§ In Section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923 (which defines a continuous period of unemployment), as amended in the Second Schedule to the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924, for the words "six weeks," there shall be substituted the words "twelve months."— [Mr. Hayday.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The position is made clear by the terms of the Amendment. It is clear that there is no connection between this new Clause and the continuity rule which gives facilities for unemployed persons being able to make their continuity of signing in order to qualify for benefit. There have been a great many developments which have lengthened the possible period for benefit to be drawn after once it has been qualified for, and there are these continuous signings within the meaning of the Act. This Amendment deals with a type of case which calls for assistance, 1070 and I hope the Minister will be able to accept the new Clause, in support of which I can give a few reasons. I am certain the Department could also give some emphatic reasons why this particular waiting period should not be called for more than once in every 12 months. Part I of the National Health Insurance scheme provides that the one waiting period should last for 12 months, so far as sickness insurance is concerned. Surely, it is not asking too much that the same rule should apply in the case of unemployment insurance.
I note that the Minister has an Amendment on the Paper on the Schedule to enlarge the present period of six weeks to 10 weeks. I would remind the Committee that even the Conservative conference at Cardiff passed a resolution urging that the present period of six weeks should be extended to 12 weeks. I scarcely expect that the Minister will quote the evidence submitted in this connection by the industrial movement before the Blanesburgh Committee. This new Clause is on all fours with the evidence then submitted. Our case was 1071 submitted for the purpose of examination, and it had to run the gauntlet of possible examination. What are the grounds for the new Clause? In the first place, I know of many cases where four weeks and up to five weeks of waiting time has been given in the course of one year by unemployed persons. I know that it is possible for six waiting weeks to be given during the course of 12 months under the existing circumstances. There are cases where a person has had four periods of unemployment in a year and has only drawn 10 days' benefit out of six weeks of unemployment.
A case was brought to my notice less than a month ago showing that a fine type of man had on two occasions just missed being thrown out of employment within six weeks by one day. He had six weeks and one day of employment, with the result that he had to put in another week of sacrifice. That one day extra over the six weeks was sufficient to call for another week of sacrifice for him in regard to the waiting period, and during that year he had given four weeks of waiting periods, and had only drawn 10 days of benefit. Roughly he had been unemployed for six weeks in one year and was only able to secure 10 days' benefit. This is the type of case that should be encouraged. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) during the Second Reading Debate said that there were employers who, out of consideration for the man, arranged that when work was shortening up there should be a rota of discharge in order to bring the unemployed person within the six weeks rule. I do not doubt there are cases where the employer feels that it is not right at the end of the sixth week to say to his employee that he can go to work on the Monday, knowing that the one day's work means a sacrifice of six days' unemployment benefit to the man. But I know of many oases where the employer has kept the man on until the middle of the seventh week knowing that he will deprive him of his right to benefit.
These are just the type of men that we ought to help to the utmost of our power. They are men of intelligence, willing to work, men who seek for work and put in every possible half-day available. They are men who want to be free from the temptation to approach 1072 their foreman in order to be discharged two or three days before their time so that they may qualify for benefit. And here I should like to say a word or two as to the general type of criticism which has been offered to this class of man; that he is an idler, who too often draws the dole. Attention is called to him because of his frequent periods of unemployment. I want to read a passage from a lecture given at the London School of Economics by the principal officer of the department. It is about time we put in a plea for these men who have continuously to make this sacrifice of three or four weeks waiting period during 12 months because of the short periods of their unemployment. It is time the country knew the opinion of the department as to the exact state of affairs. I was present at this lecture and in the chair was the right hon. Dr. Macnamara, an ex-Minister of Labour. The lecture was given in 1924. He said:But, taking the matter broadly—and particularly if we look at the great manufacturing and, seaport towns of this country —the plain fact is that there has been no work of any kind or at any price for the great majority of those who have been unemployed. Let me illustrate the position by giving a few figures from an analysis of 10,000 claims made last November.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
The analysis was made in 1923. The lecturer goes on:This analysis was made in such a way that the results can pretty safely be accepted as typical of the whole number. The figures show that two-thirds of the males drawing benefit and nearly three-quarters of the females were persons who in normal times would usually be in steady employment, while if those who would "normal times be fairly well employed are added, these proportions become nearly 90 per cent. At the other end of the scale are the persons classified as ' verging on the unemployable.' These amounted only to 3.6 per cent. for males and 2 per cent. for females, and consisted for the most part of elderly workpeople, who in the past had not infrequently been for many years in pretty constant employment. These figures, be it noted, are proportions of the numbers drawing benefit; if the number classified as ' verging on the unemployable ' were taken as a proportion of the whole number of insured persons, the figure would be a fraction of 1 per cent.In the opinion of the chief officer of the Department, 1 per cent. represents the sum total of what may be described as doubtful recipients of unemployment 1073 benefit. That is very significant, for it shows that where you can you ought to protect these men. They are men who search for work, who are ready to snap up any occupation without any thought as to whether it is going to last more or less than six weeks. Their case calls for a greater degree of protection than the case of the man who can go on, and will be able to go on under the new conditions, for a possible period of 78 months with one week of waiting period. The man who is thrown out of employment just a day or two over the six weeks' period must give the State another week of waiting period. I do not think that is fair. In the next year a similar series of lectures was given at the London School of Economics. I presided over -one at which another official of the Department, in almost the identical words used by the official the year previously, made the same statement except this, that he did not refer to the fraction of 1 per cent. He spoke of the analysis of the same 10,000, of the same percent-Ages that were found, and demonstrated that there was no desire, generally, on the part of the unemployed persons to evade their proper responsibilities in relation to unemployment and the Fund. I hope the Minister will be able to go beyond what he proposes to do later on, and will meet our request in this new Clause.
Believing them to be the type of men I think they are, you confront them with this difficulty: if they find employment for rather more than six weeks and are then thrown out, they are off benefit for nine days. What can they ever hope to save in that period to keep them going for the nine days before they are able to draw three days of unemployment benefit? These men are thrifty, and although they find it difficult to make ends meet, they are the last persons who desire to appeal to the board of guardians to make up that one week. It is unfair to expect them to do so. The better the type of man, the more genuine he is, the more temptation you put in his way. I put it to any sensible man; if I am confronted with the alternative of being thrown out of employment three or four days after my six weeks have gone, or after 10 weeks as the Minister suggests in a later Amendment—although that does not meet the case—is it not a temptation to me to try and see my em- 1074 ployer on the matter? I should not be wrong in so doing and in pointing out to him my difficulty. We have heard a great deal about the principle of insurance. As it is applied to this waiting period it is perhaps the weakest part of the scheme. It should protect the man who has short periods of unemployment rather than penalise him as it, in fact, does. It is most unfair to the man who who is unemployed for 10 weeks in the year that he has to give four weeks of that as a waiting period, and it is contrary to any principle of unemployment insurance.
If we are to consider such questions in connection with unemployment insurance, if we are to be most careful to guard against any abuse of the fund, if we are to see how soon we can wipe out the deficit of the fund, and if we are to wipe out that deficit by hitting those we ought to treat best, then I say that it is a very false line upon which to proceed. I hope I have been able to convince the Minister that the suggestion he proposes to make later will not fully meet the situation. Let it be a clear cut proposal; one waiting week to be given to the credit of the Fund, one week to be sacrificed by all persons alike to the Fund in any one benefit year. If you do that it will be more satisfactory, and the best type of your unfortunate unemployed will be thankful to know that the circumstances permit him to draw the benefit to which he is entitled.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
I desire to detain the Committee only for a few moments, because I have already said something on this point when we were discussing the previous new Clause. I was rather interested in the figures quoted by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), both as regards the figures themselves and the source from which they came. A few nights ago when I was urging my views with regard to a particular question on this Bill I also quoted from the 1 per cent. sample, and hon. Members opposite thought it was very improper to base my arguments on a 1 per cent. sample. I am glad that I shall now have the support of the hon. Member for West Nottingham when I quote from the same sample.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I was dealing with precisely the same percentage as the hon. Member for West Nottingham.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
Pardon me; you were dealing with the White Paper percentages, not with a ten thousand sample. This is a percentage of all the men. Yours was a percentage so far as money was concerned.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
The hon. Member is quite wrong. The document from which I was quoting is in the Eighteenth" Abstract of Labour Statistics, and is precisely the same sample as that mentioned by the hon. Member. If that is quoted in future I hope that hon. Members opposite will no longer challenge the merit of the figures.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
It does not deal with that, but that is based on it. Mine was a quotation from the original document and that is based on it. I showed how six weeks continuity rule inflicted certain hardships, but I am certainly not going to support a proposal for 12 months. We have already discussed the question of a waiting period. If you extend the continuity rule to 12 months, it is evident that you will impose on the Fund a very Heavy burden indeed. It would be rather difficult for the Actuary to make a precise estimate. I do not know whether an estimate has been made, but I contend that the Amendment would probably cost in the neighbourhood of £2,500,000 to £3,000,000. That is my own view.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
That is what it would cost if the six weeks' period were extended to 13 weeks. I have not a copy of the Blanesburgh Report in my hand, but if the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) will examine the Report, I think he will find I am correct in stating that the extension of the rule from six weeks to 13 weeks would cost £500,000, but the further extension to 12 months would cost a very large figure indeed. What it is I do not know, but no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us later. My opinion is that it would be from £2,500,000 to £3,000,000, and I am certain that that is a sum outside the margin of the Actuary's estimate. For that reason I feel compelled to oppose an Amendment 1076 which would wreck the finances of the scheme. With other hon. Members I put on the Paper a new Clause, in which I proposed 10 weeks. The hon. Member for West Nottingham has drawn attention to the fact that that is not the same period as was proposed during the Conservative Conference at Cardiff. At Cardiff there was a proposal that the period should be altered to 12 weeks, and that received the endorsement of the Conference, but on looking into the points and trying to find out the financial implications, I came definitely to the conclusion that 12 weeks was too much to-ask, having regard to the general financial scope of the Measure.
The reason why I suggest 10 weeks is simple. This continuity rule operates very harshly in between the holiday periods, Easter, Whitsuntide and Bank Holiday. The gaps between are all in excess of six weeks. If Easter comes early, the gap between Whitsuntide and August Bank Holiday hardly ever, if ever, exceeds 10 weeks. Therefore, I think 10 weeks would bridge that gap, and as 10 weeks is within the financial possibilities of the scheme, I embodied 10 weeks in an Amendment. That Amendment I have withdrawn because the Minister is accepting the present new Clause for drafting purposes and is moving an Amendment to the fourth Schedule, and to that Amendment my Friends and I have attached our names. I agree with a great deal of the speech that the last speaker made, but I believe that the Amendment from six weeks to 10 weeks will alleviate a greater measure of hardship. For that reason, I oppose his Amendment and I hope that in due course he will support that which the Minister is to move.
§ Mr. BETTERTON
The hon. Member who moved this new Clause, whose knowledge of the Insurance Acts is profound, will agree that during a succession of years the span in the bridge between one period and another which was linked up to make a continuous whole has tended to increase from time to time, and it has thereby, beyond any question, given very great relief to large numbers of unemployed persons. Before I deal with this particular new Clause, I wish to make one comment upon the hon. Member's argument that what he is proposing is on all-fours with the law and practice 1077 in health insurance, and that, therefore, health insurance provides a complete analogy to what he now proposes. That really is not quite the case. It is true that under the health insurance scheme two claims are linked together to avoid a waiting period, if the second is made within 12 months of the first. But in health insurance, benefit is subject to a reduction after 26 weeks, whereas under the unemployment scheme there is no question of reduction of benefit. The analogy, therefore, is not quite complete.
The hon. Gentleman proposes that the span of the bridge should be increased from six weeks to 12 months, and I am invited by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) to give some estimate of what would be the cost of that proposal, if accepted. The actuary told us in the Report attached to the Blanes-burgh Report that a prolongation from six weeks to three months on 6 per cent. of unemployment would cost £500,000. How much it would cost with an extension to 12 months he could not say. Therefore, I am unable to give any estimate as to what would be the cost if this proposal were accepted, but I am prepared, as the hon. Gentleman has already noticed, to go some way to meet the view of the hon. Gentleman and those who support the Amendment; I am prepared to accept the principle of it, and, if this new Clause be read a Second time, I will move as an Amendment to it to leave out the words "twelve months" and to insert instead thereof the words "ten weeks," which would carry out in a more convenient, and I believe in the only proper way, the proposal which we have set down in the Schedule.
§ Mr. OLIVER
I am sure the Committee will be very grateful for the proposal made by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is true that 10 weeks will be an improvement on six weeks, but even that concession would not destroy the very vicious principle now laid down in the six weeks, or, as it be, in the 10 weeks' period, because it will still penalise the man who ought not to be penalised but helped, namely, the man who seeks work at different places and is unfortunate in one year, say, to have four periods of unemployment, or, say, works 10 or 11 weeks and for different firms in the one year. It will mean that that person will be penalised to the extent that, instead 1078 of having one six days' waiting period in that one year he will have four weeks waiting period covering the whole of the year. That is wrong in principle, because these are the men who ought to be helped and not handicapped if they endeavour to find suitable work. Such men are subject to the same test as every other person who receives benefit. If they are not genuinely unemployed they will not get their benefits, and if they leave their work through improper conduct they will not get their benefit. But, in addition to that, it means that those men who are employed more or less in casual employment will be penalised four and five times in advance of people more successful in holding employment for the longer period.
I would have liked to hear the Parliamentary Secretary give more consideration to the principle. We heard the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), who based his objection purely on actuarial calculation. We have opposed the financial proposals time and time again from this side, and the hon. Member for Reading has supported us. If an Amendment that is put forward to ameliorate the conditions of the unfortunate unemployed is always to be challenged because it is outside the principle laid down in the actuary's report, I do not see why people, who have been consistent in supporting every form of economy, so far as unemployment is concerned, can justify that argument now. While we are glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to extend the period to 10 weeks, we are sorry that he has not been able to make the concession for a considerably longer period.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
I am very glad indeed that the Minister has accepted the Amendment so far as the 10 weeks are concerned. I wish to refer to the need of encouraging casual labour for farms at various times of the year. One of our greatest difficulties in this connection has been to get the casual labourer to understand how he stands as far as the Unemployment Insurance Acts are concerned. I had put an Amendment on the Paper, but as far as I and the Friends associated with me are concerned, the Government's concession will very largely meet our point, and if we are given the 10 weeks we will not press for the 12 weeks for which we were to ask. 1079 When this Bill becomes law I hope that the Ministry of Labour will send out a pamphlet explaining the position in regard to this particular Amendment, because in the agricultural districts it is impossible for a man who is in an insured tirade and wants to take work in an uninsured trade like agriculture to know whether he is liable to forfeit benefit or not; also he does not know what length of waiting period he must have before he can take up his old employment again or go on what is colloquially known as the dole. The correct state of affairs is not known at all to the labourer in an insured trade, nor is it known to the farmer who may employ him. It is certainly not known to the smallholder who may want occasional labour for hoeing or for lifting sugar beet. I would like such a pamphlet as I have suggested to be sent to some place where men can read it. I would suggest the post office. In agricultural districts very few people go to the Employment Exchanges, but they do go to the post offices. I hope, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman accepts my suggestion and sends round these pamphlets, he will send them where they can be read.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
I thank the hon. Gentleman. There is just one further point. I think, myself, that the period of 10 weeks will meet the case as far as harvesting is concerned. I am not sure that it will meet the cases of labourers who are at present engaged in sugar-beet factories. As far as can be ascertained at present, they have only four to six months' employment in the year and, during the rest of the year, they have to find casual labour. I hope the Minister will pay special attention to this new form of labour which is spreading in the agricultural districts. I again thank the hon. Gentleman for the concession in reference to the 10 weeks period.
§ Mr. SHORT
While the Committee will welcome the concession which the Parliamentary Secretary has announced, we must express our dissatisfaction at his inability to go further in order to meet, not merely a small number of cases affected by holiday periods, but the constantly recurring sets of cases which in- 1080 volve hardship, pain and suffering to the insured contributors affected by this continuity rule. The proposal to increase the period from six weeks to 10 weeks will only touch the fringe of the cases with which we are all familiar, and which my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday)—who speaks with such authority on the subject—so ably cited. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) is not, I regret, in his place at the moment. He has opposed, as far as I am aware, almost every proposal in connection with this Bill to make any extension of benefit and he has usually done so on the basis of cost. I thought the Minister, if he could not accept the proposed New Clause, would at any rate have extended the period further than 10 weeks, because I understand the Conservative Conference at Cardiff passed a resolution in favour of 12 weeks.
It is remarkable that not one out of the 400 Conservative Members in this House tabled an Amendment or a New Clause seeking to carry out that resolution. Not only so, but the hon. Member for Reading has sought to whittle it down. In his Second Reading speech he suggested eight or nine weeks and then —I think it was after reading a speech of mine—he increased it to 10. But we have the position that not a single Member of the Conservative party has sought to implement the resolution of their own conference and the Minister has absolutely refused to implement it. He has compromised on the basis of a 10 weeks' period because it is suggested by the hon. Member for Reading that such a proposal would meet some of the difficulties arising from the holiday periods. But there are difficulties quite apart from the holiday periods. They occur every month and every week in my constituency. They call for remedy and, as the Minister refused to abolish or reduce the waiting period, he might have gone to the extent of accepting a proposal which has been approved by the Conservative Conference. The right hon. Gentleman, however, has ignored the rank and file of his own party. What influence have they upon the legislation of the Government which they support, when they cannot get one Member to move in favour of their resolution? We are told by the actuary it will cost £500,000 to increase the period from six weeks to 12 weeks. The Gov- 1081 ernment refuses to hearken to the voice of the rank and file of the Conservative party, because it involves finding £500,000. Is that £500,000 to come from increased contributions from workpeople and employers? No, because as the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) has pointed out there is a surplus of £5,400,000. That is still to remain, accumulating every year, and the Minister refuses to spend £500,000 for this purpose.
That is a nice message for the Minister of Labour and the Conservative Government to send to the Primrose Dames and the workers of the Conservative party throughout the country. It will be a nice message for the supporters of the Tory organisation in my constituency. One expected something better, after all the shouting and all the resolutions. One expected the Minister to say to the Conservative rank and file, "In your name and on your behalf we will extend this period from six weeks to twelve weeks." The right hon. Gentleman however has decided that it shall be extended only to ten weeks. He has decided to continue the hardship and the pain and the suffering which is involved to the working class by the shorter period. "No," he says, "for the sake of £500,000 we will not hearken unto you; rather will we see you suffer the pain and anxiety which is involved. It will be less under the ten weeks provision, but we must let it continue, rather than find the £500,000 and, we shall allow this imposition to remain on the working classes who are compelled by law to contribute whether they desire it or not to the Insurance Fund." I have no doubt as to what the opinion of the country will be, not merely about this particular proposal, but about the Bill as a whole. It will be a condemnation of the actions and activities of the Government.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to meet the argument with regard to cost which I advanced on a previous Amendment, namely, that the fund itself on the present basis provides a surplus of £5,400,000?
§ Mr. BETTERTON
To the argument which the hon. Member advanced the answer is shortly this. You may spend the money in various ways and we have to decide which class of claimant we think is best entitled to it. If you spend money in one direction, you cannot spend 1082 the same money in another direction. If you spend it in shortening the waiting period, or in any other way like that, there is so much less to spend in benefits under other parts of the scheme.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
But this is not a question of spending. The actuary in the Command Paper argued that this may result in reducing contributions at the end of a certain period, and he foreshadowed a reduction of contributions. Therefore that surplus would be wiped out by reducing contributions, and the money should be used now for the purpose we have indicated.
I have only to repeat what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already intimated. I am prepared to accept, in principle, the extension of the period not to the limit of 12 months but to the lesser period indicated in an Amendment to the Schedule which stands in my name—in Schedule 4, page 18, line 18, at the end, to insert the words:Sect. 5…For the words 'six weeks' there shall be substituted the words 'ten weeks.'I understand the best way of procedure will be to accept this Clause in principle and then an Amendment will be moved, I understand, by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) substituting the words "ten weeks" for the words "twelve months" in the Clause. In that ease, I am prepared to accept the Clause.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
I should like to be clear as to our position. If the Amendment be accepted in principle and the period of 10 weeks then inserted, will that preclude us from moving a manuscript Amendment altering the 10 weeks and introducing some other period?
I think we are being treated just a little unfairly in this matter. The Amendment of the Minister to which he has referred will be the very last which can arise from Schedule 4 to-morrow. Hon. Members opposite have shown a much greater desire to speak since the guillotine was imposed, and we have no guarantee that we can even raise the question to-morrow. We are placed in a difficult position. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Clause it is-almost impossible for us in principle to vote against it.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I ask you, Captain FitzRoy, whether I am not correct in saying that it would be quite in order for any hon. Member opposite to speak against the Amendment to insert "ten weeks" instead of "twelve months," which Amendment will follow immediately after the Second Reading of the proposed New Clause. I am glad the non. Member has realised that the absence of speeches from this side of the House at an earlier stage was due more to the prolixity of hon. Members opposite than to any dislike on the part of hon. Members on this side to express their views.
It would be better first to dispose of the question "That the Clause be read a Second time." When the Amendment which has been indicated is moved to the Clause the question will then arise whether the specific period named should stand part of the Clause, and it will be open to hon. Members to suggest a different period or to move an Amendment proposing a different period.
§ Clause read a second time.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 4, to leave out the words "twelve months" and to insert instead thereof the words "ten weeks."
This shows the difficulty in which we are placed. We want the period of twelve months and the Amendment as moved at this stage by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) places us in a difficulty.
§ "twelve months." Then I can put the "Question" That the words 'ten weeks' be there inserted" and hon. Members can then put forward their proposal for a different period.
The right hon. Gentleman has taken a most extraordinary course in accepting a Clause in principle which he really does not mean to accept in fact, and it looks as if he has put us in the position of having to vote against our own views.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I did it because I understood that that course was more for the convenience of the Committee than any other course that could be taken. As far as I am aware, the course was suggested because of certain technical questions of procedure, that is to say that if this Clause were not accepted in principle, and then an Amendment was moved, it would have to be voted against by those Members of the Committee who did not agree with that Amendment. I am told that if we voted against this Clause now, and it were defeated, the question of any extension of the continuity rule could not be taken again in the Committee stage.
The Clause has passed its Second Reading, and if hon. Members on my left wish to retain the words "twelve months," they must vote for them standing part of the Clause. If those words are left out, then they can move an Amendment, if they wish, to leave out the word "ten" and to insert the word "twelve."
§ Question put, "That the words 'twelve months' stand part of the proposed Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 221.1087
|Division No. 434.]||AYES.||[8.18 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Dalton, Hugh||Grenfell, O. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Day, Colonel Harry||Groves, T.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Dennison, R.||Grundy, T. W.|
|Baker, Walter||Dunnico, H.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Edge, Sir William||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Barnes, A.||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Hardie, George D.|
|Batey, Joseph||Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Harris, Percy A.|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon|
|Bromfield, William||Fenby, T. D.||Hayday, Arthur|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Forrest, W.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)|
|Buchanan, G.||Gardner, J. P.||Hirst, G. H.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Clowes, S.||Gillett, George M.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie|
|Cluse, W. S.||Gosling, Harry||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).|
|Compton, Joseph||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)|
|Connolly, M.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||John, William (Rhondda, west)|
|Cove, W. G.||Greenall, T.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Ritson, J.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)||Vlant, S. P.|
|Kennedy, T.||Rose, Frank H.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Scurr, John||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Kirkwood, D.||Sexton, James||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Lansbury, George||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Lindley, F. W.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Welsh, J. c.|
|Livingstone, A. M.||Sitch, Charles H.||Westwood, J.|
|Lowth, T.||Slesser, Sir Henry H.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberaven)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Snell, Harry||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Stamford, T. W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|March S.||Stephen, Campbell||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Montague, Frederick||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Strauss, E. A.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Oliver, George Harold||Sullivan, J.||Windsor, Walter|
|Owen, Major G.||Sutton, J. E.||Wright, W.|
|Palin, John Henry||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Paling, W.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Thurtle, Ernest||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Tinker, John Joseph||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Hayes.|
|Potts, John S.||Townend, A. E.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Dlxey, A. C.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Albery, Irving James||Drewe, C.||Kindersley, Major G. M.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Edmondson, Major A. J.||King, Commodore Henry Douglas|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Ellis, R. G.||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Apsley, Lord||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Little, Dr. E. Graham|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Loder, J. de V.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Long, Major Eric|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Looker, Herbert William|
|Balniel, Lord||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Fermoy, Lord||Lynn, Sir R. J.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Ford, Sir P. J.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Bennett, A. J.||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)|
|Berry, Sir George||Fraser, Captain Ian||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Frece, Sir Walter de||McLean, Major A.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Galbraith, J. F. W.||MacRobert, Alexander M.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Gates, Percy||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Goff, Sir Park||Malone, Major P. B.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Grace, John||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Margesson, Captain D.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Mason, Lieut-Col. Glyn K.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Grotrian, H. Brent||Meller, R. J.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks. Newb'y)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Buchan, John||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Burman, J. B.||Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Hammersley, S. S.||Moore Sir Newton J.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Moreing, Captain A. H.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Harland, A.||Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hartington, Marquess of||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Christie, J. A.||Haslam, Henry C.||Oakley, T.|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hawke, John Anthony||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Clayton, G. C.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A D.||Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)||Pilcher, G.|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hills, Major John Waller||Preston, William|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)||price, Major C. W. M.|
|Cope, Major William||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Radford, E. A.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Holt, Capt. H. P.||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Ramsden, E.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Remer, J. R.|
|Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Remnant, Sir James|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Hurd, Percy A.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Jackson, sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Jephcott, A. R.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)|
|Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Sprot, Sir Alexander||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Rye, F. G.||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Storry-Deans, R.||Wells, S. R.|
|Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Sandeman, N. Stewart||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Sanderson, Sir Frank||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Savery, S. S.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie||Tasker, R. Inigo.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)||Templeton, W. P.||Withers, John James|
|Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Shepperson. E. W.||Tinne, J. A.||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Skelton, A. N.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Slaney, Major P. Kenyon||Waddington, R.|
|Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Wallace, Captain D. E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)||Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.|
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'ten weeks' be there inserted."
§ Mr. HAYDAY
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "twelve."
There should be no difficulty about this. We still believe that the twelve months was quite a legitimate and right proposal to make. We can quite appreciate, also, the fact that the Government give considerable weight to decisions within their own party, and as it was a unanimous decision of the Cardiff Conference of the party that the period should be twelve weeks, we feel that the Minister should in this case be able to give the further two weeks. While the extension will not be a big one, it may just make a difference in the marginal cases. It will still leave it possible for four weeks of waiting time to be given within 12 months, and if you eliminate it I would ask you now to agree that twelve should take the place of ten seeing that twelve is the decision of the right hon. Gentleman's own party. It would not be at all satisfactory to us, but we are prepared to get the best we possibly cam in the circumstances. The amount involved should not weigh very heavily in the decision. It could not mean more than another £100,000 per annum, and if that amount will bring those who need relief a greater equality in treatment amongst the general body of insured persons, I feel the right hon. Gentleman ought quite willingly to accept it. There was a time when the Minister got up, and because of his sudden acceptance of something I was moving I did not quite appreciate what impulse it was that prompted him. I would like him to say now, "I accept the Amendment." I am certain that the 1088 concession, small as it is, will be appreciated, and quite a number of the real, genuine men who serve for three or four weeks' waiting time in a year will be thankful for the little difference it will make to them.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I hope that by rising now I shall not deprive the hon. Member of the opportunity of appreciating the force of the negative I am going to give. I appreciate what he has said very much indeed. I appreciate his reference to the Cardiff Conference, and I hope he will pay equal deference to it in the remainder of the views he expresses on this subject.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
The hon. Member is picking and choosing now. It was he who complained about my attitude in making one exception to the Blanesburgh Report. He is confirming me in the fact that I should make one exception, and he wants to make more. The difference between 10 and 13 weeks is the difference between £250,000 to £300,000 on the one hand, and £500,000 to £600,000, which three months will cost, on the other. It depends a little on the degree of unemployment on which you calculate, but according to the degree of unemployment it will cost between £500,000 and £600,000.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
I take it the right hon. Gentleman is now mentioning £500,000' to be the charge for 13 weeks. Our pro- 1089 posal is 12 weeks, and the difference between 10 and 12 cannot be represented by much more than £100,000.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I am sorry if I made a slip. It would not be as much as £500,000 or £600,000, but it would be a little less than the difference between £250,000 to £300,000 which the 10 weeks would cost, and £500,000 to £600,000, which is the cost of 13 weeks. Since the Debate began, I have already made a concession, or rather a new proposal of my own, to increase the rates of benefit for those who are in the age class of 18 to 21, and I am sure That if I went back to the Cardiff Conference they would realise that these two concessions together would be ample to justify my refraining from going beyond 10 weeks at the present moment. That, I think, would commend itself also to every reasonable person. Therefore, I fear that I cannot go to the 12 weeks as suggested, but I am prepared to take the Amendment of 10 weeks. Ten weeks, I think, will meet the two main needs for which an extension is needed.
The period of 10 weeks carries a man over the customary holidays. Similarly, with regard to agriculture, when one considers the desirability of those who are unable to get employment in insured trades being able to feel themselves free to take up agricultural work for a short time, then the extension to 10 weeks means that, as far as the hay harvest and corn harvest are concerned, a person may take agricultural work without having to undergo a second waiting period.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
May I put one further point for explanation? The Minister mentioned the customary holidays. It is well known that, under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, if it is customary to have a week's holiday, an employed person cannot sign on for that week. Further, a customary holiday or annual Holiday period does not enter into the continuity rule from, our point of view.
§ Mr. T. SHAW
I think the Minister is very harsh on this occasion, and, even at the risk of being considered unreasonable, I am going to try to argue that it is perfectly reasonable to ask that at least 12 weeks should be given before a person has to serve a second waiting 1090 period. If it were only the waiting period it would not be important; what is important is that it is a waiting period without pay. If instead of insisting that a man should be out of work for a week before he is paid, you paid him from the first day, I could understand the attitude of the Minister, but his attitude is that a man must not only play a week, but also must do without a week's pay, if he has been employed for 10 weeks. Take the ordinary case that occurs in the Lancashire textile trade. Men are working all the year round on short time. They never know what it is to have a full week's wages, and yet, if a man has received unemployment pay, say at Whitsuntide, and he works until the holiday in late August, and then enters a stretch of unemployment, he has to play a week for nothing because he has had a matter of more than 10 weeks' partial employment. In the American section of the cotton trade full employment is to all intents and purposes unknown. In the county of Lancashire this rule will work very harshly. Every year which passes makes the problem of the unemployed man worse. He is worse off now than he was in 1924, because he has had another three years of unemployment.
Take the big trade of which I have just spoken, the cotton trade. Before the War it was the largest exporting trade in this country. It is a great mistake to suppose that the coal or the iron and steel industry was the biggest exporting industry. The cotton industry was the biggest exporter, and the workers in that industry in Lancashire and the adjoining counties have been suffering with exceptional severity since 1921. They suffered even during the War, because they could not get their raw material through shipping being required for what were regarded as more urgent necessities. Why should a person who has played a week without pay he asked to suffer another week's unemployment without pay? From the point of view of pure reason, can anyone defend a proposition that, because a person has worked either for full wages or partial wages for 10 weeks without a spell of unemployment, that he should again play a week for nothing? Is there any defence for it on grounds of reason or of humanity? Is there any reason at all for it, except that the concession asked for might cost the Unemployment Fund 1091 another £100,000 or £150,000? I think that is the only reason which can be urged against it. There can be no reason against it in equity, and less reason in humanity, and whatever the Tory congress decided—and they did decide on 12 weeks—I think on the merits of the case we are fairly entitled to ask for at least 12 weeks before a person is asked to play another week without any benefits at all. I base my argument on the absolute right to this concession of an unemployed workman or workwoman, unemployed through no fault of his or her own, unemployed through causes over which he or she had no control—genuine workers of the type which I have mentioned, the best workers in the world at their trade. The sufferings of these people will be at least a little ameliorated if, in the cases I have mentioned, they are able to draw benefits when they are unemployed, and because theirs is a reasonable case I shall certainly vote for the 12 weeks.
§ Mr. SHORT
I have already made some reference to the question of the extension of the continuity rule, but I am amazed at the reply of the Minister. In the first place, he tried to defend the 10 weeks on the ground of covering some holiday period. As an hon. Member who sits below me has pointed out, insured contributors are not entitled to sign during such a period if it is a recognised holiday. Then the Minister went on to say that 10 weeks was decided on in order to meet the case of agricultural workers. I have no objection to that, for anything we can do for agricultural workers will be most welcome, but it made me begin to wonder whether the people I represent are going to get any benefit out of this, whether the industrial workers in our necessitous areas are to get any advantage out of this 10 weeks. I really think the Minister made a case for the extension of the period from 10 to 12 weeks. He seemed to have some doubts as to the cost. He talked about its costing another £100,000 or another £150,000 as though talking of millions—we here are all accustomed to think in millions, and not in hundreds of thousands—but he has no ground for any fears. What did the Government Actuary say? The Government Actuary dealt at some length with the waiting period and the continuity 1092 rule, and on page 211 of the evidence of the Blanesburgh Committee he expressed no fears and no doubts as to the cost of extending this period to three months— not to 12 weeks, for I take it that three months is 13 weeks. He said:I have not estimated the effect, but I think it would make very little difference to the finance of the scheme if the period were made at any rate three months.This is the view of the Government Actuary, who, I have no doubt, is paid some thousands a year to advise the Government out of his wealth of statistical knowledge and experience. Surely the Minister ought to be influenced by the advice of the Government's own Actuary, apart from the fact that the Conservative Conference, rank and file, asked for this change. They reduced their demands to the lowest possible limit, and said, "All we want is half a million," but the right hon. Gentleman turns them down, and I am afraid we must look for nothing in the way of concessions on this matter.
§ Mr. STEPHEN
I would make a request to the Minister further to consider this extension. Everyone who has had experience of the working of unemployment insurance knows that very many people regard it as a great grievance that there should be this period when they are unemployed and obtain no benefit. The Minister was not very convincing in his reply to the Mover of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment on the subject of the cost, and I would like him to give us some reason for his unwillingness to accept the statement of the Actuary. The Actuary thinks it would cost us very little extra. It is possible that hon. Members, who themselves would not be inconvenienced if they were unemployed for years, do not realise the intensity of feeling there is on this point, but the budget in a working-class home is on such a narrow basis that this waiting period does constitute a very material handicap, and to give two weeks more, making the period 12 weeks, would not be a very great concession for the Minister to make. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can give us some reason for departing from the estimate of the Actuary, I hope he will be able to see his way to promise reconsideration of this point. The Minister might undertake that between now and 1093 the Report stage he will consider the possibility of making the Clause 12 weeks, although I should prefer 13 weeks, because a quarter of a year would give a certain amount of symmetry to the Clause. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment deals with a great grievance.
§ Mr. J. BAKER
I do not follow the one argument which has been used by the Minister of Labour to the effect that what he has proposed is going to relieve the unemployed so far as holidays and the continuity proposals are concerned. In regard to established holidays, they are qualified by a statement in regard to a 12 days' rule. I think from what I have stated that the Minister will at once see that his one argument in reference to this proposal does not hold good, and if that argument is not sound then the right hon. Gentleman should at once withdraw
§ from his position and accept our Amendment. The 12 days' rule was established for intermittent work when the holidays fell into that period. If a man is out of work for 12 days' longer than the normal customary holiday period, it is assumed that he has been dismissed, and if he can prove that he has been out of work by signing the book for 12 days, he can be paid for the whole period. I think that argument ought to convince the Minister of Labour that his one solitary argument does not hold water, and the wisest course for the right hon. Gentleman to adopt is to accept our Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 124.1095
|Division No. 435.]||AYES.||[8.49 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)||Henderson, Capt. H. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Albery, Irving James||Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Henn, Sir Sydney H.|
|Alexander, sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Hills, Major John Waller|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Hoars, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Apsley, Lord||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Dawson, Sir Philip||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Holt, Capt. H. P.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Dixey, A. C.||Hopkins, J. W. W.|
|Balniel, Lord||Drewe, C.||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Elliott, Major Walter E.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Ellis, R. G.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Bennett, A. J.||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Berry, Sir George||Everard, W. Lindsay||Iliffe Sir Edward M.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Fermoy, Lord||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Ford, Sir P. J.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Kindersley, Major Guy M.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||King Commodore Henry Douglas|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Fraser, Captain Ian||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Frece Sir Walter de||Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb"y)||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Little Dr. E. Graham|
|Buchan, John||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Loder, J. de V.|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Ganzoni, Sir John||Long Major Eric|
|Burman, J. B.||Gates, Percy||Looker, Herbert William|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Goff, Sir Park||Lynn, Sir R. J.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Gower Sir Robert||MacAndrew Major Charles Glen|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Grace, John||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Grotrian, H. Brent||McLean, Major A.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Christie, J. A.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||MacRobert, Alexander M.|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.|
|Clayton, G. C.||Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hammersley, S. S.||Malone, Major P. B.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Harland, A.||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Meller, R. J.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Harrison, G. J. C.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Hartington, Marquess of||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Cope, Major William||Harvey, Majors. S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Haslam, Henry C.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Hawke, John Anthony||Moreing, Captain A. H.|
|Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Nelson, Sir Frank||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)||Templeton, W. P.|
|Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Rye, F. G.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Nuttall, Ellis||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Tinne, J. A.|
|Oakley, T.||Sandeman, N. Stewart||Waddington, R.|
|O'Connor. T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Sanderson, Sir Frank||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Penny, Frederick George||Savery, S. S.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Pilcher, G.||Shepperson, E. W.||Wells, S. R.|
|Power, Sir John Cecil||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Pownall, Sir Assheton||Skelton, A. N.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Preston, William||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Price, Major C W. M.||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Radford, E. A.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Raine, Sir Walter||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Withers, John James|
|Ramsden, E.||Sprot, Sir Alexander||Womersley, W. J.|
|Rawson, Sir Cooper||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)|
|Reid, D.D.(County Down)||Storry-Deans, R.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Remer, J. R.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Remnant, Sir James||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser||Captain Margesson and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hardie, George D.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Ammon, Charles George||Harris, Percy A.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hayday, Arthur||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Baker, Walter||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hirst, G. H.||Snell, Harry|
|Barnes, A.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Batey, Joseph||Hore-Bellsha, Leslie||Stephen, Campbell|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Bromfield, William||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Strauss, E. A.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Sullivan, J.|
|Buchanan, G.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Clowes, S.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kennedy, T.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Compton, Joseph||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Connolly, M.||Kirkwood, D.||Townend, A. E.|
|Cove, W. G.||Lansbury, George||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lawrence, Susan||Vlant, S. P.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lindley, F. W.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Livingstone, A. M.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Lowth, T.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Dennison, R.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda))|
|Duncan, C.||MacLaren, Andrew||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Dunnico, H.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Welsh, J. C.|
|Edge, Sir William||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Westwood, J.|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||March, S.||Whiteley, W.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Montague, Frederick||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Fenby, T. D.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Williams. C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)>|
|Forrest, W.||Oliver, George Harold||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Gardner, J. P.||Owen, Major G.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Palin, John Henry||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Gillett, George M.||Paling, W.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Gosling, Harry||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Windsor, Walter|
|Greenall, T.||Potts, John S.||Wright, W.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Riley, Ben||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Ritson, J.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Groves, T.||Rose, Frank H.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Scurr, John||Hayes.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Sexton, James|
Question, "That the words 'ten weeks' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.