§ The CHAIRMAN
With regard to this Schedule, which provides for repeals of existing Acts following upon the decisions already taken by the Committee, the first Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell) and others, in page 14, to leave out lines 7 to 31 inclusive, is undoubtedly out of order, as the decision of the Committee on the point is quite clear. With regard to the second Amendment, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), in page 16, to leave out lines 16 to 20 inclusive, it is not clear whether this follows necessarily from the decisions which the Committee has already taken on Part I of the Bill. Therefore the discussion must not in the first place turn on the merits. It should be conducted first of all to show that the repeal is not necessary. On that assumption the question of merits may then come in.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMAS
I beg to move, in page 16, to leave out lines 16 to 20 inclusive.
I think I can show that the point involved in this Amendment has not been discussed and also that it is a point of substance. When the National Health Insurance Bill was first introduced it was an obligation, even prior to the consideration of any medical benefit for the ordinary industrial workers ashore, the shipowners by Statute Law being compelled to provide medical attendance for seamen on foreign-going ships. That shortly was the situation when the Measure was introduced, so that the House was faced with this fact. Here is an obligation already accepted and recognised by one section of employers with regard to a particular section of workmen. In order to get over that difficulty, provision was made in the Bill that so far as foreign-going members employed by any shipowner were concerned, a 1136 reduction of a penny a week should be allowed to the employer because of the special circumstances I have already described.
The result was that when the original Act was introduced this penny was deducted from the employers' contribution, and the ordinary rates for shore workers were: Employer, 3d.; workman, 4d, total, 7d.; and for foreign-going seamen, employer, 2d.; workman, 4d.; total, 6d. The effect of that was to relieve the shipowners to the extent of one penny per week on every National Health Insurance contribution for foreign-going seamen. Then in 1920 it was found that the amount paid for medical benefit was inadequate, and, again by agreement, the contribution was raised from 6s. to 9s. 6d. This resulted in the previous reduction of one penny being raised to threepence in respect of foreign-going seamen, the whole of which, again, was taken from the employers' contribution, so that up to this stage all the benefit that accrued from National Health Insurance, as far as medical benefit was concerned, although it was an obligation prior to the Insurance Act for which the employer himself was responsible, went to the employer and not to the workman.
Under this Bill the charge to societies for medical benefit is further increased, not of course as the direct result of the Bill, from 9s. 6d. to 12s. 6d. This necessitates a further reduction with regard to the seamen's contribution, and there is now a further reduction in the contribution of the shipowner of one halfpenny a week. I understand from the people who know the numbers employed that, taking a very conservative figure, there are at least 120,000 foreign-going seamen insurable for 32 weeks of the year. So that the ordinary reduction of one penny relieves the shipowner to the extent of£16,000. I understand—it appears to me to be a very good arrangement—that the money derived from this share of the employers' contribution is paid to the Seamen's Pension Fund, formerly known as the Lascar Pension Fund, the object of which is to provide some kind of a pension —it is not very much, but it is very much appreciated—to seamen after long years of service when they are unable to continue to go to sea, and men between 65 and 70 years of age obtain a pension of approximately 10s. a week. This is 1137 an agreement between both sides, and it is generally accepted by the employers and the men's representatives as a very satisfactory arrangement. They assure me that if this Clause is carried, the net effect will be to reduce the contributions to that fund by at least,£4,000 per annum, which will affect the pensions of at least 150 sailors who would in the ordinary way get them.
I think I have fairly summarised the facts of the case, and I would ask the Minister this very pertinent question. It would be a waste of the Committee's time to argue the tremendous service rendered by seamen. There would be common agreement that there is no class of the community that is more deserving, when they have reached the age of 65, of a pension. This statement and this protest is sent to me by the Seamen and Firemen's Union, and whatever view hon. Members may have with regard to trade unionism in general or any particular union, it will not be argued that this is a revolutionary organisation. They say they desire to enter their strongest protest against this fact, that prior to this Bill being introduced they never heard a solitary word about it. They were not consulted, and the first they heard of it was when the Bill was thrown at them. Having regard to this extraordinary situation, first that title medical benefit was the direct responsibility of the employer and naturally was taken into consideration in the relationship of wages, having regard to the fact that they are deprived of the extension of the general benefits of the medical provision, having regard to their particular calling, having regard to the fact that it is used for the wonderful and beneficent purpose of providing pensions for a very deserving class, and that it means a reduction to them of£4,000, they ask me to urge upon the Minister responsible that, at least, the matter should be deferred until the three parties—the Minister of Health representing the Government, the shipowners and the Seamen's Unions—should have an opportunity of discussing the whole question. Upon those grounds I move the Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman has so fully and persuasively surveyed the history of the question that very few words are needed to reinforce what he has said. The National Sailors 1138 and Firemen's Union of Great Britain and Ireland have asked me to put down the Amendment which stands in my name, which is substantially the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman, and they have furnished me with, roughly, the same arguments that he has employed so skilfully on their behalf. It is an extraordinary thing that this is the only part of the Economy Bill which puts money into the pockets of anybody outside the Exchequer. There is no other Clause or provision in this Bill for benefiting any section of the community except the Exchequer. This Schedule is an exception; it puts one halfpenny per week, or£12,000, into the pockets of the shipowners. I am informed that they have not asked for this reduction, that there is reason to believe that they would be perfectly willing to allow this money to be used for the benefit of seamen as a whole, and that£4,000 of the£12,000 would be devoted to a pensions fund to be expended in 150 pensions of 10s. per week to those seamen who are entitled to a pension under the scheme.
If that be so, and if it be true that the shipowners have not been consulted and that the representatives of the men have not been consulted, would the Minister of Health be so good as to reconsider the attitude that he has taken up in this Bill. I do not ask him to accept my Amendment or the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, because we know that the Government wish to avoid a Report stage of the Bill, but would they in the meantime, before the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, consider whether they cannot in another place introduce an Amendment which would have the effect of benefiting the Seamen's Pension Fund, and providing a very deserving class of the community with benefits which they might rightfully expect to enjoy, seeing that the owners have not asked for this reduction. There are so many good services which might be performed by this money on behalf of seamen who suffer from so many disabilities in different parts of the world, that it would be easy, in conference with the seamen's representatives and the employers, to find some means of using these contributions of one halfpenny per week, which will not benefit the employers, but which might be used with much advantage to the seamen. Realising that the right hon. Gentleman 1139 will not accept the Amendment, I ask him whether he cannot in another place accept the spirit of it and make some provision that the money shall be used on behalf of the seamen.
§ 9.0 P.M
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I only want to add a few words to what has been said. I heartily agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). Not only the Seamen and Firemen's Union, but the Marine Workers Union are closely interested. If it is necessary to treat the foreign-going merchant seamen in the same manner as the soldiers and sailors have been treated, may I plead that this money, the shipowners' part of it—the shipowners are being relieved of a substantial sum a year—should be put to a special fund, and that in the meantime a round table conference should take place to decide what could he done with it? One suggestion I make is that it might be used for the relief of the men who lose their ships abroad or who are thrown out of employment in foreign ports and have to he returned as distressed British subjects by the Consuls, under very nauseating conditions. A fund of that sort would be very useful if held at the disposal of the Consuls abroad to assist British seamen down on their luck. I think something of that sort might he done. I hope the Government will lend a sympathetic ear and consider whether something could not be done in another place to remove the grievance.
§ The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain)
I am sorry that I had not beforehand some knowledge of the particular point which the right hon. Gentleman wished to bring out in connection with his Amendment. I did not apprehend what his purpose was in the Amendment. Before I deal with that, may I say that there is some misapprehension, not on his part, but on the part of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy). He does not seem to understand why the shipowners should be relieved of the payment of this money. The thing is perfectly clear. The shipowners were 1140 compelled, before there was a National Insurance Act, to provide medical and surgical benefits for their seamen while they were on foreign service. When the National Health Insurance Act was introduced, which provided similar benefits for people serving on shore which could not, obviously, be made applicable to those people who were not on shore but were on ships on foreign service, the foreign-going seamen had to continue receiving medical and surgical benefit provided for them by the owners. As the owners were already, at their own expense, providing this service, it was not considered fair and right that they should be asked also to pay contributions in respect of services which they were not getting. Therefore, the owners were relieved of such part of the ordinary contributions towards national health insurance as represented the cost of this medical and surgical benefit.
The right hon. Member for Derby has related to the Committee the fact that the cost of medical benefit has been found to change from time to time. On the previous occasion when the cost of medical benefit changed, similarly a redution was made in the owners' contribution, to correspond with the change in the cost of the benefit. Once again, there is a change in this respect that the whole cost of medical benefit is now being borne by the societies. That being so, it is assumed that the cost of medical benefit provided by the owners has changed, just as the cost of ordinary medical benefit at borne has changed. If that assumption be a fair one, it is only logical that once more there should be a change in respect of the owners contributions, and that relief should be given to the owners in respect of the service which they are providing in another way. I hope I have made it quite clear why this change has been made.
Lieut, - Commander KENWORTHY
That is quite correct as regards the case of a man who is treated in a foreign-going ship. But in the case of a man who is sick at home and who may be discharged from his ship some penalty is placed upon him by this Schedule, and the man who leaves his calling as a seaman and wants to be accepted as a member by an approved society will not be regarded as a good member.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
This only applies while a man is serving abroad. It does not apply if he is at home on shore, be- cause he gets the ordinary medical benefits under the Act whilst he is at home. I seems only logical that the alteration should be made, mud that is the reason shy it has been made. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) says that this money has been used for the purpose of providing a pension fund not for all British seamen but a pension fund for Lascars—
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
That is not quite correct. The. Lascar Fund was provided by shipowners because they employed Lascars. They said that they would provide a pension fund for the British seamen who were displaced. That is shortly the origin of that fund.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I am informed that the contribution is to the Lascar Find. I have not had time to go into this matter and I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman opposite—
§ Mr. THOMAS
This fund was previously known as the Lascar Fund. All these contributions are paid to the Seamen's Pension Fund, formerly known as the Lascar Pension Fund, which provides pensions of 10s. per week for British sea-men who have a long record of service at sea, and the pensions are payable from the age of 65 to 70 years. It is not a pension fund for Lascars. That is the came by which the fund was originally known.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I am much obliged for the further information. I understand that the 2d. per week of which the owners have been relieved has been paid to this Fund. Now they are being relieved of 2½d. and I should have thought that was a. reason why they should pay one halfpenny more—
§ Mr. THOMAS
I understand that hitherto this has been the procedure between the parties prior to a change being made. When on the previous occasions the shipowner was relieved, the three parties were called together, under the guidance of the Ministry of Health, and an agreed arrangement made for the allocation of this fund. Now the Sea- men and Firemen's 'Union tell me that they have not been consulted, that they know nothing about it. The shipowners 1142 say the same, and the automatic effect of passing this Clause is what I have already stated.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
The right hon. Gentleman has made the point perfectly clear that when the alterations in the Act were previously made an agreed arrangement was come to between the parties interested and the allocation of these monies decided upon. Obviously, the correct thing to do is to borrow that procedure again. I have had no representations from the Seamen and Firemen's Union or the owners on this matter, or I should have perhaps said something more about it. But it is not too late. It is clear that the Amendment ought not to be accepted and the alteration should be made in order to make the proper consequential alterations that have been brought about by Clause 2 of this Bill. I do not desire to prevent the existing arrangements being made as on previous occasions, and if I can facilitate arrangements of that kind I shall be only too glad to receive representations from the various parties and do anything I can to assist it.
§ Mr. THOMAS
The difference in the procedure appears to have been that prior to the introduction of a Bill these discussions took place and an agreed arrangement was made. In any case there is a desire—I am only concerned to do the right thing and to help these very deserving people to continue the arrangement that appears to them to be satisfactory, If, as I gather, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to take flue necessary steps to call the representatives of the parties together, and that is what they desire, so that some scheme may be arranged between them I have no desire to force the matter to a Division, and I accept the undertaking of the Minister of Health that he will take the necessary steps to bring the parties together.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed: "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill."
§ Mr. HARNEY
I desire to say just a few words because I represent a constituency which is very acutely affected by this Bill, and I also want to impress upon the Minister the equity that lies 1143 against the change that is suggested. The change is that the employers should in future contribute not 2½d. but 2d. to the insurance fund. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has said that the reason for that was that in 1911 a contribution of 7d. only was taken from the shipowner because men on foreign going ships were under the Merchant Shipping Act and were supplied with medical and surgical benefit. The Minister of Health argues that it is only logical on that ground that employers, who already provide under the Merchant Shipping Act some of the benefits created by the National Health Insurance Act, should not be asked to contribute towards benefits which they already provide.
There is another side to the picture. In every one of these Acts from 1911 to the present time, the contribution of the seagoing man has been identical with that of the shore man. Reductions, whenever made, were made in the contribution of the employer. It may be quite logical to ask why should the employer be called upon to contribute a full share of contribution for a benefit which he was already partly providing himself; but, equally, we must ask if it is fair that the seagoing man—who already by statutory obligation was entitled to a proportion of these benefits, and who, therefore, under the Insurance Act could only receive a fraction of the provided benefit—should he called upon to contribute exactly the same amount as the shore man? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ponder on that point. My own humble view is, that under the Merchant Shipping Act it was an obligation Do shipping owners to look after the surgical and medical treatment of these men—an obligation of the same sort as the obligation to provide lifebuoys on their ships, an established obligation which ran into increased rates and increased passenger fares. That was the position, quite apart from any insurance scheme. The insurance scheme then laid it down, on an actuarial basis, that for the purpose of giving certain benefits certain contributions had to be charged. The insurance scheme, certainly, involved this consideration—that in regard to seagoing men lesser benefits had to be provided, just as lesser benefits have to be provided for a healthy race compared with an unhealthy race. There- 1144 fore, it was only necessary to contribute a lesser sum in respect of them.
I can understand that view but was there any logical justification for saying that the ratio of the contributions of employers and employés should be varied? Should not the proportions remain exactly the same? The effect undoubtedly has been that while on the one hand the employers claim to be exempt from paying more in respect of the seamen, because the seamen require less benefits than the shoremen, the employé says, "Look at me. I am getting less than the shoreman is getting under the insurance scheme, but I am paying exactly the same." The only way out of this position is to say clearly to the shoreman, "You will have to provide for certain benefits incidental to your shore occupation." and to the seaman, "You have to provide for certain benefits that are required in connection with your occupation and the contribution in your case is to be lower." Once that was done, and the relevant proportions were fixed, the proportionate contributions of employers and employés should be applicable in respect of seamen as well as shoremen. I desire to make the position clear because I know the right hon. Gentleman loves to be logical, and I think this point is worthy of his consideration. I need say no more on this head.
The move which was started—I believe in the wrong direction—in 1911 has been carried through all these Acts up to the present. Without exception, where a change has been made, it has been a reduction in the employer's contribution. To-day the employé on a foreign-going ship pays the same as the man staying at home. This Bill simply says to the employers that their liability, without any request from them, is to be reduced by another halfpenny, whilst that of the employé is to remain exactly the same. That results in a gross injustice which the right hon. Gentleman has passed over very lightly. There has been some confusion in the mind of both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the Minister as to the Lascar Fund. The real genesis of the Lascar Fund was this. When the Act was brought in which provided that the owner of the foreign-going ship had to insure his employés, he pointed out that those employés included Norwegians, Orientals, Africans, Lascars and others 1145 who were not British subjects and were not insurable. If nothing had been done in the Act as regards that position, the effect might have been to make the employer ask himself, "Will I take a Britisher for whom I have to pay 2½d., or one of these aliens for whom I pay nothing?" Had the matter been left there, human greed would have resulted in the filling of ships for foreign voyages with aliens to the exclusion of British seamen.
In order to overcome that temptation a provision was put into the Act that the employer should contribute as much for the alien as for the Britisher, but as the contributions in respect of the alien could never result in benefits to the alien, they were allowed to accumulate in a fund, to be expended upon British subjected. It was made into a seamen's fund which at that time was called the Lascar Fund. Therefore, the less the employer is called upon to pay in respect of alien seamen, the smaller becomes the Lascar Fund, and out of the Lascar Fund is paid pensions for British seamen of 65 or 70 years of age. Thus the direct result of this Bill is to take one halfpenny off the
§ contribution of the employer, which is met by the denial of pensions to poor British seamen. That is how it is meant. To the exact extent that by this Bill you relieve the owner of the British-going ship, to precisely the same extent you deny pensions to British seamen. I hope the Committee will pardon me for having occupied their time so long. I know the right hon. Gentleman, whatever may be his manner, is really most sympathetic; and whatever else his faults it cannot be denied by his greatest enemy that he has to a high degree the gift of logic and precision. I want to bring home to him both on the moral and the intellectual side that he is now being given a very fine opportunity, since he is denied the chance of making an Amendment in this House which would involve a Report stage. Therefore, all that can be expected of him is that he will absorb the thoughts and views thrown forth, and in his -own study do what he considers to be the right thing.
§ Question put, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 260: Noes, 137.1149
|Division No. 182.]||AYES.||[9.27 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)||Fairfax, Captain J. G.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Mon. Sir James T.||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Faile, Sir Bertram G.|
|Albery, Irving James||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Fermoy, Lord|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Fielden, E. B.|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Finburgh, S.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Chapman, Sir S.||Ford, Sir P. J.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Christle, J. A.||Foster, Sir Harry S.|
|Apsley, Lord||Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.|
|Ashlay, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Clarry, Reginald George||Frece, Sir Walter de|
|Astor, Viscountess||Clayton, G. C.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.|
|Atkinson, C.||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cope, Major William||Galbraith, J. F. W.|
|Balniel, Lord||Couper, J. B.||Ganzoni, Sir John|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Gates, Percy|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham|
|Beamish, Captain T. P. H.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Grant, J. A.|
|Bennett, A. J.||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Grattan-Doyle. Sir N.|
|Bethel, A.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry||Grotrian, H. Brent|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Davies. Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Hall. Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Hammersley, S. S.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Dawson, Sir Philip||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Dixey, A C.||Harland, A.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Drewe, C.||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)||Eden, Captain Anthony||Harrison, G. J. C.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Ellis, R. G.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Burman, J. B.||Elveden, Viscount||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Hawke, John Anthony|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Evans. Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Everard, W. Lindsay||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Margesson, Captain D.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Herbert, S. (York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Hills, Major John Waller||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Hilton, Cecil||Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)||Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Holland, Sir Arthur||Morden, Col. W. Grant||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Strickland, Sir Gerald|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Murchison, C. K.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Neville, R. J.||Sueter. Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Tasker. Major R. Inigo|
|Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Nuttall, Ellis||Templeton, W. P.|
|Hurd, Percy A.||Oman, Sir Charles William C||Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'I)||Perring, Sir William George||Tinne, J. A.|
|Jacob, A. E.||Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Jephcott, A. R||Philipson, Mabel||Waddington, R.|
|Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Pielou, D, P.||Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Preston, William||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|King, Captain Henry Douglas||Price, Major C. W. M.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Radford, E. A.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Raine, W.||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Lamb, J. Q.||Ramsden, E.||Wells, S. R.|
|Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Remer, J. R.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Rice, Sir Frederick||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Loder, J. de V.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Looker, Herbert William||Ropner, Major L.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Withers, John James|
|Lynn, Sir Robert J.||Rye, F. G.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Salmon, Major I.||womersley, W. J.|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Macdonald, R. (Glasgow. Cathcart)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|MacIntyre, Ian||Sandeman, A. Stewart||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|McLean, Major A.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Macmillan, Captain H.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Savery, S. S.|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|MacRobert, Alexander M.||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)||Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer.|
|Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Fenby, T. D.||Kelly, W. T.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Forrest, W.||Kennedy, T.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Gillett, George M.||Kirkwood, D.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Gosling, Harry||Lee. F.|
|Barnes, A.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lindley, F. W.|
|Barr, J.||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Livingstone. A. M.|
|Batey, Joseph||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Lowth, T.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Lunn, William|
|Briant, Frank||Groves, T.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)|
|Broad, F. A.||Grundy, T. W.||Mackinder, W.|
|Bromley, J.||Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||MacNeill-Weir, L.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||March, S.|
|Buchanan, G.||Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton)||Montague, Frederick|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Morris, R. H.|
|Cape, Thomas||Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Harney, E. A.||Murnin, H.|
|Clowes, S.||Harris, Percy A.||Naylor, T. E.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Oliver, George Harold|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Hayday, Arthur||Owen, Major G.|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Hayes, John Henry||Palin, John Henry|
|Connolly, M.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Paling, W.|
|Cove, W. G-||Hirst, G. H.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Hore-Belisha. Leslie||Potts, John S.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoghton)||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Rees. Sir Beddoe|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Dennison, R.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Riley, Ben|
|Duckworth, John||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Ritson, J.|
|Duncan, C.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Rose, Frank H.|
|England, Colonel A.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Saklatvala, Shapurji|
|Scrymgeour, E.||Sullivan, Joseph||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Sexton, James||Sutton, J. E.||Westwood, J.|
|Shiels, Dr. Dmmmond||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)||Whiteley, W.|
|Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)||Williams, David (Swansea. E.)|
|Sitch, Charles H.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Slesser, Sir Henry H,||Thurtle, E.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Smillie, Robert||Tinker, John Joseph||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Townend, A. E.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.||Windsor, Walter|
|Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Varley, Frank B.||Wright, W.|
|Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Viant, S. P.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Stamford, T. W.||Warne, G. H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Stephen, Campbell||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T. Henderson.|
|Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|