HC Deb 14 April 1926 vol 194 cc373-423
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope)

The first Amendment, standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb)—in page 3, line 38, after the word"society,' to insert the words (such valuation to take into account the necessary provision for continuing any additional benefits granted in respect of the surpluses of the first and second valuations)"— is out of place. If it be moved, it will have to come as a proviso.

Mr. THOMAS

I beg to move,"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I think we are entitled at this stage to ask the Government whether they think we ought to proceed any further this morning. There are in the House a large number of Members with much longer Parliamentary experience than the Minister of Health. I have spoken to acme of them, and asked them whether in their experience, and within their knowledge of the House, they remember a similar incident to the one, we have just experienced.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM

May I point out that this is the second time?

Mr. THOMAS

Whatever differences there may be on this side, and whatever differences of view on any side, we arc not going to stand by, any of us, and see our people and friends insulted.

Mr. LANSBURY

It is worthy of Brummagem?

Mr. THOMAS

I did not want any reminder from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), because the precedent to which I was drawing attention was that the same Minister did the same before to the same ex-Minister. I ask the Committee to keep in mind that, whatever else may happen, it is as certain as I am standing here that those on this side to-day will one day be sitting there, and it does not rest with you people on that side to establish such dangerous precedents.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not know to what the right hon. Gentleman is alluding. I have not yet been able to follow him.

Mr. THOMAS

I quite appreciate your difficulty, Mr. Hope, because, unfortunately, the incident to which I am referring happened when you were not in the Chair. It was that the ex-Minister of Health, who had himself appointed a Royal Commission, was proceeding to give his views on the Report of that Commission which he had appointed, and his successor in office took the unprecedented course of moving the Closure against him.

The CHAIRMAN

It has been pointed out by Mr. Speaker and others that anybody has the right to move the Closure. It has been repeatedly ruled that the Closure may be the act of anybody, and it cannot be debated afterwards in the House.

Mr. THOMAS

I do not challenge the propriety of that ruling, but at this stage in our proceedings, and after that incident, I am going to ask whether the Government themselves think we ought to proceed further. I repeat deliberately that it is an insult which we will not tolerate. It is a mean and a contemptible thing, and it would not have been done by an old Parliamentary hand.

The CHAIRMAN

I will put the Question at once.

Mr. MAXTON

More sharp practice. I would not allow another speech to be permitted.

Question put,"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 179.

Division No. 140.] AYES. [2.0 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Grundy, T. W. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Ammon, Charles George Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Barnes, A. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Barr, J. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Sitch, Charles H.
Batey, Joseph Hardie, George D. Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Broad, F. A. Hayday, Arthur Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Bromfield, William Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Snell, Harry
Bromley, J. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Stephen, Campbell
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hirst, G. H. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Buchanan, G. Hirst, W. (Bradford. South) Sullivan, Joseph
Cape, Thomas Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Taylor, R. A.
Charleton, H. C. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Clowes, S. John, William (Rhondda, West) Thurtle, E.
Cluse, W. S. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Tinker, John Joseph
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Jones, Mo'gan (Caerphilly) Townend, A. E.
Compton, Joseph Jones, T. I. Manly (Pontypridd) Varley, Frank B.
Cove, W, G. Kelly, W. T. Viant, S. P.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Kennedy, T. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Crawfurd, H. E. Lansbury, George Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dalton, Hugh Lawson, John James. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Lunn, William Whiteley, W.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Mackinder, W. Wiggins, William Martin
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Maxton, James Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Day, Colonel Harry Montague, Frederick Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Dennison, R, Morris, R. H. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Duckworth, John Oliver, George Harold Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Dunnico, H. Owen, Major G. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty) Paling, W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
England, Colonel A. Pethick-Lawrence, F. VI. Windsor, Walter
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Ponsonby, Arthur Wright, W.
Fenby, T. D. Potts, John S. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Purcell, A. A.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Gibbins, Joseph Ritson, J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Gillett, George M. Scrymgeour, E. Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Scurr, John
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Radford, E. A.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Gunston, Captain D. W, Raine, W.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Held, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dutwich) Rice, Sir Frederick
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Had.) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Astor, Viscountess Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Atkinson, C. Harrison, G. J. C. Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Balniel, Lord Hartington, Marquess of Ropner, Major L.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Bethel, A. Haslam, Henry C. Rye, F. G.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Hawke, John Anthony Salmon, Major I.
Blades, Sir George Rowland Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Blundell, F. N. Henn, Sir Sydney H. Samuel, Samuel (Wdsworth, Putney)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Hennessy, Major J. R. G, Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Brass, Captain W. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Sandon, Lord
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Hills, Major John Waller Savery, S. S.
Briscoe, Richard George Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. 1. Holt, Captain H. P. Shepperson, E. W,
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Skelton, A. N.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Buckingham, Sir H. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Burman, J. B. Huntingfield, Lord Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Jacob, A. E. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Wim'sden, E.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Kindersley, Major Guy M. Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W.) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Storry-Deans, R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Chapman, Sir S. Loder, J. de V. Strickland, Sir Gerald
Cobb, Sir Cyril Lougher, L. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Cope, Major William Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Templeton, W. p.
Couper, J. B. Lumley, L. R. Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Courtauld, Major J. S. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. McLean, Major A. Tinne, J. A.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W, (Berwick) McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Macquisten, F. A. Wallace, Captain D. E.
Curzon, Captain Viscount. MacRobert, Alexander M. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempsfd) Makins, Brigadier-General E. Wells, S. R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Malone, Major P. S. Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Margosson, Captain D. Williams, A. M, (Cornwall, Northern)
Dawson, Sir Philip Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Dixey, A. C. Mellor, R. J. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Drewe, C. Meyer, Sir Frank Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Eden, Captain Anthony Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Edmondson, Major A. J. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Wise, Sir Fredric
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Womersley, W. J.
Everard, W. Lindsay Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hydi)
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Neville, R. J. Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Fermoy, Lord Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Fraser, Captain Ian Nuttall, Ellis Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Penny, Frederick George Wragg, Herbert
Goff, Sir Park Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Gower, Sir Robert Perring, Sir William George
Grant, J. A. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Power, Sir John Cecil Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord Stanley.
Greene, W. P. Crawford Preston, William
Sir ROBERT HAMILTON

I beg to move, in page 4, line 9, to leave out the word"may,"and to insert instead thereof the word"shall."

The object of Clause 3 is to make good deficiences due to provisions of this part of the Bill. The object of the Amendment is to put "shall" instead of "may." Is it expected that, there will be cases where deficiency is caused by the working Of the Bill and whether the deficiency will not be made good by the action of the Minister? If not, why is the Clause worded in this way if he thinks proper so to do, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some information on this point. As the Clause is worded, it looks as though it was intended that deficiencies might occur which would not be made good.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS

I see that Subsections (2) and (3) provide alternative ways in which the Minister of Health can proceed when he receives a certificate of deficiency. What has the Minister in mind in inserting the words "having regard to all the circumstances of the case?" What are the considerations which have led him to make a decision as to whether he shall not offer a sum to a society, or branch of a society, or to the joint Committee under the Subsection?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose—

HON. MEMBERS

"Divide!"

The CHAIRMAN

The right non. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) has an Amendment on the Order Paper which comes before the present Amendment. I find that the. proviso of that Amendment should have been moved before this Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, to allow this Amendment to come on.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, at the end, to insert the words provided that such valuation shall take into acount the necessary provision for continuing any additional benefits granted in respect of the surpluses of the first and second valuations. I was informed in the first instance that the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Seaham and myself would come on afterwards, but it suits my purpose to move this Amendment at this stage. The purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that the approved society which has paid additional benefit as a result of the second valuation shall not he in a worse position as the result of the passing of Clause 3 than it would have been if the Clause had never been part of the Act. Let me put the case in this way. Clause 3 provides that where a society is found on a certificate of the actuary to be in deficiency, then it is proposed to make up that deficiency from a pool of surpluses of other societies. That, I take it, is the object of Clause 3. I understand, however, there is a difference of opinion as to what the intention of the Clause really is, and I venture to put the case in this way. If, as a result of the passing of this Bill, a society is found to be in a deficiency, it will be competent for the Minister of Health to say that that society will be able, in spite of the deficiency, to pay what is called normal statutory benefit. I thing I am right in putting it that way. The purpose of the Amendment which I am moving would carry the societies a step further; that is to say, where a society has been giving, for the purpose of illustration, 2s. a week additional benefit for sickness, an additional 1s for disablement benefit, and an additional 5s. for maternity benefit, besides dental treatment and dentures and optical treatment and optical appliances, then the society would be entitled to pay this additional benefit in spite of what we might do in this Clause. It is agreed on all hands that by the passing of Clauses 1 and 2, at least 10 per cent. of the societies will be in a deficiency. That is not challenged, but if it be I will read what the actuaries themselves say. These are not actuaries doing work for approved societies, but Government actuaries: We are led to expect, after making the best estimates of which the case admits, that the effect of the new burdens would be to create eventually a condition of deficiency in societies representing about 10 per cent. of whole insured population.'' Now, 10 per cent. of the whole of the insured population, if my calculations are correct, means that 1,500,000 persons will suffer a deficiency through their approved societies, as a consequence of the Measure. So far so good. Let us see, therefore, what will happen to those numbers of persons who will suffer this deficiency. The Government come along and say, "We will make up this deficiency, and say that in no circumstances would any society be any worse off as a result of the passing of this Measure." That is the point which has annoyed all persons connected with the conduct of approved societies. They are annoyed that gentlemen connected with the Government should declare that., in spite of the fact that they are taking away all this money from approved societies. these societies will not be one jot the worse as a consequence. Will the Minister of Health answer this question, in order that we may prove the contention that we have made, that the result of the passing of this Measure will put at least 1,500,000 of the insured persons of this country in a worse position than if the Bill never became the law of the land? Take a society as a result of the first valuation. It is paying 2s. additional sickness benefit, a shilling disablement benefit and 5s. maternity benefit and the other benefits I have named. Can the Minister of Health give the House an undertaking that if that society finds a deficiency disclosed in its valuation results on the third valuation, in spite of the fact that it is in a deficiency, will he give an undertaking that they will not be worse off as a consequence of the passing of this Measure? That is the intention of the Amendment I am about to move. There is a fact I ought to mention before I sit down. The Parliamentary Secretary in his note to the Press made this extraordinary statement: A disposable surplus of over —9,000,000 is available as a result of the first valuation of approved societies, and the still larger disposable surplus available out of £45,000,000 anticipated on the second valuation will prove a considerable factor in the improvement of our national conditions. Not a penny of these sums will be touched for economy purposes. All will be fully available for insured persons. My complaint is that the Government every time its representatives speak on this subject tell only about a quarter of the truth. They never state the whole of the truth, and the truth of the situation is this, that 10 per cent. of the insured population will be worse off as a consequence of the passing of this Measure, unless the Amendment I am moving is accepted by the Government. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. There is nothing wrong, surely, in asking that the approved societies should not be in a worse position than they were but for the passing of this Act. The Minister of Health nods assent. I am perfectly sure that he is not nodding assent to the idea that the approved societies should be in a worse position. It is intended, under Clause 3, to take money out of the surpluses of other approved societies who have secured surpluses because of good administration and otherwise, and what we complain of is that the Government are now calling on the poor to help the poor, whereas, in the past, the Government came to the aid of these societies and helped them to pay the additional benefits that they had been accustomed to pay.

The schedule of additional benefits here is a very wide and extensive one. The approved societies of this country, up to the present—the best of them, at least—have not adopted more than about four out of 14 to which they are entitled. The complaint we make is that the approved societies were only just commencing to adopt these provisions, and, by Clause 3, they are designed deliberately to be placed in deficiency in respect of that 10 per cent. I ask the Minister to take heed of what I have said, and give a definite reply to the question whether, in making up the deficiency under this Clause, not only will it be made up in respect of normal statutory benefits, but also in respect of additional benefits under the second and third valuation results. I feel sure that the approved societies of this country will expect something of this kind to be done.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) is, I think, not quite correct in assuming that the societies representing 10 per cent of the insured persons who, as suggested by the actuaries, will be thrown into deficiency, are thereby going to be worse off, because the provisions of the Bill are such that, at any rate in some of those cases, they will be no worse off. This Amendment proposes to go far beyond the intention of the Bill, which is that no society should have to reduce its statutory benefits or to levy upon its members by reason of anything done in the Bill. The hon. Member wants to go further, and say that the additional benefits which have been, or may be, declared as a result of surpluses on the first and second valuations, shall also be stereotyped for all time.

Mr. DAVIES

Shall be secured to them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Shall be stereotyped. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member, but I understand him to mean that, if on the third valuation the surpluses are such as not to justify the continuation of benefits that have been given in respect of the second valuation, then a sufficient sum is to be drawn from the Reserve Suspense Fund to enable the society to make up its benefits.

Mr. DAVIES

I do not think it will be stereotyping the position if the deficiency is made up to the periods of the first and second valuations. They would remain the same, but it would not be stereotyping the increased benefits.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I accept the hon. Member's correction. I understand he means that they will be left. One of the fundamental principles of the Insurance Act is that it is designed to encourage each society to manage its affairs in the most careful, thrifty, and economical manner possible. Special safeguards were introduced into the scheme, under which every inducement is given to the society to exercise the necessary care.

Mr. LANSBURY

To plunder them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Under the scheme the societies were to have the benefit of their thrift. That, of course, is what we wish to continue. But let me point out to the Committee what would be the result of this Amendment if it were accepted. Suppose you have two societies comparable in most respects as regards the class of claim that comes upon them, and also in respect of numbers. One society is careful, economical and conscientious in the administration of its work. The other Society is lax and careless. [AN HON. MEMBERS: "You cannot find such a society."] Let us suppose there were two such societies, because we must consider these hypothetical cases if we want to consider the scheme as a whole. What I want to point out to the Committee is what would be the result to those two societies if this Amendment were accepted. Suppose that, owing to some general cause, the surpluses of all societies were reduced at the next valuation, on account of, let us say, an epidemic of disease. You may have, in the case of a careful society, where they so make up, by the care and thrift which they have exercised, for the extra claims put on them, that their surpluses are just as great on the third as on the second valuation. Under the Amendment, there would be no claim on the fund from the careful society, but, in the case of the other society, which through its very laxity and carelessness, might have brought down its surpluses on the third valuation and could not distribute benefits then, under this Amendment, it would immediately and automatically come in for a claim on the Reserve Suspense Fund

Captain GARRO-JONES

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on this subject? [HON. MEMBERS: "He will Closure it!."]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. Member must let me continue. What I am pointing out is that the Amendment would detract between one society and another, and would be contrary to the fundamental principle of the scheme, because it would be encouraging a society that did not take proper care under the scheme.

Captain GARRO-JONES

Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to answer a question dealing with the point he is now discussing? Sub-section (2) of this Clause says the Minister, on receiving a certificate under this Section, may, if he thinks proper so to do, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Will the right hon. Gentleman say if that covers the case he is now explaining?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

That is the point which is covered by the Amendment. I was going to say that the consideration which I have put before the Committee leads to this, that if the Amendment were accepted it would be necessary in the interests of the societies themselves to set up a far more thorough and complete system of control and check and examination of the workings of the societies than exists at present, and that would not be welcomed by the societies any more than by the Minister himself. I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Now that we have passed Clause 2, we are beginning to get the real explanation of the previous Clauses, and I draw the attention of the Committee to the statement we have just heard. The grounds on which this Amendment which we are moving is being rejected are that it would tend to prevent that close supervision, that economical mind, that care and consideration by the societies that are so desirable. I think that is a fair statement of the case, or of one of the reasons. The right hon. Gentleman then goes on to say, "In order to demonstrate this point I will take two societies, one carelessly managed, with no regard to expenditure, loose, with a deficit, or at least unable to show a surplus."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

No.

Mr. THOMAS

If not able to show a surplus, then not in such a good position as another well managed.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Let me explain what my illustration really was. It is not a question of societies being in a deficit at all or of one being in a worse position than the other. It is under the amend- ment in a position so that its surplus on the third valuation is less than its surplus on the second.

Mr. THOMAS

That is exactly the consideration which I am trying to put to the right hon. Gentleman. I put it to him he meant, taking two societies, the one badly and the other efficiently managed, that the effect of the amendment would be to give the badly managed society a preference if need be over the other. Is not that a fair statement? I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this is the first and clearest admission by the Government. Notwithstanding all that has been said about this Bill not taking any money and not interfering with the approved society member. Our Amendment seeks to safeguard the third valuation. That is the important point to keep in mind. None of us have urged that anything can arise over the second valuation. We have always said we are dealing with the surplus that may arise on the third valuation. We have now heard that the grounds on which this amendment is refused are, first., that it gives a preference to a badly managed society over a good one. That is exactly our objection to the whole Clause. We have quoted the Commission's Report, we have quoted our own actual experience and we have said the net effect of this Bill, boiled down, is to take from the well-managed, good and efficient societies the surplus that they expect on the third valuation. It has taken us to reach this Clause to get that fact. The Minister says another reason why he cannot accept the amendment is that there may be an epidemic. That statement admits that there may be additional benefits. It is an admission that societies on the second valuation can pay the additional benefits, but if you have an unfortunate epidemic, such as has been described, and that epidemic has the effect of seriously interfering with the surpluses on a future valuation, then the net effect is this: Not only will that society not be able to get any benefit that may arise from the third valuation, but it may easily have the effect of depriving them of additional benefits due to the money that has been already taken. Therefore, I can understand the Minister's reluctance.

We have argued throughout that nothing should be done to interfere with good management. I have been myself the secretary of a very large approved society since the commencement of the Act, and I have been president of the society, but I have never yet heard in any Commission—and I have been connected with most of them—or in any consultative committee or any other body connected with National Health Insurance that there was the suggestion that further interference was necessary to check them. Take the case of maternity benefit. We have just prosecuted one of our own branch secretaries because of a false statement made in connection with maternity benefit. The person who discovered it, the one who drew our attention to it, the first to say the prosecution must go on, was one of his own fellow-men. That is not an isolated case. The common experience is that the men are so anxious to safeguard the fund that they provide a check themselves. The Government action in this matter is going to have the effect of preventing that care and anxiety which is so essential for the good administration of the, Act. The argument will be this. You get a branch secretary, a branch committee and the officers of a society who have hitherto always been anxious to safeguard the fund and so on. Suppose anything of a lax character arises and we draw attention to it, and say this may ultimately effect your services and may ultimately prevent your additonal benefits. I am convinced that the net effect of this is going to be that these people will draw attention to this right away as a justification for their action; and unless you accept this Amendment moved in the name of our party you are going to give them grounds, because they will be able to say there is no cheek and no guarantee. I respectfully submit that, however anxious the right hon. Gentleman may have been to meet the argument and the object of the Amendment, he certainly has not done it in the speech we have just heard.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS

I feel that what we have just heard from the Minister of Health has rather justified the fears which many of us felt since these proposals were first made. The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have tried to assure us on several occasions that insured persons would not be worse off, and that the benefits from the first and second valuations would be secured to them. It seemed to me that the Government's acceptance of this Amendment would follow as a matter of course from their previous declarations. It is, therefore, alarming that the right hon. Gentleman contemplates that, after the third valuation, a substantial number of societies may find it necessary to cut down the benefits which have already been or will be given after the second valuation. It must be kept in mind in this connection that these additional benefits are not something of the nature of extra gifts or something which is really outside and beyond the scope of the Fund. It is simply an attempt to come a little nearer to what was the object of the insurance system. A full and complete medical service and adequate financial benefits were designed from the very first. Restrictions on these were made by regulations under the Act, and they were principally made so that time might be given in order to be assured of the financial soundness of the scheme and especially how it stood the strain of the War years. Now that these things have been assured we naturally expected, and the approved societies contemplated, bringing the scheme something more into line with what was at first, intended, and therefore these additional benefits which are being given as the result of the second valuation are not something in the way of largesse which may be taken away when circumstances arc less propitious; they are simply steps on the road to a full realisation of a, complete insurance scheme. It is, therefore, alarming to find that the right hon. Gentleman contemplates that not only may we get no additional benefits in many cases, but that even the benefits already secured under these two valuations may be reduced, and that the Government will only make up deficiencies in order to provide the ordinary statutory minimum benefits.

These things will come as a very great surprise and a very great shock to those who have been working this Act, and I agree with the right hon Gentleman who has just spoken that nothing will have more effect in tending to slackness in administration than the action of the Government. It will be agreed by those who have experience of approved societies that their officials a-re wonderfully effi- cient, and have been very keen and earnest in working this Act. I would suggest that the inspiration and the impetus to economical working are given by one society being put against the other. The officials of the approved societies are keen to have their own particular section efficient and providing better benefits than other sections, and this spirit of friendly emulation has tended to the efficient administration of the Act. It is generally admitted that anything in the way of slackness or bad administration has been very exceptional. After efficient work of this kind and after the Societies have made the finances of the scheme healthy, the Government seize upon part of the accumulation, and take it for other purposes. It cannot be too often emphasised that every penny which can be accumulated by this Fund is required to make the scheme an efficient scheme, which at present it is not. The additional benefits—present and possible —are really vitally necessary. For instance no medical scheme can be successful that does not provide for efficient dental treatment. Then there is the subject of specialist medical service In view of the enormous complexity of diseases and the great increase in specialist treatment now-a-days, it is ridiculous to maintain complacently, a purely general practitioner's service for panel patients. We shall never get the system what it should be until we have a complete and efficient medical service. It seems however, that not only shall we be left simply with some dental benefit, some oculist benefit and perhaps here and there, a little addition to allowances and maternity benefit after this third valuation —we shall almost certainly have no specialist medical service—but some of these more elementary services may even be taken away. I think it is the least the Government can do is to say that, these being steps on the way to an efficient service, in the event of a deficiency on the third valuation, they will make up not only the minimum statutory benefits, but any other benefits which may have been given and to which the insured persons quite rightly will expect themselves to continue to be entitled. As I have said, there need be no fear that this will lead to slack administration. There are safeguards against that. The only fears that can naturally come now will be fears of predatory action on the part of Governments. If this Government would only have the grace to confess their sins in this matter, and to say that they will accept this amendment and not sin again, I am sure they need have no fear but what the approved societies and their officials will go on, as before, and try to make the scheme efficient. There is no risk in that course, but rather is it a moral duty for the Government to consent either to this Amendment or to make themselves the necessary alterations in their policy which will bring about the same result.

Captain GARRO-JONES

It does not need to be an expert in National Health Insurance when the Government is being driven to such very strange refinement of argument for some of their proposals in this Bill. I regard this Amendment as giving to the Government of the whole principle which is involved. The question is whether or not additional benefits are to be regarded as part of the National Health Insurance scheme. Additional benefits in the original conception of the schemes in every Amendment that has been made to the scheme and in every report of every Commission which has ever sat upon the scheme have been regarded as an integral part of the scheme and what the Government is now attempting to do is to detach them from that scheme altogether. What has the question of efficient management to do with the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman. I do not see that efficient management has anything to do with it. All that this Amendment seeks to provide is that in the valuation of an approved society if it appears that a deficiency will be disclosed, that in the consideration of that deficiency additional benefit shall be taken into consideration. No liabilities are to be entered into at all. I want to read Sub-section (2) as having a direct bearing on this Amendment:— The Minister, on receiving a certificate under this Section, may, if he thinks proper so to do, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, cause a sum equal to the amount specified in the certificate to be credited to the society or branch"— If it is found that the Society has been inefficiently managed he is not called upon to make any recommendations at all. There is no action which he is compelled to take. The same thing is to be found in Sub-section (3). As a matter of fact I hope the Minister will address some new arguments why he is not able to accept this Amendment because it seems to me who regards the matter in no technical light, but simply in the light of an obligation that what the Government is doing is to detail additional benefits from the scheme when additional benefits should remain an integral part of the whole scheme.

Mr. MELLER

I rise to take part in the discussion upon this Amendment, because it seems to me that those who have spoken do not quite understand how surpluses and additional benefits are obtained. After the long experience which the hon. Member has had in regard to Approved Societies I am surprised that he should have been so unwise as to have brought forward such a proposal as is contained in this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) has said that the Government proposed under this Bill to take away additional benefits, and he rather suggested that the additional benefits exist to-day for all societies whether there has been a surplus earned or otherwise. Let me just inform him of what is an elementary lesson in National Health Insurance. It is this—that the scheme itself provides that there shall be certain statutory benefits. These are quite well-known—sickness benefit, disablement benefit, and maternity benefit. But the benefits that have been referred to are benefits which have been conferred under certain conditions, namely, that when a Society is in such a state of prosperity that it can not only provide the statutory benefit, it shall provide certain other benefits which the Society may select. The proposal under this Amendment as I understand it is, that once a Society has obtained a position of being able to provide an additional benefit out of the surpluses in the particular quinquennial period covered by the valuation that for all time that extra benefit has to exist. It has been clearly explained in the Debate that during the past ten years—certainly during the past five years—there has been a fairly large accession to the funds of the Societies. This has occurred under abnormal circumstances, partly due to the great waste of life during the war and partly due to the increased earning powers of the funds of Societies. There have been exceptional years, and I do not anticipate the next five, ten, fifteen or twenty years to show such exceptions.

Mr. THOMAS

Why support taking the money?

Mr. MELLER

I am not going to be led upon that line or away from my argument. I want to point out to the Committee that you cannot expect in the next quinquennial period to have the same prosperous conditions as you have had in the past. You must have from time to time fluctuating surpluses which may give you additional benefits, but you cannot under this scheme guarantee, after the quinquennial review, that for all time these additional benefits are going to be maintained.

3.0 A.M.

Captain GARRO-JONES

Will the hon. Gentleman be so good as to explain under what provision they are to be maintained for all time under this Amendment? In answering that question, would he pay regard to Sub-section (2) of Clause 3 of the Bill?

Mr. MELLER

I do not think Subsection (2) affects the question at all.

Captain GARRO-JONES

Yes it does.

Mr. MELLER

Under no Statute has there been an undertaking or guarantee that when an additional benefit has been once granted by a society, that additional benefit shall remain for all time.

Mr. THOMAS

It is quite clear to me that my hon. Friend has not understood the object of this Amendment. It is not the guarantee of additional benefits, but only in so far as these additional benefits would be affected by the amount taken by the Government.

Mr. MELLER

If these additional benefits have been given as a result of the first valuation or the second valuation, whenever a deficiency arises these benefits have to be continued, evidently. It is nothing more than a stabilisation of these additional benefits. If there is a deficiency at any moment these additional benefits must be made up when taken into consideration by the Minister. I say that if you get national health insurance it is an impossible condition to put in. The only way we could get it would be by a guarantee by the Government that once a society has attained to the position of additional benefits that benefit shall never be taken away, and the Government must undertake to make up the funds of the societies.

Captain GARRO-JONES

I think the Committee is anxious to get to the truth, and I am going to repeat what I called the attention of the Minister to in regard to Sub-section (2) of Clause 3. If the hon. Member would cast his eye over that Clause he would not be so confident of the statements he is making. The Clause reads as follows: The Minister, on receiving a certificate under this Section may, if he thinks proper so to do, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, cause a sum equal to the amount specified in the certificate to be credited to the society or branch out of any balance standing to the credit of the Reserve Suspense Fund, after due provision has been made for the payment of any sum charged on that Fund under or by virtue of any enactment, and if there is no such balance standing to the credit of that Fund or the balance is insufficient for the purpose of providing the whole amount specified in the certificate, the Minister may transmit the certificate with a statement as to the amount which cannot be provided out of the said Fund to the Joint Committee, and that Committee shall thereupon cause that amount to he credited to the society out of the Central Fund. How can additional benefits be permanently stabilised in that case?

Mr. MELLER

I am not suggesting that they are to be permanently stabilised. If the hon. and gallant Member will read this Clause through and make a little research into National Health Insurance and its benefit provisions, he will understand how this Fund is built up and how societies make up a deficiency out of their own fund. He will also understand how they can go to a central fund for further assistance. In no circumstances in regard to the proposals which have been made by the Government under this Economy Bill shall a Society be in the position that its statutory benefits shall ever fall below the statutory value; but with regard to additional benefits in kind or in cash no undertaking has been given. Nothing is taken away by this Bill and the society is in no worse position than it was under the old provision. The only difference is that by taking away something from societies—£,2,800,000 per annum—the societies cannot be in so good a position at the next valuation as they would have been. What the Government are endeavouring to explain is that by recasting the financial basis of the Act the proposal to take away this money will not fall so hardly on the societies as they think. That is the position. If the hon. Member is prepared to make a better explanation in the House, I am prepared to sit down. I am endeavouring to explain that the additional benefits such as dental treatment would be pub back, but having regard to the explanations which have been given and having regard to the position the country finds itself in to-day I think we should agree to the proposals put forward.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is straying rather far from the particular Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. MELLER

I am sorry that I have been led into it by the interpolations of the hon. Members on the other side of the Committee. The Amendment would not ho acceptable to approved societies, for it would mean that those societies which are in a deficiency owing to bad management would get an advantage under the proposals and the societies which are well managed would have no such advantage.

Mr. WHEATLEY

I regret the necessity of having to intervene again in this discussion. My interest in this Bill is peculiar in its nature. I wanted to remind you, sir, that it was I who set up the Royal Commission with whose Report we are necessarily largely dealing in the course of the debate, and I felt it was due to the Committee, as an ex-Minister of Health who during the short period of office had to deal with these special problems to express my view on the proposal before it. I could not find Parliamentary language in which to express my indignation and contempt for the action of my successor when I rose for practically the first time —because the few remarks I made yesterday were only of a few minutes' duration—that in the course of my observations very relevant, if any relevance at all is to be obtained from the fact that I was speaking in the early hours of the morning, and replying to a speech by the Minister himself, I cannot find, as I have said, any language which I would not regret to use to express my contempt for the action he took.

The CHAIRMAN

The action taken by the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to do with this Amendment.

Mr. WHEATLEY

I will not proceed further because there is justification. It was due to that Act to which I am referring, which I will not proceed to describe, that I have to rise again and ask the indulgence of the Committee while I add my contribution to this important Debate. We have had a remarkable speech from the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). It was a speech bristling with interest. I agreed with him when he remarked in comment on an observation from this side of the House that if there was anyone here who could explain the matter better then he would very readily give way and make room for his better. I can assure him that no one on this side of the House could so completely demolish the case against this Amendment as he has done in opposing the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman emphasised the probability that these approved societies may not always find themselves in the prosperous financial position that they occupied in these years which immediately followed on the circumstances of the war and other things to which he has referred. He says they may not have these surpluses ten or twenty years hence. They may not be able to maintain anything like the benefits they are giving to their members to-day. But may I remind the Committee that the whole case for taking the £2,800,000, if there is any case at all, then the whole case for adding 1,900,000 of additional burdens to the societies is based on the asumption that these surpluses will continue in years to come and the societies can do without the money of which they are being robbed to-day.

The Minister of Health, in the course of his reply to the statement made by the Mover of this Amendment, was as unreasonable as we have been led to expect from the right hon. Gentleman in the arguments he presents to this House. He says that if this Amendment were adopted you would probably—I do not think he would even qualify it—you will penalise the well-managed societies in order to confer advantages on the badly managed societies. He called them Society No. 1 and Society No. 2. Society No. 1 is being well managed. As a result of these economies it is able to grant additional benefit to its members. Society No. 2 is being penalised for its extravagance and carelessness and mismanagement and can only grant the statutory benefits. He says this Amendment would penalise the good and reward the bad. But what does this Clause actually do? If to-day this Clause is in operation, the badly managed Society No. 2, which is only paying its statutory benefits, finds it is in deficiency on the forthcoming valuation, but the Minister takes power to insure that he will make good the deficiency to enable it to pay the statutory benefit which the society is paying now—in other words, to protect the society which he assumes is only paying the bare statutory benefits because of its poverty. The Amendment says he ought to take power in addition to protect the well-managed society. The well-managed society is, let us say, giving dental benefit, but as a result of this additional burden that has been placed on it and the reduction in the State contribution it finds that it is on the next valuation unable to continue to give dental benefit. The Minister refuses to take power to insure that that society is able to give its members what it is giving to-day. If that is not penalising the well managed and protecting the badly managed, I do not know what is the meaning of language.

While the right hon. Gentleman is actually pursuing this course he comes forward and asks the Committee to reject this Amendment on the ground that it is doing what he is actually doing and which we want to modify by the Amendment we have proposed. From the beginning of the discussions on this Measure the Government have over and over again declared that no society will be poorer and that no insured person will suffer as a result of this measure. Let us see whether this is likely to take place. May I submit that a society that is getting additional benefit just now would suffer by the withdrawal of those benefits. Is there among the additional benefits that are being granted by the best and presumably well-managed societies, a single one that could be safely withdrawn without the members of that society suffering in consequence? Let us take these benefits that have been granted by the best-managed societies and let us see which of them can be withdrawn without the insured people suffering, because I want to remind the Committee that all that is proposed in this Amendment is that none of those societies will have to withdraw these additional benefits as a result of this Measure if it becomes an Act of Parliament. As the Government lay it down that they desire that a society or its members should not suffer, then I ask the Committee to bear with me while I explain to them the additional benefits which are now being conferred by the best societies in the country. There is, first of all, the payment of the whole, or in part, of the cost of dental treatment.

Will the Minister of Health, with all his audacity, dare to rise in this House and ask us to believe that the dental service which has been obtained by the insured people of this country as a result of the surpluses of these approved societies has not been one of the greatest national boons that this country has ever secured? It should not be necessary for me to argue this with the Minister of Health. It is the public duty of the Minister of Health to be protecting these people. I can excuse a Minister of War sitting there and acquiescing in this or any representative of the Government other than those who are defending it to-night for putting up a defence of these proposals. But I say it is treachery to the position that the Minister occupies that he should sit there and quietly accept the provisions of the measure before the House. Why, the improvement in health that has been one, of the great features of our national health life during the past 20 years has been due to the recognition of the value of the dentist as a saver of health. The Minister of Health knows, and anyone connected with the Ministry, that it is absolutely impossible for him to have a decent standard of health in this country if the teeth of the people are not properly attended to, and he knows that the economic position of the toiling multitude of this country made it impossible in the past for them to get this essential to good health. For the first time in the history of our country we are able to obtain for the poorest section of our people, through the operation of the National Health Insurance scheme, what we now know to be one of the elementary necessities of a decent standard of health. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to argue with me, or is he is going to deny, that the members who are deprived of that benefit, who are receiving it now, but because of the impoverishment of their funds by the provision of this Bill will not receive it, will not suffer? Of course they will suffer. The Amendment proposes, among other things, where the additional benefit is paid to-day in the form of dental treatment, that the Minister in future will have power to ensure a continuance of that benefit to a society which finds itself in deficiency as a result of the operation of this Measure. Is that a reasonable request to make, particularly to a right hon. Gentleman charged with the responsibility of protecting the public health of the country?

Let us turn to other matters. I am not now contemplating the additional benefits which were recommended by the Royal Commission. I am leaving out of account the possibility of improvement by this Government. No people in this country with any political knowledge or intelligence expect us to make progress under the present Government. But surely it is not too much to hope after the great war to which the hon. Member refers, after all the hopes that have been raised in the minds of our people during the past twenty years, that the little we have gained should be secured to us until we get a Government in power that has some conception of its duty to the public in regard to the provision of health service. I am not going to deal with the additional benefits which the Royal Commission have in view. I am only going to deal with the benefits which we have now, and which this Amendment seeks to ensure to the people in days to come in so far as they are jeopardised by the operation of this Measure. I have referred to dental treatment. The right hon. Gentlemen and the Parliamentary Secretary are more familiar with the matter than I am, and they have the services of the most enlightened men in the country in this connection. It is from this combination that I want to protect the insured people of the country. These societies give an increase of sickness benefit in the case of all their members or of such of them as have a specified number of children wholly or partly dependent on them. A society has a surplus and it decides to use it in whole or in part in increasing the weekly benefit from, say, fifteen shillings to eighteen shillings or twenty. Is it too much to ensure to a man who is in this disabled condition even the maximum additional benefit that is being paid by any society in this country? Can you say the working man is being pampered with being guaranteed £1 a week? Is there any temptation there to malingering? The very suggestion is absurd. It makes a person blush for his public activity when he suggests that a person should be paid less than twenty shillings a week no matter how poor. Those men find themselves in the position of spending some of their money in giving this additional benefit. The amendment asks that this £4,700,000 that is to be taken annually from these societies should not be taken at the expense of poor fellows who are getting this additional three shillings a, week. Is there anything unreasonable in that the Government which proposes to take this £4,700,000 either by taking part of it directly or by imposing additional burdens—is there anything unreasonable in that they should be asked to ensure that the man who is to-day getting an additional paltry three shillings a week on his statutory benefit should not suffer as a result of the action of the Government? If there is nothing unreasonable in that, why are the Government not accepting the amendment? These are not future benefits. These are benefits now being secured by people who are assured by the Government that they are not going to suffer as a result of this Bill, and all we ask is that money will be forthcoming for them later when it is necessary.

Let me take another of the benefits which are now being paid. Certain societies are now paying an increase on the maternity benefit. Forty shillings does not go far to-day, as Members on all sides of the House know to their cost; it is not a sum for which we can get anything approximating to the service we could have obtained for it, in pre-War days. We have just passed a Clause which increases the burden for medical benefit on the approved societies by 3s. per head because of the additional value which we have placed to-day on the medical service of the country. But what does this do? This deals with the societies that are paying the additional maternity benefit. It may be 45s.; I do not know one that is giving 50s. They are giving an additional 5s. to this poor woman in extreme circumstances, in one of the most critical moments of her life, at a moment when all humane people would admit she is rendering a great natural and national service. The societies, inspired by generosity and moved in a manner in which I would wish to see the right hon. Gentleman moved, come to the aid of this poor woman and give her 5s. above the statutory benefit. The right hon. Gentleman says, "I do not want to steal that poor woman's 5s.; I do not want to dirty my hands with the theft of that poor woman's 5s." When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen got up and described it as robbery, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were shocked. They said, "The very last thing we would dream of is robbing the poor of this country." If you take this 5s. you are robbing the poorest and the weakest and the most deserving of the poor. You are robbing in child-bed, in what is often the death-bed, the poor woman to whom 5s. means everything at that moment. The value of that 5s. may mean more to her than we in our circumstances can possibly understand. The circumstances of such a woman are only known to those who have lived that life or those who are living in close and intimate touch with those who are, unfortunately, enduring that life to-day. If I were to ask the right hon. Gentleman to go to the house of that woman and steal 5s. from her he would be shocked at the very suggestion. If he knew a person so possessed of criminal instinct as to go to rob that woman, he would bring all the forces of the Crown to defend that woman against the intended robbery.

What are we asking here? The right hon. Gentleman comes forward, and again let me repeat, he proposes to confiscate a part of the fund from which this additional 5s. is being paid. Yet it is not robbery; it is merely a transfer. To my friends of the Socialist movement, who believe you can only get out of our present difficulties as the days go by through confiscation, I am going to say that that word is not a, Parliamentary word. I am going to say that by the transfer of their extra wealth from the people who have more than they need to the people who require it, it will be only transferred, and, if I am asked whether, if, as a result of the transfer, they should suffer in the future, I would be prepared to come to their assistance. I will say, "Well, if I am to accept the precedent of a Conservative Government, I cannot give any promise of the kind, because when they went to transfer the money of this poor woman, to transfer the fund out of which perhaps her maintenance in life has been secured, and when I asked if in the event of the fund being insufficient in the future, as result of this, to give to this woman the 5s. that she is getting to-day, will you see that she is compensated for the loss caused by your confiscatory Act of Parliament, they said they cannot give any such promise." I hope the Socialist movement in its day will be more generous to the rich than the Conservative Government is this morning to the poor

Let me take another benefit, and I think this is one that I might reasonably expect even the present Government to guarantee. Certain societies to-day make allowances to members during convalescence from disease or disablement in respect of which sickness benefit or disablement benefit has been payable. We know this does not always take the form of cash paid to the insured person. It is very frequently a grant to a convelescent home or, it might be, to a hospital. The approved societies of this country have been exemplary in the expenditure of their public funds, and I wish to God all the individuals of this country could accept the example of the friendly societies in the administration of their surplus wealth. Part of the outlet for there surplus has been the assistance of convalescent homes or hospitals in which their members obtain treatment. Is anyone going to say that a society is not going to suffer if this is withdrawn? The whole nation is going to suffer. We are living in a country where these institutions are maintained mainly by voluntary contributions. This is not a Government which comes forward and says, "We are going to ensure to the people of this country in the future efficient and adequate convalescent institutions." This is a Government that is going to leave the whole maintenance of these institutions to the generosity of voluntary contributors, and among the voluntary contributors are the approved societies. Again, it gives us an example of what should be our conduct towards our less fortunate brethren. It would be a loss to the whole nation to weaken the position of these institutions. The Amendment says you should not rob the hospitals, you should not rob the convalescent homes, and you should not rob the disabled persons. You are taking today this huge sum out of the funds from which these contributions are now met. Is there anyone, with, I will not say a spark of human feeling but with any sense of duty towards hospitals and convalescent homes who is prepared to argue that it is unreasonable to ask that they should be insured out of the money that is now being taken from approved societies. Let me take just one or two other examples of the present benefits, and I am sorry that it has been necessary for me to address the House on this question. I can assure hon. Members I have not been recently too fond of troubling the House for good reasons and I would have preferred if I could have escaped a duty not to intervene in this discussion. But I could not honourably, in view of the fact, that I was to a large extent responsible indirectly for the provisions in the Bill, even at a risk of physical suffering, refrain from participating in the discussion. I would have liked to have refrained and I am not asking for any special indulgence. But the obligation, as I said, was put on me to take part in the discussion, and then through conduct which will redound not to the credit of business I was refused the opportunity to give my views, and compelled to give them in instalments during the course of discussion. I do not, however, want to prolong the discussion on this Amendment. It is a very important Amendment, and I have no doubt there are Members in all parts of the House, when they realise the obligations of this Clause, when they appreciate the merits of this Amendment—in all parts of the House, among my friends here, among the party below the Gangway, and among Members on the Government side, if any freedom of thought and action remains on the Government side—there are many Members who would like to discuss this in the light that has been thrown on its implications in the discussion up to now. So I will refer only briefly to two other points that arise in relation to the Amendment and to this particular Clause.

One of the additional benefits that has been given, which I personally and I am sure many Members of the House can appreciate, is optical treatment and appliances. It is only those of us who for one reason or another are mostly on this side of the House through unfortunate early circumstances carry with us the indelible mark of that early suffering in shortsightedness and if proper appliances had been supplied to us in those years it would have meant a great deal. I will ask those on this side of the House who are particularly interested in industrial questions to appreciate what this optical treatment and the provision of optical appliances means for the industrial population who come under the National Health Insurance scheme. The War was won not merely by the physical fit; to a large extent it was won by the physical defective, by the people who were shortsighted and who from their infancy suffered from disabilities. The War was won by these men and women who had to go into the workshops and they had to take the place of those men and women who had gone to the front. The approved societies are rendering a real national service in spending their money on these benefits and the Amendment asks that they should be guaranteed in the future. That is a reasonable request to make to the Minister of Health. I would blush if I were in his place and I will go so far as to say that he is secretly ashamed of the Measure that his position in the Government compels him to defend. Let me take the last point. Some societies to-day are providing surgical appliances to their members out of their surplus funds. I could quote language that might perhaps be regarded as sob-stuff to describe the effect of the bestowal of these appliances on the poorest class of our people. It would be impossible to describe their feelings. It makes all the difference between great hardship and existence under ordinary standards of comfort. Let me take again the simile I asked the House to imagine. If you asked the Minister of Health to go into Whitehall to-morrow and rob an afflicted person of his appliance would he do it? He would not. But this Bill will rob tens of thousands of people more effectually than he would have been able to do in the streets of London. If the right hon. Gentleman is not secretly ashamed of having to occupy that position then all my feeling of contempt at his action to-night is increased at a man who has the character to carry out a policy such has been laid down in the Bill.

Several hon. Members having risen to continue the Debate—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

rose in his place and claimed to move"That the Question be now put,"but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put the Question.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I make no apology for intervening in the discussion of a Measure which undoubtedly reduces benefits conferred by a Measure which I had the privilege of carrying through this House a great many years ago. I was greatly moved by the catalogue of benefits in that Measure in the very able speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). This is a very important Amendment raising a very important issue. An Amendment of a similar character was to have been moved earlier in the course of the proceedings but for the intervention of the Closure. It is a vital issue that is to be decided, and it is this: On the present occasion the Government are talking of reducing the contribution of the State. They are going to take no further action to stabilise at any rate the additional benefits which have been declared. I made some inquiries as to the form of the objections raised by the Minister of Health to the form of this Amendment, and really it was not quite a fair answer. The form of the Amendment is neither here nor there. What matters is the substance.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I did not object to the form of the Amendment, but to the Amendment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

"Form" is perhaps hardly the word I ought to use. What I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say was that the Amendment which has been moved would have certain effects. I think the argument he used was that it might stabilise benefits in societies which were badly managed. It was something to that effect. If that be the case I quite agree that no Amendment ought to be carried to stabilise bad management and guarantee benefits to societies which are badly managed, but the Government have the discretion and the Minister has perfect discretion even in the Clause to deal with a case of that kind. If the Amendment is not strong enough, I have no doubt nobody would object to words being introduced to meet the case. The form of the Amendment is not the point. The point is that where benefits have already been declared and distributed, benefits of the kind enumerated very eloquently by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston who has just sat down, there should he some guarantee on the part of the Government—a word from the Minister at any rate, that the Government will see that through the action of this Bill members of societies are not to be deprived of benefits which have already been declared. Is it really too much to ask the Government? They want £2,800,000. That has been voted already, and I cannot discuss it any longer at the present stage, but there ought to be some exceptions, some reservations, some guarantees. The societies are honestly anxious as to the benefits they have already declared with the consent of the Ministers. There is not an additional benefit declared which has not been declared without submission to the Minister. That is my recollection. They cannot declare an additional benefit except upon the issue of a certificate of the Minister of Health.

Here is the word of a Minister of the Crown, speaking on behalf of the nation, of the Sovereign, of Parliament—a certificate signed by him that this additional benefit shall be granted. Is it too much to ask that that pledge shall be honoured, that this shall not be treated as a scrap of paper; that when actual benefits have been declared, certified, signed, that at any rate the Government will say: We will see that through no action of ours on this Bill will these benefits be withdrawn? I think I have quoted to-night the case of a society that says that within four or five years they will be bound to withdraw benefits that have been already declared. Is that fair? Is that right? Is that something which the right hon. Gentleman, with his record, his very great record of work in this line in his own city, who has manifested sympathy with action of this kind and has never taken a narrow view, and with his hereditary sympathy—is it too much for him to declare that even in an Economy Bill he will not dishonour a certificate, not of his own, but of anybody who has signed on behalf of this great country. Leaving alone all these questions of economy—and it will not effect much economy—nobody asks him to guarantee against insolvency men who have not handled their affairs properly, but to guarantee men who have managed their business thoroughly against insolvency attributable to the direct action of the Government despite the protest of 15 millions of people who, without any submission to their judgment, are being thus treated. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he accepts the Amendment in its present form or not, that he will guarantee that through no action of the Government will there be any withdrawal of benefit already declared?

4.0 A.M.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I have been severely criticised for having taken a certain course. I have endeavoured always to give every facility for discussion of a serious character.

The CHAIRMAN

The remark of the right hon. Gentleman seems to indicate that he proposes to defend himself, but if he wishes to do so I shall have to allow other hon. Members to reply.

Mr. LANSBURY

On a point of Order. Do we speak in this House at the goodwill of or as a privilege conceded by the Ministers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I say no more. As I was impugned I thought perhaps I might have been allowed to make some response. I address myself to the excuses to which we have just listened. I would point out to the Committee that the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) has not touched on the main point of my objection to this Amendment. I feel that he did not realise the full force of my objection. It would create an injustice between one Society and another, and the injustice would favour the badly managed Society at the expense of the better managed Society. Let me make clear the principal point of my objection. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) appeals to me not to do anything that would dishonour pledges given by my predecessors in respect of surpluses on valuations. I say there is nothing that would affect these benefits. They are declared in respect of surpluses arising out of a certain quinquennial period. The benefits are not thereupon declared for all time but for a further quinquennial period, and it it only during that quinquennial period that there is anything that can be called a pledge on the part of the Minister. If these benefits are declared for a period of five years, then it is only for that period that they are declared. In the following period you will have to deal with surpluses arising out of that period. What the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has been asking me is something quite different from that. We are not touching any pledge that can possibly have been given by my predecessor. What he wants me to do is to give some sort of pledge on behalf of my successor. When he argues that by reason of the reduction in the State contribution the surpluses that would be available for distribution by way of benefits in 1931 would not be as great as they would have been if we had not withdrawn the contribution, that, of course is a self evident proposition. But I do not accept the statement of the gentleman who wrote on behalf of some rural workers' society in Scotland; I say it is much too soon to be able to say what he will be able to do in 1931. The actuaries are themselves unable to say. What we do know is that while there is on the one hand this reduction in the State contribution, on the other hand there are various other factors —the rate of interest, the increasing amount and proportion of their funds on which that rate of interest is earned, the increasing number of contributors that may be expected in a year. I disclaim altogether the statement that has been attributed either to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary or myself that nobody will have any less in the way of surplus or assets by reason of the fact that the State is going to reduce its contribution.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Or benefits withdrawn.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Or benefits withdrawn. All I say is that it is quite impossible to lay down to-day whether the benefits on the next valuation will be equivalent to those on the last. These surpluses must be of fluctuating amounts, quite apart from this Bill or anything the Government might do. There are varying circumstances arising which do not remain the same from one year to another. If the circumstances vary then the surpluses vary. What might happen at the next valuation it is quite impossible to say at present. It is, therefore, asking something that has never been contemplated, to ask that additional benefits should be in the same position as if they were statutory benefits. This Amendment has that effect. We must remember that, under this Amendment, a number of societies would be thrown into nominal deficiency by reason of the fact that their surpluses on the third valuation are not equal to those on the second. That may be due, it is true, to the withdrawal of the State contribution, but it may also be due, or due entirely, to a laxness of management, but even if it is due to a laxness on the part of the society, does not the right hon. Gentleman see that, automatically, the deficiency which could be attributed to the Government contribution will be payable to that society and consequently its surplus would not be lower at the third valuation?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I would like to ask this question: It is clear from the actuaries' report that the provisions of this Bill are likely to throw into actual deficiency 10 per cent. of the societies. In addition to that, it has been rendered clear by this Debate that a number of other societies which will not actually be put into deficiency will in 1931 be put into a state when they will be unable to pay the additional benefit which they have paid up till now. According to the right hon. Gentleman, the general condition of the societies is likely to be so much better in 1931 that there will he very few in that position. According to the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Meller) the condition of the societies in general is likely to be so much worse that many of them are going to he deprived of additional benefits in 1931. Supposing that conditions remain otherwise pretty much the same, can the right hon. Gentleman, give us any idea of the proportion of societies which are likely to have to deprive their members of additional benefits owing to the provisions of this Bill? Can he give us or get from the Government actuaries at a later stage of the Debate any figures which will give us any idea of the number of societies that will have to bring about a diminution of additional benefits in 1931 owing to the provisions of this Bill? Will it be 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., or can he give us any idea?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Obviously I could not give any answer to that question now. I doubt whether the actuaries could give it, but I will make inquiries.

Mr. THOMAS

I agree entirely that so far as the first and second valuations are concerned no one will be affected. That is common agreement. This Amendment is asking that if as a result of the third valuation and the Government actuary in taking this money a particular society is affected or an individual member of a society, then that should be guaranteed to him. But the right hon. Gentleman says that so far as his experience goes there is no guarantee that there may be a surplus on any society on the third valuation. That is true that there is no guarantee. He is perfectly entitled to say that nobody can say actually that there will be. What he cannot say is this. The first valuation showed a very good surplus. The second valuation showed a much larger surplus, and surely the very effect of the National Insurance Act on the general health presupposes that there will be a greater surplus on the third valuation. But if that is so it will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to say "No, we cannot say what that surplus will be." What he can say is that, whatever it is, it must be nearly £4,000,000 less than it otherwise would have been were it not for this Bill. I would ask the Minister this. Amendments not of a flimsy character, Amendments have been put down not only in the name of the party but at the request of the insured people—and most of the Amendments which have been put down on this side of the Committee are Amendments which the approved societies themselves urged on the party—and not to one of those Amendments, no matter what the nature or how strongly pressed or what has been said in its favour, has a solitary concession been made of any sort or kind by the Minister. I venture to think that this is going to have a disastrous effect. Every amending Bill before this has been discussed, negotiated and argued out with representative people long before the House of Commons had an opportunity for discussing it. But in this case the representatives have been denied their opportunity and when we have put in on their behalf a case and a plea for further consideration, I think we are entitled to say to the Government that they are not treating us quite fairly. Does it mean that this extraordinary precedent is to be established that whatever the will of the House of Commons may be, however strong a case may be put forward, the Bill must go through? It leaves the impression that desperate as the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be, he is despotic as well.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I heard a Conservative Member a week ago on a public platform rather ingeniously try to defend this Bill. He argued that the Government had taken a certain sum of money for reducing the grant and that its real effect was that the Government, instead of paying out money to approved societies are taking the money just now, but in three or four years' time they will give it back and it is merely a business proposition to use this capital. That was his defence, and as I listened to it I thought there was at least the semblance of a case. He said, "The Government need this money more than the friendly societies, and we will see that not a single friendly society member suffers as a result." I thought the Government had at least a case to take the money, and when I saw this Amendment I said this Member and his colleagues will at least support our view. If the real reason is that the Government is only temporarily harassed and has a greater need of the money than the friendly societies or the approved societies, and if their real intention is to repay the money, surely they will support our Amendment by making it a statutory obligation for the Government to give the benefits. Surely if the Government are only taking the money at the moment because of dire financial necessity on the part of the nation, they will at least in a statutory way secure the benefits, but when we ask them to do it they say, "This is a penalty, and if we are to carry the Amendment we are putting a penalty on the best managed societies and assisting those that are worst managed." But, after all, the principle of helping the worst managed societies is already accepted. Under this scheme they say: We will give every society at least the standard benefits. I know societies that I think might be better out of existence altogether. I think the locality that they try to cover is hopeless of giving good management, and it would be much better if they were incorporated in some of the bigger societies. These societies have never paid a surplus, and never will; but under this Clause they are not in the least affected, and they are going to be guaranteed the same benefits as they have paid and would always be likely to pay whether this Act comes or goes. They are inefficiently managed, but they are going to be guaranteed. The Minister of Health says we have already guaranteed all the inefficient societies that cannot now pay a surplus, but when we come along and ask him to guarantee the efficient societies, he says: we cannot give it to them, because it will create a differentiation. I cannot follow his reasoning. I have in mind at the moment one badly managed society. Along side of it I know another group of people who manage a society extremely well. Tremendous voluntary effort is being put into it, and the result is that it has accumulated a fairly large surplus. The other society has never paid a surplus, and never will under its present form of management. Yet it is guaranteed its benefits. The Government say: "We will pay them the statutory benefits they have always been able to pay." But to this other efficient society they come along and say: "We will not guarantee you any benefits, because we might assist this other society." I confess that the Minister of Health's logic and his understanding of the Amendment were altogether wrong.

I want to press one of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). He dealt with many things, including the questions of maternity allowances and convalescent homes. I represent possibly one of the poorest places in the poor parts of the country. I suppose I have more slum dwellers and possibly more unemployment than most Members have to represent, and in this division I have a young brother who now practises as a doctor with a fairly good panel practice in my district. Take maternity benefits. Five shillings is not looked upon as very much here, but to these people five shillings is a tremendous amount. Nobody can calculate it, and if 15s. is reduced to 10s. it means the difference between butter and margarine, the difference between good milk and bad milk. I said to a colleague of mine, also a doctor, that I am surprised at the medical profession in this House not making a greater fight on this Amendment than they are putting up at the moment. You go to the poor homes where already poverty is telling its tale, and we ought to be considering how to increase the amount from 45s. to a greater amount, and not decreasing it. You are going to make the task of the ordinary doctor in a poor district, which is already a hard task a harder task than ever he has had before. After all, the doctor is merely an agent. If the patient cannot get decent food and decent medicine and decent other things, the doctor might as well not be there at all, and here you are taking away this income which would go to provide the food. My own union pay, I think, 45s., and we pay in addition three shillings or four shillings extra sick benefit. I always went on the principle that I ought to insure not only with an ordinary trade union, but with a friendly society, because I think a man who is sick and wants to be well ought to have as big an income when he is sick as when he is employed, because the first thing to get a man better is the knowledge that those with whom he is living are not impaired by his illness. Therefore, until I came to this House, I was fairly heavily mortgaged in friendly societies for an income for sick benefit. Take my own union. We give, I think, 4s. a week extra sick benefit, and we have done it through competent management. Now we come along to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary has made whatever good side he has to his reputation by his association with friendly societies, and here he is going to desert the very people who have given him the standing that he has in public life. He is going to desert them at the most critical time when they need his help. I remember when he was in opposition and we formed the Government.

I do not want to impute base motives, for I am always following the example of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) who always tries to avoid hard words and harsh sayings. The hon. Member (Sir Kingsley Wood) when he was in opposition always thought he was an agent on behalf of the approved societies; he always wanted to know what we were doing here and there, and yet here is this man, whom you would always think was the paid advocate of the approved societies coming along and striking a most deadly blow at these particular approved societies. Many unions have started as one of the new benefits, dental treatment, and for many reasons what do we find? We find that that the members are appreciating the dental treatment in a most remarkable fashion. This benefit cannot be measured in pounds, shillings and pence. It means giving to the nation a better type of men and women. When you allow the income of a sick man to fall you lessen his chance of benefit. It means, in many cases, that it is affecting the nation in some other way. If you take away three shillings from a man erning 24s., what happens in many cases? He is transferred to the Poor Law, and this is no great saving, but simply transferring a national burden on to a local burden. Therefore, as the Minister of Health knows well, the prevention of these things is far better than cure. Ministers of Health, Tory, Liberal, Labour and Coalition, have laid it down that prevention of disease carried into effect is far better. I read a speech about eight months ago of the Chairman of the National Association of Friendly Societies, and they were discussing a very important point, whether they should in their new valuation increase the amount of sick benefit pay or go in for a new preventive treatment—surgical appliances, dental treatment or optical treatment. The great line of all health authorities ought to be on the lines of preventing sickness before the natural definite sickness occurs, and so in the prevention of disease. They were coming along in this great salvage work, and the approved societies had set themselves out in the same way. The Minister of Health should say to the approved societies, "Go on with your work; you have accom- plished marvellous work. We will secure to you that after 1931 none of your useful work will be in the slightest way limited." Surely that is not too much to ask. At least you should secure the surgical and dental treatment and the subscriptions to the convalescent homes. I hope the Minister of Health will accept this very mild Amendment. If he cannot regard it in cash benefit, let him accept it in regard to dental treatment and surgical appliances. Some concession can be made. We are not asking for much. All we are asking is that the health of the nation ought to be one of the first charges of the nation, and ought to be cared for

properly and well. Let the Minister of Health accept the Amendment and thus show to the House and to the country that his reign in connection with this— while not giving us all we want—is a spirit of conciliation. I hope he will accept this mild and meagre Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That Question be no w put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 104.

Division No. 141.] AYES. [4.39 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Rice, Sir Frederick
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Hartington, Marquess of Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Atkinson, C. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Balniel, Lord Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Ropner, Major L.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Haslam, Henry C. Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Bethel, A. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Rye, F. G.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Hills, Major John Waller Salmon, Major I.
Blades, sir George Rowland Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Blundell, F. N. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Brass, Captain W. Holt, Capt. H. P. Sandon, Lord
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Savery, S. S.
Briscoe, Richard George Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Huntingfield, Lord Shepperson, E. W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Skelton, A. N.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Jacob, A. E. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Burman, J. B. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Burton, Colonel H. W. Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Kindersley, Major Guy M. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cayzor, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) KinlochCooke, Sir Clement Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Loder, J. de V. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Lougher, L. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Chapman, Sir S. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Cobb, Sir Cyril Lumley, L. R. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Couper, J. B. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Strickland, Sir Gerald
Courtauld, Major J. S. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. McLean, Major A. Templeton, W. P.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Macquisten, F. A. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) MacRobert, Alexander M. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Curzon, Captain Viscount Malone, Major P. B. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Manninham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Tinne, J. A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Margesson, Captain D. Wallace, Captain D. E.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Meller, R. J. Wells, S. R.
Dawson, Sir Philip Meyer, Sir Frank Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Dixey, A. C. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Drewe, C. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Eden, Captain Anthony Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Nall, Lieut.-Colonel sir Joseph Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Everard, W. Lindsay Neville, R. J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Fraser, Captain Ian Nuttall, Ellis Wise, Sir Fredric
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony Penny, Frederick George Womersley, W. J.
Goff, Sir Park Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Gower, Sir Robert Perring, Sir William George Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Grant, J. A. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Philipson, Mabel Wragg, Herbert
Greene, W. P. Crawford Power, Sir John Cecil Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Preston, William
Gunston, Captain D. W. Radford, E. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Raine, W. Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Ammon, Charles George Hardie, George D. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Sitch, Charles H.
Barnes, A. Hayday, Arthur Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barr, J. Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Batey, Joseph Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hirst, G. H. Snell, Harry
Broad, F. A. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Stephen, Campbell
Bromley, J. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Sullivan, Joseph
Buchanan, G. John, William (Rhondda, West) Taylor, R. A.
Cape, Thomas Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Charleton, H. C. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Thurtle, E.
Clowes, S. Kelly, W. T. Tinker, John Joseph
Cluse, W. S. Kennedy, T. Townend, A. E.
Compton, Joseph Lansbury, George Varley, Frank B.
Cove, W. G. Lawson, John James Viant, S. P.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lunn, William Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Crawfurd, H. E. Mackinder, W. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dalton, Hugh Maxton, James Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Montague, Frederick Whiteley, W.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Morris, R. H. Wiggins, William Martin
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Oliver, George Harold Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Day, Colonel Harry Owen, Major G. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Dennison, R. Paling, W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Dunnico, H. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Fenby, T. D. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Ponsonby, Arthur Windsor, Walter
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd Potts, John S. Wright, W.
Gibbins, Joseph Purcell, A. A. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Gillett, George M. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Ritson, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Scurr, John Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Grundy, T. W. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 163.

Division No. 142.] AYES. [4.48 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Ammon, Charles George Hardie, George D. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Joan
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Sitch, Charles H.
Barnes, A. Hayday, Arthur Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barr, J. Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Batey, Joseph Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hirst, G. H. Snell, Harry
Broad, F. A. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Stephen, Campbell
Bromley, J. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Sullivan, Joseph
Buchanan, G. John, William (Rhondda, West) Taylor, R. A.
Cape, Thomas Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Charleton, H. C. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Thurtle, E.
Clowes, S. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Tinker, John Joseph
Cluse, W. S. Kelly, W. T. Townend, A. E.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Kennedy, T. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Compton, Joseph Lansbury, George Varley, Frank B.
Cove, W. G. Lawson, John James Viant, S. P.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lunn, William Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Crawfurd, H. E. Mackinder, W. Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dalton, Hugh Maxton, James Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Montague, Frederick Whiteley, W.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Morris, R. H. Wiggins, William Martin
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Oliver, George Harold Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Day, Colonel Harry Owen, Major G. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Dennison, R. Paling, W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Dunnico, H. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Fenby, T. D. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Ponsonby, Arthur Windsor, Walter
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd Potts, John S. Wright, W.
Gibbins, Joseph Purcell, A. A. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Gillett, George M. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Ritson, J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Scurr, John Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Grundy, T. W. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Raine, W.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Harrison, G. J. C. Rice, Sir Frederick
Atkinson, C. Hartington, Marquess of Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Balniel, Lard Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Ropner, Major L.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Haslam, Henry C. Ruggles, Brise, Major E. A.
Bethel, A. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Rye, F. G.
Blades, Sir George Rowland Hills, Major John Waller Salmon, Major I.
Blundell, F. N. Hohler, sir Gerald Fitzroy Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Brass, Captain W. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Holt, Captain H. P. Sandon, Lord
Briscoe, Richard George Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Savery, S. S.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N). Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Huntingfield, Lord Shepperson, E. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Nowb'y) Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Skelton, A. N.
Burman, J. B. Jacob, A. E. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert Smith, R. W, (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.) Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Kindersley, Major Guy M. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.) Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Loder, J. de V. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Chapman, Sir S. Lougher, L. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Couper, J. B. Lumley, L. R. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Courtauld, Major J. S. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Strickland, Sir Gerald
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. McLean, Major A. Templeton, W. P.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Macquisten, F. A. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Curzon, Captain Viscount MacRobert, Alexander M. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Malone, Major P. B. Tinne, J. A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Wallace, Captain D. E.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Margesson, Capt. D. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Wells, S. R.
Dawson, Sir Philip Meller, R. J. Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Dixey, A. C. Meyer, Sir Frank White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Drewe, C Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Williams. A. M. (Cornwell, Northern)
Eden, Captain Anthony Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Everard, W. Lindsay Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Neville, R. J. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Fraser, Captain Ian Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wise, Sir Fredric
Gadie, Lieut. Col. Anthony Nuttall, Ellis Womersley, W. J.
Goff, Sir Park Penny, Frederick George Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Gower, Sir Robert Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Grant, J. A. Perring, Sir William George Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Wragg, Herbert
Greene, W. P. Crawford Philipson, Mabel Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Power, Sir John Cecil
Gunston, Captain D. W. Preston, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Radford, E. A. Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.

Mr. CHAMBERLAINrose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 106.

Division No. 143.] AYES. [4.59. a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Brocklebank, C. E. R. Courtauld, Major J. S.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Courthope, Lieut.-Col, sir George L.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Atkinson, C. Brown, Brig.-Gen.-H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Balniel, Lord Burman, J. B. Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Burton, Colonel H. W. Curzon, Captain Viscount
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Bethel, A. Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.) Davies, Dr. Vernon
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Blades, Sir George Rowland Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Blundell, F. N. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Dawson, Sir Philip
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Dixey, A. C.
Brass, Captain W. Chapman, Sir S Drewe, C.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Cobb, Sir Cyril Eden, Captain Anthony
Briscoe, Richard George Couper, J. B. Edmondson, Major A. J.
Everard, W. Lindsay Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Shepperson, E. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G. McLean, Major A. Skelton, A. N.
Fraser, Captain Ian McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Macquisten, F. A. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Goff, Sir Park MacRobert, Alexander M. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Gower, Sir Robert Malone, Major P. B. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Grant, J. A. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Stanley, Col. Hon. C. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford Meller, R. J. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Meyer, Sir Frank Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Gunston, Captain D. W. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Strickland, Sir Gerald
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Harrison, G. J. C. Neville, R. J. Templeton, W. P.
Hartington, Marquess of Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Nuttall, Ellis Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Penny, Frederick George Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen South)
Haslam, Henry C. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Perring, Sir William George Tinne, J. A.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Peto, G (Somerset, Frome) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Hills, Major John Walter Philipson, Mabel Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Power, Sir John Cecil Wells, S. R.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Preston, William Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Holt, Capt. H. P. Radford, E. A. White, Lieut. Colonel G. Dairymple
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Raine, W. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Rice, Sir Frederick Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Huntingfield, Lord Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Jacob, A. E. Ropner, Major L. Wise, Sir Fredric
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. Womersley, W. J.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Kindersley, Major Guy M. Rye, F. G. Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Salmon, Major I. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Wragg, Herbert
Loder, J. de v. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Lougher, L. Sandon, Lord
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Savery, S. S, TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Lumley, L. R. Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) Major Cope and Captain Margessson.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Grundy, T. W. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Ammon, Charles George Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hardie, George D. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Barnes, A. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Barr, J. Hayday, Arthur Sitch, Charles H.
Batey, Joseph Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Broad, F. A. Hirst, G. H. Snell, Harry
Bromley, J. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Stephen, Campbell
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Buchanan, G. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Sullivan, Joseph
Cape, Thomas John, William (Rhondda, West) Taylor, R. A.
Charleton, H. C. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Clowes, S. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Thurtle, E.
Cluse, W. S. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Tinker, John Joseph
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Kelly, W. T. Townend, A. E.
Compton, Joseph Kennedy, T. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Cove, W. G. Lansbury, George Varley, Frank B.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lawson, John James Viant, S. P.
Crawfurd, H. E. Lunn, William Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Dalton, Hugh Mackinder, W. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Maxton, James Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Montague, Frederick Whiteley, W.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Morris, R. H. Wiggins, William Martin
Day, Colonel Harry Oliver, George Harold Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Dennison, R. Owen, Major G. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Dunnico, H. Paling, W. Williams, T. (York, Don valley)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Fenby, T. D. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Ponsonby, Arthur Windsor, Walter
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd Potts, John S. Wright, W.
Gibbins, Joseph Purcell, A. A. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Gillett, George M. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Graham, D, M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Ritson, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Scurr, John Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Warne.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Question put accordingly: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 105.

Division No. 144.] AYES. [5.10. a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Breton & Rad.) Rice, Sir Frederick
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Harrison, G. J. C. Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Atkinson, C. Hartington, Marquess of Ropner, Major L.
Balniel, Lord Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Haslam, Henry C. Rye, F. G.
Bethel, A. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Salmon, Major I.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Blades, Sir George Rowland Hills, Major John Waller Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Blundell, F. N. Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Sandon, Lord
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Savery, S. S.
Brass, Captain W. Holt, Captain H. P. Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Briscoe, Richard George Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Shepperson, E. W.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) Skelton, A. N.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Huntingfield, Lord Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y) Jacob, A. E. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Burman, J. B. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Burton, Colonel H. W. Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Kindersley, Major G. M. Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A (Birm., W.) Loder, J. D. V. Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Lougher, L. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Chapman, Sir S. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Strickland, Sir Gerald
Cobb, Sir Cyril Lumley, L. R. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Cope, Major William MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Templeton, W. P.
Couper, J. B. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Courtauld, Major J. S. McLean, Major A. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Crott, Brigadier-General Sir H. Macquisten, F. A. Thomson, Ht. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) MacRobert, Alexander M. Tinne, J. A.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro) Malone, Major P. B. Wallace, Captain D. E.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Davies, Dr. Vernon Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Wells, S. R.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Meller, R. J. Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Meyer, Sir Frank White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Dawson, Sir Philip Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Dixey, A. C. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Drewe, C. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Eden, Captain Anthony Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Edmondson, Major A. J. Neville, R. J. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Everard, W. Lindsay Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wise, Sir Fredric
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Nuttall, Ellis Womersley, W. J.
Fraser, Captain Ian Penny, Frederick George Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Goff, Sir Park Perring, Sir William George Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Gower, Sir Robert Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Wragg, Herbert
Grant, J. A. Philipson, Mabel Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Power, Sir John Cecil
Greene, W. P. Crawford Preston, William TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Radford, E. A. Captain Margesson and Captain Viscount Curzon.
Gunston, Captain D. W. Raine, W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ammon, Charles George Day, Colonel Harry Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Dennison, R. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Barnes, A. Dunnico, H. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Barr, J. Fenby, T, D. Kelly, W. T.
Batey, Joseph George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd Kennedy, T.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Gibbins, Joseph Lansbury, George
Broad, F. A Gillett, George M. Lawson, John James
Bromley, J. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lunn, William
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Mackinder, W.
Buchanan, G. Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Maxton, James
Cape, Thomas Grundy, T. W. Montague, Frederick
Charleton, H. C. Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Morris, R. H.
Clowes, S. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Oliver, George Harold
Cluse, W. S. Hardie, George D. Owen, Major G.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Paling, W.
Compton, Joseph Hayday, Arthur Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Cove, W. G. Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Ponsonby, Arthur
Crawfurd, H. E. Hirst, G. H. Potts, John S.
Dalton, Hugh Hirst, W. (Bradford. South) Purcell, A. A.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Ritson, J. Sullivan, Joseph Wiggins, William Martin
Scurr, John Taylor, R. A. Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Shaw, Bt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Thurtle, E. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Shiels, Dr, Drummond Tinker, John Joseph Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Townend, A. E. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. Windsor, Walter
Sitch, Charles H. Varley, Frank B. Wright, W.
Slesser, Sir Henry H. Viant, S. P. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Walsh, Ht. Hon. Stephen
Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Snell, Harry Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne.
Stephen, Campbell Whiteley, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)