which my hon. Friend has in view. In view of the fact that the Attorney-General, using all his legal skill, has discovered that this new Clause would be of no effect so far as the police are concerned, I think he himself will not deny that it would have some effect so far as the people mentioned in the Clause are concerned—namely, servants of the Crown—and it is a peculiar feature of this Bill that it seems to direct all its efforts to the exclusion of those who have faithfully served the country. Had certain Amendments not been accepted, and had certain concessions not been graciously made by the Minister of Health in the course of the discussions on this Bill, there is hardly a sailor, soldier, airman or servant of the Crown who would have got any pension of any kind under this Bill.

This Amendment, as it reads, is destined to give to those who have served the country faithfully for a period of years certain benefits which are conferred upon others, and I would have the Attorney-General observe that the servants of the Crown who are mentioned in this particular Amendment are, throughout their working lives, mulcted in contributions which far exceed the contributions which you are exacting under this Bill. They have to pay 2s., 3s., 4s. and 5s. every week of their lives in order to draw a miserable superannuation benefit at the age of 60, and their widows are left absolutely destitute upon their death. Seeing that the Attorney-General conceives the case of the police to be excluded from this Clause, I would ask him to the point which this Clause very generously raises on behalf of a section of Government servants who are deserving of very special consideration; that is to say, men who have worked faithfully for not less than 15 years.

Mr. PETO

Should I be in Order now in adding, after the words "Civil Servants," the words "or police employés"? I had these words in Amendments I put down on various Clauses all the way through the Bill, and I merely drafted this Clause in what I thought the widest possible way, and the Attorney-General, so to speak, trips me up because, although I have mentioned the police four or five times on the Order Paper, I was not aware of the technicality that they were not civil servants.

The CHAIRMAN

The Clause would first have to be read a Second time before an Amendment was possible. I might remind the hon. Member that new Clauses come first on the Report stage.

Mr. HAYES

I think the interpretation of the Attorney-General is probably technically correct. On the other hand, I am sure the Attorney-General will appreciate that police officers suffer all the disabilities of being civil servants, though perhaps not technically so. All the civil servant's disabilities are applicable to the police and prison services. I think it is only about ten days ago that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself replied to a question in the House, that a prison officer could not be allowed a Petition of Right to take proceedings against the Crown because he was suffering under the disability of being a servant of the Crown. In that case I do think there should be, if not within this Bill, certainly some immediate consideration given to the points that have been raised.

The CHAIRMAN

If the Attorney-General is right, a discussion about the police would not be relevant.

Mr. HAYES

I have not said the Attorney-General is bound to be correct, but that the new Clause reads "in any Civil Service employment." I think one would admit that the police forces of this country is distinctly Civil Service employ- ment, though policemen may not be civil servants in the technical sense as understood by the Attorney-General. The Home Secretary, but a few days ago, in reply to a question, did admit that he was intending to consider the question as to how far the widows of police officers would be placed in a less favourable position by this Bill than they otherwise would have been, and he is considering whether any fresh provision can be made. What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether he can tell the Committee if this question of the widows of the pre-1918 police officers will be taken into consideration in any legislation which may be contemplated? The widows of police. officers who resigned from the police force after 1918 are entitled to widows' pensions on a non-contributory basis, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) introduced the principle of non-contributory widows' pensions for police officers, it was denied to widows of police officers up to 1918. A large number of Members who supported the Coalition Government secured the inclusion of these particular widows, which this new Clause seeks to cover, but when the Bill reached the House of Lords the provision was removed upon the proposal of the Home Secretary. We are asking that some recognition should be given to this unfortunate class of widows who, though their husbands had contributed, were ignored by the House of Lords after the House of Commons itself intended they should be included.

Captain GARRO-JONES

May I ask for your ruling, Mr. Hope, in these particular circumstances. I think you at first imagined it would be in order to discuss the police. Would it be in order to withdraw this Clause and move it again with "and police" inserted after "civil servants"—I mean to move it again at once?

The CHAIRMAN

I think it would be in order, but at the same time I would very much deprecate it. If it is put down on Report I shall make it my business to draw the Speaker's attention to it.

Captain GARRO - JONES

The Attorney-General pointed out that he had not been given notice of this Clause. It may therefore be presumed that he drew on his memory when he said that civil servants did not include police. What is his authority for saying that?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I think if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look it up he will find that police are paid out of the rates and are, therefore, not civil servants. I might explain to the hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause that I had no idea he proposed to deal with the police until he mentioned it, and naturally, I was not prepared to deal with that matter, which I had no idea was to be raised. In regard to civil servants, any civil servants who retire after the commencement of the Act will have an opportunity of keeping their insurance for widows' pensions by becoming voluntary contributors. Any civil servant who died before the Act came into force will, if they are insured persons, have the same rights as other insured persons.

Mr. MACLEAN

The Attorney-General stated that the police forces of the country are paid through the rates. The Metropolitan Police are under the Home Office. They are paid not out of the rates but by the Government. Are they not in the category of being civil servants?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

Docs not that apply largely throughout the country to all police forces? They are paid a large amount of their pay and expenses from the Treasury.

Mr. PETO

I would like to adopt the suggestion to withdraw this Clause now and consider putting it down in a better form for the Report stage. I can quite understand the position now, though I did not do so previously.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Rates of Contributions.)

Mr. LAMB

I beg to move, in page 39, line 14, column 1, after the word "men," to insert the words not employed in agricultural occupations as defined for the purposes of The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. This Amendment has also relation to that which stands in my name: "Schedule I, page 39, line 15, col. 1, after "women," insert not employed in agricultural occupations as defined for the purpose of The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, 1.0 A.M.

and the further proposed Amendment to the Schedule I, page 35, line 15, in respect of rates of contribution, I quite realise that the House is not in a mood to listen to a lengthy statement, but I do ask the Committee to give me the time to do justice to a case which I think has a grievance under the Bill. The Amendment to the Schedule is to reduce the charge to the industry of agriculture. The figures 9d. and 8½d. are being charged, and the figures 3d. and 1½d. which I have put down require some justification. I would like to refer very briefly to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that no fresh burden can be placed on the land in the absence of a complete rural policy. That statement I agree with, and I am glad a Member of the Government has made that statement so recently in the House. It gives me hope that consideration will be given to this Amendment. The Government have included agricultural workers in this Bill, and I am not one of those who want to exclude them because I could not possibly stand by and see benefits offered to employment in other industries without these benefits being assured to agricultural workers. But what I do dispute is the basis of the inclusion. Referring again to the Schedule you will see. that the charge is 9d. Under Schedule 3 the new charge for Health Insurance will be reduced from 10d. to 9d., giving a relief of 1d. There is also a further reduction of 1d. which brings the charge down to 3d. Then in the Unemployment Insurance Bill there is a further reduction to those in any industry coming under it, of 2d. and 2d., or 4d. in all. The charge for those employed in agriculture, with the reduction of 1d., is just double the charge which is going to be imposed upon other industries. The reason for that is quite simple, because the agricultural industry, not having been previously an industry brought under the Unemployment Insurance scheme, there is to be no relief of 2d. and 2d. That is where the difference comes in. Consequently, the new charge will be 8d. as against 4d. in the other industries. I believe the agricultural industry is entitled to receive the benefit the same as ether industries. The industry has carried its own unemployment. There is no unemployment in agriculture. Almost curiously there are as many men employed in agriculture now as before the War, and they are being maintained by the industry. They are accordingly entitled to this 4d. relief, which would bring an equality in so far as it would be a 4d. increase. I see that the other figures do not tally with the figures in the Amendment, but the charges made for the benefit received under the Health Insurance were heavier than were necessary for the industry. I do ask the Minister, if he cannot accept the figures in this Amendment and to consider seriously the 4d. and 2d. which I have proved should be applicable to the industry. I am only asking for fair treatment. If there is no concession made, the burden upon the agricultural industry will be over £1,338,000 per annum. I am asking, not for a concession, but for justice to the industry in comparison with the charges upon other industries. I make that request to the Minister, especially after the expression of opinion by the. Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

My hon. Friend has certainly put his case shortly, concisely and moderately, but I think he will not be altogether surprised when I say I cannot accept the proposal. It comes to this, that whatever the reduced figures which might be put into the Schedule, he wants to give all the benefits provided in the Bill to one particular class of people at reduced contributions— contributions below that which other people pay for the benefits. Once you say you are going to make an exception for a particular industry and you give a concession of this kind, how can you stop there? There are other industries which are certainly quite as deserving of special consideration. While my hon. friend has based his case entirely on the relative increases in the contributions which are going to be paid in various forms of insurance, he has not shown us what is going to be the net result upon agriculture and other industries. If all the reductions he has mentioned are taken into account, including the reductions in unemployment insurance provided for in the new Bill. the position is that in other industries the total contribution is 2s. 9d., of which the man pays Is. 4d. and the employer Is. 5d.; but in the case of agriculture it is Is. 6d., of which the man and the employer both pay half.

Mr. LAMB

We maintain our own unemployed.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

If there is no unemployment, no insurance is required against unemployment. It is a strange, illogical argument that, because some industries have a burden upon them, agriculture, which has not that burden, should have similar relief.

Mr. LAMB

Will you allow me to elaborate that particular point? Agriculture maintains its own unemployment. Agriculture employs all the men it had before the War. These men are kept on all the time, when they are not fully employed. Men are maintained in pay, when in other industries there would be short time.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN

When all the other industries get some benefit it stops at agriculture. All we ask in this Amendment is that the same reduction should be given to agriculture as to other industries. Agriculture at the present moment has had very little done for it. If something is done, it may help to populate and develop the countryside. Unless something is done, I am sure that, instead of getting people into the country, you will drive them out of it.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON

May I support the Amendment moved from the other side of the Committee? The reason I do so is that the burden put upon the agricultural back is out of all proportion to the benefits which they receive.

Question put, "That these words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 148.

Division No. 296.]	AYES.	[1.12 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hilisbro')	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Shepperson, E. W.
Ammon, Charles George	Hayday, Arthur	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barr, J.	Hayes, John Henry	Sitch, Charles H.
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Hirst, G. H.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dinc. C.I
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. sir George L.	Huntingfield, Lord	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Crawfurd, H. E.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Day, Colonel Harry	Kelly, W. T.	Westwood, J.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Kennedy, T.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Duncan, C,	Lawson, John James	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Windsor, Walter
Gillett, George M.	Philipson, Mabel
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Potts, John S.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES —
Grundy, T. W.	Rice, Sir Frederick	Sir Thomas Davies and Mr. Lamb.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
NOES.
Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Foster, Sir Harry S.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Cooper, A. Duff	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Cope. Major William	Fraser, Captain Ian
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Crookshank, Cpt, H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Ganzoni, Sir John
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Barclay-Harvey C. M.	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Dalkeith, Earl of	Goff, Sir Park
Bethell, A.	Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Grotrian, H. Brent
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Blundell, F. N.	Dawson, Sir Philip	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Duckworth, John	Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Brass, Captain W.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Hall, Capt. W. O'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Briggs, J. Harold	Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Hanbury, C.
Briscoe, Richard George	England, Colonel A.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Harland, A.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)	Harrison, G. J. C.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Everard, W. Lindsay	Hartington, Marquess of
Burman, J. B.	Faile, sir Bertram G.	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Campbell, E. T.	Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxford, Henley)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Fielden, E. B.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Finburgh, S.	Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Clayton, G. C.	Fleming, D. P.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Forrest, W.	Hopkins, J. W. W.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Strickland, Sir Gerald
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Jacob, A. E.	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Styles, Captain H. Walter
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Pielou, O. P.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.	Pilcher, G.	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Radford, E. A.	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Little, Dr. E. Graham	Raine, W.	Tinne, J. A.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Rentoul, G. S.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Lynn, Sir R. J.	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Warrender, Sir Victor
MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Ropner, Major L.	Wells, S. R.
Macintyre, Ian	Salmon, Major I.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Macmillan, Captain H.	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
MacRobert, Alexander M.	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Wilson Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Womersley, W. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Smithers, Waldron	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Wood E (Chest'r Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Nuttall, Ellis	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)	Wragg, Herbert
Oakley, T.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Captain Margesson and Mr. F. C.
Pennefather, Sir John	Storry, Deans, R.	Thomson.
Penny, Frederick George	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

There is a long series of Amendments dealing with the same point of principle and I do not think there should be a discussion on each. A Debate might take place on the first one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton).

Mr. R. MORRISON

Will that decision of yours apply to all sections of the first Schedule?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I do not think we ought to have a different discussion on each.

Mr. DALTON

I beg to move, in page 39, line 14, column 2, to leave out "9d.," and to insert instead thereof "4d."

So far as we are concerned we shall be quite content with a general discussion raised by these Amendments and of taking one Division, but we do intend to divide the Committee once on the points laid down in our Amendments. What we propose is, not to wipe out the contributions altogether, but to mitigate their incidence on industry and to re-adjust the rates of contributions by making the series of reductions as set out in the series of Amendments. The first is to leave out 9d. and insert 4d. At an earlier stage in the Debate arguments were adduced from this side of the Committee, but they did not make very much impression upon the Government. Since that time certain things have happened. Unemployment has increased and to that extent the position is more serious than it was when we from this side of the House appealed vainly to the Government to have some regard for the burden thrown upon the wage earners. I hope there will be left a tender place in the hearts of those on the Treasury Bench. I feel that the change which has taken place in the circumstances justify us in making a last appeal to the Minister of Health to reconsider the incidence of these rates. It would not be in order for me to refer to the details of the new Unemployment Insurance Bill which has just been introduced, but it will have a certain effect on the situation as was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman on a previous Amendment. But when all allowance is made for the activities of the Government in searching the pockets of the unemployed in order to replace some of the money paid by the employers it still remains true— [Interruption.] I cannot dwell upon that point, as it would be out of order; and I am sorry that the present state of business in the Committee has not lead the unemployed on the other side of the Committee to greater activity on this Bill. It is true, however, that the burden on industry is considerably increased by the net effect of these two Bills taken together, and that at a time when industry is rapidly proceeding from bad to worse. I hope it is not too late to ask for a reasoned reply from the Government and I hope we shall not be put off with the statement, which is, of course, obviously true, but quite insufficient, that it will cost a large sum of money. Obviously it will do that. If the Amendments are accepted, it would mean a Supplementary Finance Bill, and hon. Members opposite would have to postpone their visit to Scotland, but still the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be prepared for the acceptance of those Amendments. He should be prepared with a Supplementary Finance Bill, re-imposing some of the Super-tax and Income Tax which was taken off in the last Finance Bill.

Mr. R. MORRISON

I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Peckham in his general statement in regard to contributions and only rise to make one brief point with regard to Part II of Schedule I. The proposal there seems to me to be most iniquitous. It is a proposal that when a man or woman has attained the age of 65, when the contributions cease to be payable in respect of old men and women, the employers shall pay double contributions. On the face of it, that appears to be a concession to these old people, but when one examines it it is found that it will have a most pernicious effect. If this part of the Schedule is carried it means that the attention of the employer will be deliberately drawn to the fact that a man or woman in his employ has reached the age of 65. There are many men in industry who are past 65 years of age and the employer is quite unaware of the fact. They work as hard and as industriously as they can in order to disguise their age as long as possible, but by this proposal the deliberate attention of the employer is drawn to the fact that they have reached this age. What will be the result? I suggest that the actual result will be one of two things. The employer will either discharge them because they have reached 65, or else he will immediately approach them with a view of putting upon them a substantial reduction in wages. I think this is grossly unfair to old people, and this House should not go out of its way to draw the attention

of employers to their having reached this age. It is not the business of an employer what age his employés are so long as they give satisfactory service. The Minister of Health has not made any concessions lately and there is not much time left for him to do so, but I hope that even at this late hour he will not put this penalty upon these old people when they reach the age of 65 by deliberately drawing the attention of their employers to the fact.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The contributions which are payable in Part II of this Schedule, are in respect not only of pensions but of health insurance as well, and the hon. Member is, under a misapprehension in supposing that the 9d. paid by the employer is doubled in respect of these men. It is not. We are keeping the contributions exactly where they are. That I hope will clear up any apprehension of the hon. Member. With regard to the general point. I take it we all look upon this Amendment as a final demonstration. I have no objection to a demonstration as a sort of finish to the discussions we have had, but I hardly think it is worth while to argue it again. Sufficient is it for me in say that if the Amendment is carried the scheme would be rendered insolvent.

Major CRAWFURD

I desire to say one word, not with any hope of affecting the Government in any decision or with any desire to keep the Committee, but simply as a protest against the failure of the Government to meet the criticisms which have been made, not only from these benches but from all parts of the House, against the way this Bill is being financed. As a final protest I shall vote, for the Amendment.

Question put, "That '9d.' stand part of the Schedule"

The Committee divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 39.

Division No. 297.]	AYES.	[1.28 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Boothby, R. J. G.	Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Bourne, Captain Robert	Croft Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Brass, Captain W.	Clayton, G. C.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Brings, J. Harold	Cobb, Sir Cyril
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Briscoe, Richard George	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Brooklebank, C. E. R.	Cope, Major William
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Courtauld, Major J. S.
Bethell, A.	Burman, J, B.	Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Burton, Colonel H: W.	Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Llndsey Gainsbro)
Blundell, F. N.	Campbell, E. T.	Curzon, Captain Viscount
Dalkeith, Earl of	Jacob, A. E.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Kidd, J. (Linilthgow)	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Dawson, Sir Philip	Lamb, J. Q.	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.	Shepperson, E. W.
Duckworth. John	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Little, Dr. E. Graham	Smith, R. w.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)	Smithers, Waldron
England, Colonel A.	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Lynn, Sir R. J.	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E)
Everard, W. Lindsay	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Macintyre, Ian	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Macmillan, Captain H.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Fieldon, E. B.	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Storry Deans, R.
Finburgh, S.	Margesson, Captain D.	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Fleming, D. P.	Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Strickland, Sir Gerald
Forrest, W.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Foster, Sir Harry S.	Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Neville, R. J.	Styles, Captain H. Walter
Fraser, Captain Ian	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Ganzoni Sir John	Nuttall, Ellis	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Oakley, T.	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir John	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Tinne, J. A.
God, Sir Park	Pennefather, Sir John	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Grotrian, H. Brent	Penny, Frederick George	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Warrender, Sir Victor
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Wells. S. R.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Phillpson, Mabel	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Hanbury. C.	Pleiou, D. P.	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Pileher, G.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Harland, A.	Radford, E. A.	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Harrison, G. J. C.	Raine, W.	Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Hartington, Marquess of	Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Rentoul, G. S.	Womersley, W. J.
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Herbert, s.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Rice, Sir Frederick	Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Hogg Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)	Wragg, Herbert
Hopkins, J. W. W.	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.	Ropner, Major L.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	Salmon, Major I.	Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.
Huntingfield, Lord
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)	Hayday, Arthur	Sitch, Charles H.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hayes, John Henry	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Ammon, Charles George	Hirst, G. H.	Smitn, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotnerhithe)
Barr, J.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Tinker, John Joseph
Crawfurd, H. E.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dalton, Hugh	Kelly, W. T.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Kennedy, T.	Westwood, J.
Day, Colonel Harry	Lawson, John James	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Duncan, C.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gillett, George M.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Windsor, Walter
Grundy, T. W.	Potts, John S.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Saklatvala, Shapurji	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Shiels, Dr. Drummond	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

Amendment made: In page 40, line 3, leave out from the second word "employment," to the word "and," in line 9, and insert instead thereof the words

"to which paragraph (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section nine of this Act applies."— [Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I beg to move, in page 40, line 14, column 3, to leave out "4½d.," and to insert instead thereof "3½d."

Even at this very late hour Intend to put the case for the poor down- trodden ratepayers of the country before the Committee. I am speaking on behalf of those numerous local authorities throughout the country who have adopted superannuation schemes. Under the provisions of the Health Insurance Acts certificates of exemption have been granted to these authorities because they had superannuation schemes, and I presume certificates will be issued to them under this Bill. That being so, the employés, being men, will not have the benefit of the scheme in the full, so far as it relates to old age pensions. They will have the benefit of the scheme, so far as it relates to the widows' pensions and orphans' pensions. The total contribution under the Bill, in respect of men, will be reduced from 9d. to 7d. a week, but, instead of this contribution being shared equally. 4½d. will be payable by the local authority and 2½d. by the men. Many local authorities have adopted superannuation schemes, and they are liable to make up any deficit in these funds. They will have, under the Act as it stands, to pay precisely the same contributions as those employers of labour who do not provide superannuation schemes for their men. It is only an act of justice that these contributions should be equally divided between the employer and the employed. I speak on behalf of the poor down-trodden ratepayers of this country, many of them in receipt of far less wages than their employés, and with no superannuation scheme for them to rely upon in their old age, except what is provided in this Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I do think it is a reasonable suggestion that the contribution should be divided equally, but the hon. Gentleman will see that while reducing the contribution made by the employer he does not propose that an adjustment of the employés contribution should be made. If I accept the Amendment to reduce the 4½d. it will be necessary to bring forward another Amendment on Report.

HON. MEMBERS: It is on the Paper.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I have not seen one on the Paper.

Mr. MACLEAN

Are you accepting it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Yes.

Mr. MACLEAN

Do not accept anything at this hour of the morning. Are we to understand that the Minister is accepting an Amendment to put another penny on the employés contribution.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN indicated dissent.

Mr. MACLEAN

You are shaking your head.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I cannot carry on a conversation with the hon. Member.

Mr. MACLEAN

I do not think shaking your head is a conversation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member will put his question definitely, he will receive an answer.

Mr. MACLEAN

I put my question. The Minister shook his head. I took that to be his reply.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

He may have been shaking it for some other purpose.

Mr. MACLEAN

At this hour of the morning there are many purposes for which an individual shakes his head, I do not know for what the right hon. Gentleman shook his head. I asked him if he was increasing the contribution to the unemployed by a penny?

Mr. R. DAVIES

I am a little bewildered—

Mr. MACLEAN

I am asking a question, and according to the answer I intend to speak or remain silent.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It was quite usual for Ministers to wait until other hon. Members have spoken before giving a reply.

Mr. MACLEAN

In that case, I can go on with my speech.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I have already called upon the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton.

Mr. MACLEAN

I must point out that I was on my foot speaking, and gave way, expecting the Minister was going to rise. I will continue my speech.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I understood the hon. Member had put his question, and he having resumed his seat, I naturally called upon another hon. Member.

Mr. MACLEAN

May I remind you that I addressed a question to the Minister. I took it that he would reply. You stated he might have indicated something else. I gave way to him to afford him an opportunity of replying verbally to the Committee.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN

The Minister may reply after the other hon. Member has made his speech. If the hon. Member is not satisfied, he may make another speech.

Mr. DAVIES

I am a little bewildered at the result of the moving of this Amendment. The Minister may have given way for very substantial reasons, but a fundamental alteration of the Schedule has been made. I do not know whether the Minister actually promises to accept the Amendment now, or whether he intends to bring the matter up again on the Report stage so that we may see the new rate of contribution on the Paper. So far as we are concerned, we do not intend to allow this to pass without some further explanation of what it means. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what is the change contemplated as the result of this Amendment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I think the request is a reasonable one. The particular part of the First Schedule which is being dealt with here is that which lays down the rates of contribution in respect of persons in excepted employment. The hon. Gentleman will see that that has reference to people employed under the Crown by local authorities and by public authorities. These people are excepted from contributions in respect of old age pensions only. They are not excepted in respect of other benefits under the Bill. The result of that exception is that the total contribution required from the employer and from the man is, instead of 9d., reduced to 7d. In the Bill as drafted the whole of the surplus is taken off the man's contribution, whereas the Eon. Member desires that the 2d, taken off should be divided equally between the employer and the employed. The hon. Member will, of course, note that in other cases the rates are equally divided between the employer and the employed, and the same thing is desired in regard to the 7d. It does not seem to me an unreasonable request.

Mr. DAVIES

It seems to me that the embargo is put on the employés.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

It does not mean that. There is 2d. taken off altogether from the total rate of 9d. Of this 4½d. is paid by the employer and 4½d. by the man.

Mr. DAVIES

I must be very dense on the subject. In the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment I find that the rate of contribution will be 7d., that is, 2d. off the 9d. Then the next column points out that payment by the employer is 4½d. and by the employed person 2½d. As I understand his Amendment it is that instead of 4½d. and 2½d., we are to have 3½d in respect of each of the parties. That is what I was trying to paint out. You are taking a penny off the employers' contribution and adding a penny to the contribution of the employed. I think this is really a very important change to accept at a very late hour like this.

Captain BENN

I certainly think the right hon. Gentleman on an earlier Amendment which proposed to vary the rate of contribution said, "I regard it as a demonstration," and dismissed it. Then, to the surprise of Members of the Committee, he accepted a similar Amendment.

Mr. BLUNDELL

Is not this Amendment merely consequential to the Amendment accepted on page 9, line 15, of Clause 9, on Monday last?

Captain BENN

Some hon. Members seem to imagine that consequential Amendments to Government Amendments are moved by private Members.

Mr. BLUNDELL

The Amendment was accepted by the Minister, and I submit the Amendment to the Schedule is merely consequential.

Captain BENN

I do not know whether the Minister desires to make any remarks on that, or whether I may be permitted to put the point I wish to put. It appears to be thought that it is a consequential Amendment. If it is a new one, then I think we have reason to complain that, without any notice to anyone, the right hon. Gentleman has come forward and increased the contribution of this particular class of employed man and woman. I expect that, as the right hon. Gentleman accepted the first Amendment, he will also accept the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Walt-hamstow (Sir H. Greenwood). I should like to ask the Minister of Health how many people are going to be affected by that Amendment and how many contributions are going to be exacted? We should have known all this before the Amendment was accepted.

Mr. WHEATLEY

This is a very important Amendment that has been accepted, and I wish to get some information about it. I want to turn back to page 39. It is stated that the 4½d. and the 2½d. are exactly as they are in Part IV. Would the Minister explain to us why 2½d. is put down and accepted in Part III and why, when it was put down in Part IV, it is now being changed to 3½d.? If the full benefits are to be given, the contribution will be 9d., or 4½d. for the employer and 4½d. for the employed. I want to know why there is this difference between Part III and Part IV.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The right hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity of making this perhaps still clearer. According to the Schedule to which he has referred, Part III deals with the case of exempted persons—persons who are in receipt of a salary of more than £250 a year and are not engaged in manual labour. It is important that the contribution should be the same in the case of all persons in the same employment who are not exempted. That is the reason the 4½d. is kept in the case of exempted persons. When you come to reflect upon the matter, the case of the excepted person is different. The exception applies to the whole employment and therefore there is no question of giving preference to one or the other.

Captain BENN

Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the information I asked?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I find that in line 16 of page 9 an Amendment was accepted which says it shall be payable as to one-half by the employer and the other half by the employed.

Captain BENN

I asked the Minister to tell us how many people are affected by it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I do not see that has anything to do with it. The question is whether it is a fair arrangement.

2.0 A.M.

Mr. MACLEAN

Might I ask this of the Minister: In Part III exempted

persons are persons with salaries over £250 per year, but in Part IV excepted employment, according to the statement by the Mover of the Amendment, includes individuals employed by the local authorities. Is it not rather unfair that individuals who are earning £250 a year should be asked to pay only 2½d., whereas the employé of a local authority is to have this other 1d. clapped upon him? It is not the class of individual who is paying under Part IV; it is the individual under Part III, and under Part III I maintain the individual is better off to pay the addition than the individual is under Part IV. May I also ask this point of the Minister of Health: When these particular schedules were drafted and when these scales of contributions were inserted in the Schedule surely the general financial situation has been gone into by the Minister and he advisers, and they had very good reasons why the contributions were put down in the proportions stated in these parts of the Schedule. I think the House is due to an explanation why, in the first place, the Minister and his advisers arrived at the scales set down, and then that the Minister should suddenly rise to his feet and accept the Amendment that has been moved without giving any explanation or Statement as to the reasons that caused him to raise the scales as set out in the Schedule.

Mr. WHEATLEY

We are agreeing to this on the condition that we shall raise it on the Report stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I beg to move, in page 40, line 14, column 4, to leave out "2½d." and to insert instead thereof "3½d."

Question put, "That '2½d.' stand part of the Schedule.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 37; Noes, 151.

Division No. 298.]	AYES.	[2.8 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Gillett, George M.	Kennedy, T.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Lawson, John James
Ammon, Charles George	Hayday, Arthur	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Barr, J.	Hayes, John Henry	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Potts, John S.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Day, Colonel Harry	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Duncan, C.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Kelly, W. T.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Tinker, John Joseph	Westwood, J.	Windsor, Walter
Watson. W. M. (Duntermline)	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
		Mr. Dalton and Major Crawfurd.
NOES.
Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Rentoul, G. S.
Alexander. Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Goff, Sir Park	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Grotrian, H. Brent	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Ballour, George (Hampstead)	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Barclay-Harvey, c. M.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Ropner, Major L.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Hanbury, C.	Salmon, Major I.
Bethell, A.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Harrison, G. J. C.	Sanderson, sir Frank
Blundell, F. N.	Hartington, Marquess of	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Brass, Captain W.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Shepperson, E. W.
Briggs, J. Harold	Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Slaney, Major p. Kenyon
Briscoe, Richard George	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Smithers, Waldron
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Burman, J. B.	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N)	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Huntingfield, Lord	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E)
Campbell, E. T.	Jacob, A. E.	Stanley, Lord (Fyide)
Chad wick, Sir Robert Burton	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Chamberlain, At. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Clayton, G. C.	Kidd, J, (Linlithgow)	Storry Deans, R.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Lamb, J. Q.	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Cochrane, commander Hon. A. D.	Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.	Strickland, Sir Gerald
Cope. Major William	Little, Dr. E. Graham	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	styles, Captain H. Walter
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Lynn, Sir R. J.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Dalkeith, Earl of	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Davidson, J.(Hertt'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Macintyre, Ian	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Macmillan, Captain H.	Tinne, J. A.
Dawson, Sir Philip	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Margesson, Captain D.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Duckworth, John	Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. c. R. (Ayr)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph	Wells, S. R.
England, Colonel A.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	whether, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)	Nuttall, Ellis	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Everard, W. Lindsay	Oakley, T.	Wilson, Sir C, H. (Leeds, Central)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	O'Connor, T, J. (Bedford, Luton)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Penneiather, Sir John	Wise, Sir Fredric
Fielden, E. B.	Penny, Frederick George	Womersley, W. J.
Finburgh, S.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Fleming, D. P.	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Foster, Sir Harry S.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Wragg, Herbert
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Pielou, D. P.
Fraser, Captain Ian	Pilcher, G.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Radford, E. A.	Colonel Gibbs and Captain Viscount
Ganzoni, Sir John	Raine, W.	Curzon.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Question, "That '3½d.' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 40, line 15, column 3, leave out "2½d." and insert instead thereof "2d."—[Mr. Womersley.]

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I beg to move, in page 40, line 15, column 4, to leave out "Id." and to insert instead thereof "1½d."

Question put, "That 'Id.' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

The CHAIRMAN declared that, in his opinion, the Noes had it; but his decision being challenged it appealed to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed. Re accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged, his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Noes had it, 3V Members only, who had challenged his decision, having risen in their places.

"l½d." there inserted.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS

(seated and covered): On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member opposite in order in describing hon. Members on this side of the Committee as "Red Indians"? [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN

I know of no precedent for it.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 36.

Division No. 299.]	AYES.	[2.19 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Raine, W.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Goff, Sir Park	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Grotrian, H. Brent	Rentoul, G. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Hanbury, C.	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Bethell, A.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Ropner, Major L.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Harrison, G. J. C.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Blundell, F. N.	Hartington, Marquess of	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Boothby, R. J. G.	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxford, Henley)	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Brass, Captain W.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Briggs, J. Harold	Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Shepperson, E. W.
Briscoe, Richard George	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.	Smithers, Waldron
Burman, J. B.	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Huntingfield, Lord	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Campbell, E. T.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Jacob, A. E.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Clayton, G. C.	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Storry Deans, R.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Lamb, J. Q.	Stott Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Cope. Major William	Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.	Strickland, Sir Gerald
Courtauld, Major J. s.	Little. Dr. E. Graham	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Locker-Lampson. Com. O. (Handsw'th)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Styles, Captain H. Walter
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lynn, Sir R. J.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, S.)
Davies, Sir Thom (Cirencester)	Macintyre, Ian	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Dawson, Sir Philip	Macmillan, Captain H.	Tinne, J. A.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Duckworth, John	Margesson, Captain D.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
England, Colonel A.	Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph	Wells, S. R.
Erskine Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Neville, R. J.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Everard, W. Lindsay	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Nuttall, Ellis	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Oakley, T.	Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Fielden, E, B.	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Finburgh, S.	Pennefather, Sir John	Womersley. W. J.
Fleming, D. P.	Penny, Frederick George	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Foster, Sir Harry s.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Wragg, Herbert
Fraser, Captain Ian	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Pleiou, D. P.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Ganzoni, Sir John	Pilcher, G.	Colonel Gibbs and Captain Viscount
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Radford, E. A.	Curzon.

NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (File, West)	Hayday, Arthur	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Alexander A V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hayes, John Henry	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Ammon, Charles Ceorge	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Barr, J.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Tinker, John Joseph
Benn Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Crawfurd, H. E.	Kelly, W. T.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dalton, Hugh	Kennedy, T.	Westwood, J.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lawson, John James	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Day, Colonel Harry	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Duncan, C.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Windsor, Walter
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Potts, John S.
Gillett George M.	Saklatvala, Shapurji	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Guest. Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Disqualifications for Receipt of Pension.)

Motion made, and Question put, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

Miss WILKINSON

On a point of Order. Do I understand that in that very hurried manner—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I can assure hon. Gentlemen, whatever their opinions may be—

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Lady will please address her remarks to me.

Miss WILKINSON

I only wish to assure you that not in the slightest degree was I passing any reflection on the Chair, but there is something that I and several of my hon. Friends wish to raise on this Schedule, and we did not realise you had passed it. I want to suggest that this is too important a matter to be rushed through in a quick sentence before we really heard it.

The CHAIRMAN

It may be that the hon. Lady was beginning to say something which I did not hear, so I will give her the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. DALTON

On a point of Order. May I ask whether you have any intention of calling the Amendment on the Paper in the name of three of my hon. Friends on the Second Schedule?

The CHAIRMAN

I understood that that was not to be moved. The question is, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

Miss WILKINSON

Although we have reached a very late hour, I hope we are not going to have a Schedule of this importance rushed through without due consideration. I wish that hon. Members would look at paragraph (1), and especially the proviso. It says that A person who has become an inmate of any workhouse or other Poor Law institution for the purpose of obtaining medical or surgical treatment shall not, during a period of three months from the date on which he and, presumably, "she," in the case of a widow, is receiving such treatment. I want to suggest to the Minister that that is far too short a time. You may have a woman going into hospital for a very serious operation. I would remind the Minister of Health that there are many districts in the country where there are not sufficient hospital beds, and where the Poor Law institution is used regularly as a hospital by the working-class population who cannot afford to pay the high fees for nursing homes, and especially during the present trade depression. A woman of this kind goes into a Poor Law hospital for a very serious operation, under which she cannot normally recover under three months. She may be there four, five or even six months, and, in addition to having the worry of leaving her children behind her when the father is dead, she has to make provision while she is in hospital for these children to be looked after; she will have the additional worry of—

The CHAIRMAN

On looking at the matter I find that this Second Schedule is merely a recital of certain provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act and has no enacting words itself. If the hon. lady will look at Clause 21, she will there find that these are the enacting words: Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Section, the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, with respect to the disqualifications for the receipt of a pension under those Acts (which provisions are set out with necessary adaptations in the Second Schedule to this Act), shall as so set out have effect as of re-enacted in this Act. The only question on this Schedule is whether these provisions are properly set out. The principle has been enacted in Clause 21, and this is merely a recital, so it is not in order to examine it on the merits.

Captain BENN

If it were desired to alter, for the purpose of this Bill, some of the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act, would this not be a proper place to raise the matter?

The CHAIRMAN

It would have to be done on Clause 21. It is merely set out to elucidate Clause 21.

Mr. HADEN GUEST

I hope the Minister of Health may find some way to get round the difficulty. No doubt it is correctly set out, but three months is too short for the treatment of women and sometimes men.

The CHAIRMAN

That question may be raised on the Report stage.

Question put, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Viscount Curzon were nominated Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Members willing to act' as Tellers for the Noes, the Chairman declared that the Ayes had it.

Third Schedule agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE. — (Consequential Amendments of Unemployment Insurance Acts.)

Amendment made: Leave out the Schedule.—[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]

NEW SCHEDULE.—(Application of Section 15 (V) to a person whose remuneration exceeded two hundred and fifty pounds a year.)

Where a person who has been employed in an employment which would have been an excepted employment within the meaning of Section fifteen of this Act had the rate of his remuneration not exceeded two hundred and fifty pounds a year has on retirement from such employment, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been granted a superannuation allowance, then—

1. (i) Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (7) of the said Section shall apply to him if, had the rate of his remuneration not exceeded the amount aforesaid, no contributions under this Act would, or would had he continued in the employment after the commencement of this Act, have been payable in respect of him;
2. (ii) Paragraph (b) of the said Sub-section shall apply to him if, had the rate of his remuneration not exceeded the amount aforesaid, contributions at the rates mentioned in Part IV of the First Schedule to this Act would, or would had he continued in the employment after the commencement of this Act, have been payable in respect of him.

Provided that where a person to whom paragraph (a) of the said Sub-section would by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this Schedule apply is a person who at the commencement of this Act was an insured or exempt person, he shall be treated as if he were a person to whom paragraph (a) of the said Sub-section did not, but paragraph (b) thereof did, apply. —[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]

Schedule read a First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 219.]