HC Deb 04 March 1925 vol 181 cc511-27

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th February], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

6.0 P.M.


We on these benches are quite pleased that the Secretary for Scotland has seen fit to introduce this Bill, notwithstanding the limitation of its character. Although the price of insulin has decreased of late yet, in cases in which it is required by the poorer section of the community, it still imposes upon them a considerable drain. When I introduced a Bill of a character similar to this last year I calculated that the provision of insulin would involve a weekly expenditure of something like 4s. or 5s for each person who had to use that drug. Notwithstanding that the price may have fallen since then, the provision of this drug, for certain sections of our people, still imposes a considerable drain on their resources. Under existing legislation a considerable proportion of our people are entitled to be provided with insulin. For instance, those who are insured under the National Health Insurance Act can be provided through the medium of their approved societies. Persons for whom the Poor Law has to make provision can also get it through the Poor Law authorities, and expectant mothers, nursing mothers and their infants and children under five years of age can also get this drug in cases of diabetes through the maternity and welfare schemes. The remainder of the community, which includes workmen who are working on their own account and the wives and children of insured persons, are still left without any means of being provided with insulin in cases of diabetes. Under the Public Health Acts in England the local authorities are empowered to provide the poorer people with this drug where necessary. In the Bill which I introduced last year provision was also made to extend the powers to other diseases than diabetes, by an Order of the Scottish Board of Health, the object being to enable medicine to be available in the event of any equally effective cure being found for some other diseases such as cancer. This provision has been omitted: from the Bill introduced by the Secretary for Scotland. I enter my emphatic protest and the protest of my colleagues on these benches against this omission.

When the Bill was under discussion last week, the Secretary for Scotland was asked if the matter could be remedied by an Amendment in Committee, and his answer was that that was a matter for the Chairman, but I find, on referring to the Title of this Bill, that such an Amendment would not be in order. I think that the Secretary for Scotland knew that such an Amendment would not be in order: and hence the guarded nature of the answer that he gave. What we have to say on this Bill must therefore be said either on Second or Third Beading. I cannot understand the reason for the Secretary for Scotland or the local authorities opposing the extension of the provisions, of this Bill to other diseases when as effective a cure has been found as insulin has proved itself to be. Such an extension would enable our local authorities to deal effectively and adequately with the health of our people under proper safeguards. The safeguards were provided in the Bill which we introduced last year. The extension was to take place only after an Order extending the powers under the Bill had been laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for 21 days, and had not been objected to.

I am aware that during the course of last year's discussion on the Bill one of the supporters of the Government, one of the Members for the Scottish Universities, pointed out that, in the event of as effective a cure being found for other diseases as insulin has proved itself to be in the case of diabetes, the necessary legislation could be passed through in order to make this new treatment available. That means a waste of valuable time during which our poor are left without treatment. I am opposed to that entirely. What we want in the case of serious illness is promptness. 'We may have as effective a remedy for cancer discovered at any moment. The whole scientific world is concentrated upon this most dreaded of all diseases, and a remedy may be found which may be as effective in cases of cancer as insulin is in the case of diabetes, and which should be made as freely available for our people. One of the medical Members of this House last year told us in the Debate that one out of every seven persons over the age of 45 dies of this dreadful disease. It is appalling to think of the consequences of any delay taking place in applying a cure for such a fell disease. I do not care whether the delay is because of ignorance or the desire for economy. It is simply tragic that any one of our people should he allowed to die for want of the application of an effective remedy for the disease from which he suffered.

By the terms of this Bill many persons in Scotland arc still kept under a disability as compared with their fellow-citizens in England. One of the reasons which I gave for the introduction of the Bill last year was that I thought that the poor person in Scotland should be placed on an equality with the poor person in England, but this Bill keeps the poor person in Scotland in a-worse position than his fellow-citizens in England. In England any local authority may, with the consent of the Ministry of Health, themselves provide or contract with any person to provide a temporary supply of medicine and medical assistance for the poor inhabitants of the district. That is a much wider and a more generous provision than is made for the poorer section of the community in Scotland under this Bill. I cannot he a party to the Second Reading of this Bill, much as I desire that it should be placed on the Statute Book, without entering my emphatic protest against its limiting nature. The opening terms of the Bill, in my opinion, preclude the possibility of any Amendment in Committee in the direction which we would desire, and so strongly do I feel regarding the omission which has been made from this Bill, as compared with last year's Bill, that I shall have no alternative, unless we can get some indication from the Secretary for Scotland that he will be willing to make the extension which we desire, but to divide the House in order to register our protest against the omission.


My right hon. Friend who has just spoken has covered pretty well the grounds of our objection to this Bill. We do not object to the Bill for what is in it, but for what has been left out of it, and our only method of registering our protest is to take the action which the light hon. Gentleman has suggested. Surely it is not an unreasonable thing to have a provision ill the Bill that when, in the opinion of the Scottish Board of Health, a remedy has bean found for some disease other than diabetes, an Order should be made, placed on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, where it could lie for 21 days, only then being operative as an Act of Parliament. I know that this procedure has been criticised as not effective, hut it is quite obvious that if there was any serious objection to such an Order, ways and means could be found of making that objection effective in this House. From what we know of the Scottish Board of Health, of its staff and its administration, it would not he likely to make any such Order unless there was very good ground for it. I am sure that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will agree with me in that opinion.

I am aware, of course, that the Government were influenced by the objection of local authorities, and that is a position with which we must sympathise, because local authorities have to administer this Act, and their objections are entitled to respect. But it is quite well known that the objections which were urged by local authorities were not urged very seriously, and were entirely on financial grounds. At the present time local authorities have a very heavy public health expenditure, but they are relieved from a great deal of that by Treasury grants. In the case of maternity and child welfare they get 50 per cent., and in the case of venereal disease as much as 75 per cent. of the cost. There is no proposal in this Bill for any Treasury assistance. On the last occasion on which this matter was before the House, the Under-Secretary suggested that the Bill ought to have been preceded by a Financial Resolution, so that some such contribution could have been made and local authorities to some extent relieved. Apparently he himself has not been any more successful this year in softening die hearts of Treasury officials, and has had to bring in this Bill without a Financial Resolution so that the whole cost of its administration will fall upon the local authorities. In this particular matter, the. expense is not very serious. It is estimated that the total cost of supplying insulin for diabetes will be less than £5,000 for the whole country.

This general principle of ours, which was laid down in the other Bill, is one which surely must commend itself to every Member of the House, and, if local' authorities, on any ground other than the mere financial ground, oppose this provision. I am sure they do not properly represent the views of their constituents. For I am sure, that broad principle will be accepted by the. great bulk of our people throughout the country, namely, that any remedy for any disease should be immediately available to every section of the community. As my right hon. Friend has said, the English people in this respect enjoy an advantage over the Scottish people. That is a thing which a Scotsman can never stand. By the English Public Health Act of 1875, powers were given which my right hon. Friend has described. I know that they are nominally temporary powers, but still they are powers, which do not require to he renewed or enlarged from time to time as is the case in regard to Scotland. Suppose, as my right hon. Friend suggested. that for cancer a new remedy were found. We would have to wait in Scotland until cases were found which had died for want of that remedy. because of poverty, before we could have the necessary agitation worked up to bring about an Act of Parliament.

We have been told that last year, in spite of this Bill not being on the Statute Book, insulin was given to poor people. It was given by straining the Regulations, local authorities being given to understand that in the auditing of their accounts that item would not be too strictly scrutinised. It is very unsatisfactory that the business of the country should be carried on" on the nod "in that way. We know that cases did die, and it was because of these cases being known that the Board of Health was constrained to allow local authorities to exceed their powers in the way suggested. That is a very undesirable way of bringing such things to pass. For all these reasons we have very good grounds for our protest against this Bill. It would have been quite possible to have met the views of the local authorities. I am sure that their protest. was a protest made only in order to get financial assistance, and was not made with any serious view of combating the proposals which the Labour party laid down. This is clearly a case where the present Government has not improved n the Labour Government's Bill,

I dare say that most hon. Members have had a memorandum from the Scottish Branch of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, in regard to the method of supplying insulin through the local authorities. That, of course, is a matter for Committee. Insulin does not need dispensing, but this Bill does not specifically mention insulin at all it speaks simply of the treatment of diabetes. It is therefore quite possible that other medicine might be given which may require some provision such as the Pharmaceutical Society suggests.

The Bill is one to which no one can object. Our protest, as I have said, is against what is not in it. It is very desirable that we should register our protest so that in any future legislation of this kind an Amendment of the 1897 Public Health Act of Scotland may be made giving this extended power to local authorities. This will enable them to grapple immediately with any disease for which a now remedy is found, and not oblige them to deny to the poorest class of the population what is easily available to those who are better off.

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland)

We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman, the former Secretary for Scotland (Mr. William Adamson), and to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) for the clear and temperate way in which they have stated their objections to this Bill, and I am certain that we shall be in general accord that the Bill is not one to which objection will be taken in any part. of the House. As to their specific contention that it should have included a general power to deal with all diseases, I may say that we left that out because it, was the express desire of the local authorities which have to administer this and other Acts. The reason was simple. They said," The expense under this Bill is a small matter, and we. are willing to bear the whole of it ourselves, but the suggested extensions of it are very wide, and if these are to be considered they should be considered en the Floor of the House on specific legislation brought forward by the Government, and not in the somewhat. surreptitious manner which obtains when an Order is laid on the Table of both Houses and becomes law if not objected to." We have not in any way limited the opportunities which will be available for the immediate introduction and the most rapid passage of legislation tending to the better use of any remedy which might be discovered. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, he had arranged that the Order should lie upon the Table of both Houses and become operative if it were not objected to by either House. Therefore, he was throwing this legislation, which was to be of benefit to the very poorest section of the community, to the mercy of the non-elected body in another place, and that other place would remain in a position of complete superiority, able at any moment to hold up for an indefinite time this beneficent legislation.

We are debating at the moment a purely hypothetical matter. No one denies that insulin is an exception. All that hon. Members opposite contend is that similar exceptions might arise in the future. Nobody denies that it has been possible, within the limits of our administrative system, to deal with this question and make this remedy available, not merely for the rich, but for the poorest of the poor. We say, therefore, that if this hypothetical instance arises it will be possible for us to deal with the emergency when it comes, and subsquently to have the matter debated upon the Floor of this House, where the relations between Parliament and the local authorities which will have to bear a large proportion of the expenditure, can be thrashed out and, the objections of those great bodies be discussed and met. Considering all these things, we say that the Bill as it stands meets the emergency which has arisen. The hypothetical case is one which it is impossible for us to see all the bearings of.

The analogy of England and Scotland is not really justified by the facts of the case, because, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has pointed out, in reading the comparable passage relating to the two countries he showed that the English Act. makes only a temporary provision, whereas we in this Bill arc taking power on a permanent footing to deal with the treatment of diabetes. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh will confirm the statement that the essence of this treatment is that it is not a temporary but a permanent thing, and that, as far as we can see, it supplies a deficiency in one of the glandular secretions of the body and will be required during the whole life of the person who is treated. Consequently, Scotland is being placed in a privileged position. because it is having its position regularised for the permanent administration of a remedy which we are now bound under Statute only to give in temporary fashion. For these reasons, while hon. Gentlemen opposite will no doubt register their protest against the fact that we have not given a wider scope to the Bill, I think we might be able to agree upon the main point of the Bill, I think we are all anxious to see the Bill passed into law, to see the position regularised and to see this wonderful new remedy made freely and legally available. to all sections of the community.


I am afraid I cannot admit that the case which has just been put up by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to any extent a satisfactory one and I am amazed that he should refuse this very excellent opportunity of equalising the Scottish law with the English law and of making it, as regards insulin and diabetes, a, little more definite. It may be perfectly true that, nominally, the English law confers only temporary powers upon local authorities, but the hon. and gallant Member knows that those temporary powers will not be taken away so long as there is need to exercise them. It is a sort of slip-shod habit of ours to do things temporarily and at the same time exer- cise powers which everybody knows are not temporary at all. Let us put this matter on a footing that will not require tinkering and that will not require Ministers to bother this House in future when some new discovery has been made which requires legislation if it is to be put within the reach of the poor. That is the first point. The second point is that we are being asked in the Bill to improve public health legislation. Why then are we to have such a small Measure as this? Cannot we do something that will give' real power to local authorities to handle these questions as they arise. Our proposal last year was that, in the event of an extension, we should proceed by administrative Order, laying the Order on the Table of this House and in another place. We did not like that procedure. I should have preferred a more summary method of procedure, but why did we adopt it? Because hon. Members opposite, when they sat on this side of the House, objected to any other method. As a. matter of fact we had to hold up our Bill on account of the objections raised and, when the Bill went to another place, we were informed that unless we agreed to the deletion of this provision, even though it put the other place in a superior position for objecting, we would not get the Bill through at all.

Captain ELLIOT

Surely it is within the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that so strongly did my hon. Friends and I object to the proposal which he introduced that we actually introduced and carried in Committee an Amendment to the effect that it should only be necessary to move in this House. We removed the other place which the right hon. Gentleman fought tooth and nail to retain.


What I state is quite accurate. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to did not remove the objection of the other place to the Bill and the Bill was hung up by the other place after going through Committee and after it was amended. I do not want to drive a bargain or to quibble about this matter. We were very anxious, and we are still anxious, to get an amendment of the public health law of Scotland which will give the local authorities wider powers than this Bill will give them to assist poor people who are stricken with certain diseases, regarding which remedies have been discovered of the same nature as insulin in relation to diabetes. That is all. As a. Government we had to try to humour the House, we had to try to humour hon. Members opposite, and we had to try to humour the other place. We had all these perils to get over but even then the hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to use the word "surreptitious." If we took power to extend this Bill by administrative Order that is not surreptitious. There is not a single local authority in Scotland which would not know when that Order had been issued and when it was lying on the Table of the House. There is not a single local authority in Scotland, with any objection to the Order, which would not address itself to the hon. and gallant Gentleman or to some of us here and which would not put us in possession of all the objections to the Order. Under the Standing Orders of the House, the Order would have to be discussed, and no Government would have the power to prevent discussion. The Order would be considered by this House and in the other place, and if the local authorities desired protection against a wanton extension of this Bill, amended as we would like to see it amended, they would have ample security in the procedure which we proposed. The Government are losing a great opportunity of equalising Scottish and English public health law and an equally great opportunity of giving the local authorities powers which many of them would he only too glad to exercise in order to help people, other than those suffering from diabetes, to be cured of their diseases as soon as cures are discovered by medical science. We cannot allow the Bill to go through in its present limited state without making a protest, not against the Bill itself, but against the Government for throwing away or losing the opportunity which the Bill gives of making the law much more effective than it will he after the Bill has passed.


I desire to speak on this Bill from the point of view of the local authorities. Hospitals and infirmaries are in two classes, one class being kept tip by public subscription and the other by local authorities. Speaking generally, the hospitals maintained by local authorities deal with infectious diseases, that being a responsibility placed upon the local authorities in Scotland. Some people say that the other hospitals should also be placed upon the rates. That is a very big question which we cannot discuss at the moment, but the fact is that the local authorities' hospitals now deal with infectious diseases. This is not an infectious disease, and it has been proposed that the cost of insulin for diabetes should be a charge on the local authority. I have no objection whatever to that course. The cost will be small and the number of cases is not large, but when I hear an hon. Gentleman opposite who is, I believe, a medical man, say that the hospitals should deal with all sorts of remedies for all sorts of diseases, then I say it is introducing the thin end of the wedge of the policy of bringing all the hospitals upon the rates. I support the Bill, and I think it should be passed without further delay. The delay has not come from this side but from those upon the other side who seek to introduce other matters into it, and the sooner we pass the Bill as it stands, the better.


I congratulate my colleague the hon. and gallant Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot) upon his entry into the realm of public health. Up to now, in the West of Scotland, we regarded him more as a military expert than as a health expert. I only wish he had taken the trouble to inform himself about the history of this Bill during the last Parliament. We all regret that he was not a Member of the last Parliament. We regret that fact almost as much as we regret the fact that he is a Member of this Parliament. If he borrowed from the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health a copy of the report of the Committee stage last year he will find the reason why this Bill did not pass on to the Statute Book last year was because of the very strenuous opposition which the hon. and gallant Gentleman, now Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health, put op during its progress through this House and in Committee, and the continuance of which, I have no doubt, he arranged for in the other place as well. He then took his stand on grounds which I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman for North Lanark would not sup- port. The objection which the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health, as an Oppositionist, had to the extension of the Bill to diseases other than diabetes, was that just as we were then illegally treating diabetes cases without any legislative permission—rand just as we are doing it illegally at the present moment—so on any future occasion if any cure of a similar type were discovered the Scottish Board of Health, with the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself or some other at the helm, could illegally give the necessary permission to any local authority apply that particular treatment to the particular disease. Is that the theory of public administration to which the hon. and gallant Member for North Lanark is prepared to give his imprimatur—that whenever a Government Department wants to do something it should do it, whether it has legislative power or not? All that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. William Adamson) asked in his Bill last year was that provision should be made for the very exceptional circumstances of a type of treatment being discovered for a particular disease which should bear the relation to that disease which insulin hears to diabetes. Insulin is, I think, wrongly described as a cure. It is a palliative, a removal of the most obnoxious symptoms, but a treatment that must he maintained in perpetuity, or during a long time, and only during the continuance of the treatment does the patient maintain something like normal health. All of us were thinking only of illnesses and treatments that were on a comparable footing to the relationship which the insulin treatment has to the disease of diabetes, and we thought it was a very narrow limit of power that was being given to the local authorities. If I am not mistaken, the words of this Bill are exactly the same as those of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, except for the cutting out of the words in reference to similar or other diseases.

It is not a very big thing we are doing when we say that the local authority shall have included power to make such arrangements as they may think fit. It is purely a permissive power. We are not saying that the local authorities must make arrangements for insulin or any other treatment, but we would give them power, if they think fit, to make the necessary provision. I do not know any local authority in Scotland—there may be some in England, but I do not know them even there—that rushes wildly and recklessly into extravagant expenditure on things of this description. I do not know of one that needs to be restrained, but I can think of a whole lot that need to be stimulated and prodded up, and I am amazed to learn, from the remarks passed by other hon. Members in the Debate, that certain local authorities in Scotland have made representations to the hon. and gallant Member that he should protect them from the possible future prodigality of their own expenditure. I cannot imagine any responsible local authority in Scotland coming to any Government Department and saying: "Here, if you give us power to do this, we will be recklessly extravagant in the exercise of our powers, and you have to protect us against ourselves." A case of that sort is not really a case for the Board of Health, but for the Board of Control, and I am surprised to find that such representations have been made.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to the amount of hospital treatment that exists. He ought to have referred to the amount of treatment that is carried on under the National Insurance Act also, and to the amount carried on in the Poor Law hospitals, and treatment with reference to tuberculosis. The total area that is left in which the local authorities have no power to act—the total amount of possible disease—is necessarily very limited, because the whole field is practically covered just now. I do not mean that it is adequately covered, but the powers are present for covering the whole health field just now, and the area left is necessarily very small and, I should think, would not involve more than a few hundred thousand pounds at the outside for the whole of the local authorities in Scotland.

I would have been very pleased if, in this particular Bill, as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) suggested, there had been some Clause allocating a portion of the cost to the Board of Health and dividing it as between the central authority and the local authorities, hut even supposing the local authorities or the central authority bore the whole cost of any possible thing that might, ultimately come out of this Bill, taking it at its widest, it would be a relatively small sum, and I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend, who was perhaps wisely not present in the House when we were discussing the Scottish Church Bill an hour or so ago, that we there granted an indefinite sum to practically an uncontrolled outside voluntary organisation to look after the spiritual needs of Scotland. In the most lordly fashion, the Episcopalians voted that money away, and now here we are quibbling about what I would be surprised to find would be more than an expenditure of £100,000 over all the local authorities in Scotland, for attention to the physical needs of the sick people of Scotland.

I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, thinking of the very great distinction that he has earned in the medical service, that he should consider whether upstairs he should not insert a. Clause—or a few words would do; it does not need a Clause—to give him the necessary extended power, and withdraw this Bill just now for the very short time that it would take him to adjust the Title, so that the proposed Amendment would come within the scope of the Bill. I think the Scottish people and his professional brethren in Scotland would expect that from him, and urge upon him the desirability of taking that course.


I wish to say a few words on this Bill, because the other evening the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Board of Health seemed to be a little bit annoyed with some of us when we did not give him a Second Reading of the Bill, and also because, when our Bill was in Committee last year, he and I got rather at cross purposes during the discussion. There is one feature in connection with the present. Bill to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. In Clause 1 the Bill states that The powers of a local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act. 1897, shall include and be deemed. as from the first day of March, 1924, to have included power to make such arrangements. The point to which I wish to draw attention is that this is one other instance of retrospective legislation. All the lawyers in the House get into a state of excitement about retrospective legislation on every occasion when it is brought forward, and all the Constitu- tionalists declare that they do not like it, and the hon. and gallant Member who is responsible for this Bill will, I am quite sure, agree that, as a general principle, retrospective legislation is something which should be avoided as far as possible. In this case he would, no doubt, plead that there are special circumstances in favour of retrospective legislation. I think that it was when he was in office that this treatment was found to be necessary in connection with diabetes, and he very gallantly and boldly decided to act outside of the law and to encourage local authorities to have no regard for the fact that they had not the powers in connection with the provision of the treatment, and now he has an opportunity to save himself or some future occupant of this office from being put in the same position.

I want to try to emphasise the fact again that this is simply permissive legislation, and that a local authority is not being compelled to give treatment, even in this case. It is only being permitted to give this treatment whenever it feels that a case has been made out to provide treatment for sufferers from diabetes. When our Bill was in Committee, some of us who belong to the working class felt so very strongly on the matter that we protested against the tactics of the hon. and gallon) Gentleman and those behind him in obstructing approved medical treatment being given in working-class homes, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman took me very severely to task for what I then said. He said that the way in which I referred to his own attitude in the matter was shameful. Well, I repeat to-day what I said in Committee. Unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to take provision to extend this Bill, it means that working-class people are not going to get remedies that would otherwise be within their reach if this Measure were extended. I object most strongly to members of the working class being denied the very best medical treatment in connection with any disease, and I make bold to say that every Member of this House, to whatever party he belongs,

would deny indignantly the sugggestion that he or she was against giving such treatment to working-class people who were unable to pay for it themselves. Yet this Bill, I hold, in its limited form, is possibly going to act in that way in the future.

7.0 P.M.

I would like to appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to take back this Measure. I think I could promise for my Scottish colleagues in our party that we would give the Bill a Second Reading without an instant's delay whenever he brought it forward again, if he would give the more extended powers that we suggest are necessary—permissive powers. I do not think there is very much in the argument that the local authorities have to be protected against themselves in this connection. I remember that in Committee it was suggested that there might be local influence brought to hear upon them, and that they might have to take measures to provide treatment, say, if a cure for cancer were discovered, and that it would involve them in a tremendous cost. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would say that there is very much in that objection, and yet it might mean ever so much advantage to a section of the community if there were extended powers. It is true that we might have an Under-Secretary who would be daring enough to act as the hon. and gallant Gentleman 'himself acted in this connection, but, again, everyone is not just so daring as lie is, and we might have a very cautious individual occupying his seat, and poor people would suffer. I do not think that we are asking him for very much when we are promising that we will help him to push it through with the greatest speed if he will simply bring within reach of the working classes with the least possible delay any remedy that is approved by the medical profession in the future.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 272: Noes, 115.

Betheil, A. Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Hall, Lieut, Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Blundell, F. N. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Pete, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Boothby, R. J. G. Hammersley, S. S. Philipson, Mabel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hanbury, C. Pleiou, D. P.
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Pilditch, Sir Philip
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Harland, A. Price, Major C. W. M.
Brass, Captain W. Harney, E. A. Raine, W.
Briscoe, Richard George Harrison, G. J. C. Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Brittain, Sir Harry Hartington, Marquess of Rees, Sir Beddoe
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Reid, D. P. (County Down)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Hawke, John Anthony Rentoui, G. S.
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd.,Hexham) Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C. (Berks,Newb'y) Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Rice, Sir Frederick
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Buckingham, Sir H. Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Ropner, Major L.
Bullock, Captain M. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Burman, J. B. Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A. Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Burton, Colonel H. W. Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Butt, Sir Alfred Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G. Rye, F. G.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Salmon, Major I.
Caine, Gordon Hall Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Campbell, E. T. Homan, C. W. J. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Sandeman, A. Stewart
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) Hopkins, J. W. W. Sanderson. Sir Frank
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hopkinson. A. (Lancaster, Mossiey) Sandon, Lord
Chapman, Sir S. Hore-Belisha, Leslie Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Savery, S. S.
Christie. J. A. Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Clayton, G. C. Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew,W)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hume, Sir G. H. Shepperson, E. W.
Cellos, Major Wm. Phillips Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Cooper, A. Duff Huntinglield, Lord Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Cope, Major William Hurst, Gerald B. Sinclair,Col.T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst.)
Couper, J. B. Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) Skelton, A. N.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Jacob, A. E. Smithers, Waldron
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Jephcott, A. R. Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Crookshank,Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Jones. Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Sprat, Sir Alexander
Curzon, Captain Viscount Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Dalkeith, Earl of Kenyon, Barnet Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)
Davidson. J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. King, Captain Henry Douglas Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton) Lamb, J. Q. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Dawson. Sir Philip Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Templeton, W. P.
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan Loder, J. de V. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Drewe, C. Lord, Walter Greases- Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Duckworth, John Lougher, L. Tinne, J. A.
Eden, Captain Anthony Lowe, Sir Francis William Turton, Edmund Russborough
Edmondson, Major A. J. Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Waddington, R.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Lumley, L. R. Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Elliot, Captain Waiter E. McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Ellis, R. G. MacIntyre, Ian Warrender, Sir Victor
Elveden, Viscount McLean, Major A. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
England, Colonel A. Macmillan, Captain H. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Watts, Dr. T.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Macquisten, F. A. Wells, S. R.
Everard, W. Lindsay MacRobert, Alexander M. Whaler, Major Granville C. H.
Fairfax. Captain J. G. Makins, Brigadier-General E. White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Falls, Sir Charles F. Margesson. Captain D. Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D. Marriott, Sir J. A. R Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Fielders, E. B. Merriman, F. B. Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Winby, Colonel L. P.
Ford, P. J. Moore, Sir Newton J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Forestier-Walker, L. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Forrest, W. Moreing, Captain A. H. Wise, Sir Fredric
Foster, Sir Harry S. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Wood. B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)
Ganzoni, Sir John Murchison. C. K. Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Gates, Percy Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)
Gee, Captain R. Nelson, Sir Frank Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Neville, R. J. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wragg, Herbert
Goff, Sir Park Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Greene, W. P. Crawford Nuttall, Ellis
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Oakley, T. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Owen, Major G. Commander B. Eyres Monsell and
Gunston, Captain D. W. Pennefather, Sir John Colonel Gibbs.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hayday, Arthur Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hayes, John Henry Smillie, Robert
Ammon, Charles George Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Attlee, Clement Richard Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield Snell, Harry
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Barnes, A. John, William (Rhondda, West) Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Barr, J. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Stamford, T. W.
Batey, Joseph Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Stephen, Campbell
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Broad, F. A. Kelly, W. T. Sutton, J. E.
Bromfield, William Kennedy, T. Taylor, R. A.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Kirkwood, D. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Buchanan, G. Lansbury, George Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Lee, F. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Cape, Thomas Lowth, T. Thurtle, E.
Clowes, S. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) Tinker, John Joseph
Cause, W. S. Mackinder, W. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Compton, Joseph Maclaren, Andrew Varley, Frank B.
Connolly, M. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Viant, S. P.
Cove, W. G. March, S. Wallhead, Richard C.
Dalton, Hugh Maxton, James Walsh, Rt. Hon. Steven
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Warne, G. H.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Murnin, H. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Day, Colonel Harry Oliver, George Harold Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Dennison, R. Palin, John Henry Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Duncan, C. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Welsh, J. C.
Dunnico, H. Ponsonby, Arthur Westwood, J
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Potts, John S. Whiteley, W.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Riley, Ben Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Greenall, T. Ritson, J. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich) Windsor, Walter
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) Wright, W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Saklatvala, Shapurji Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Groves, T. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Grundy, T. W. Scurr, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) Sexton, James Mr. John Robertson and Mr. Allen
Hardie, George D. Shiels, Dr. Drummond Parkinson.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.