HC Deb 02 December 1927 vol 211 cc911-29

Mr. Benjamin Smith.


On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Hope, if there is any other means of raising the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney)—in page 7, line 34, at the beginning, to insert the words: Except where the Minister is satisfied that the terms of employment in any undertaking or associated undertakings are such as to secure to the persons so employed benefits on the whole more favourable than the benefits conferred by this Act, the Minister may give a certificate to that effect, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, the employment shall be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as if it were an accepted employment mentioned in Part II of the First Schedule to The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. This Amendment raises a most important point, and my hon. and learned Friend was most anxious that it should be moved.


I think it should come as a new Clause. It cannot come here, as it deals with different matter and also it would not read with the wording of the Clause.


I beg to move, in page 7, line 41, at the end, to add the words Provided also that if it appears to the Minister that the conditions of casual or partial employment in any industry are such that the provisions of the Unemploy- ment Insurance Acts with respect to continuous periods of unemployment and the qualifications for receipt of and the rates of unemployment benefit ought to be varied as regards insured contributors in that industry, he shall have power, after consultation with persons representing the employers and employés in the industry, to approve or make a special scheme making such provisions with respect to continuous periods of unemployment and the qualifications for the receipt of and the rates of unemployment benefit as he may think fit, but such special scheme shall not affect the payment into the Unemployment Fund of the statutory contributions, and the aggregate amount of unemployment benefits payable in any benefit year to insured contributors in the industry shall not exceed the aggregate amount of unemployment benefits which would have been payable to such insured contributors if no such special scheme had been made. Such special schemes may contain provisions for an arrangement being made between the Minister and a joint committee representing the employers and employés in the industry for the administratiion of the special scheme, and all the provisions of such a special scheme shall have effect as if enacted in this Act and shall continue in force until determined in accordance with the provisions thereof. I want to say to the Minister that this would cost him nothing in the way of funds, but that its acceptance would have a very great effect upon a body of men who for years have suffered the horrible conditions of casual labour. The purpose of the Amendment is to give the Minister power to create special schemes in regard to, shall I say, permanent casual labour—a term which, perhaps, is rather a contradiction, though I think it fits the case. Under the present Act, there are certain special schemes applying to men who are in regular employment, and, if Clause 9 of this Bill is carried, those schemes will remain, but no additional schemes will be permitted. The purpose of my Amendment is to provide for the establishment of proper arrangements in respect of industries which are subject to special conditions of a chronic nature. In 1924, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston was Minister of Labour, he introduced a Bill which decreased the six days' waiting period to three days; but in 1925 the Minister of Labour increased that period again from three days to six days, the effect of which, speaking for my own constituency, was to increase the rates in Bermondsey by 10d. in the £. I have not the figures for other areas, but of that figure I am sure. The Minister, in reply to a request of mine, gave me some figures as an estimate of what these men took out of the present fund. Roughly speaking, £900,000 was paid in from the three sources, while in 1926 £3,275,000 was taken out of the Fund. That may appear to be in favour of the men for whom I am speaking, but I want the Minister of Labour to observe that the change that will be made by this Measure, with the fixing of 30 stamps as a minimum, will mean that practically the whole of that money, at the end of the period of extended benefit, will go away from the men who are at present receiving it. That is as we see it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, when he was Minister of Labour, was asked by me on the 20th May, 1924, what his intentions were, and he said: I have not touched on most of the special details of the Bill. I take it for granted that hon. Members know as well as I do what the condition has been up to now. I will not inflict upon them a mass of detail of the history of insurance because I think that it would be a waste of their time, and would certainly not be treating them with the respect they deserve. But there is one reservation I have to make on special schemes. At present there is a Committee sitting "— that is the Maclean Committee— dealing with the very difficult and involved subject of the decasualisation of labour at the docks. I want it to be definitely understood that what I have said on the question of special schemes must not be taken to pre-judge issues which may be raised by the Report of the Maclean Committee on decasualisation at the docks, and I hold myself, and I hope the House will hold itself free to come to a decision on that special problem after the Report has been presented."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1924; Cols. 2048–9; Vol. 173.] Shortly, that is the claim I am submitting to the Minister at this moment, namely, that there was, shall I say, a sort of tentative agreement in the House—since no objection was taken to that statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston—to deal at some future date with the position of casual labour at the docks. The Minister, if he could see his way to accept this Amendment, has the Maclean Committee still in being. They have issued several interim Reports, but their final Report is not yet forthcoming, the reason being that they have had to follow along the lines of registration in the ports, so as to get the pool of labour definitely fixed as applicable to dock labour, and, as it were, weed out the men who come and go one day here and there. That Committee will ultimately report, but, if Clause 9 as it now stands be carried, and if this Amendment be not accepted, the Minister will be tied hand and foot, and will be prevented from dealing with any Report that that Committee may issue. In 1920, Lord Shaw's Committee, after their inquiry which lasted some 20 odd days, in their Report said this with reference to casualisation: The system of casualisation must, if possible, be torn up by the roots. It is wrong, and the one issue is as to what practical means can he adopted of readily providing labour whilst avoiding cruel and unsocial conditions. That, I think is a short summing up of the position at the docks. The Minister must know, of course, that, with the exception of London—that is to say, the Port of London Authority, which has a permanent body of men—there is no permanent labour in the whole of this industry in the whole of this country. The total number of people in the industry is 125,000, and the average work for these men over the whole country is three days a week. They have, of course, their seasonal trades, where additional labour is required, but that is set off with the close of the season, when they have long spells of unemployment. The absence of any adequate insurance arrangements is, as I have said, a drain on the rates of the country. The Minister of Health is continually pressing the local authorities in the dock areas to reduce their rate of relief. In my own constituency the Minister has threatened us with a committee because of the conditions of casual labour there, and if this continues and the Amendment is not accepted it is inevitable that so far as Bermondsey is concerned, so far as the great ports of the country are concerned, the rates in the localities are being used to subsidise the dock industry. The right hon. Gentleman on many occasions has stated that he is meeting the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee. In paragraph 109 of that Report a special reference is made to that. It says: The Minister should consider varying within the general scheme the rules governing distribution of benefits, in particular the rules as to the recognition of unemployment and partial employment in relation to particular industries of other classes of insured persons. That in itself gives the Minister the power to accept this Amendment, and if he accepts it it will undoubtedly, when the MacLean Committee ultimately reports, as I hope they will, in favour of the de-casualisation of dock labour, rid the country of one of its social sores and the Minister will then be empowered to bring into force such a scheme in association with the employers and employés as will rid us of casualisation altogether.


The hon. Gentleman has put his case with very great knowledge of dock labour conditions, as we all know, and with great force and sincerity. I cannot accept his Amendment, and I am exceedingly sorry I cannot. Let me clear one point away. Of course, this is not one of the special schemes that are barred out under the Bill. A special scheme as such is a scheme where those who are under it rely on their own resources and there is no contribution from the Exchequer. It is not proposed that this should be a special scheme of that kind. If the hon. Gentleman will believe me, I could have taken that as a point of Order under the case of special schemes, but I did not wish to prevent him from raising it, and I wish to reply to his Amendment on its merits. Many of us know the difficulty of dock labour and the troubles with regard to the casual worker. Obviously, the object of us all ought to be to reduce casual labour as far as possible.

The great difficulty is really this. It is difficult at present to realise how you could get complete complete registration, and unless you get complete registration a scheme of this kind will not work. I am not talking for the moment of the London Docks, but I made a special study of the Liverpool Docks, and I think I was one of the first to suggest that if you could get complete registration you would get more regular employment for a much greater proportion of the men, but I could never myself see how you could get what I call one complete body of registered labour without having a certain amount of fringe at the bottom. The object was to reduce that fringe of the more casual employés actually to the minimum. Unless and until you can do so it is not possible to work a scheme of this kind. It has to be proved to be actually possible. If we were to accept in principle a scheme of this kind it would tie our hands if some alteration is needed after the experience of the Maclean Committee has been received. That, I think, would be one result. The other result would be that honestly it would not be an advantage to the men at this moment. I do not think they will suffer any disadvantage from the 30 contributions rule. It is the casual labourers who, I imagine, will get an advantage and I think they will be able to get their stamps. The intention of the scheme is to try to equalise the advantages between two cases of this kind. You may get one man with three days' work at pretty high pay and another man may get half a day's work for five days, and his earnings may be very much lower than the first.


It is not an unknown thing in the Docks at present that if a man fails to get a half-day shift on Monday he is practically barred from work on Tuesday because he has not a stamp on his card. He can never get within the scheme at all.


That is one of the troubles at this moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a big problem."] It is a big problem, but there are other big problems in the Dock world. I am not minimising it because I am speaking briefly. At this moment, the situation, as I said in an answer to the hon. Gentleman, is that dock workers derive very great advantages from the Fund. If we were to try to adopt a scheme of this kind you could not get effective registration to start with at any rate, and at the same time your benefits would be limited by your contributions. At present, they are not. They are very much in excess of the contributions. That would be a change for the worse. I think we have got to go on to see whether we can get a proper registration system. If it is possible, no one will rejoice more than I. To have a proposal of this kind made part of the Act would tie our hands and be more of a disadvantage than an advantage.


I have a feeling that the Minister is unduly timid and that his refusal is based rather on a timidity to face the issue than on reason. I remember, in 1924, the House seemed to be quite in accord that if any method could be found of dealing specially with a case that stands absolutely by itself—and this question of dock labour is such a case—special treatment should be meted out. This Amendment does not bind the Minister to anything. It asks him, on the contrary, not to bind himself in such a way that if the Maclean Committee finds a solution he is unable to accept it. It does not say the Minister must. It says the Minister may, when he is absolutely satisfied, do these things under the Law. I appeal to him, however insuperable the difficulty seems, not to tie himself down in such a way that if someone finds a solution of what up to now has been considered to be an insoluble problem he is helpless. The whole history of unemployment insurance is a history of things being done which technical men over and over again have told the House could not be done. We discussed this morning, very early, a question that had exercised the minds of experts for years, and all the experts were thoroughly agreed that nothing could be done, but we did it. We did the impossible.

This Amendment says, to the Minister: "Do not tie your hands, so that you cannot apply the solution if it be found" Everybody is agreed that if a solution could be found for the benefit of casual labour in this respect it should be applied. Do not bind yourself so that you cannot apply it, if it be found. You can take this Amendment and put it in your Bill. It does not interfere with you in the slightest degree. It does not lay down what you must do in the slightest degree. It simply gives you the power, if a solution has been found as a result of the work of the Maclean Committee, to do a thing which is eminently desirable in the opinion of all members of the Committee. For once, I will really make an appeal to the Minister. The appeal is that he shall not be so harsh and cast-iron in considering this question, and not too timid because it appears to be a question full of difficulty, but to leave himself free and with initiative enough to seize the solution when it is found. This Amendment will give him that privilege. It will leave him open to deal with the question if he finds a solution, while his own Bill will tie his hands in such a way that even, if the solution be found, he cannot put it into operation. Surely the Minister might accept this Amendment. It binds him to nothing. It simply gives him a liberty—which his own Bill does not give him—if a solution be found to this very difficult problem, of doing what every member of the Committee would wish to see done.


May I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I know, has taken a very deep interest in this question of special schemes, to reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage. During the Labour Government a Clause containing this principle was embodied in the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and it was resisted on the same grounds on which it is being resisted this afternoon, and the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) obtained a concession which was embodied ultimately in the Act to give power to the Ministry of Labour, when the deficiency period was at an end, to approve of special schemes. For the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields the Parliamentary Secretary himself voted, and it is for that reason and because of the interest which he has previously evinced in this question that I make a special appeal to him. Industry is moving in an entirely new direction. It has changed from small ownership into large corporations, and it may well be that it will be to the advantage of employed persons that they shall come under the special schemes which these large corporations are able to devise rather than under the general unemployment insurance scheme.

In support of that, I want to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to a very important declaration made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), whose opinion should have some weight with the Government. The words to which I wish to call attention are these: I would like to point out, said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen, the numerous advantages to the workmen which could be given by way of health and unemployment benefit if large and well organised concerns were allowed to administer and handle the health and unemployment contribution. Far greater benefits could be secured for the men. That is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen in relation to special schemes. He is of opinion that there are industrial organisations which can provide very much better benefits for their employés and which can give them greater security thereby against unemployment and raise the whole dignity of their calling from one of casual labour into a kind of civil service. This Clause is going definitely to close the door and bar the way to anything of this kind. Industry is in a state of flux, and we do not know yet what the best method is for providing against unemployment. It may be that this State scheme, universally applied, is the ideal method, but, on the other hand, it is impossible to say definitely and finally that it is. It may well be that in the course of time with the advance of trustification great trusts will be able to give greater advantages than are given under this scheme by which we are at present governed.

The Bradford Dyers' Association have written a letter to the hon. and learned Member for South Shields. They are one of the firms who have drawn up a special scheme, hoping to put it into operation at the end of the deficiency period. They say that if they are compelled to abandon this scheme they will be forced to dispense with the services of, approximately, a thousand men hitherto retained in excess of actual requirements, and it is only because of the prospect that they have under the law as it at present stands of putting their scheme into operation that they are able to give partial employment or whole-time employment to a thousand persons who would otherwise have been discharged. In those circumstances, I do plead with the Parliamentary Secretary, who, as I say, has previously voted for the principle which I am now advocating, to consider between now and the Report stage, when I hope that a better Amendment than that drafted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Shields, who was unfortunately out of order, may be devised. I plead with him to consider between now and the Report stage whether it would not be in the national interest and in the interest of the workers of the country as a whole not definitely to bolt and bar the door.


With the best will in the world, I have some difficulty in finding any relevance between the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) and the Amendment. The Amendment we are discussing does not relate to special schemes at all. What he has done is to raise the general question of the power to contract out which was first given by Section 18 of the Act of 1920. I do not desire to take up the time of the Committee at this stage by going fully into the merits and demerits of special schemes although I should be perfectly ready to do so. I think it is sufficient for this purpose if I say that I believe that everybody who has been connected with the Ministry of Labour has started with the idea that special schemes should be encouraged and that they were in themselves good, because we were told that you got the same benefit for a less rate or greater benefit for the same rate. But everybody, without exception, who has had any experience of administration, whether at the Ministry of Labour or in connection with the working of these things, has come to the conclusion to which I have come, and that is, that in a universal contributory insurance scheme you must make the stronger industries carry the weaker industries, and that it is impossible to accept the principle of contracting out if you maintain anything like a compulsory contributory scheme. That is, shortly, the answer to the hon. Gentleman, who says that he is going to raise the point—and I hope he will—either on the Report stage or in the form of a new Clause. I shall be quite ready to discuss it with him much more fully and in a manner much more adequately, having regard to the importance of this subject if and when he has an opportunity of so doing.


The only point I want to put to the Minister of Labour is whether he is not, perhaps unconsciously, rather letting us down as an industry. We are working, and we shall continue to work, for the purpose of trying to bring about legislation in the direction which my hon. Friend has been advocating, and we have believed, and the men have believed, that we had the co-operation of the Minister of Labour. We believed that you were ready to help us and were waiting to see what we and the employers could do. The present attitude of the Ministry is in the direction of cutting yourself away from that, and it will mean not only that you will not help us, but that you will considerably hinder us in helping ourselves. For these reasons I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider whether, if not at this moment at any rate before the Bill passes through Parliament, this Amendment, or something of its kind, of the same protective character cannot be accepted.


The right hon. Gentleman has said that this is only permissive and not compulsory. That is not quite true. You give a person power to do a particular thing in a particular way and it really ties him down to doing it in that particular way. I want to see whether the attempts that have been made to solve this problem have as yet proved that it is possible to do it in this particular way. I have tried to look at the machinery of the Amendment and I think it would be very difficult to work it. If I am given the power to do it in this particular way, it will at once be said that I have accepted a particular principle and it might quite well be that it would be an embarrassment later on and drive me to do something which would not be the best course and prevent me from doing something which might be the best. I should like very much to see the problem solved, and I shall watch the experiments that are being made, and although I am not pledging myself to bring in a particular Bill for this purpose I will do my best to try to help forward the solution in any way that I can.


Does not the present Clause purport to deal with this question?


The Clause as it stands at present does not touch these schemes at all. The actual Clause deals with special schemes. The hon. Member's clause is not, strictly speaking, a special scheme. A special scheme is one which is taken away from the main system and where there is no contribution from the Exchequer, and the whole burden is borne out of contributions paid by the employers and the workmen in the scheme. Yours is not one of that kind. The Clause which I am proposing puts no additional disadvantage in the way.


Will the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether he will do anything on behalf of our people, or not? Up to now he has been dealing with the matter in a sort of friendly way, but behind it all the time there is nothing doing. It is almost a case of antagonism to doing anything. If he says that this is the wrong way of doing it, why does he not suggest the right way? The Bill when it becomes an Act will be a permanent thing, and it will need special legislation to do anything in the event of a special report being submitted with any sense of unanimity. If this is the wrong way and it is a question of the right way to do it which stands in the right hon. Gentleman's path, why does he not suggest that on the Report stage he will bring up an Amendment which will do the thing in his way?


Does not the Bill mean the repeal or modification of certain provisions? If the Maclean Committee brought in recommendations dealing with casual labour and this Clause has been passed in its present form, does it not mean that if the Maclean Committee recommended the scheme outlined by the hon. Member, it would mean the repeal of this part of the Act which stands as the stumbling block?


No, it would not. I think some Members of the Committee are under a misapprehension that this is a special scheme. It is a particular scheme of a particular industry. A special scheme for the purpose of this Act has a particular meaning, and the particular meaning is that it is set up by an industry who decide that they will deal with themselves outside the Act, like the banking profession or the insurance industry who have insurance schemes of their own, without any help from Exchequer contributions. That is what is meant by a special scheme. We are repealing the power to set up special schemes like these, but that repeal does not militate against a scheme of this kind. It puts no additional obstacle in the way of a scheme of this kind. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Smith) asks why do I not suggest something else. This is one of the most difficult problems that ever was. That is the reason why the Maclean Committee is recommending making these experiments pending legislation. Quite obviously if it is as difficult to deal with as must be admitted, I cannot put forward here and now a watertight scheme, because there is not one in existence. We have to watch what is being done. I do not want to prejudice the way in which the investigation may go on, but I will help it forward as much as I can. If one's hands are tied one way or the other now I am afraid that the position may be prejudiced for the future.


Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that between now and the Report stage he will take such powers as will allow him to deal with the question when

Division No. 429.] AYES. [2.45 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Naylor, T. E.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Oliver, George Harold
Amnion, Charles George Groves, T. Palin, John Henry
Attlee, Clement Richard Grundy, T. W. Paling, W.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Barnes, A. Hardie, George D. Ponsonby, Arthur
Batey, Joseph Hayday, Arthur Potts, John S.
Bondfield, Margaret Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Ritson, J.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Broad, F. A. Hirst, G. H. Rose, Frank H.
Buchanan, G. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Saklatvala, Shapurji
Cape, Thomas Hore-Belisha, Leslie Salter, Dr. Alfred
Charleton, H. C. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Scurr, John
Clowes, S. Kennedy, T. Sexton, James
Cluse, W. S. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Connolly, M. Kirkwood, D. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Cove, W. G. Lawson. John James Sitch, Charles H.
Dalton, Hugh Livingstone, A. M. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Lowth, T. Snell, Harry
Day, Colonel Harry Lunn, William Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Dennison, R. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Stamford, T. W.
Duncan, C. Mackinder, W. Stephen, Campbell
Dunnico, H. MacLaren, Andrew Sutton, J. E.
Edge, Sir William Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Macpherson, Rt. Hon, James I. Thurtle, Ernest
Gardner, J. P. March, S. Tinker, John Joseph
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Montague, Frederick Townend, A. E.
Gibbins, Joseph Morris, R. H. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Gosling, Harry Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Varley, Frank B.

he is satisfied that a method has been found? That is all that is being asked. I do not think that anyone wants to tie the right hon. Gentleman down to a definite line. What we want him to do is to take powers so that in the event of a scheme coming forward with which he is satisfied, he can act upon it. That can be done on the Report stage.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

It is very necessary that we should have our hands free in connection with any legislation which this House passes to deal with schemes, particularly as regards the great sea ports. It is true that the Maclean Committee are in favour of the trial of various systems for improvements, but we do not know how they will work out. As far as I can gather, the riverside and wharfside workers feel and the employers feel that we shall have to go very much further than we have done already. It is a very great pity that we should tie our hands in any way at all. I do wish the right hon. Gentleman would realise how strong is the necessity of making special provision for the future of the workers at the docks. I do not think he is as yet fully alive to that necessity.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 214.

Vlant, S. P. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Wallhead, Richard C. Williams, David (Swansea, East) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Wellock, Wilfred Wright, W. B. Smith.
Westwood, J. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Ford, Sir P. J. Moore, Sir Newton J.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ainsworth, Major Charles Foster, Sir Harry S. Morden, Col. W. Grant
Albery, Irving James Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Moreing, Captain A. H.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Fraser, Captain Ian Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Galbraith, J. F. W. Nelson, Sir Frank
Balniel, Lord Ganzonl, Sir John Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Gates, Percy Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Oakley, T.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Glyn, Major R. G. C. Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Goff, Sir Park Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Grace, John Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Grant, Sir J. A. Perring, Sir William George
Bennett, A. J. Greene, W. P. Crawford Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Betterton, Henry B. Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir, H.(W'th's'w, E) Pilditch, Sir Philip
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Grotrian, H. Brent. Power, Sir John Cecil
Blades, Sir George Rowland Gunston, Captain D. W. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Remer, J. R.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Remnant, Sir James
Bralthwaite, Major A. N. Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Brassey, Sir Leonard Harrison, G. J. C. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Hartington, Marquess of Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Brittain, sir Harry Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Salmon, Major I.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J. Haslam, Henry C. Sandeman, N. Stewart
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Sandon, Lord
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Burman, J. B. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Savery, S. S.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Hilton, Cecil Shepperson, E. W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Campbell, E. T. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Carver, Major W. H. Holt, Capt. H. P. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Hopkins, J. W. W. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Smithers, Waldron
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Sprot, Sir Alexander
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hume, Sir G. H. Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Srr J. A.(Birm., W.) Huntingfield, Lord Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Chilcott, Sir Warden Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Christie, J. A. Iveagh, Countess of Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Clayton, G. C. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Cobb, Sir Cyril Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George King, Commodore Henry Douglas Tasker, R. Inigo.
Colman, N. C. D. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Templeton, W. P.
Cooper, A. Duff Lamb, J. O. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Cope, Major William Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Couper, J. B. Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Loder, J. de V. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Long, Major Eric Wallace, Captain D. E.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Looker. Herbert William Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Lumley, L. R. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Lynn, Sir R. J. Wells, S. R.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus While, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Macintyre, Ian Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Davies, Dr. Vernon McLean, Major A. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Dawson, Sir Philip Macmillan, Captain H. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Drewe, C. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Edmondson, Major A. J. Macquisten, F. A. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Elliot, Major Walter E. Mac Robert, Alexander M. Wolmer, Viscount
Ellis, R. G. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Womersley, W. J.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.| Makins, Brigadier-General E. Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Meller, R. J. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Everard, W. Lindsay Meyer, Sir Frank.
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Captain Margesson and Mr. Penny.

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

CLAUSES 10 (Taking of evidence on oath at statutory inquiries), and 11 (Amendment of Section 41 of principal Act) ordered to stand part of the Bill.