§ Mr. T. SHAW
I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
This Clause is one of the most important in the Bill, because it sets up absolutely new classes and deals with them most inadequately. It proposes to separate young men and young women of the age of 18 to 21 into a definite and separate class. It appears to overlook altogether the actual condition of working people in this age, and to make conditions for them quite unsatisfactory for the necessities of the case. Let me give an illustration from a question that has been asked this afternoon. What the Clause will do will be to give the young man of 18 years as benefit, in case of unemployment, about one-third of what that young man will cost the country if he has to go to the guardians and as an able-bodied young man has to go into the workhouse. Could madness go further than to offer, roughly, one-third of what will be given quite freely and without any trouble if the boy goes to the guardians and has to enter the work-house? What is still worse, it is less than one-third of what it will cost the State if, through being short of money, the lad yields to temptation and becomes a criminal. It is such a foolish way of going to work that I cannot understand it.
1606 I am not going to whip the argument, nor shall I appeal to the Minister. I am fairly stating the facts as I see them without making any appeal at all. I have made enough appeals; I intend to make no more. If a young man is over 18 years of age he is called upon, in cases of emergency, to risk his life. There is no question about that. Under our industrial law when a youth passes the age of 18 he is considered to be outside the range of special protection. Our industrial law, as far as I know, regards a boy over 18 as a man and in this case, for the mere purpose of saving a few paltry thousand pounds this extraordinary proposal is being made concerning such young men. The proposal is not only bad but it is vicious in principle and I think it will be mean in execution. It will be mean, because, in connection with this subject, we must take into account what the contributions are intended to mean in the shape of benefit. I will not go outside the bounds of order by referring in extenso to the financial provisions that follow. I speak only of the financial provisions in regard to these particular benefits and I raise the most earnest protest of which I am capable against the system which the Minister is introducing. Under that system the boy who is asked to go to war in case of emergency is taken from his position under our present industrial law and put into a different category. This proposal, if it is not intended deliberately to make boys and girls over 18 parasites on their parents and friends, will, at any rate, achieve that end.
As a matter of fact, in our industrial life, generally, the boys and girls over 18 belong to families who have had to struggle very hard to keep them up to that age. Generally speaking, it is just at that age when young persons in working-class families are expected to become the staff and support of their parents. Yet just at this period, if they should fall into unemployment, this scheme is so devised as to make them continue to be parasites on those who have already borne the heat and burden of the day in keeping them up to that age. I believe that, wittingly or unwittingly, a vicious principle is being introduced. I have some acquaintance with the young man over 18 in industrial life, and, as a general rule, he is a self-respecting, decent young man far more grave and 1607 serious than those whose education is still proceeding at that age. To take a boy of that kind, ordinarily independent and self-supporting, ordinarily proud of his personal appearance, and to put him into a special class of this character, is a great mistake. In that belief, I propose the deletion of the Clause.
Mr. W. M. ADAMSON
I would like, if possible, to strengthen the plea which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). I would like the Minister to realise the position that will be created by the operation of this Clause. Having, in all probability, paid contributions during the two years between the ages of 16 and 18, these young persons are then to be entitled, if, unfortunately, they should be thrown out of work, to 10s. a week in the case of lads and 8s. a week in the case of girls. Between the ages of 19 and 20 those rates will be raised to 12s. and 14s. The Minister cannot have foreseen the difficulties which are going to arise under those conditions. At the period of life between the ages of 18 and 20 the normal youth not only requires better food, but, in other respects, it is a period when domestic expenditure in regard to young people is considerably higher than at other periods. Young people of that age are often growing out of their clothes. The prospect of being deprived of the ordinary employment which otherwise would keep them fit and contented is a serious one to them. They are now more likely than ever to be made discontented by the application of such conditions as are proposed in this Clause in the event of failure to find employment.
I put it to the Minister that these young men and women, of all the classes who come within the Act, are most entitled to his consideration. If they are thrown out of industry with this inadequate provision and with little opportunity of receiving any training, they are likely to become a burden on the community in future. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is not prepared to do something to look after their physical and mental development between these ages. I ask him to consider that they will be the breadwinners of future years. To prepare them for the work of the future will be to act in the best interests 1608 of the race and will be for the betterment of the insurance scheme. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his position upon this point, even if it costs the Insurance Fund a larger amount to provide a fair and adequate maintenance for these young people. I ask him to go into the matter again, having in mind the betterment of these young persons, the breadwinners of the future.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
I join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) in pointing out to the Minister the unfairness of the suggested scale of contributions to be paid by these young persons. Under the 1920 Act four-pence was the contribution of the insured person for a benefit of 15s. per week. That contribution gradually increased until at one stage it became ninepence. It has a particular significance to-day in connection with the creation of this new scale of contributions for a new class. The Minister's original intention was to have, in the case of male persons between 18 and 21, a uniform benefit of 10s. for a uniform contribution of sixpence. That has been revised, but the modification only makes the anomaly more plain. The proposal in this Clause means that whereas a male person between 18 and 21 in 1920 paid fourpence for a benefit of 15s., he will now be called upon to pay sixpence for a benefit of 10s.—that being, of course, the commencing scale. But, as I have said, the Minister has 4.0 p.m. since revised his scale though he has kept the contributions at the same level. The contribution proposed is 6d. for a person under 19 years of age for a benefit of 10s. a week. The same contribution, however, from a person above 19 and under 20 carries 12s. a week benefit, and the same contribution from a young person from 20 to 21 years of age carries the benefit to 14s. Then, for the extra penny, they go up to 17s. The fact, however, remains, that under this new scale there are to be three varying sums in benefit for the same contribution. Quite apart from the unfairness of the proportion of 6d. for 10s. as against 7d. for 17s., one can see there is a great unfairness in the distribution of the contribution. I know it may be said that it is one of the incidents of insurance that you must expect this dispro- 1609 portionate amount from the young person in order to make the fund solvent and more secure, and able to meet its benefit demands as time goes on. But is that so? Is a young person between 18 and 21 better able to pay 6d. a week for this varying amount of benefit than a person over 21 to pay 7d? I very much question it. I think all the handicap is in the direction of the younger person, particularly between those ages, because one cannot say that there is any difference in ability, physical and mental equipment, as between those of 18 and 21, and, say, those between 21 and 30. I would rather take it, from the point of view of equipment and physical and mental energy, as better between 21 and 30, possibly, than between 18 and 21.
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland)
I interpose only for the convenience of the hon. Member, and, I think, for that of the whole House, and I do so in order to ask Mr. Speaker a question on a point of Order. This Clause strictly deals with contributions, but, as the hon. Member's argument proceeded, he naturally raised the question of benefits in return for contributions. That, of course, strictly speaking, is a matter for Clause 4. I would ask you, therefore, whether, if hon. Members opposite also wish it, you would allow a Debate on the whole subject of the 18 to 21 classes, benefits as well as contributions to be taken together? I am only suggesting this because it seems that it would be difficult for hon. Members to develop their argument unless free to take both sides of what is really one question.
§ Mr. TINKER
Clause 2 and Clause 4 must hang together, and I think the Minister's suggestion is quite a good one, and I would like to support it.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
If that point is to be raised, I think there are two quite different arguments, one being as to the adequacy of the benefit on the purely benefit side when it is reached. At the moment, it is a question of contributions, but one must speak of the amount of contribution set down in relation to the amount of benefit, without encroaching on the argument as to whether the amount of benefit is adequate or not.
§ Mr. ERNEST BROWN
Surely the question of the adequacy of the benefit could be argued now, and the vote taken 1610 separately. Certainly it would be for the convenience of the House to have the whole thing in one picture.
I think the suggestion which has been made by the Minister is a very reasonable one. Hon. Members, I think, would be hampered too much if they had to discuss contributions without discussing benefits. At the same time, I must say that on Clause 4, it is my intention to call upon the Amendment in page 3, line 28, to leave out paragraph (c). I think that would be suitable if hon. Members desire it, and that it would be desirable to have the wider discussion on the present Amendment.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
Of course I raise no objection, but it might have altered the trend of the discussion at the opening had my right hon. and hon. Friends known.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
May I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, say on this point of Order, and without reference to my right to speak later on, that if the right hon. Gentleman who spoke first would have wished to take a different line had the course of discussion been wider, I think that on this side of the House there would be no reluctance whatever to his having leave to speak again to enable him to develop his whole position.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
Keeping for the moment to the point of the relation of the contribution to the benefit, it does strike me that, as regards the new class between 18 and 21, the disproportionate reduction in the amount of benefit in relation to the contribution asked, is open to very grave objection from the point of view of reason and fair dealing. As to the proper proportion of the contribution, certainly it does appear to me that the flat rate contribution of 6d. from the whole of this new class, notwithstanding the varying amounts of benefit for the contribution, does require some re-adjustment. Then, if 7d. is to be the contribution for a person in receipt of 17s. a week benefit, it seems to me that 6d. is too much to ask of a person in receipt of 10s. per week, if one takes it on that particular basis. But I would like to go a little further. The Minister well knows that the evidence submitted upon this point to the Committee, upon whose Report this Bill is assumed to be based, 1611 was that the contribution should have been about one-half. In this case, if it were worked out in proportion to the benefit suggested, the contribution should have been about 3d., but if you work it out now in proportion to the 7d. in relation to 17s., and the 6d. in relation to 10s., it ought to be more like 4d. or 4½d., certainly 4½d. at the very outside in relation to 7d., when 7d. carries 17s., and 6d. only carries 10s. If you desired further to have a range comparable to the rate of benefit received, you would have complications, because you would have to set up another two scales of contributions. Therefore, I do urge the House to give consideration to the matter of the contributions.
As to the measure of benefit provided for those contributions, I know that the general theme running through the minds of those who have promoted this Bill is that, between the ages of 18 and 21, there must be 6uch benefits as are not likely to encourage young persons to think more of drawing benefit than of seeking work. That is one point which has emerged in our discussions as a guiding principle of the Government, but there appears to be another one, from our point of view, that has entered into the calculation, that is, the fund being in deficiency to the extent of £22,000,000, it is necessary to assist or accelerate the recovery of the fund to a more stable or solvent condition, and that can only be done, or can only be assisted in its accomplishment, by reducing the benefit of this class of insured person. As to whether 10s. can, by any measure of imagination, be said to be a deterrent against young persons seeking diligently some form of employment, or sufficient to maintain them in board, assuming their parents are able to give them all the shelter and the clothing that are necessary, I am certain there is nobody in this House who would ever attempt to justify that, because the experience of most of us is that when a youth enters into young manhood at the age of 18, he can generally consume twice the amount of foodstuff—and he wants nutritious food to help in his physical development—as the man between, say, 40 and 50 or 55. It is at that early stage when he requires most, and if you lower to any extent the measure of sustenance required for building up the physique of a 1612 young person in those circumstances, then you are really committing an injustice. Young persons cannot go to boards of guardians like older persons can. If a young man between 18 and 19 comes into contact with the Poor Law administration, it is really a bad start for his career as a useful citizen, and I really believe will indelibly brand itself upon his mind, and may handicap all his future endeavours and aspirations to keep himself a free citizen of this Empire.
I do not know whether it is too late now, but I would urge that there should be some readjustment of the contribution, and some further readjustment of the benefit. Eighteen years of age, of course, is manhood's estate. Eighteen years is the age covered for an adult workman. I believe last week negotiations were taking place in which an employer endeavoured to reduce the adult age from 21 to 18 in connection with an agreement. To what extent that was suggested by the creation of a new class of manhood in this country I do not know, but if that idea is going to gain ground, there will be seen the ill-effects of a Measure such as this upon industry in general.
§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS
Until you gave your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I rather wondered what the speeches of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) and the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) had to do with the Clause we are discussing, which relates solely to contributions; and if the Amendment is carried, the only effect will be that the contributions in question will go up by 2d. a week. We discussed this point in Committee, and only a few days ago we discussed the relationship of contributions to benefits. I believe it is a matter of sound insurance that the young people should be paying in as much as they can possibly afford in the early years of life, so that there shall be built up a reserve later on to enable those same people, when their risks of unemployment are greater, to be in a position to draw benefits. If we delete Clause 4, or that part of it governing what we are now discussing, the amount of benefit drawn by these young people will be greater, and the Fund will be in deficiency to that extent; and, if we are to balance that deficiency, we shall have to cut down some other rates of benefit. Throughout these Debates hon. and right hon. Mem- 1613 bers opposite have discussed the question as if there were unlimited sums available. They never seem to judge it on the same basis as they judge their own personal finances, or to say: "If I buy this, I cannot buy that." If you make the rates of benefit for these young people much higher, you will have to find so many hundreds of thousands of pounds a year more, which can only be obtained by a general increase in the rates of contribution or by a general reduction in the rates of benefit.
There are several reasons why the younger people should have lower rates of benefit. First of all, there is, broadly speaking, a lower level of remuneration for these young people, and, therefore, if you attempt to observe some proportion between remuneration and benefit, so that benefit is not going to be a stimulus to avoid seeking work, you have to remember that. Another reason is that the responsibilities of these young people are very much less than those of older people. The right hon. Gentleman opposite tried to draw some conclusions from calculations he had made as to the cost of maintaining young people in Poor Law institutions. It is quite conceivable that those institutions, being publicly managed, spend far more in maintaining people than an ordinary housewife would do, but we are not dealing with people in Poor Law institutions, but with what it is necessary for a housewife, admittedly under difficulties, to do to enable these young people to keep going; and, therefore, the argument with regard to what it might cost in a socialised institution has no particular bearing on the point.
Another reason for treating these people rather differently is that their opportunities of obtaining employment are substantially greater than the opportunities of those in later years. That argument was challenged in Committee, but ultimately it was generally agreed, after the figures had been looked into, that unemployment is substantially less among young people than among old people, and some further information in support of that view has been obtained by means of a question asked by the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day), who wanted to knowthe number of registrations at Employment Exchanges, the vacancies notified and the vacancies filled in Great Britain for the 1614 12 months ended to the last convenient date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1927; col. 516, Vol. 211.]The reply shows that the average number on the register at any one time was 60 per cent. in excess of the total number of vacancies filled through the medium of the Exchanges in the period of a year. The ratio was as three to two in the case of men, but when you come to boys, the vacancies filled in the course of a year were nearly four and a-half times as great as the number on the register at any one time. That means that the chances of those described as boys of getting a job were six times as great as the chances of the older men, and I think that is a fact which we have to take into account. If hon. Members will consult yesterday's Press, they will see that on Monday last week there were 30,000 boys on the register, and the number of vacancies which the Exchanges filled among boys in the 12 months ended 24th October was 136,000. When we bear in mind that a large proportion of them got jobs without the assistance of the Exchanges, the total number of boys who obtained jobs in the course of the year must have been vastly in excess of 136,000, but even on the basis of the vacancies filled by the Exchanges the ratio is four and a-half to one. If that condition prevailed with regard to the men, the problem of unemployment as we see it to-day would not exist, and I wish hon. Members opposite would realise the difference which exists between the chances of the young and the chances of the old in the matter of obtaining employment.
Further, I am satisfied that a great many parents will be very pleased indeed when the change which we are considering is made. They feel that there is being developed a certain sense of irresponsibility among some sections of the young people, because they can go to the Exchange when they are out of work and draw a man's benefit. Their ideas have become rather enlarged, and their parents in many cases have had great difficulty in obtaining a reasonable amount of discipline at home.
§ Mr. TINKER
Was that your idea when you were a young man—to shirk responsibility if you got the chance?
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
When I was a young man I worked fairly hard. There were odd days when I took a little time off 1615 when I could. Like the rest of us, I liked a holiday and I liked a bit of fun, but, on balance, I think my point of view was very similar to that of the great mass of young men to-day. I wanted to do my job fairly and squarely.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
Yes, but not with regard to 100 per cent. of the young people. Why have we in this insurance system a variety of safeguards and checks? It is not to deal with 90 per cent. of the population, but with the 10 per cent. that are different. We have laws in this country against murder, not because the majority of us indulge in it, but because a small fraction do so.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I have heard many sane things from the hon. Member for West Nottingham and a few things that are not in that category. His last interjection falls into the latter category. You have coercive laws to deal with the general mass of the people. I was using only one argument, but I have presented four arguments, whereby the change provided in this Bill is justified. I was pointing to the difficulties which some parents experience, which every Member of this House knows they experience, and about which complaints are constantly reaching various people. I am entitled to put that forward, not as the sole argument, but as one which is true of a certain number of these young people, and I think it would be very unwise not to take that fact into account. The truth is that many of these young people live at home, they contribute to the home in various proportions, and when they are out of work some of them may think they are relieved of their obligations to contribute at home, and so they spend far more on amusing themselves when unemployed than when in work. But that is not true of the mass, and it would be grossly unfair to suggest that it is. We are considering a small proportion of the total, but we are entitled so to draw our 1616 Bill that it will deal with the case of these people as well as fit the case of the great majority.
§ Mr. A. GREENWOOD
We have just had a speech from one whom we now regard as our chief mentor. Clause 2 is really important from our point of view, because it introduces a new class of contributor. That is the fundamental question about this Clause; but, in point of fact, what the Bill originally did was to create a new class of contributors and a new class of beneficiaries. As the Bill now stands, it gives us a new class of contributors and three new classes of beneficiaries, and that change has arisen very largely because, I think, the public at large were shocked by the right hon. Gentleman's intention to pay such low benefits to young men and young women between the ages of 18 and 21. I do not believe that anybody in the House, unless it were the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth), felt that the orignal rates of benefit were satisfactory, but by bowing to the storm of public opinion the Minister has increased his difficulties.
The first case that we made against the new contributions for the new class was that they were much too high, having regard to the benefits which were receivable in respect of those contributions, and that still holds, with an even greater degree of force, because the right hon. Gentleman has now introduced certain injustices, in that while everybody between 18 and 21 pays the same rate of contribution, there are three different rates of benefit, in each case separated by one day. On a young man's or a young woman's birthday the rate to which he or she is entitled goes up, and that seems to us most unfair, but we are against the establishment of this new class at all. If there had to be a new class, we should have preferred it to be a new class for those under 16, which would have brought within the insurance field a very large number of people who to-day become unemployed, but who are under no sort of supervision by the community. It is urged that the new system enables the younger people, where the incidence of unemployment is lower, to build up a fund to enable them to get benefit when they are older, but that is nonsense. This Bill is not going to be 1617 in existence when those people are grown up. By the time those who are now between 18 and 21 are beginning to suffer from the heavier incidence of unemployment among elderly people they will come under an Act vastly different from this Bill, and all that it means is that the younger people to-day are subsidising the benefits of the older people to-day. That seems to be a most monstrous thing. Having regard to the fact that these young people are regarded as irresponsible, why should they be called upon to pay a higher rate of benefit in order that older people should to-day be able to receive their somewhat meagre benefits?
A further argument—and we have had it from the hon. Member for Reading—is that these young men and women between 18 and 21 have no responsibility. It is within the knowledge of Members of this House that there are considerable numbers of young men and young women between those ages who are living in lodgings. That is so particularly in the big centres of population, and especially in London, and these people obviously have the sole responsibility for their own maintenance. Our case against the benefits to be paid for these contributions is that they make it utterly impossible for these people during hard times to maintain themselves in lodgings. Apart from that, the assumption that all these young people have nobody to care for except themselves is again untrue. A very large number—I do not say a large proportion, but, in the aggregate, quite a large number—of these young people are the mainstay of the family, where the father is dead, and where the mother or elder sisters or invalid members of the family have to be maintained. Such a burden in thousands of cases rests upon young people between 18 and 21. Even where the bread winner is alive, there are scores of thousands of families where the direct contributions of the young people are essential to the maintenance of even a modest standard of life in the home. It is, therefore, preposterous and absurd to pretend that the benefit to be given to the new class of contributors is going to be spent in cinemas and public-houses, and that it is a sort of pocket money and should be restricted.
The benefit is utterly inadequate to keep body and soul together. As I understand the Government point of view, 1618 it is that they are not interested in keeping body and soul together. They admit that the benefits are not sufficient for the maintenance of the people who receive them. That has been admitted specifically in definite terms on the other side of the House. Our view is that they are utterly inadequate, and that they ought to be sufficient for maintenance; otherwise, it means a degradation of the standard of life in the home or recourse to the Poor Law. We have been told on many occasions that we are assuming that there are unlimited funds. The difficulty that we have been in is that we have not been able to deal with the question of the State's contribution at all. It is not within our power to deal with that. Really, all that is implied in our Amendments is that the State should pay a heavier contribution towards unemployment insurance. I have said it here, and it has been the burden of many speeches. We feel strongly, and a large number of people outside feel strongly, that the contributions made by the State ought to be more substantial, and that the burden which falls upon industry, whether through the employer or the worker, should be less. Clause 2 and the first Sub-section of Clause 4 represent the Government point of view, which is to put the maximum burden upon the insured person and his employer, and the minimum burden upon the State. I do not wish to use extravagant language about the scale of benefits, but they are grossly inadequate and are bound to mean that certain families will just tip over the edge into the Poor Law as a definite consequence of the institution of this new class of contributors, because in the working-class home 2s. a week may make all the difference between keeping away from the Poor Law and being driven to it.
The right hon. Gentleman has reduced rates of benefit by as much as 7s. a week, and it is clear, therefore, that in many cases the effect of this new proposal will be to thrust people upon the local rates. We have had a good deal of sympathy expressed during the course of the Bill with the local ratepayers, but the whole purpose of this Bill is to enlarge the responsibility of the ratepayer and to diminish, as far as possible, the responsibility of the State. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not gone further. The concession that he has made 1619 with regard to benefit really gives away his own original case and accepts our case. He has now admitted that 8s. per week is too small. Why should we believe that 10s. is right when a girl reaches the age of 19, and 12s. is right when she reaches 20? These figures can stand the test of criticism no better than the original 8s., and we submit that the right hon. Gentleman is flying in the face of all industrial practice by setting up this special class.
I wish hon. Members would realise that it is the common practice in all the trade boards of this country, with only one exception, to give adult rates of wages when boys and girls reach the age of 18. That principle is found to be embodied in hundreds of industrial agreements between employers and trade unions. There have been countless reasons in the past why that should be so. In so many occupations—I do not say necessarily in the highly skilled ones—at 18 people become adults from the point of view of efficiency, and they never can earn better wages than they are earning at 18 in a very large number of cases. If these people receive adults' wages, and in consequence establish a certain standard of life for themselves, the unemployment benefit that is paid to them ought to have regard to that standard of life. But the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals in this Bill is to refuse to allow these people to receive the privileges of adult persons, and to be allowed to pay full contributions and obtain full benefits. There are many unfortunate Clauses in this Bill, but for pettiness I think the establishment of the new class is the worst. I only wish it were possible at this stage to move the right hon. Gentleman to abolish the new class, and to re-establish the system that has been in operation since we have had unemployment insurance in this country, and treat any man and woman of 18, having regard to their position in industry, as an adult person who should be eligible to receive the adult rate of benefit.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and can only find that he has used one argument. He has been arguing that there was no justification for setting up a different class of person from the age 1620 of 18 to 21. The chief fact on which he based his argument was that in the industrial world there was little differentiation in regard to wages made between the class of 18 to 20, inclusive, and those from 21 and over. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to establish the facts. I have taken a good deal of trouble in order to find out the rates which are actually paid. I ask the House to note that this is the principal point on which the hon. Gentleman's case is based. Here are the rates. I will take, first of all, the rates for women, and then I will take the rates for men. It is perfectly true that in the majority of the trade boards the rates for women of 18 and over are equal to those of 21 and over. That applies in 32 out of 39 boards. In seven of the 39, the rates are lower for women from 18 to 20 than for those from 21 upwards.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
No. When it comes to women's trades that are not under a trade board—again I have had the occupations and wages tabulated—those in which there is a recognised difference—there are only two where there is not—number 34. Eighteen of them have a different rate for those from 18 to 20, as compared with 16, in which the rate is the same for the younger class as for the adult class. But the hon. Gentleman based his argument primarily on the case of men. I ask the House to note what is really the case with regard to men. His argument was, that, of course, in the skilled trades there might be a difference, but that, at any rate in the unskilled trades, what he said held good, namely, that at the age of 18 the average man got an adult wage. I will take both the skilled and the unskilled trades. He admitted that so far as the skilled trades were concerned there was a difference in payment between the class 18 to 20 and the adult class. Of course, that is perfectly true. It is true as regards the trades in which there are apprenticeships; 90 per cent. at least of all the young people of 18 to 20 in those trades have a different rate of wages from those of 21 and over. In all the other craft trades, where there is not actual apprenticeship, but an acquisition of craft skill, the same thing holds good, namely, that in the great majority of 1621 cases there is a difference of earnings between those from 18 to 21 and those from 21 onwards.
I will come to his main question last of all and the foundation of his case. He said that he based the whole of his argument on men's rates in unskilled trades. What are the facts? I have taken an analysis of the whole category of trades about which we have information—39 trade board trades and 40 other main trades. Of the 39 trade board trades, there are 38 in which lower rates of wages are paid to males at 18 than at 21; in only one are the rates the same. Of the 40 other trades, there are 36 in which lower rates are paid at 18. There are four in which there is no recognised differentiation betwen rates at ages from 18 to 20 and at ages from 21 and over. The number of trades in which there are specifically the same rates for both ages is nil. I would say this to the hon. Member before he bases another argument on a statement of that kind—neither he nor I have been handworkers in our lives, but at any rate I took particular trouble, after the, allegations that have been made, to find out the real facts.
§ Mr. GREENWOOD
I attach no importance to numbers of trades; will the right hon. Gentleman give the numbers of workpeople?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I have not got the number of workpeople, but I will read him the trades if he wishes. I will first mention the four trades which do not specify whether the wages should be the same or different. They are big trades: coal mining, iron and steel, engineering and dock labour. In those trades it is not specified whether the rate should be either the same or different, but I put it to the practical knowledge of any man engaged in it or having a close practical acquaintance with the coal mining industry that in the skilled occupations, the main occupations, in that industry, it is only a very tiny proportion of men who do the heavier work before they are 21; for instance, only a small proportion who become hewers.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
In the iron and steel trade the same thing is true; and if I could take a census of dock labourers I am pretty sure I should find that the proportion of people under 21 doing the heavy work is a small one. Those are the four excepted trades. Now I take the trades in which rates are lower at 18 than at 21: building, civil engineering, light castings, heating engineering, electric cables, lock, latch and key, needle making, wool textile, silk, textile bleaching and dyeing, boot and shoe, gloves, dyeing and dry cleaning, railways, printing, paper making, pottery, brick, chemical, metal, paint, colour and varnish, soap, furniture, flour milling, baking, brewing, cocoa and chocolate, jam making, electricity supply, gas works.
§ Mr. GREENWOOD
The right hon. Gentleman has quoted whole trades. What he says may operate in certain sections, but not in all sections—not in textiles, for instance.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
As I have said, I was referring to the unskilled portions of those occupations. I am dealing with the statement of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood); it is on the unskilled portions of the trade that he based his case.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
I happen to be the secretary of the workers' side of the Joint Industrial Council for Gas and all our agreements for general labourers carry the same rate. It is the job which carries the rate and whoever does that job, whatever his age, gets the rate.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I will make inquiries and tell the House, but what I have been saying is the result of the specific inquiries which I asked should be made. If there is a mistake in any one item I shall be perfectly glad 1623 to admit it, but the overwhelming case is against the contention of the hon. Member. That is the chief point on which he based his whole case, and the overwhelming proportion of the facts is against him.
I will take the one or two other arguments which he put forward, dealing first of all with the insufficiency of the rates. He said it was not a maintenance rate. That is a fundamental difference in the point of view of hon. Members on that side of the House and upon this side. On the opposite side of the House hon. Members aim at full maintenance. The rates they have proposed in Committee are only a step towards full maintenance, and I may assume, and perhaps hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, that in the end full maintenance comes to full wages, too. I do not know whether they would say I was wrong in assuming that their ultimate object is full wage-rates as being the only proper full maintenance, but at any rate what they ask is full maintenance.
To hon. Members on this side of the House I would point out that it has never been our belief that unemployment benefit should mean full maintenance. We have always said that it should be an exceedingly valuable help to those who are out of work, and are anxious to get work and entitled to get it, in order to tide them over hard times. Full maintenance we have never asserted that it should be. If anyone asks me whether the inadequacy of the rates for juveniles is particularly evident, I would say that it is not. The hon. Member puts the usual sort of conundrum, "If you did not think the 10s. rate was a right one, you have given away the whole case for a rate that is greater." If we applied that argument to his own statements, his 20s. rate would be inadequate, his 25s. rate would be inadequate, he would have to get up to at least full wage-rates, and I fancy that from his point of view those, too, would be inadequate. That type of contention leads no one anywhere.
I put the original rates in the Bill for this reason. I have an immense respect both for the authority of the Blanesburgh Committee and for the proposals it made, and I put those rates into the Bill because they were the rates pro- 1624 posed by the Committee, unanimously; but when I looked into the rates I thought they ought to be graded, that there ought to be a better gradation between the rates for juveniles and the rates for adults. Of my own volition and on my own initiative, and apart from any pressure outside, I put this grade of rates before the House in order that hon. Members might consider them. Let us take the grade of rates for young men to start with—10s., 12s., 14s. Compare the average figure with what was the rate not so long ago for adult men with families. To-day 12s. is worth more than the 15s. was in 1921.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I am coming to that point. The hon. Member is trying to leap two stiles at once instead of taking one at a time. Let us take the value of the rate of benefit. In those days there were not so many complaints against the rate of adult benefit, at least no one levelled the kind of general stream of modest invective that we hear in the House against these rates to-day.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
Well, fairly restrained in the present circumstances. Possibly with continued repetition the violence goes out of it. The average rate for a young man to-day, which is being so much criticised, is greater in value than the rate for a full adult in 1921.
§ Mr. STEPHEN
When the Minister says there was no great general criticism or invective in those days about the rates, is he aware that there were special Labour party conferences called in consequence of the inadequacy of those rates, and that the invective was greater?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
At any rate it was not so vocal in this House. I will take only one further particular in stance and that is the case singled out as one of hardship by the hon. Member who has just spoken, the hard case of the young man who has a wife or mother to support. I would point out that the hardship of this particular type of case, where a young man may have a mother to support, has not been put forward previously 1625 from any part of the House. I considered that case myself and tried to put myself in the position of a young man who might have a mother to support, and I am meeting that case by an Amendment which will come on later. That is the most reasonable case which could be put forward. The number of such cases is small, however. As I say, I thought over these rates carefully and tried to put myself in the position of a young man with such responsibilities, and I thought that here was a real hard case and I have met it with an Amendment.
I pass from that to the rates of contribution about which the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) has asked me. He says the rates of contribution are unfair. We are told that because benefit has been graded, rising from 10s. to 12s. and i4s. in the case of a young man, with similar grading for a young woman, that therefore contributions ought to be graded too. I do not think that follows for a moment. While I introduced the same contributions as were recommended by the Blanesburgh Committee, just as I introduced the benefits they recommended, I have increased the benefits but I have not asked for any increase in contributions. I have charged the increased expense to the comparatively small balance of income over expenditure which is calculated to exist under the system which is proposed. To make a graded rate of contributions would in fact be perfectly impossible if it were to be tried. It would be difficult to increase the number of different stamps for different classes. I inquired and found that it was possible to introduce a third grade, but to introduce two additional grades as well at intervals of a year would be impracticable.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
The hon. Member would prefer to have a uniform 12s. now rather than a graded rate of benefit?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
As soon as the hon. Member is challenged we see what he says. Let me see what his real meaning is.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
It is quite clear. I do not want to be misrepresented. All the 1626 time we have been opposed to the new classes. That is our contention.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
Perfectly true, but, supposing there is a new class, I say to the hon. Member "Would you like to have the new class simplified or would you like to have the benefit graded at 10s." 12s., 14s.?"
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
The hon. Member has been asked whether he would like to have the average of 12s. or the grade 10s., 12s., 14s., and, smiling, he has put the question by each time. I take it, given that answer, that he would grade it within these limitations just as we have done. On the other hand are the contributions too high? I take the average for young men, 12s. I take the adult benefit under this scheme of 17s. If I were to have the proportionate contribution paid by the employer for a young man, it would be nearly 6d. He is paying a penny more. I say at once, that, broadly speaking, in any system of this kind, it is perfectly right that a rather larger proportion should be paid by persons at the earlier ages. To use the argument that we cannot expect that the present scheme will be enforced when the young man of 18 to-day becomes the older man of 55 is not—I do not like to use a worse adjective—worthy of the hon. Member who brought it forward. Everyone knows, when schemes of this kind are instituted, that you must take people in a group especially in cases where there is less unemployment at an earlier stage in life, when a slightly larger proportionate contribution should be paid. Those are the merits both of the new Clause and of the benefits and of the contributions. I repeat again finally before we pass from this stage of the Bill that I certainly think that the preponderating opinion in the country which was in a good position to judge was in favour of the establishment of this new class. I was received with cries of dissent from Members on the opposite side who said that it was only certain selected chairmen of local committees. I say it was not so. There were provincial gatherings of the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the Local Employment Committees, many of whom were far from being Con- 1627 servative in their opinion, and in the vast majority of cases these chairmen and vice-chairmen had had meetings of their whole committees beforehand in order to consult them. It was after those consultations that they gave the preponderating opinion that this class should be etablished. The case has been perfectly clearly made out, and I have every confidence in asking the House to vote in favour of it.
§ Mr. SHAW
We have had rather remarkable arguments. We have, on the one hand, been lectured on the virtues of a common-sense business-like insurance scheme, and we have had it explained to us, on the other hand, how easy it is to have a scheme which will insist on the same contribution and pay three different kinds of benefit. We cannot square the two arguments. The arguments with regard to this being built on sound and well-accepted business insurance are amazing. As a matter of fact, it is built upside down. I know of no insurance system in the world that says to the young, "You must pay a bigger price for your insurance than the old." It is the only system in the world that says, "If you are young and you are a good life, you must pay a higher price, because some day you will get old." It does not matter a row of pins to me what is the ordinary business of insurance. I want some system of proportion used even by those who argue against us. As I have said before, the arguments on this insurance system have been upside down and contrary to every system of insurance of which I have ever heard. All insurance of which I have heard, whether it be employment accident insurance, fire insurance or life insurance, is built on the principle that the less risk you have the less the premium you have to pay. I know of no private institution which is different. I am going to leave that and come to the point as to whether a graduated scale of benefits is good.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
As the right hon. Gentleman has challenged me, will he, before he passes from this, state clearly that in what he says is the system of insurance there is not a greater proportionate payment by young people in health insurance as compared with the risk of ill health?
§ Mr. SHAW
Quite plainly, I do not admit anything. The Minister may take it for granted that when I want to admit a thing I shall do so for myself and that I shall not let him do it for me. The Minister has not faced this fact. He has argued that the Blanesburgh Committee state that stages of benefits were permissible, but he has never argued that what he proposes is a fair thing for the people who are going to receive benefit. He has never tried to prove that 8s. for a girl up to the age of 19 is a reasonable sum to offer under circumstances which are inevitable, namely, that that girl is not likely to have savings upon which she can depend. Under the most modest condition of living, if you live on oatmeal and water, and if you pay for the smallest and cheapest room in the world, if you keep yourself clean, if you keep boots on your feet, you cannot make double that sum keep you alive. Where is the rest to come from? That is a question the Minister has never answered. Neither the Blanesburgh Committee nor all the talk about insurance schemes can solve the problem until that question is answered.
Take the young man of 18 years and 6 months. You are going to give him a sum of 10s. Why an ordinary healthy young man can almost wear 10s. off his boots in the course of a week. Does anybody suggest that any young man in this country living in the plainest possible way, if he lives decently, can live on less than 25s. a week? Where is the other 15s. to come from while he is unemployed? What is he going to do? Do you want our young men to grow up with a burden of debt on their shoulders which will take a lifetime to shake off? Do you wonder that some of us feel keenly on this point? I was a working man myself. I had a burden of debt on my shoulders, not through any crime that I had committed, but because I contracted rheumatic fever through walking about in boots that no one ought to have been obliged to wear. I know what it means to work for years and years in order to work off an enormous deadweight of debt. 1629 Are you going to build on the shoulders of our young population these mountains of debt that will take them years and years, in times of good trade, to work off? Will the Minister or any Member of this Government explain, when talking about full maintenance rights, how they expect these differences between what it costs to live in the meanest possible way and the benefits which are being provided to be made up? That is the problem which I put to myself. I can see several answers to the question, all of which, I say frankly, fill me with dismay. I can see no reasonable answer that will give me a feeling of satisfaction. If I could see a way in which this problem could be met without doing irremedial harm to our young people I should feel easier in my mind. I ask the Minister to devote his attention, not so much to precedents and to talking about scientific insurance, not so much to the general principles, but to the hard concrete fact that in 1927 a young man or a young woman cannot keep clean and decent and live in the meanest way on which he proposes. There is such a gap between what he proposes and what is needed that it must be filled by someone else. Who is that someone else to be? Is it to be the parents who themselves are badly off? Is it to be filled in ways that are questionable? That is the problem as it presents itself to me.
There is another thing that presents itself to me. It is the absolute inability to see through the same spectacles as the Government. I have asked myself sometimes: Is it that my views are so twisted that I cannot recognise what the other person's point of view is, or is it that perhaps something escapes my mind altogether which to them is quite clear? I look upon this question—and this question of the girls affects us in my native county of Lancashire, I think, as much as anyone in the country—from the point of view of the people I know so well and love so dearly. They are genuine, decent, straightforward people possessing desires similar to those of hon. Members on the opposite benches, possessing the desires that all of us have. All of us have a desire for good things. We have a desire for good clothes. We all have desires, more or less, for good books. All of us like amusements and all of us like a reasonable chance of a brighter life. But this Bill is based on trying to crush every bit 1630 of brightness out of the life of every unemployed worker or working woman. The young people are treated as if they were dogs. "Get it where you can. What responsibility is it of ours to see that you have maintenance. We wash our hands of responsibility. We do not believe in it. We never have believed in it, and we hope that it never will be the case." I cannot understand the position. I said that in my opinion the first duty of the House is to see that no decent person in this country willing to produce shall go without a sufficiency of food and clothing. This Clause will not give it, and because it will not give it we shall go into the Lobby and vote against it.
§ Mr. TINKER
There is a considerable conflict of opinion between hon. Members on the opposite side of the House and ourselves on this question. Take the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams). His argument was that the reason why these benefits should be reduced in respect of persons between 18 and 21 was because these people would not attempt to get work if they received adequate benefit from the Employment Exchanges. If that argument prevails in the Tory party, it is quite a different point of view from that which we hold. We think that every man and woman, given equal opportunities, will give of his or her best and not try to dodge responsibility. I would appeal to hon. Members on the opposite side of the House to remember the time when they were between 18 and 21 years of age and ask themselves the question: Did they resort to that kind of thing? I know the answer will be that they did not. If that is so, why not give the same amount of confidence to the other people belonging to our class who are between those ages? People who attain the age of 18 should be treated as having attained the standard of adults, because their needs are equal to the full grown man and woman. It is upon those lines that we claim that whatever benefit is paid to the adults should also be paid to the boys and girls between 18 and 21. That is our point of view, and I put it to the Minister of Labour that even he has admitted that the amount of benefit under this Bill which goes to an adult is not one that can keep a man decently. Having admitted that, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to cut down the benefit in the case of young people between 1631 18 and 21, and he is proposing to do this with the full knowledge that the amount being paid to adults is inadequate.
There is another point which I wish to raise, and it is in regard to a pledge which has been given to all insured persons. Previous Governments have admitted that insured persons over the age of 18 are entitled to full status, and that whatever benefits are paid to them must be the full benefit for those ages. The Government are now departing from that principle, and it is not fair to the men and women who have passed the age of 18 to have their benefits cut down. If the benefits have to be reduced, at least let us keep our pledges to the people who have already passed the age of 18. I placed an Amendment on the Paper providing that the limit should be further extended. I notice that the Minister of Labour has provided in the Fourth Schedule that the benefits shall operate as from July, 1928. I would like to put a question on that point. Seeing that the Measure comes into operation in April, 1928, what is the reason why the right hon. Gentleman has extended it for a further three months to people between 18 and 21 years of age? Is it because times are so bad that he desires to allow a little time for these people to recoup themselves?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton))
The reason why the date is put forward to July is that that is the end of the insurance year. There is no other reason whatever except that this change should come into operation at the beginning of the insurance year.
§ Mr. TINKER
Then I stand corrected. My view was that it was being done to allow these people a little more time to recover. I would like the Minister of Labour to consider the case of families that are impoverished for the moment. In those cases there is no chance of the young people who are out of work getting any additional help in their own homes. We had a Debate yesterday upon the state of affairs in the mining industry, and it was proved that in many mining areas whole families were out of work. In those cases, there is no chance of getting any help for members of such families who are thrown out of work. If the idea of this proposal is that the 1632 burden of reduced benefits can be borne by families as a whole, then I say that there are many families who cannot bear such a burden. What chance have those who are out of employment to live in decency on the rates allowed under this Bill? I contend that in a matter like this the same benefit which is given to adults should be extended to all those cases between 18 and 21. That is our appeal. We contend that Clause 2 and Clause 4 hang together and ought to be modified. The contributions should be the same in both cases. I hope the Minister will agree to our point of view.
§ Mr. E. BROWN
It appears to me that this Clause does away with one of the most powerful arguments from the Departmental point of view in regard to the Bill as a whole. The one thing to be gained by the Bill as a whole is that it will simplify administration very greatly, and that will be an immense gain. On the other hand, in my opinion, the introduction of a new class into this Bill seems to go a long way in the direction of nullifying the simplicity of administration gained by Clause 1 and Clause 5. When we consider what is happening with the Schedule, and the making of this new class, it seems to me that the administrative complications are going to be very great indeed.
In the administration of the benefits, the adults have to go to one counter, and those between 18 and 21 years of age go to another counter. When you are paying 2,500, 3,500, and sometimes 4,000 applicants in one morning, any hon. Member who has watched the process will know that those behind the counter have to work with extreme rapidity in order to get through the number of cases which have been put down to receive their benefit on one particular day. There is no doubt that the graduated scale of benefits which has been adopted against public opinion and against the recommendation of the Blanesburgh Committee will place a great strain upon the counter work of those who have to administer this Measure.
I think the arguments of the hon. Member for Beading (Mr. FT. Williams) were rather more thinly spun than usual. There is one point I wish to take up in the speech of the hon. Member for Beading. He used the argument that since these young people are young and 1633 the risk of unemployment is less, they ought to receive lower benefits new in order that they may receive higher benefits when they reach 21 years of age, and later on in life. That argument might be applied to young men, but it certainly does not apply to young women. I think the most unjust thing in this Bill is that in the case of a young woman between 18 and 21 years of age you demand a higher contribution, and at the same time you give her a rate of benefit which nobody can defend either inside or outside of this House.
It must be remembered that in such a case a young woman will remain in employment for a much shorter period on the average than a young man in the same class, because the ordinary young woman looks forward to being married, and therefore the argument of the hon. Member for Reading does not apply to her. I think it is entirely wrong to separate the young women from the adults of their own sex. Whatever force there may be in that argument as applied to young men, they get less between 18 and 21 in order that they may get more when they are older, that argument cannot apply to young women who, in the normal course of things, will go out of industry in order to take on the vital functions of home-making. After reading the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee, and after listening to the speeches which have been made by the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary in order to find a valid reason which would justify the segregation of this class from the whole mass of insured persons, the conviction has been left on my mind that no adequate case has been made out. If all adults were receiving the same benefit and paying the same contribution, it would have been better to retain the dual rather than the triple scheme.
§ Mr. STEPHEN
I think this discussion has been very valuable for certain points that have been brought out. There is this difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. We believe that a person who is unemployed should receive adequate maintenance, while the Minister of Labour and his Friends believe that a person who is unemployed should only receive partial maintenance. I do not think that, in making that statement, I am saying anything contrary to 1634 the sense in which it was implied by the right hon. Gentleman. I want to point out that the Minister of Labour steadfastly refuses to follow out his argument to its logical conclusion, and he has not answered a question that has been repeatedly put to him with regard to these young people. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is right that a young person should not receive sufficient to maintain himself or herself? If a young person is destitute and has no friends who are able to give financial or other assistance, how is that young man or young woman to live? I think that before this Bill leaves the House we should have a definite answer from a representative of the Department upon that question. What does the Minister of Labour imagine is going to happen to the young man or young woman under this totally inadequate amount allowed for maintenance? What are young persons to do if they are not going to receive financial assistance elsewhere?
I would like to mention another point. To-day the discussion has ranged over the general subject. At a previous stage of the discussion I brought forward an Amendment providing that the full rate of benefit should be given to young men or women who are married, and who are between the ages of 18 and 21. I think the Minister of Labour might have been a little more thankful to the Members of my party for putting him in the way of remedying something which he now admits is an unfortunate position. He has taken a great deal of credit to himself for the discovery that there should be a further extension, and that none of us on these benches seemed to have noticed that there was an even stronger case for the young man who did not get married, but was seeking to maintain his mother or had dependants to maintain. I am grateful for the fact that the Minister made this discovery, and that this concession has been made. I believe that it will be of some little help to make this exception, so that between the ages of 18 and 21 these young people at least will receive the full rate of benefit.
On the general question of the institution of this class, I do not think that the Minister has given sufficient attention to the question whether this Bill is to be a permanent Measure, or only a tide-over till more normal times are reached. 1635 Sometimes he has proceeded on the assumption that this is to be the normal provision of our scheme of unemployment insurance, but at other times he has proceeded on the assumption that the present period is an abnormal one. The question whether this is a normal or an abnormal period of unemployment has not been given nearly sufficient attention by the Minister in the discussion of the whole question of the institution of this class. If it be an abnormal period, then evidently, with the reduced benefit, there should have been something additional in the way of preparing and assisting all these young people to find a place in industry in the future. On the other hand, if this is to be taken as a normal period, then it seems to me that the Ministry is not recognising the tremendous problem of this section of young people, who will find it difficult in the future to get employment at all. There has been all this confusion throughout the discussion, and, without wishing to say anything nasty about the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, I must say that both of them have contributed greatly to it. Their own minds have not been clear—
§ Mr. BETTERTON
If the hon Member is asking me, may I make it quite clear at once that this is intended to be a permanent scheme.
§ Mr. STEPHEN
The Parliamentary Secretary says that it is intended to be a permanent scheme, but in a great deal of the discussion upon it there has been
§ the assumption that the time is abnormal, and a great deal of the argument in regard to the institution of this new class has also been governed by the consideration that in the future the number of unemployed people between the ages of 18 and 21 will be very limited, and that, in the circumstances of to-day, we are face to face with a very different problem. However, I am glad that at last this has been brought out so definitely. I want to stress the distinction between us in dealing with unemployment. We in the Labour party believe in full maintenance for the unemployed; Members on the other side believe that there should be not full, but inadequate maintenance for the unemployed—that somehow or other the unemployed must find other reserves besides what the State can arrange to give them through an unemployment insurance scheme. I hope that Members on the opposite side will make that plain to all the unemployed people in their Divisions and to the public generally, because I am confident that, if it is made plain, when an opportunity presents itself a great many people, who have supported this Government under the misrepresentations of the past as to what the Government were going to do for the unemployed, will not support them in the future. I would also say that I am glad that this one little concession has been made in this Clause.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'who' in line 15, stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 126.1639
|Division No. 452.]||AYES.||[5.36 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Buchan, John||Cunliffe, Sir Herbert|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Buckingham, Sir H.||Curzon, Captain Viscount|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)|
|Atkinson, C.||Burman, J. B.||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)|
|Balniel, Lord||Burton, Colonel H. W||Davies, Dr. Vernon|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Dean, Arthur Wellesley|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Caine, Gordon Hall||Drewe, C.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Campbell, E. T.||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Cassels, J. D.||Elliot, Major Walter E.|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Ellis, R. G.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. C.)||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)|
|Berry, Sir George||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Everard, W. Lindsay|
|Bethel, A.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Falle, Sir Bertram G.|
|Betterton. Henry B.||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Chilcott, Sir Warden||Fermoy, Lord|
|Blundell, F. N.||Christie, J. A.||Fielden, E. B.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Clarry, Reginald George||Foster, Sir Harry S.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Frece, Sir Walter de|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Cope, Major William||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)||Galbraith, J. F. W.|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Remnant, Sir James|
|Gates, Percy||Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Looker, Herbert William||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Salmon, Major I.|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Lumley, L. R.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Grace, John||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Macintyre, Ian||Sandon, Lord|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||McLean, Major A.||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Hacking, Douglas H.||Macquisten, F. A.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Hanbury, C.||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Skelton, A. N.|
|Harland, A.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Malone, Major P. B.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Margesson, Captain D.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Meyer, Sir Frank||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Hawke, John Anthony||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Tasker, R. Inigo|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Hills, Major John Waller||Murchison, Sir Kenneth||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Hilton, Cecil||Nelson, Sir Frank||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Nuttall, Ellis||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Oakley, T.||Wells, S. R.|
|Huntingfield, Lord||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-|
|Hurd, Percy A.||Pennefather, Sir John||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Hurst, Gerald B.||Penny, Frederick George||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Iliffe Sir Edward M.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Iveagh, Countess of||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Jephcott, A. R.||Pilditch. Sir Philip||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Power, Sir John Cecil||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Preston, William||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Price, Major C. W. M.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Radford, E. A.|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Raine, Sir Walter||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Lamb, J. O.||Ramsden, E.||Major Sir George Hennessy and|
|Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Major the Marquess of Titchfield.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Forrest, W.||Lindley, F. W.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Gardner, J. P.||Lowth, T.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Gibbins, Joseph||Lunn, William|
|Ammon, Charles George||Gillett, George M.||Mackinder, W.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Gosling, Harry||MacLaren, Andrew|
|Baker, Walter||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Barnes, A.||Greenall, T.||MacNeill-Weir, L.|
|Batey, Joseph||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||March, S.|
|Broad, F. A.||Groves, T.||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Grundy, T. W.||Montague, Frederick|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)||Morris, R. H.|
|Buchanan, G.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Cape, Thomas||Hardie, George D.||Murnin, H.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Naylor, T. E.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hayday, Arthur||Oliver, George Harold|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Hayes, John Henry||Owen, Major G.|
|Compton, Joseph||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Palin, John Henry|
|Connolly, M.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Paling, W.|
|Cove, W. G.||Hirst, G. H.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Dalton, Hugh||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Potts, John S.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Dennison, R.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Riley, Ben|
|Duncan, C.||Kennedy, T.||Ritson, J.|
|Dunnico, H.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)|
|Edge, Sir William||Kirkwood, D.||Rose, Frank H.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lansbury, George||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Scrymgeour, E.||Sutton, J. E.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)||Westwood, J.|
|Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Sitch, Charles H.||Thurtle, Ernest||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Tinker, John Joseph||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Snell, Harry||Varley, Frank B.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Viant, S. P.||Windsor, Walter|
|Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)||Wallhead, Richard C.||Wright, W.|
|Stamford, T. W.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Stephen, Campbell||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Strauss, E. A.||Wellock, Wilfred||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.|
§ Mr. STEPHEN
In view of the fact that the Amendment standing in my name—in page 1, line 16, after the word "years" to insert the words "and are unmarried,"—is covered by a later Amendment which the Minister has put down to Clause 4, and which includes my Amendment and a little more besides, I do not propose to move my Amendment.