§
The following Amendments stood on the Order Paper in the names of Mr. HAYDAY and other hon. Members:
In page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word 'to,' to the word 'employed,' in line 14.
In line 15, after the word ` have,' to insert the word 'not.'
In line 15, to leave out the word 'eighteen,' and to insert instead thereof the word 'sixteen.'
In line 15, to leave out from the word ` years,' to the word 'in,' in line 16.
§ Mr. PALINGOn a point of Order. I wish to ask if it is in accordance with the custom of the House for the Government to proceed with a Bill when, on the Minister's own admission, the information furnished about the Measure is so scanty that it entails the issuing of the White Paper which has been laid before the House, and in these circumstances how can it be expected that hon. Members will be able to come to a wise decision?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThese Amendments stand together, and would impose a charge which would require a Money Resolution. For this reason these Amendments are out of order.
§ Mr. HAYDAYMay I point out that these Amendments do not make a charge, but simply request a payment from State funds. There are no consequential Amendments following. It is true that 1664 they create a new class, but that class could not qualify until those people were employed, and that places them in a special category. These Amendments would enable that new class to participate in the benefits of the Fund, but in no way do they impose a fresh charge upon the State, and no such proposals would have to be submitted in consequence. What is suggested would be no more a charge upon the State than when the Fund is called upon to provide all the administrative charges, and to provide the proportion suggested for training. We do not propose to set up a separate class, with a separate or distinct scale of contributions following a ratio as between the contributing parties to the Fund.
It is for that purpose that we propose in the first Amendment to wipe out all reference to the contribution. If I am permitted, in the light of what I have said, to move my first Amendment, I think I should be able to develop an arguments showing why there should not be an extra charge upon the Exchequer for this new class that we are desirous of creating. The class created by the Bill is one to which I have very grave objection. I take it that we should not be out of order in discussing that matter. I suppose it would be in order to argue that by our proposals we are replacing one class with another under an entirely different set of circumstances, making no reference to a contributory basis for that particular class. I would like a reply to 1665 my points, because I am desirous of conforming to the rules of the Committee, or to any ruling that may be given. I would like to have an opportunity of presenting the case for the new class, because it is so distinct, and if you, Captain FitzRoy, would like me to explain further how there would be no charge created by these Amendments, I would like to do so.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI quite understand the hon. Member's views on the subject as he has explained them to the Committee. Nevertheless, if this new class, as he rightly describes it, were set up, it would need a Money Resolution before it could be included in the Bill, and for that reason it is obviously out of order.
§ Mr. HAYDAYI would like to know clearly why it is that our proposals would require a Money Resolution. I understand that a Money Resolution is necessary only where a direct charge is imposed upon the State. No money Bill will be necessary if, eventually, Amendments are carried that increase the amount of benefit, because that would be a charge on the fund, and no Money Resolution would be required. Consequently, any benefit that would be established as a result of the success of my Amendment, if carried, would not, I submit, necessitate a Money Resolution, because it is not proposed to impose a fresh charge on the State, and the charge is one which would be placed on the fund.
§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSMay I submit that, if this Amendment were incorporated in the Clause, and then were read with paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of the Clause and the Second Schedule, it is perfectly clear that a charge would be imposed in respect of all persons under 18, and that that is not contemplated in the Money Resolution on which the Bill is based. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the Money Resolution?"] It is in the Act of 1920.
Mr. GREENWOODThe hon. Member is quite wrong. May I put this point to you, Captain FitzRoy? The proposal in the Amendment is that the first part of the Clause shall read.
The following provisions shall have effect with respect to …. employed persons who have attained the age of eighteen years….1666 It does not, therefore, impose any charge upon contributors, but the design is to bring them within the scheme. You will observe that the Money Resolution already adopted was a very narrow one, and did not cover the fact that certain alterations had been made in the way that the Unemployment Insurance Fund is to be expended. That Fund, contributed from three sources, is now in debt, and there is power to borrow money. That being so, the Bill has not altered certain of the provisions, and expenditure will be met. It would be quite conceivable for provision to be made for young persons under 16 out of the existing Insurance Fund and the powers that now exist to draw upon the Treasury for deficits, without creating any new charge upon any new class of contributors or upon the Exchequer. This proposal might well be varied by a redistribution of the way in which the proceeds of the Fund are expended, and in that sense it would not be a new charge, but merely a re-allocation of existing charges. I submit to you, Sir, that, if that were so, then this Amendment would be in order, if the ground on which it has been ruled out were that a new charge was being imposed.
§ Miss LAWRENCEI desire to submit this point. The Clause itself which the Committee are now considering has not a Money Resolution behind it. This Clause re-allocates benefits and contributions for persons between the ages of 18 and 21, and it has no Money Resolution behind it. Further, an Amendment has been put down by the Government increasing the contribution for these young persons, and that, again, has no Money Resolution behind it. I would press upon you, Sir, that, if you rule in this way with regard to my hon. Friend's Amendments, it is necessary that you should rule in this way with regard to Clause 2 itself, which has no Money Resolution behind it, and with regard to the Amendment of the Government, which also has no Money Resolution behind it. I submit to you that if you rule out these Amendments, you must rule out the Clause on the same grounds.
§ Mr. STEPHENMay I point out that there is a provision in the Bill for increasing the adult dependants' benefit from 5s. to 7s., thus giving an additional 1667 benefit of 2s. a week? I suggest that that necessarily brings in a great number of people. As men get married and become unemployed, it will bring in a great many people who would come within this provision giving an extra 2s. a week, and they would be in the same position as the young people under this proposal. I also desire to point out to you, Sir, that, on the basis of the 9 per cent. rate of unemployment, there is in the fund an estimated surplus of almost £1,750,000, and it is out of that surplus that the charge would be met; it would not come from the Treasury at all. We do not contemplate that this Amendment is going to impose an additional charge upon the Treasury in any way, though it would possibly involve a delay in bringing to an end the deficiency period or the extended period which is operative under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe arguments I have just heard have not altered my objection to bringing in a new class of insured persons which it would be out of order to introduce in an Amendment by a private Member. I have decided that this series of Amendments is out of order, and really I cannot listen to any more arguments on the matter.
§ Mr. HAYDAYMay I, just for guidance, ask this question? Embodied in my Amendment is another phrase as to the class covered by the Clause. May I take it that discussion of the class of cases thus created would be in order on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"? I only want to feel that some part of my argument with reference to this new class will be safeguarded.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANOn the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," if the hon. Member likes to say that it would have been a better Clause if people under the age of 18 were included, he is entitled to do so, but he must not argue that at great length.
With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), in page 1, line 15, to leave out from the word "persons" to the end of the para- 1668 graph, that is really equivalent to nullifying the Clause altogether, and, consequently, is out of order.
§ Mr. STEPHENI beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after the word "years," to insert the words "and are unmarried."
I think the effect of this Amendment will be obvious. The Minister, under the Bill, is creating a new class whose ages range from 18 to 21, and the rates of benefit that are to be paid to the people in this new class are much less than those individuals are able to obtain under the present Acts. The object of my Amendment is to limit the operation of this reduction of benefit. In the Appendix to the Blanesburgh Report, it is estimated that the youths between 18 and 21 number 783,00, and that the girls between 18 and 21 number 480,000. I do not know whether the term "girls" is appropriate to ages between 18 and 21, but that is the nomenclature used in the Report, and I prefer it to the word "flappers," which is used by some of the opponents of another Measure that the Government are going to bring in. Therefore, in dealing with this class, we are dealing with about 1,250,000 people, and there are members of that class who have managed to get married before reaching the age of 21. I will leave it to the Committee to decide whether they are fortunate or unfortunate in being married before they are 21. I myself have escaped so far—
§ Mr. STEPHENThe Noble Lady may think it is a shame, but I did not meet her, possibly, in time. I do not want to dwell on that subject—
§ Mr. MAXTONTake it on the Report stage.
§ Mr. STEPHENThe Committee may be of opinion that it is unwise for a young man or young woman between the ages of 18 and 21 to get married, but, whether the Committee hold that view or not, the fact remains that there are people who do get married between those ages. Possibly they have such an affection for each other, and possibly there are circumstances of the individual, when marriage is entered into, that are such as to encourage them to think it will be all right in the future. Then things may happen afterwards—for instance, a General Election, as the result of which 1669 a different Government may be returned. There may come a time of bad trade, because it may be a Conservative Government that has been returned, and a young man may lose his employment. What we are suggesting here is the putting in of a safeguard in case a Government may act in such a way as to throw these young men out of employment. The young man and woman in those circumstances have a home to maintain; they have the same economic needs as any other married couple. They have to make provision for their home, and it is our view that, such being the case, people in those circumstances should be entitled to the same income as any other married man and woman who are obtaining benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts.
6.0 p.m.
To my mind, the only argument that could be adduced against this Amendment would be that it might act as an inducement to those people to get married too early, and without exercising sufficient prudence and considering sufficiently what the circumstances of their life may be. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will not suggest, indeed I do not think that anyone will suggest, that unemployment benefit at the rate at which it is paid to married people is a sufficient inducement to anyone to get married. I have had experience of people coming to me in reference to the rejection of their claims to unemployment benefit, and I have been horrified to discover that they have got married while they were in receipt of unemployment benefit—that, even on the very poor economic basis of those unemployment allowances, they have ventured upon so great a risk. Those cases there are, but I do not think there can be any suggestion whatever that if we allow the law to remain as it is at present young people will enter into marriage more lightheartedly because we have introduced a limitation of benefit with regard to the allowance. I cannot see any reason at all why the Minister should not accept this Amendment. If the home is set up and if unemployment comes, every married couple should be in the same respect with regard to the provision that is made in time of unemployment. I believe if this is really an Insurance Bill you want to have equality of treatment of married people, and I believe the Minister will be very well advised and the 1670 Committee will act only justly if they accept the Amendment and allow the law to remain, as far as married people are concerned, with regard to the provision of unemployment benefit, that is, provided the misfortune of unemployment overtakes the home of young people.
§ Miss WILKINSONI want to examine the economic position of the people between 18 and 21, which seems to me to have been overlooked by the Government. It is not a matter for us to decide whether the years 18 to 21 are suitable for marriage or not. The point at issue is whether the economic circumstances of the men and women in question justify that marriage, and that they and they only can decide. For a very large number of members of the working class the age of 18, just as much as the age of 21, is a time of maximum earning. We are accustomed to think in this House, especially the Government, of trades where a man serves an apprenticeship until he is 21, when he goes from an apprentice's wage to a journeyman's wage. In a very large number of the unskilled trades and the heavy physical trades—I am speaking now on this matter because it has been put to me very strongly by people engaged in the iron and steel trade in my own constitutency—they are getting at the age of 18 very often as much as they are likely to get. They are getting a full man's wage, and in piece-rate trades, especially those that are covered by a trade board, 18 is laid down as the age when a full rate is paid. There is, I think only one trade board where that is not the case, though I am not sure about the boot and shoe repairing trade. If a full man's rate is paid at 18 there is no reason why he should not get the full unemployment rate at 18. It is ridiculous to say to these men, "You must wait till you are 21 before you marry, or if you do not we shall punish you by giving you less rates of benefit when you are unemployed." From that point of view it seems to me that the Minister might very well give this concession, that where a person is married he should get the full rate.
May I also point out the position of the women and children under this Clause. You may have a man of 20 with, perhaps, two children. You are not only going to punish him, but you are punishing the children and the woman as well, 1671 and you are punishing him for something that is certainly no crime, because the legal age of marriage is far lower than 18, and therefore if a man has committed no crime socially or in the eyes of the law you have no right to punish him and his wife and children merely because he is married at that age. Especially is that the case when this is being introduced as an entirely new thing. You will have to reduce the benefit of large numbers of men who are already married and have married under the present conditions of unemployment benefit. Suddenly you are going to say to a man who is the head of a household and the father of a family that his unemployment rate is going to be cut down to 10s. a week. This brings in a further point we have to consider. These men cannot live on 10s. a week, and you are adding a further burden to the local rates in these very heavily rated areas. From whichever point of view you look at the Bill you see that is all the time the attitude of the Government, in every way they can to push something on to the local rates and take it off the national funds, where, at any rate, the burden is very widely spread over the shoulders of the whole nation. For all these reasons I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDWhat I understand by the Amendment is that a distinction should be created between, shall we say, the rest of the members of a particular class which it is proposed to create, 18 to 21, and those of them who may be married before they are 21. As far as the words proposed are concerned, it really is impossible from an administrative point of view. There have to be different books for different classes and it would mean that at the age of marriage, as far as contributions are concerned, the book would have to be changed at any moment, and it would constitute such an administrative complexity in addition to those that already prevail that it would be exceedingly difficult. What I gather the hon. Member desires is to see that, as far as possible, if these people have extra burdens by reason of their being married, that situation might be met. If he is willing to withdraw the Amendment now with full opportunity, which I shall be glad to give him, at some later period in the 1672 Debate to raise it again, I shall be ready to do this. I cannot give any pledge now, but I will look into it from two points of view. I do not wish, unless there be reason shown, and unless there be a general consensus of opinion in the House, to depart from the recommendations of the Blanesburgh Report. On the other hand, I have also to try to consider, if it is considered proper to try to meet the hon. Member's purpose in any way, how it cell be done administratively. If he be willing to withdraw the Amendment now without my giving a pledge, having an opportunity to raise it again in the course of the Debate. I shall be glad to look into it, both for the purpose of ascertaining the general opinion and also to see if it be possible administratively.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSSince the Clause deals specifically with the weekly contributions, would that in any way embarrass the right hon. Gentleman subsequently when he desired to give effect to the Amendment?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDSupposing we came to the conclusion that it was a proper thing to do—I think it is a matter of very small numbers—it would not prevent it being dealt with in the matter of contributions or in the matter of benefits either, but that would be a matter for consideration, to see what is possible and what is not.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDNo, if an exception should be made in any way it would have to be done in the Bill. What I must take into consideration, amongst other things, are the administrative difficulties when more complexities are made in an already complicated scheme.
Mr. GREENWOODIf it be true that this really affects only a small number of cases, clearly the administrative difficulties are not substantial. What we are claiming is very simple, that where people are married they should be excluded from the 18 to 21 class. I do not see that there is any additional complication in the Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman will look into it and we can safeguard our position and be able on a 1673 future occasion to raise the question again, I think we should be prepared to leave the matter where it is at the moment.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI think the right hon. Gentleman is speaking of the administrative difficulty in his own Department. He is not proposing to make this alteration administratively. He makes it in the Bill. I understand that if we agree to his proposal, we shall be committing no breach of faith if we raise the point again on Report.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThat is so.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSSome of us doubt the wisdom of this proposal on grounds other than administrative. On the Second Reading I took exception to the proposal that we should do anything to encourage people to get married before they are 21. I think there is a very considerable lack of responsibility shown by people in all sections of society, and I am not in favour of encouraging a lack of sense of responsibility. I hold that view and I am entitled to express it, and I know perfectly well that it is very widely held. As the result of the statement I made on the Second Reading I received certain communications which indicate that that view is widely held outside this House. It is true the numbers concerned are not very large. Roughly speaking, there appear to be about 25,000 married people insured who are males and about the same number of females. The number unemployed is roughly a tenth of this, and the cost, apparently, will be about £100,000 a year. I think we have to consider whether we cannot find a better use for that £100,000 than encouraging what I regard as an undesirable tendency.
§ Mr. HARNEYI think the Minister ought at once to accept the Amendment. I have seldom heard an argument so puerile as that which has just been addressed to us. We are seriously told that there exists a body of persons outside Bedlam who would be induced to marry because thereby they would get four shillings or five shillings a week extra. The reason I suggest the Amendment should be accepted is this. There is no justification whatever for this reduction of benefit, except on the assumption that these young people are living in their 1674 parents' houses. The strong argument against it is, that among the working classes the adult age begins at 18. The real test of whether one of these so-called young persons is living independently from his or her parents is whether he or she is married. If there are any young people between 18 and 21 who are married and keeping up separate establishments we have to provide for these persons. Is it seriously to be said that people between the ages of 18 and 21 who are married and are keeping up separate establishments and are unemployed should not receive adequate benefits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Separate establishments from their parents homes?"] Was my remark ambiguous or was it understood to infer that I intended to mean separate establishments? I meant separate establishments from their parents. Is it to go forth to the country that these persons, found by the Employment Exchanges or the insurance agents to be legitimately unemployed through no fault of their own, are only to receive a few shillings a week on which to live? If it is intended to be so, let it be said frankly and openly. The Minister's position may be interpreted as follows: "I have introduced this reduction of benefit because I assume that in the great bulk of these cases the young people will be living with their parents. But if in any cases you show me that they are keeping up separate establishments from their parents, then the raison d'être for the whole of this Clause goes."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANDoes the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) wish to withdraw his Amendment?
§ Mr. STEPHENYes, but my hon. Friend here wants to ask the Minister a question in connection with a point on which we are not quite clear. I would like the Minister to give an answer.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. A. GREENWOODI beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out paragraph (a).
I assume that a fuller discussion of the details, as set out in the Schedule, will be possible when we arrive at the Schedule, but I desire to move this Amendment for the purpose of drawing attention to the general question of the contributions for the special class of 1675 young persons. Under the provisions in the Schedule, which we shall be discussing later, it will be seen that these new special classes of young men and young women are to have their contributions reduced by one penny per week, in the case of young men from 8d. to 7d., and in the case of young women from 7d. to 6d. The reduction which is taking place in the rate of contribution is a relatively small one, but the change which is taking place in the benefit which they are to receive for the contribution is a very substantial one. The first proposal in the case of all these young people between the ages of 18 to 21 was a very substantial reduction. But even now there is no fair relation between the reduction that is being made in the contributions and the reduction that is being made in the benefits receivable for the payment of those contributions. Since the Bill was introduced Amendments have been introduced by the Minister to divide these young people into three classes for the purposes of benefit. But while there have been changes made in the scale of benefits of the new classes—
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSOn a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss the whole principle of the Clause on this Amendment to leave out paragraph (a)? Presumably, if we leave out paragraph (a) we should leave out also paragraph (b), because the two things hang together. If (a) and (b) are left out, there will be no Clause left. Therefore, I suggest that a discussion on the general principle should arise on the question, "That the Clause stand part," and not on this Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope)The leaving out of paragraph (a) undoubtedly raises a very large question on the principle of the Clause, and it would be a matter of some difficulty to confine the discussion strictly to that without bearing on other parts of the Clause. I am not sure whether the most convenient course to take would not be to have a general discussion on this Amendment. That, of course, would be without prejudice to moving, and dividing on, Amendments later.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSWithout any discussion on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part"?
§ The CHAIRMANThat would depend on the length and scope of the discussion now.
§ Mr. COVEI think your predecessor in the Chair suggested we should be able to raise the old question of the non-inclusion of the 14 to 16 class on the Clause standing part. Do I understand that your ruling now will preclude us from raising that issue?
§ The CHAIRMANNo. I am suggesting that the course which was adopted in regard to other Bills should be followed, and that on an early Amendment of substance a general discussion should take place. If this course were followed, it would save a prolonged discussion afterwards. This course was adopted on a most important Bill in this Session on several Clauses. Of course, if any Member objects to it, I shall have to restrict the scope of the Debate on the various Amendments, but as a matter of general convenience I would submit that we ought to take this course to-day.
§ Mr. GREENWOODIs this without prejudice to the discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," because your predecessor this afternoon, in regard to certain Amendments ruled out of order, said quite clearly that it would be possible on the Clause standing part to argue that the new class of persons was wrong?
§ The CHAIRMANIt is not a suggestion that I am to follow a new precedent. I would allow, with the leave of the Committee, that the same matters should be discussed as on the Question, "That the Clause stand part." If, of course, it is objected to, I shall have to rule personally as to paragraph (a).
§ Mr. GREENWOODMy difficulty would be the possibility of bringing in at this stage, after the previous decision, this question of an entirely new class of person between the age of 14 to 16 years.
§ The CHAIRMANI should allow that. I do not say there should be no discussion on the Motion "That the Clause stand part," but, of course, the whole broad discussion could not be repeated. It is really a matter for the Committee. On other occasions, this course has proved convenient all round.
§ Mr. GREENWOODWe have no objection to it.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI would suggest that we discuss each Amendment as it comes up and have the broad, general discussion on the Motion that the Clause stand part. I think that would relieve us of a good deal of responsibility. My opinion is, that Amendments ought to be discussed on their merits as far as they are in order, and that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," a general discussion should take place.
§ The CHAIRMANIf there be discussion on individual Amendments, it might so happen there would be no discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. BUCHANANSurely, on that point it would be time enough to give a decision when the discussions are about to take place and not now. People who are reasonable human beings should be prepared to take each Amendment as it arises, and agree to have a general discussion on the Clause standing part.
§ The CHAIRMANIt is just a point whether time will permit. If hon. Members strictly confine their observations to particular points, there is no reason why we should not get through in good time, but, if this course be adopted, I must rule strictly on the individual Amendments.
§ Miss LAWRENCEIs not the question a little altered by the fact that a definite undertaking was given earlier that certain subjects should be discussed on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part"?
§ The CHAIRMANI understand that the Deputy-Chairman said there was to be another opportunity. That opportunity would come on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but I suggested, for the convenience of the Committee, that it might take place now. If the Committee object, very well, I will enforce the ordinary Rules of the Committee and rule on individual Amendments. If these Amendments are discussed at unusual length, it might be my duty not to afford all the time some Members would desire.
§ Mr. HAYDAYThe point I desired to put might well be safeguarded, as Amend- 1678 ments are ruled out because, strictly speaking, they are out of order. I hope that whatever happens in connection with the Amendment it will not preclude the raising of such points as might be in order on the Question, "That the Clause stand part." I think, if I might respectfully make a suggestion, it would be much better to have a strict rule applied to the Amendments as they arise so as to leave no reason for doubt as to the scope of the discussion on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The CHAIRMANI quite agree, but neither the hon. Member nor I can be masters of that.
§ Mr. GREENWOODWhen I rose to move this Amendment I tried to do my best to keep within the terms of the Amendment. When the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) attempted to put you right, Mr. Hope, it was not my intention to discuss the actual contributions or the details of the contributions. I was merely drawing attention to the general question with a view to safeguarding a discussion on the details of the contributions and benefits at a later stage in the Bill. I assume I had kept myself in order up to that point. The points to which I want to draw attention on this particular Clause are these. There are two main points. I am keeping to the question of contributions. You must consider them in connection with the general level of the benefits. I am not considering whether the contributions are too high or whether the benefits are too low, but I am pointing out this fact, that whereas a reduction has been made in the contributions of this new class of persons, the benefits receivable for the payment of these contributions have been reduced by a much larger amount. The second point to which I wish to draw attention in moving this Amendment is the fact that at first, when the Bill was drafted, there was to be a flat rate of contribution for the new class of insured persons, those between 18 and 21, with a flat rate of benefit. During the week-end the right hon. Gentleman, moved no doubt by arguments in the House, has modified the scales of benefit and established three special yearly groups, 18 to 19, 19 to 20, 20 to 21. Although he has in that way altered the benefit, the rates of contribution still remain flat rates, and nothing has been done to alter them. It was with the pur- 1679 pose of drawing attention to these questions, which was in order on the Amendment, that I rose to move the Amendment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain why there is not the same proportionate reduction in contribution. Further, I should like him to say why it is that young people from 19 to 20 and 20 to 21 are to receive more benefits for the same contribution in the future, while the young persons of 18 to 19 are still to pay the same contribution and to have only the same low rate of benefit. These matters call for explanation.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI could give the hon. Member the information which he desires. In unemployment insurance as in other kinds of insurance it is always possible that at the earlier ages one pays rather more in contributions than the benefits receivable at the earlier age. That is to say, that individuals at the earlier periods of their life make contributions towards some of the advantages which enure to them later in life. That applies to national health insurance and what applies to health insurance applies to unemployment insurance. It is for that reason that there should be a rather higher proportionate contribution at the earlier age than at the later ages, and that is the reason why the contributions are not strictly proportionate to benefits received at the earlier ages.
§ Mr. HARNEYI always understood that in connection with health matters young persons were presumably making more contributions than old persons because youth does not have so much sickness as age, but I never heard until now the presumption that young persons will be less unemployed than persons of mature years.
§ Mr. CONNOLLYHow does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement he has just made with the exemption of young people from 16 to 18?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI am not quite sure that I know to what the hon. Member refers. Perhaps he will put that point separately. I am now dealing with the main question. The burden of unemployment is, on the whole, rather heavier in middle life than it is before, 1680 and therefore it is perhaps right that at the earlier ages a slightly higher contribution should be payable. That is the answer to the question which has been put to me by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood). I thought it right to have the benefits graded according to the increase of years, and that is the reason why I have introduced the Amendment. Further, I can justify it on the ground that the proposal is in conformity with the opinions which were brought before the Blanesburgh Committee by a number of employment committees. It is on these grounds that I justify the difference in the proportion of contribution to benefit, and also the grading of the benefits between the ages of 18 to 21.
§ Mr. E. BROWNIt seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman's reply contains a fallacy which is contained in Departmental inquiries and in a great many arguments. An average is struck and they make statistics, but that average has no relation to particular classes of individuals. If the right hon. Gentleman will ask his Department to make inquiries in certain areas such as the shipping areas and the engineering areas he will find two things standing out, namely, that the bulk of unemployment is not with the middle-aged men but with the young and the old. The average which he is now putting forward in defence of his proposal may be perfectly true as a statistical average for the whole range of unemployed persons, but is entirely falsified in the areas where these young persons are in the direst need, because there is the smallest chance for them getting an opportunity of work. This same fallacy is expressed in the White Paper in regard to the Poor Law. The figures there given may be applicable to the country as a whole, but they are quite irreconcilable with the enormous increase of Poor Law relief to persons in certain areas.
§ Mr. T. GRIFFITHSI should like to put a point to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the heavy industries, where men work in teams, and when the men are thrown out of employment the boys are thrown out of employment also. Take the tin-plate trade. There we have rollers, doublers, furnace-men and behinders, who are boys. If any of these people are stopped the whole team 1681 is thrown out of employment. If you take bar millmen, you have rollers, roughers and heaters, who are commonly called ballers. You must also have crane boys and boys taking the ingots from the furnace to the rollers on coaches. They work in teams. If the men are thrown out of employment the boys are also thrown out of employment. In the case of the mines, the men work in teams. They engage boys, and if the men are thrown out of employment the boys are thrown out of employment. In the cotton industry exactly the same thing applies. In a clerical department, you may get someone off sick who can be replaced, but in the industries of the country you cannot do that, because the men work in teams. Therefore, I suggest that between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman should take this matter into consideration and see how from the point of view which I have put it affects other industries in the country and not a particular industry which may have been pointed out to him by his officers.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONAs I understood him, the Minister tried to justify the present rate of contributions for young persons on the ground that the analogy between ill-health and unemployment was statistically proved. That seems to be on the basis of the statistical and actuarial calculations with which we have been supplied ever since this Bill was introduced. What the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) says is perfectly true. There are industries where unemployment is infinitely worse among young people and not better. Take the jute industry where, owing to arrangements which have had to be made, for an increase in the rate of wages at the age of 18, a young person at the age of 18 is automatically sacked. There are other industries in the country where the same thing holds good, and yet this afternoon the Minister says that on the basis of health figures because there is less disease, less ill-health among young persons, there is equally less unemployment among young persons. He has not submitted any figures whatever to justify that assumption. He has not even pretended that the Actuary of his Department would justify that.
I would point out what has happened over the week-end. If what the right 1682 hon. Gentleman says to-day is correct it was correct a week ago, yet during the interval he has said, in effect, "I will reduce the rate of contributions by one penny for young men and young women of 18 years of age, I will retain the reductions which I have proposed of 8s. for men and 7s. for young women. For the age of 19 to 20 I will make a reduction of 1d. in the contributions, but I will give an increase of 2s. in the benefit." Is it suggested that there is less unemployment at the age of 19 than at the age of 18? If so, on what statistical information is that based? Then he comes to the ages 20 to 21 and he says, "I will reduce the contributions by 1d. and increase the benefits by 4s." On what actuarial assumption can that be justified? I suggest that there is no actuarial justification for it, and that the right hon. Gentleman cannot produce any facts or figures from any Actuary in his Department to justify it. He has simply made a blind guess. He has not attempted to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSThe hon. Member who has just spoken said that there is no information as to the average of unemployment amongst these young people. I have here the 18th abstract of labour statistics, which gives an analysis, made in November, 1924, of the various causes of unemployment at various ages, and I find that unemployment at the ages from 18 to 19 was in relation to the number insured lower than that of any other age group except the age group from 30 to 34. Since unemployment is lower amongst the class we are discussing the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite are destroyed by the statistics I have quoted.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONIs that for a small area or for the whole country?
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIt is an analysis of 1 per cent. of the claims covered by the Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at the end of November, 1924. That 1 per cent. was taken in a purely arbitrary manner. There was no selection. If anyone has taken the trouble to study the Report on which this table is based they must know that it is the usual sampling 1683 method pursued by the Ministry of Labour at all times when they engage in these particular investigations.
§ Mr. BUCHANANMay I ask the hon. Member—
§ The CHAIRMANMr. Connolly.
§ Mr. BUCHANANCan I not ask a question?
§ The CHAIRMANWe are in Committee. I do not know whether the hon. Member has spoken, but it will be possible for him to ask the question afterwards. I have called upon the hon. Member for Newcastle East (Mr. Connolly).
§ Mr. BUCHANANA member of the Front Bench has put a question. Cannot a Member on a back bench also put a question. I thought that there was no harm in asking the hon. Member a question. Am I to understand that a Front Bench Member may ask a question, but a Back Bench Member may not?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must understand nothing of the kind. Mr. Connolly.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWhy is the difference made? An hon. Member on the Front Bench asked a question, which was allowed. May I take it that I am not allowed to ask a question?
§ The CHAIRMANMr. Connolly.
§ Mr. CONNOLLYThe proposals with regard to contributions and benefits are astonishing. If you take the joint contributions of the employer, the State and the employed, you will find that for a benefit of 8s. per week for young women and 10s. per week for young men you make a contribution of 1s. 1½d. in the case of young women and 1s. 4¼d. in the case of young men. I wonder what hon. Members opposite would think if trade unions charged anything like the same amount in contributions for the same benefits. So far as the society of which I am a member is concerned, the whole of the contribution of a skilled worker in the trade is 1s. 6d. per week, and for that he gets all the benefits which the society provides, including unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, accident bonus, victimisation, funeral benefit, and widows' and orphans' pension. He gets all that for 1684 1s. 6d. per week. Here you are asking for a contribution of 1s. 4¼d. for a benefit of 10s. per week. If you take an unskilled worker in the trade their contributions range from 6d. to ls., and they cover all benefits. There is no insurance about this Measure.
§ Mr. HAMMERSLEYIs it in order to discuss the amount of contributions on this particular Amendment?
§ The CHAIRMANYes, I think it is. The paragraph refers to "young men and young women," and I think it is very relevant.
§ Mr. CONNOLLYIt deals with practically nothing else. Therefore, if I am not in order in dealing with contributions—
§ The CHAIRMANI have just said that the hon. Member is in Order.
§ Mr. HAMMERSLEYMy point was whether the amount, not the contribution itself, was in order, and whether we should not discuss it on the Schedule.
§ Mr. BUCHANANOn a point of Order. Is it permissible for an hon. Member to tell another hon. Member that he knows nothing at all about it?
§ The CHAIRMANWhen I hear such an expression I shall deal with it. As there is a reference in this Clause to the First Schedule in the Bill, I think it is impossible to avoid a reference to this matter.
§ Mr. CONNOLLYLet me carry the comparison a little further—to the Bill itself. I take it that the contributions of the senior section under this Bill are on an actuarial basis. Take the contributions of a man or woman over 21 years of age. The value of their contributions in benefits is given up to the limit of 36s. per week for a married man. That is not too much. I presume it is actuarially sound. Compare this 36s. per week benefit with a benefit of 10s. and 8s. per week for younger persons, for which you are only asking 1d. per week more from the older members. There is no relation whatever between these figures. I think it is the duty of the Government to look into the position much closer. This is not the time to discuss benefit, and we shall have a little more to say about that on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. HARNEYI should like the Minister of Labour to give us a little more information on the actuarial calculations. I think it is unquestionable that the contributions proportionate to the new benefits are made higher for young people than for old people. There is a joint contribution of 1s. 9d., yielding a benefit of 18s. That joint contribution of 1s. 9d. is reduced by 2¾d., and I calculate that if 1s. 9d. yields a benefit of 18s., then a reduction of 21d. should give a benefit reduced by 2s. But the reduction is 8s. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the reason for this alteration, this proportionate alteration, between contributions and benefits for young people is that in employment, just as in health insurance, the presumption is that young persons will pay more and reap less than old persons. That is a false analogy, because while that presumption is quite true in the case of health—in our younger years we do not get as many ailments as we do in later years—in the case of employment it is rather odd to be told that young persons when work is slack are thrown out with less rapidity than matured and seasoned workers.
The Minister met me by saying that this is the reason why young persons pay proportionately less for benefits than old persons, but when I look at the alteration made I find that young persons are, in fact, paying, proportionately, very much more than older persons for the benefits received. In health insurance I can quite understand the presumption that a young person will be contributing year after year and drawing no benefit. Therefore, it is right to say that less contributions from young persons are actuarially worth more in benefit than contributions from middle-aged persons. But when unemployment is considered we find that young persons, who according to the right hon. Gentleman would presumably be reaping less benefit and paying less contributions, are in fact paying in proportion to the benefits received higher contributions than older persons. The recommendation in the Report of the Committee was that young persons should only pay 4d. per week in contributions, plus 1d., that is 5d. I look at the Schedule, and I find that not content with the figures worked out by the Committee, the Government are now proposing that young persons should pay 5¼d. I want to know why these unfor- 1686 tunate young persons are mulct all round. On an actuarial basis, and on the Minister's own argument, they are unfairly dealt with. Why should they be more unfairly dealt with in this Bill?
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a point which comes up on the Second Schedule—moneys provided by Parliament—which we are not allowed to discuss at the moment.
§ Mr. HARNEYI base my argument on justice. I look at the Schedule, and I find that young persons are in fact to pay 6d. What is the idea here? The Committee must realise that by this reduction of benefits below what they should be, having regard to the contribution, there is a saving to the Exchequer, and the result is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is easing the way for his own Budget at the expense of sending these young girls on to the streets perhaps, and these young boys to a life of dishonesty. So little has this matter been considered that the Minister in charge of the Bill calmly tells us that the reason he reduces the benefits proportionately more than the contributions is because unemployment was like health. That argument has been exploded; and so far from reducing contributions lower than benefits, he has increased the contributions as against benefits. I desire to ask leave to move to report Progress in order that the Minister may have a table made out, and the Committee should know how the matter stands. He has given us an actuarial reason for what he has done, but on examination it is shattered to pieces. There must be a real reason for the proposal, and I think the Committee should know the real reason.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a Motion which I cannot accept.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURI should like to support the suggestion that the Minister should review the situation again. Let me remind him that young men in my own constituency are obliged to leave work at 18 years of age under an arrangement which operates in the jute industry. Many young persons are involved in these proposals and it is very necessary we should draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that they are as liable to be unemployed as older people. As a matter of fact, the situation is alto- 1687 gether the other way, so far as the jute industry is concerned. I also consider that a more reasonable allowance should be made in the matter of contributions. I submit that there are strong grounds for asking the Minister to review the situation.
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Mr. HARDIEAll the discussion so far on the Committee stage of the Bill has had a definite relation to figures which we have not been able to obtain. On the previous Clause we hoped to get some idea of what was in the mind of the Minister, who seems to hold the idea that in so many years or months certain things are going to take place but we failed and the same thing applies in this case. If the Minister had any logic at all, it should show him, in regard to the matter now before the Committee, that he ought to have brought forward another Clause to the effect that men over a certain age, say, 50 years of age, should no longer be required to pay any contributions at all, and that the contributions should all be put upon the people who are under 50 years of age. That would be logic, and I understand the Minister claims to belong to the Scottish people who are regarded as a logical people. I hope, however, the right hon. Gentleman is not all Scottish, because, without wishing to be personal or insulting, it would be no credit to Scotland to have anyone so lacking in cogent reasoning. Reasoning from this Clause we must conclude that the younger one is the more one has to pay and it only remains for the Tory party to reduce the age at which boys and girls can enter industry and so they will still further reduce the age at which people may stop paying any money at all towards insurance. The Minister has said that this matter has, been put on a business basis. If he himself were starting a firm to-morrow in London would he run it on these lines? If he did, he would not be very fat at the end of the first year on his profits.
This Bill has no relation to ordinary business insurance. The basis of ordinary insurance is in the contributions. They constitute the one resource until they accumulate to such an extent that the insurance company can make investments, and from those investments are derived the funds which place the company on a business foundation. When the Minister, 1688 or any other member of the Government, talks about business matters in this connection, one assumes that they have some knowledge of ordinary insurance principles; but if they had that knowledge they would not make the stupid remarks that have been made in regard to this Bill. If it is not stupidity on their part, then these remarks are made designedly in order to mislead those who do not understand the subject. If you were starting an insurance business of any kind to-day as a private firm you would be up against the established capital in other insurance businesses.
§ The CHAIRMANI hope the hon. Member is going to connect this argument with the question of the rates of contribution in the case of young persons.
§ Mr. HARDIEI am dealing with the remark of the Minister that this scheme is to be run on the basis of ordinary insurance, and I am showing that it has no relation at all to ordinary insurance. When we come to the question of the young persons I would ask what is to be the definition of an unemployed youth. Let the Committee bear in mind the central fact that there are two distinct sections of people out of work. The term "unemployed" logically applies to those who have been thrown out of work through some disturbance in trade and who may be absorbed again in trade. But we have also a definite section of permanent unemployed, increasing in numbers every day through displacement by improvements in machinery. You cannot insure against permanent unemployment. The men displaced by machinery are permanently on the unemployed list. To-day we can roll as much steel with seven men as we did a few years ago with 70. Sixty or more of these men are on the displaced labour list. How are you going to deal with them? Is not this Bill simply a means of putting these displaced men on to poor relief?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must confine himself to the question of these contributions from young persons.
§ Mr. HARDIEI am endeavouring to show, in reply to the Minister's argument, that this Bill has no relation to outside insurance and what I say about the dis- 1689 placed men is very definitely connected with the question of the contributions to be paid by the young persons. What is an unemployed young person? Take the case of those who leave school and are for years on the streets without getting a job. Are they unemployed young persons? Can you say that a person is unemployed who has never been in any occupation? We want to get definitions on these matters. We want to get something which is easily understood because this Bill will have to be understood by the poor people who are suffering unemployment. The Minister need not try to skate off from these points with the superior air of understanding and of great insight, and he need not seek to tell us what is going to happen in the matter of industrial development a year from now. That is skating on very thin ice and is trying to fly too high. [Laughter.] Yes, both at the same time, and I propose to prove it. The old idea of the firmament in the imagination of people was that it was something into which you could screw nails; the idea of the Minister is that he can skate and fly at the same time. When he wants to make a show in the eyes of the working classes he does a few "figure eights" on the thin ice—
§ The CHAIRMANI must again ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the contributions of young persons.
§ Mr. HARDIEI was just about to say that when the Minister had done with skating he came to the question of the contributions of young persons and then he tried to raise himself in a balloon. I hope sufficient attention has been paid to this question by Members of all parties. While we may indulge ourselves in insulting one another in this House, I hope we are not going to insult the poor people who, through no fault of their own, are in poverty to-day.
§ Mr. MAXTONThere is an adage common among the smaller members of the commercial community to the effect that it is a mistake to mix sentiment with business. I think the Minister's difficulties arise from the fact that he is endeavouring to mix sentiment with business in this Clause. I do not agree with the conception that you cannot mix sentiment with business but your sentiment must be sound and your business methods must be sound. In his approach to his particular Clause the Minister is sound 1690 neither in his sentiments nor in his business methods. He again cites statistics in support of his claim, and his hon. Friend below the Gangway, the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) produces the Statistical Abstract of the Ministry of Labour in support of him. To quote the Statistical Abstract always conveys an appearance of profundity and solid weight, and I have availed myself of the opportunity afforded at the Vote Office to procure the Statistical Abstract which was produced in support of the right hon. Gentleman by the hon. Member for Reading—who is usually very well informed about the Minister's intentions and thoughts and the methods by which his thoughts are created. I find first that the hon. Member for Reading—who is not, I am sorry to see, in his place at the moment—misquoted the statistics very badly to this House. He compared the age 18–19 group with middle life, where the group classified is from 45–54—that is comparing a period of nine or 10 years with a period of two years. There is nothing in these tables which offer anything like statistical accuracy for this purpose and, certainly, they would not justify an ordinary man, who wanted to be accurate, basing anything in the nature of contributions on the figures supplied here.
This is an anlysis of approximately one per cent. of the claims current on all Employment Exchanges in Great Britain in November 1924. We find that there were 8,850 claims examined altogether. Of these 167 were juveniles of 16 to 17 years of age; 437 were young people 18 to 19 years of age and then there is a sudden jump up to 1,379 at the ages 20 to 24. Between the ages of 25 and 29 we find 1,000 of the 8,000 or 12½ per cent. and at the ages 30 to 34 there is a drop to 810. Then we come to the ages 35 to 44. The experience of every person in this House is, I think, that a man is generally at his best both physically and in so far as his knowledge and expereince are concerned, at these ages. He is at his maximum of efficiency, his experience and skill are at the highest point of development and his physical powers are not declining. At that stage, when the employé is most efficient, most settled in character and habit we find the biggest figure of unemployment is obtained, namely, 1,544 out of the 8,000. Then we find the lowest 1691 figure of all, when one gets into the adult stage, is at the period 55 to 59. There are fewer people unemployed from 55 to 59 than any other age, and fewer at 60 and over than between 35 and 44. Yet the right hon. Gentleman, on the basis of figures like these, tries to make us believe that he has designed his contributions on statistical evidence. It is fatuous. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe, as we know some of his colleagues believe that any rubbish is good enough to tell the Opposition and the country. It is their privilege and right to treat their political opponents in this House with contempt, but is it fair business to treat in this way their own supporters, the business men who subscribe to their funds, the people who make it possible for them to come here, the people who send them here believing that they are a safe, responsible, business-like Government who are committed to economy and are running the country in a wise manner.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is going very far from the question of the contributions of young persons.
§ Mr. MAXTONI admit it would be quite wrong to carry this point too far, but surely it is reasonable, when I have proved the absolute futility of the Minister's arguments on this Clause, to point to the logical conclusion that people who produce futile arguments are futile people.
§ The CHAIRMANOn the Third Reading there might be an occasion for this kind of rhetoric, but hardly on this Amendment.
§ Mr. MAXTONI return to the figures. There is no statistical basis, and why should the Minister try to establish one? The Minister's reply raises the idea that in his mind a person is unemployed at the same time that he is paying the contributions. That is not true. The age at which a man is paying a contribution is not necessarily the age at which he is going to draw his benefits, and the Minister's reply assumes that fallaciously. In all insurances you assume that a person is going to draw his benefit at some difficult period and pay his contributions during the period when he is more fortunate. You, Mr. Chairman, refused to receive the Motion of one of my hon. Friends below the Gangway to 1692 report Progress until the Minister would produce a White Paper or explanation. I wonder if you would accept a Motion to report Progress to allow the Minister to withdraw the Bill altogether? I am glad to see the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) is back in his place, and I think the Minister has provided himself with statistics also. I hope the hon. Member for Reading will be a little more careful and correct the wrong impression that he gave to the Committee. I am willing to give way to him if he has an explanation.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSI am sorry that I was not in my place when the hon. Member challenged my figures. The first column is for a two-years period and the other column is for a five-years period, and, in order to be accurate, I increased the first column in the right proportion. In other words, I quoted the figures in regard to the general statement that the unemployment proportion was lower in the age group of 18 to 19 years than for the other age groups. That statement is perfectly true, because you have to bear in mind that the number of insured people at each age group is progresively declining on account of the fact that people die. When you come to the age group from 55 to 59, the people are only about half those in the group of 30 years earlier in life. If the hon. Member examines these things in a rather more scientific manner than he has yet done, he will find my statement is perfectly true.
§ Mr. MAXTONI am sorry the hon. Member was not in his place, and I did not raise the matter in any offensive spirit. I was only anxious to get at the statistical basis of the Minister. I am rather alarmed as to how the Minister will get up and defend the defence of the hon. Member for Reading. I want to be perfectly fair and accurate also. The hon. Member for Reading tells me that he makes the necessary corrections, and I would like to know exactly the coefficient which he finds necessary to make that correction.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSTo turn two into five, I multipiy by 2½.
§ Mr. MAXTONDoes the hon. Member really believe that that gets him to anything but a completely imaginary figure? The hon. Member tells me that 1693 there are different numbers at each age. Where is the fraction that tells him the difference in the numbers in the groups? If the hon. Member will allow me to say so without any offence, I see his colleague the Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks) telling him how to reply.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSI am sorry that the hon. Member has not had the time to study these particular figures. He has only heard of them in the last few minutes and has not quite appreciated the position. The numbers in the earlier age groups are larger than those in the later age groups. If the first group, instead of being for two years, had been for five years, the figure which compares would have been two and a-half times greater. That gives the figure which is comparable to the other. The hon. Member will find the only period which could possibly be better is the age group 30 to 34, and therefore the statement which I made is perfectly true. The reason the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is not true is that he has only seen the table for the first time in his life in the last few minutes and does not appreciate its significance adequately.
§ Mr. MAXTONIt is quite impossible for me to proceed in Committee to divide all these figures by two or multiply by five. I am perfectly certain, if that simple arithmetical process were carried through, the argument of the hon. Member would still be absolutely absurd. I hope the Minister, now that he has had the opportunity of consulting his permanent officials who work out the figures, will know the reason for fixing that contribution and will tell the Committee what was the basis.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI have been confirmed by consultation with my advisers in the conclusions which I stated previously. As regards the Report just quoted, the numbers which the hon. Member has read are not the numbers of unemployed or the proportion of unemployed. They are merely the total cases which were taken for examination in one year. The hon. Member expressed surprise that there should be more people in the 10 years between the ages of 35 to 44 than in the five years from 30 to 34. The second age group in the matter of years is twice as long as the first, and there is thus no reason for surprise. Perhaps he had not seen the figures before.
§ Mr. MAXTONThere is absolutely no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should never give way to me as he does to other Members. I did very specifically point out in my reply to the hon. Member for Reading that what makes this fallacious was the fact that at every stage the age groups were different. I pointed out that while for the group 55 to 59 a period of five years was under consideration, in that for 18 and 19 it was only two, and for 45 to 54 it was 10.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDThe fact is, therefore, that the simple totals of the age groups do not prove anything contrary to what I have previously stated, for in the later years unemployment becomes heavier in its incidence. The reasons which I gave at the opening are precisely true and have not been modified by the discussion. In the earlier years of a person's contributory life as an insured person his needs are less, while in the later years the incidence of unemployment upon him is greater. Therefore, it is right that he should make some provision for the future, and in order to get the benefits later in life he pays a larger comparative contribution at an earlier age. That is the view which is also taken in the Actuary's Report which is placed as a schedule to the Report of the Blanesburgh Committee, for these words occur in Section 15:
Generally it may be said in respect of young persons under the age of 21 that while the contribution paid in respect of them (i.e., by themselves, their employers, and the State), produces a surplus they will, themselves, in their subsequent years of insurance derive full compensation for this early contribution excess in the terms provided for adults as above described.
§ Mr. MACKINDERI ask the Minister what are the facts about the particular points raised. I could understand them increasing the benefits for girls between the age of 18 and 21 if there were a likelihood of them getting a fair return for the contributions they have paid, but I would remind the Minister that in the period when they are most prolific in their payments and pay higher proportionately to the benefits they receive and when they are likely to come to the end of the unemployment, there is a very large proportion of these girls who marry and leave insurable occupation and never receive benefits, and thus leave all the money they have paid in the Fund. I 1695 could understand it if the Minister would play the game by these people and say that at all events while they are in insurable occupations and are paying these excessive amounts every week—which means a lot to factory and shop girls—they shall have an adequate remuneration for their payments when they are unemployed. But if you take mill and shop girls who are paying this money between the ages of 18 and 21, they are paying it for the future, and we might at least give them enough to live on and keep them off the streets if they are unemployed in that period. The plain fact is that there must be a large percentage of the girls between the ages of 18 and 21 paying this enormous contribution who can never hope to receive any benefits, because they get married and leave insurable occupations. I think the Minister might at least take that into consideration when deciding the amount of contribution. I hope when he gets up he will answer that point
§ Mr. HARNEYThe Minister quoted from the Report in order to show that the actuary there said that the reason that the contributions for young people were comparatively higher than for other persons was because of the unemployment of the young. I have the Report before me, and I call his attention to these words:
In fixing the contribution proposed to be charged In respect of members of this class"—that is, the young class between 18 and 21—I"—that is the actuary—understand that regard has been paid"—not, as the Minister says to the less benefit which you draw, but—to the deficit in the contributions of persons over 21.Therefore, you are mulcting the young in order that you may make up for what you do not get from the others.
Mr. BECKETTAfter two hours of Debate, devoted to the utter crushing of the Minister's actuarial basis, when not a shred of his original arguments is left intact, the Minister gets up to prove that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton 1696 (Mr. Maxton) has quoted a set of figures in the wrong order, and then the right hon. Gentleman completes his reply with the extraordinary statement that youth should pay more because it will need more later. That is an extraordinary statement from a Minister who is always preaching that all forms of State insurance should be put on a business basis. If any of us goes to an insurance company to insure against ill-health or unemployment or personal injury, we expect to get lower rates or higher rates according to the number of years in which we expect to pay. Yet to-day the Minister says that because young contributors have to pay for many more years than older men, it is only right that they should pay more and get less. Although all the evidence is to the contrary, the Minister was presumably once a young man himself. Even if he at a very early age was overwhelmed with precocious gravity, he would have been shaken out of his ordinary solemnity by the statement that because he was a young man and would therefore go on paying for more years than an older man, he must pay more and get less because of his youth.
Another fact that the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten is that a great many of these youths whom he proposes to mulct are never likely to get any benefit. In the ordinary course a certain proportion of the boys who have to pay for insurance to-day will in a very few years get out of the insurable range. They will cease to be entitled to unemployment insurance, even if they wish for it. The fund will have the benefit of the years during which they have paid, and there will be no possible call from them upon the money that they have paid. Another proportion of the boys will fall sick and will have to turn to health insurance and things of that sort. A third proportion, unfortunately, will die, and they will not reap any benefit from the money they have paid into the fund. Others will go into the Army or the Air Force and will get no benefit, and still others will be induced to go abroad and will not get any benefit under the Act. But the right hon. Gentleman will go on mulcting these children, leaving them on the street with the unemployed, taking away a large portion of their scanty wages when they are working.
1697 If the right hon. Gentleman had given a single reason that could have borne scrutiny there might be something to be said for the Clause. But it is just the same now as it always is in this House. The majority of us come to this House fate in life. We have little interest in and little sympathy with the younger people who are fighting their way. We have got through our fight and we are prosperous, not always because of our own efforts or genius, and we are inclined to say, "Let the young people follow our example." You hurl the young people into wars and you starve them during peace, and then you sit
§ back comfortably on the green benches here and feel quite happy about it. If the last War taught us anything at all, it taught us a certain amount of consideration for youth. This Amendment is the only fair way of proceeding if we wish to do anything decent at all to the younger men and women of the country.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 143.
1699| Division No. 362.] | AYES. | [7.38 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Agg Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Hawke, John Anthony |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. |
| Albery, Irving James | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Henderson, Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) | Henn. Sir Sydney H. |
| Apsley, Lord | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Homan, C. W. J. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Balniel, Lord | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.) |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Hudson, R. S. (Cmuberl'nd, Whiteh'n) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Dawson, Sir Philip | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Drewe, C. | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Bann, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Eden, Captain Anthony | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Con'l) |
| Berry, Sir George | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Bethel, A. | Ellis, R. G. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | King, Commodore Henry Douglas |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Everard, W. Lindsay | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Knox, Sir Alfred |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Lister, Cunilffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Fermoy, Lord | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Fielden, E. B. | Loder, J. de V. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Finburgh, S. | Looker, Herbert William |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J. | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) | Fremantle. Lt.-Col. Francis E. | Lumley, L.R. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Ganzonl, Sir John | Lynn, Sir R. J. |
| Buchan, John | Gates, Percy | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Goff, Sir Park | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Gower, Sir Robert | McLean, Major A. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Grant, Sir J. A. | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Cassels, J. D. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Grotrian, H. Brent | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General. J. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Merriman, F. B. |
| Chilcott, Sir Warden | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hammersley, S. S. | Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury) |
| Cockerill, Brig. General Sir George | Hanbury, C. | Murchison, Sir Kenneth |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Harrison, G. J. C. | Neville, Sir Reginald. J. |
| Cope, Major William | Hartington, Marquess of | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Couper, J. B. | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Nuttall, Ellis | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sewerby) | Waddington, R. |
| Oakley, T. | Shaw, Lt. Col. A. D. McI.(Renfrew, W.) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Ward, Lt. Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Shepperson, E. W. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Penny, Frederick George | Smithers, Waldron | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Pilcher, G. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Preston, William | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Radford, E. A. | Sprot, Sir Alexander | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Raine, Sir Walter | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon, G. F. | Wells, S. R. |
| Ramsden, E. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple |
| Rawson, Sir Cooper | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Reid. D. D. (County Down) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Remer, J. R. | Storry-Deans. R. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Remnant, Sir James | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Streatleild, Captain S. R. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Withers, John James |
| Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Womersley, W. J. |
| Ropner, Major L. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. | Wood, E. (Chester, Staly'b'ge & Hyde) |
| Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Tasker, R. Inlgo. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.) |
| Rye, F. G. | Templeton, W. P. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Salmon, Major I. | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | |
| Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Tinne, J. A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Sandeman, N. Stewart | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr. F. C. Thomson. |
| Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | |
| Savery, S. S. | Turton. Sir Edmund Russborough | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Roberts, Rt. Hon F. O. (W.Bromwich) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R, Eiland) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Rose, Frank H. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hardie, George D. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Baker, Walter | Harney, E. A. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Harris, Percy A. | Sexton, James |
| Barnes, A. | Hartshorn, Rt Hon. Vernon | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hayday, Arthur | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hayes, John Henry | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Broad, F. A. | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Bromley, J. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Snell, Harry |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Buchanan, G. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Cape, Thomas | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Charieton, H. C. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Strauss, E. A. |
| Ciowes, S. | Kelly, W. T. | Sullivan, J. |
| Compton, Joseph | Kennedy, T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Connolly, M. | Lansbury, George | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) |
| Cove, W. G. | Lawrence, Susan | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lawson, John James | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Crawford, H. E. | Lee, F. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lindley, F. W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lowth, T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lunn, William | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dennison, R. | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Viant, S. P. |
| Duckworth, John | Mackinder, W. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Duncan, C. | MacLaren, Andrew | Watson, W. M. (Duntermllne) |
| Dunnico, H. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty) | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| England, Colonel A. | March, S. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Maxton, James | Welsh, J. C. |
| Fenby, T. D. | Montague, Frederick | Westwood, J. |
| Forrest, W. | Morris, R. H. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Glbbins, Joseph | Murnin, H. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gillett, George M. | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Gosling, Harry | Owen, Major G. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianeily) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Palin, John Henry | Williams, T. (York, Don alley) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Paling, W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Greenall, T. | Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W. | Windsor, Walter |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Potts, John S. | |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Rees, Sir Beddoe | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Groves, T. | Riley, Ben | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Ritson, J. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
1700§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 143.
1703| Division No. 363.] | AYES. | [7.47 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Merriman, F. B. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Everard, W. Lindsay | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Albery, Irving James | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Fermoy, Lord | Murchison, Sir Kenneth |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Fielden, E. B. | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Apsley, Lord | Finburgh, S. | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W. | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Neville, Sir Reginald J. |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover) | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Ganzoni, Sir John | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Balniel, Lord | Gates, Percy | Oakley, T. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Goff, Sir Park | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Gower, Sir Robert | Penny, Frederick George |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Pilcher, G. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Grant, Sir J. A. | Preston, William |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Radford, E. A. |
| Berry, Sir George | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Raine, Sir Walter |
| Bethel, A. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Ramsden, E. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Grotrian, H. Brent | Reid, D. D. (County Down) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Remer, J. R. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Remnant, Sir James |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Rhys. Hon. C. A. U. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Hall, Capt. W. D. A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Hammersley, S. S. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Hanbury, C. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Harrison, G. J. C. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hartington, Marquess of | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Buchan, John | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Hawke, John Anthony | Sanderson. Sir Frank |
| Burman, J. B. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Savery, S. S. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Cassels, J. D. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Shepperson E. W. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) | Homan, C. W. J. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Chilcott, Sir Warden | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hurd, Percy A. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. J. | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Jephcott, A. R. | Streatfeild. Captain S. R. |
| Colfox, Major William Phillips | Jones G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Cooper, A. Duff | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Cope. Major William | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Couper, J. B. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Lamb, J. Q. | Tasker, R. Inigo. |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Templeton, W. P. |
| Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Loder, J. de V. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Looker, Herbert William | Tinne, J. A. |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Titchfield. Major the Marquess of |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H .(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Curzon. Captain Viscount | Lumley, L. R. | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lynn, Sir R. J. | Waddington, R. |
| Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | McLean, Major A. | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Macmillan, Captain H. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Drewe, C. | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Wells, S. R. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple |
| Edmondson. Major A. J. | Malone, Major P. B. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay) |
| Ellis, R. G. | Margesson, Captain D. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset. Weston-s.-M.) | Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Withers, John James | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer. |
| Woimer, Viscount | Wragg, Herbert | |
| Womersley, W. J. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. | |
| Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich) |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Rose, Frank H. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hardle, George D. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Baker, Walter | Harney, E. A. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Harris, Percy A. | Sexton, James |
| Barnes, A. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hayday, Arthur | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hayes, John Henry | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Sitch, Charles, H. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhithe) |
| Broad, F. A. | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Kelghiey) |
| Bromley, J. | Hare-Belisha, Leslie | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Snell, Harry |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Buchanan, G. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Cape, Thomas | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Strauss, E. A. |
| Clowes, S. | Kelly, W. T. | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Compton, Joseph | Kennedy, T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Connolly, M, | Lansbury, George | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.) |
| Cove, W. G. | Lawrence, Susan | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lawson, John James | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lee F. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lindley, F. W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lowth, T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lunn, William | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dennison, R. | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Viant, S. P. |
| Duckworth, John | Mackinder, W. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Duncan, C. | MacLaren, Andrew | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Dunnico, H. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| England, Colonel A. | March, S. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Maxton, James | Welsh, J. C. |
| Fenby, T. D. | Montague, Frederick | Westwood, J. |
| Forrest, W. | Morris, R. H. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Murnin, H. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gillett, George M. | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Gosling, Harry | Owen, Major G. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Palin, John Henry | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Paling, W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Greenall, T. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Windsor, Walter |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Potts, John S. | |
| Griffiths, T (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Rees, Sir Beddos | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Groves, T. | Riley, Ben | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Ritson, J. |
§ The CHAIRMANMr. Kelly.
§ Mr. BUCHANANOn a point of Order. There is an Amendment in my name to delay the operation of the paragraph till 1st October, 1930.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member did not ask me to save the Amendment, and putting the last Amendment as it stands on the Paper cuts out the hon. Member. If an hon. Member wishes an Amendment to be saved in such circumstances, he should appeal to the Chair.
§ Mr. KELLYI beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out paragraph (b).
In this paragraph we have the position intended by the Government as to the 1704 State contribution for the purpose of unemployment insurance for young people, and we find that, instead of continuing the contributions now operative, the Government, for some reason that has not been explained to its, have decided that they themselves will pay a reduced amount. It makes one wonder whether the Government feel that they have any responsibility at all to the unemployed people of the country, and particularly to the young people. We were told on the last Amendment that there is less unemployment among these young people, and for that reason a demand is made for a contribution far and away above anything that is wanted for the purpose of paying them the benefit, but that that 1705 contribution will enable the Fund to be built up from which they will draw their unemployment insurance pay in later life. If that is a sound argument, if it is a just point for the Government to raise, surely it is unjust on their part to say that they themselves will pay a reduced contribution to this fund. Surely, if they feel that it is necessary to build up a huge fund for the purpose of benefit being secured to these people in later life, the Government are acting in a way that certainly is not in the interests either of insurance or of these young people.
8.0. p.m
We have been told many times that the intention of the Government in regard to this Measure was to have it on an actuarial basis. On what basis and on what actuarial investigation has the calculation been arrived at that enables the Government to reduce their contributions in the case of a young man to a figure of 5¼d. as against 6d.; in the case of a young woman from 4½d. to 3¾d.; in the case of a young man who is exempt, from 2½d. to 2¼d.; and in the case of the young woman who is exempt from 2¼d. to 2d. I wonder what is felt by this Government with regard to this method which is suggested. Where is the actuary's statement? I read in the White Paper which was furnished to us as a report by the Government's actuary on the financial provisions of the Bill that, with regard to young people under the age of 18, 60 per cent. of those who are unemployed at any date will be entitled to benefit. What is meant by that? How is that arrived at? Is it after an investigation into industry? Is it that they are able to tell us whether or not in the distributing trades of the country where they are insured there will be employed a particular number next year, a number well known to the actuary? I certainly, as one who is interested in a number of the trades, would like the Minister to tell us approximately how many people are going to be employed in those trades during the next year or so. Has he any idea of the number who will be employed in engineering, in shipbuilding, in the chemical trades, in the food trades of the country, all of which are insured occupations? Unless he can be told what is the approximate figure of those who will be employed in those industries we cannot accept this actuary's statement.
1706 It is the same Actuary who presented the statement with regard to the 1911 Bill. I remember having many consultations with regard to the figures then given, and the basis that was then presented to the Rouse of Commons certainly proved to be a long way from the facts as the years went along. Now, after the experience we have had in these last 16 years, and since the Armistice, upon what is the Actuary basing his calculations that enables the Government to be so definite that they are prepared to reduce the amount that they are paying to the Unemployment Insurance Fund? In the few words that I had to say last night in the Debate, I made a reference to the present Government being even worse than the Government of 1910. I admit that it was not a Conservative Government. They felt at that time that the contributions they were asking from the workpeople in the insured trades were at such a figure that it would warrant them at some time making a repayment to those who were insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act of that time. I know that has been withdrawn, because the Actuary was so sound in his calculations at that time that they found they were unable in the last few years to repay the contributions such as was promised in the earlier Act. I ask the Minister, when he is dealing with it this evening, to remember his statement on the Second Reading. He told us that that horrible word, which was coined by some of the newspapers when they referred to the unemployment insurance payment as being "the dole," was going, and that this was going to be like fire insurance. I agree that it is to be like fire insurance, but what method of insurance, what basis of insurance is being taken for these calculations that we have set out in the Second Schedule? There cannot be any comparison with insurance companies, and I think it is a sorry day for this country, never mind what the Blanesburgh Report stated—
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—
§ Mr. KELLYI wish that the House showed a greater interest in this Measure than we have seen at any time while it has been discussed. When one thinks of this problem, when one knows of this problem, when one meets and is asso- 1707 ciated with it, it does not speak well for our people that there are so few Members of the House of Commons taking an interest in it.
§ Mr. KELLYIn moving the deletion of this paragraph, I ask if the Government feel that they have a responsibility for these young people? Is there a suggestion that these young people between 18 and 20, these young men and women who at that period are extremely anxious to have something better than they have probably been accustomed to in their lives up to that time, who are seeing a great deal in their outlook upon life, are unemployed for any reason for which they are responsible? If it be answered by the Government that these young people are not responsible for their unemployment, then surely the responsibility for maintaining them cannot be thrown back upon their families. Yet that is what is meant. Is it not a vicious thing that the State, instead of taking its responsibility, instead of realising its share in this problem, and its duty to help these people over that particular time, should be paying a much smaller amount in the insurance fund than it is doing? I put it to the Government that it does not quite fit in with many of the statements that were heard from them with regard to these young people who are starting out in life. It is a struggle heavy for those of ages below 18, and very hard at this time with industry in the insecure position that we find it. It is hard enough now, but, though we hear it stated that the Government would like to help these young people in order that they may be fitted to take their rightful place in the commercial and industrial life of this country, yet we find the methods adopted by the party in power is to offer them an amount in benefit that is altogether inadequate; and this reduced benefit is consequent upon the smaller amount that is being paid by the State. When it comes to the later stage we shall have a great deal to say about benefits; but I think there is nothing about which we can say harder things than the fact that the Government in this abnormal time, instead of paying their share into the insurance fund, are, by paying an 1708 amount that is inadequate for the benefits, doing something that is not in the interests of these young people, but is to the disadvantage of them, and of industry and commerce.
One could quite understand a statement that we cannot afford to pay any more money, and that this is the maximum that the Government dare give from public funds. I ask the Minister if he knows of any one industry in this country that is paying wages that are adequate even to maintain the families at a reasonable standard when there is no unemployment among any member of the family. He will find that in every industry wages are at such a low level that it is impossible for the people to have a reasonable standard of life, and yet in face of that need and at a time when families are without income that enables them to maintain their own people even during the period of employment, the Government come along and say, "We are so poor, we are in such a condition that we cannot afford to pay into the insurance fund the money that is required to help our young people over that particularly bad period between 18 and 21." It is amazing to see how the Government find money for many things not to the advantage of this country, but refuse it now when it is needed to build up a strong, virile community such as we require in the difficult times we are passing through and which lie ahead. I cannot understand the refusal of the Government to take their fair share of the burden of unemployment and to help in creating such a fund as would enable us to pay adequate benefits to young people between 18 and 21 years of age. For those reasons, and there are many others which will be put forward by hon. Members on this side, I move the Amendment.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI will gladly answer the hon. Member's question so far as he asks why this particular rate is payable by the Treasury. I do not propose to deal on this Amendment or on this Clause with the question of the reduction of benefit for the class of persons from 18 to 21 years of age, because that question will come up on the next Clause. The rates of contribution payable by employed contributors, by employers and by the Treasury are, combined, amply sufficient to pay the benefits proposed to the class of young 1709 persons from 18 to 21, and with a margin over which will go to help benefits payable to them in later years. The reason why this particular rate of 5¼d. in respect of a young man—and the corresponding sum in respect of a woman—is payable by the Treasury is as follows. In the case of an adult man the rate of contribution by the Treasury is 6d., and in addition 7d. is paid by the workmen and 8d. by the employer. The Treasury, therefore, pay 6d. as against the 15d. of the other two contributors, or 6/15ths of the other two rates. In the case of persons of this class from 18 to 21 years of age the rates of contribution are: 7d. by the employer and 6d. by the insured person, making 13d. If I take 6/15ths of 13d. I get 5 1/5d. as the amount of the State's contribution, but as 1/5th is not a practicable fraction, the Treasury, with great generosity, is paying 54d., which is a slightly larger sum.
§ Mr. WESTWOODIn the discussion of this Amendment, which is really, directed against the Schedule, we have once more received an explanation from the Minister which, to use an Irishism, is no explanation at all. No actuarial figures have been submitted to us to prove that the sum to be paid by the State is a just sum and will meet the claims for unemployment benefit by these young persons. It would appear that this figure has been arrived at as was the hypothetical figure of 6 per cent., which, it has been said, represents the figure of unemployment on which the whole of the actuarial calculations of the Bill have been based. Having been interested for a number of years in the training of young persons, my chief objection to the reduction in the amount to be paid by the State arises from the fact that there may not be a sufficient amount of money left in the Unemployment Fund to provide what the Blanesburgh Committee recommended for these young persons. They recommended definitely that training should be provided for them, and I submit that instead of the contribution from the State being reduced from 6d. to 5¼d. there is much greater necessity for it to be increased, so that a surplus of money will be available to provide training.
I cannot speak for any other hon. Members on these benches on this point, but 1710 if I had my way I would pay no unemployment benefit to any young person who did not attend for training at one or other of the training centres which are to be paid for out of this Fund which is subscribed to by the three parties to this insurance scheme. I sincerely trust, therefore, that the Government will accept the suggestion we are making. The State ought to make the same contribution in respect of these young persons as will be made in respect of older persons. Already this evening it has been pointed out that the larger sum—that is, in proportion to the benefits which are paid—being demanded from these young persons is for the purpose of building up a fund so that when they become older and, possibly, will require benefits of a higher amount over a longer period, a fund will have accumulated which will allow of these higher benefits being paid. Surely the decision to charge the contributors a larger sum for the lower benefits is an argument why the State ought to pay more. For these, among other reasons, I shall vote for the Amendment, but my chief reason for objecting to this part of the Bill is that no provision is being made for the training of young persons, and there is less chance of training being provided if we agree to this miserable economy on the part of the Government in reducing the contributions of the State by ¾d. per week.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERAt the outset I want to say how thoroughly I agree with the last remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Westwood). Some of us might forgive the Government for many things, but not for the way in which they have neglected the training of the young people affected by this Bill. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour is not in his place. Had he been present, I would have put a question to him in regard to a point which he put before the Committee in his last speech. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that the contribution covered by paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) would be sufficient to provide the necessary funds out of which to pay for all the benefits to the young persons concerned. Of course, we must come back to the question of what is the actuarial basis. We have not had any intimation on this point of a reliable character, and I am 1711 going to submit to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour that he has not got any information on that point. I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary of a question which was put to him on the 9th of November last by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), in which my hon. Friend asked for certain particulars, and ,he received the following reply:
The following table shows the number of persons under 18 years of age who were on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain on the last day of each month in the last 12 months. Corresponding statistics are not available in respect of persons 18 to 20 years of age.Here the Parliamentary Secretary said he had no corresponding statistics between the ages of 18 and 20 years, and yet we are asked to consider a Bill which lays down contributions which the Minister of Labour says are actuarily sound. How does he know? He has told us that he has no statistics available, and, in face of that, how can his statement be true that the contributions fixed under the Bill are going to be sufficient for providing young persons with their benefit?
§ Miss LAWRENCEI wish to refer to the absence of the tables of figures which the Minister of Labour has promised us. We are now dealing with the contributions of young persons in relation to the scale of benefits under this Bill. We are also dealing with them in relation to an entirely new scale of benefits put down by the Minister of Labour. These chickens will come home to roost some time between 1929 and 1930, and, if we should be in the first days of a new Parliament, I should feel a certain amount of consolation that the people who are sitting on the Government benches now would have to bring in a Bill in order to meet the situation. But that will not be so, and that is what is disturbing the minds of those who are sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, because they are likely to find as a result of this Bill that the Budget of 1929 will be overloaded by a deficit which may accrue in consequence of the extended contributions from the Treasury, and this will put our Chancellor of the Exchequer into a very difficult position. I want to point out to my hon. Friends behind me that they are wrong in blaming the 1712 actuary, for if ever there was a man who has thoroughly cleared his feet, who has dissociated himself from every shade of responsibility, it is the Government actuary. Listen for a moment to what the actuary says on this question:
There are, however, no means by which the responsibility of benefit during this period could be statistically classified.… I am precluded from making any estimate of the transitional provisions of the Bill.The word "precluded" reminds me of the word which the Minister used in saying that the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department are precluded from making a statement. The fact is that the Minister has not the ghost of an idea what to do. The Parliamentary Secretary devoted several pages of the OFFICIAL. REPORT to stating that he was precluded from giving the figures that were asked for, and he stated that the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), who mentioned 200,000 and 150,000, were exaggerated. Some of us are accustomed to occupying our leisure time working out cross-word puzzles which appear from time to time in the newspapers. I could only say that exercise of that kind is very useful in tracing exactly what is meant by saying persons are precluded from making an announcement in regard to these figures. I think this would make an exceedingly good cross-word puzzle. It is ludicrous for the House of Commons to find itself discussing serious financial matters with-out the slightest indication of any estimate having been made at all. I spent yesterday evening in puzzling out and trying to understand how the Minister arrived at his estimate of 30,000. In the absence of any technical information, I want to submit my answer to that puzzle in order that the Minister of Labour may have something to correct. My point is that the Actuary, when he dealt with this matter, stated that the percentage of unemployment in 1929 would be 6 per cent. In considering this question of the number of persons turned out of benefit under the 30 contributions rule, it has been stated that if you take the unemployment statistics of 1924 and 1925, something like 20 per cent. of the unemployed would have been out of benefit, and 20 per cent. of 1,100,000 is about 220,000. But he stated that, if unemployment was reduced to 6 per cent., then the proportion of unemployed who 1713 would be struck off would be 7 per cent. of the unemployed of the country, and not 20 per cent., pointing out very truly that, the worse unemployment is, the greater will be the proportionate number of persons who have been out of benefit for extended periods. If you take that proportion, you have about 150,000 unemployed, and one-seventh of 150,000 is about 20,000 or 30,000. We come back, therefore, to the position that the Minister is banking on having, in 1929, only 6 per cent. of unemployment. That again, I say, is a pure guess. All the figures, which will be produced, if I know the prudent caution of the Government Actuary, will be prefaced by a statement:Let it be assumed that there will be an unemployment figure of 6 per cent.; then contributions, benefits, and so forth will follow in proper ratio.I am, of course, anticipating, but he clears his feet in every single paragraph by beginning, "Let it be assumed." Let such-and-such things be assumed, and then the Government Actuary will make his calculation. I say again that this is not the way in which the House of Commons should approach what may be the spending of public money, and is certainly the spending and the allocation of a particular tax on individuals. It is a bad thing that we should be careless about national finance, and it is very unfortunate that the penalties for that carelessness will almost inevitably fall upon the guiltless heads of the Members sitting immediately in front of me, who have protested against it with all their might, and who, I do not fear, but hope, will be the persons responsible for dealing with this matter when the inevitable deficit occurs. For reasons not connected with party but with the proper management of national finance, and from the feelings of fraternal sympathy which I have for the Gentlemen immediately in front of me, who, as I have repeatedly pointed out, will be the persons on whom retribution will fall. I support this Amendment.
§ Mr. JOHN BAKERI am going to vote for this Amendment for several reasons. I do not agree with the method of the Department in presenting this Bill. We are here discussing the contributions that will be required to provide benefits at a later stage in the Bill. 1714 but you, Captain FitzRoy, are there to see that we do not discuss benefits at this particular stage. I can quite imagine that, when the Department decided to bring in this Bill, the Minister, his Parliamentary Secretary and his technical advisers got together and said, "We have a rather difficult job. We have got to get thousands of people off the Fund; we have got to reduce benefits. You see what has been appearing in the party Press lately, that these people will not go to work so long as we pay them unemployment pay; and the employers are wanting these people to go to work, so that we might have a chance of reducing the wages of the men who are already paid too highly; but how can we do it? If we present the whole of these facts to them, and give them a chance of discussing the relative and cogent inter-related facts of contributions and benefits, they will never swallow it. But those people on the other side of the House are always looking for something for nothing, and, if we can persuade them that we are giving reduced contributions to any particular section, they will swallow that, never dreaming that, when we come to spend that money, we shall have to say to them, 'Oh, you are only providing a limited amount; you can only spend that amount, and you are, therefore, not in a position to increase the benefits proposed in the Schedule'."
The Minister has told us to-night that the contributions provided in paragraph (b) are adequate to provide the benefits in the Schedule. I want to suggest to this Committee that, if we are reducing the contributions of a particular section, we shall not be able to provide out of those contributions adequate benefits for the proper maintenance of that section when we get to the spending of that money. Therefore, I propose that we should do what we should do in our trade unions, namely, refer this matter back for further consideration. I do not like the method the Department has adopted of age group contributions. That is very bad insurance practice; it is very bad friendly society practice; and, stupid as trade unions are supposed to be in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, they would not adopt that method. Age groups on joining, certainly; but the actuary at that stage fixes the contribution that is going 1715 to provide contingent benefit for the rest of the insurable life of the person at the age of joining. He does not say, "Join at 14 and your contribution will be 1d. a week, but when you get to 16 it will be 2d., when you get to 17 it will be 4d., and when you get to 18 it will be 8d." He does not do that, but that is what the Department is doing. The Department is adopting groups of 16 to 18, 18 to 21, and 21 to goodness knows where, and is fixing sectional age group rates that will be changed as a person passes from one group to another. I say that that is very bad insurance practice, and ought not to have been brought forward by the Department, and, therefore, I am going to oppose it. I am going to oppose the proposal on another ground, and that is that I am afraid that the whole idea of the Government in introducing a low rate of contribution with a consequent low rate of benefit is based upon the opinion that the working class are much lazier than their own class is, and will not go to work if they can exist at all without it. It is, therefore, proposed to provide a benefit which will compel these young people to go to work, to take any sort of work at any sort of price rather than starve on what is euphemistically called the dole.
§ Mr. BAKERIt will arise on the contribution when we get to it later, and I think that that is going to be the principle, or the assumption. Let us put it, however, that the Government are kindhearted and do not want to overcharge these young people, because they think they can be maintained by their parents if they fall out of work. But, surely, they never for a single moment dreamed that these young people are entitled to adequate maintenance under reasonable conditions, that they are entitled to be fed, clothed and sheltered, or they would have provided for it in the contributions they propose. I say that those are wrong angles from which to look at this problem, and I am, therefore, totally out of sympathy with the Government, and in-tend to vote against this proposal. If I am doing them an injustice, if they have not been imagining all these evil things, I shall be very sorry. If they will tell me how they are going to provide benefits under these contributions and give 1716 adequate maintenance for these young people, I shall be prepared to vote with them, but not till then.
§ Mr. OLIVERAs I opposed the reduction in the benefits of these young people, I oppose, naturally, the contributions that are to be made by the Government. I do so because I believe that, of all the times the Ministry might have chosen in the last few years, the present moment is the most inopportune one. I desire to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions which I should like him to answer before a vote is taken. What are the opinions of his Department on the important industries of the country. What are the prospects in the coal mining industry which would suggest to his Department that trade is likely to be better than it is at present? Perhaps he will also tell us the views of his Department on the heavy industries? He will also tell us something, no doubt, about the position in the engineering trade, where there are thousands of people out of employment and the prospect, instead of being rosy, is indeed very black? To reduce the contribution of the Government to this class of person seems to me to be the very worst possible thing that could be done. In the Blanesburgh Report there appears an item of importance dealing with this class of person. Instead of suggesting reductions, I should have thought an increase from the Government would have been more appropriate. The Report says:
It is at this age that the industrial workers are made or marred and we are convinced of the necessity of providing them, when out of work, with suitable industrial instruction and training.I should think it is more important, in view of the fact that they are making a reduction and are not providing this training, that they should increase their contribution and make some effort to provide the training whereby these people can draw allowances instead of benefit, and for that reason I hope that the Minister has something to tell us about the prospects of trade in the important industries which justify the optimistic estimates of his Department.
§ Mr. R. YOUNGI agree with the criticism that has been passed on the right hon. Gentleman's action in reducing the said contributions so far as this new 1717 class is concerned, but I wish to raise a different point. I am opposed to the whole Bill so far as we have gone, because in my estimation these two Clauses are nothing more than an Amendment of the Economy Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Under the Unemployment Act, 1925, the amount the State paid per man, including those of 18, was 8d. Under the Miscellaneous Provisions Act it was brought down to 6d. and now it is to be brought down to 5¼d., so that we have had a progressive decrease in the said contribution since the passing of the Act of 1925. If the Government were not prepared to continue its own contribution even under the Miscellaneous Provisions Act and to provide training for these young people while they are out of employment, they might at all events have kept it up for the express purpose of reducing the total amount of indebtedness of the Fund, because as a result ,of this further decrease in the State's contribution, owing to this new class, the indebtedness of the, Fund is likely to be longer in being paid off than it otherwise would have been. My second .objection is that as a result of this decrease of contribution by the State and the fact that it will take longer to pay off the Fund, the interest on the borrowed money will be extensively increased. I am wondering whether the Parliamentary Secretary will advise the Minister that when he is preparing the White Paper he should also give us figures as to the amount saved to the State by this deduction of ¾d. in each case in relation to the young people of the country. It is true that, when you are creating a new class, the contributions that they pay should not be much in excess of the benefits that they are likely to receive. The State has the greater responsibility for the Fund as a whole, and I hold that under this new idea of bringing young people of 18 to 21 into a new class the State is extending its principles of economy in the wrong direction, and for these reasons, if for no others, I am opposed to the first two Clauses of the Bill.
§ Mr. T. HENDERSONI desire to call attention to a rather peculiar thing arising out of this discussion. The Minister himself must have been aware of his evil intentions when he proceeded to lay down new payments to insured 1718 persons under this proposal, and the actuarial basis, if there was one, must have been rather peculiar to have allowed him to stretch the amount of payment he was going to give to these insured persons. If that be the case, he must admit that the arguments put forward from these benches are quite correct so far as the financial proposals are concerned. He has given us a revised scale, but will he tell us how it is possible to differentiate between a person of 19 and one of 18? Is a person of 19 likely to require more food or dearer clothing than a person of 18? We contend that the whole basis of the financial proposals in the Bill is wrong, and, until we get the White Paper, no one can understand the position.
§ Mr. HARDIEWithout reverting to the fact that we are compelled to discuss something that seems to be unknown, unless to the Minister of Labour, we are compelled to labour under some form of illusion. The illusion is in the question of a figure. Whether that figure exists or not, we are not told by the man who says he knows and bases his statement upon what he says he knows. He refuses to give the Committee the great knowledge that he possesses. The Minister's optimism is such that he seems to see a prospect of a great increase in industry and trade. I am surprised that he has not had the foresight to make this Measure efficient when the trade comes by having for the youths who are not able to find jobs to-day some system of general education or some system, if not vocational, which improves their minds from day to day. We are often looked upon by the other side as not having very broad ideas. We are very narrow so far as our outlook is concerned. It is a very strange thing that in that subject that gives the whole of what may be called breadth either to an individual or to a nation we are the only party in the House that is always trying to get it. This paragraph contains nothing indicating a system whereby the youth not able to find work is going to get not only something that interests but something that educates. Suppose you take the decision of the Minister of Labour, and suppose you take the number of youths who are leaving school at every leaving period—
§ Mr. HARDIEBut surely I have a right to deal with this matter. I am sorry that time has to be wasted while I read the words to you, but these are words which I must read: "The extended period." In regard to that extended period, I desire to discuss what the Government have to face. If you are not going to face it in this Department, you will have to face it in another, and probably have to increase the size of your prisons.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThis cannot be in order. The subject under this paragraph is the question of the actual State contributions towards these people. It has nothing to do with all the questions which the hon. Member is raising.
§ Mr. HARDIESurely, when we are discussing the rates of contribution, I ought not to be prevented from proceeding. What I am asking for—
§ Mr. HARDIEWe are discussing a question here which is based upon a certain Report, and as that Report contains that of which I am now speaking of, surely it cannot be out of order. The question of training has been referred to already, even from the Government Bench, and, if it was in order for the Government Bench to discuss that question, surely it is in order for any other Member of the Committee to do the same, I submit that I am right, but I will obey your Ruling if I am found to be in the wrong.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not know in what connection the allusion to training was made, but I am quite certain that if we were to debate all that might be introduced into this paragraph, there would be no end to ,our discussion. The hon. Member sees quite well that we cannot proceed to discuss the Bill in this way.
§ Mr. WESTWOODIs it not a fact that we have not yet decided the statutory conditions. As it has to provide the State contribution for young persons, the House of Commons might decide to make 1720 it a statutory condition that before these young persons receive unemployment benefit they should accept training. Out of this fund the cost of training might have to be provided, and the fund might, prove to be too small.
§ Miss LAWRENCEDoes not the Blanesburgh Report lay very great emphasis on the question of providing training for juveniles out of the employment insurance contribution? The amount of the training which could be provided would be strictly governed by the amount of contributions. I want to put it to you, Captain FitzRoy, that all the things recommended by the Blanesburgh Report are not contained in the Bill. This Committee was a unanimous Committee and if the Bill does not carry out, in this important particular, what the Committee recommend, surely we may comment upon it.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must remember that we are not discussing the Blanesburgh Report, but the Bill in Committee on particular Amendments to leave out certain paragraphs. I cannot allow any discussion of anything which is not in the paragraph.
§ Miss LAWRENCECan we discuss—
§ Mr. HARDIEIf I had been discussing education for all those who are included in this Bill I should have been out of order, but in line 7 it says:
so far as relates to young men and young women.This is the point upon which the whole of my argument rests. If it had been a general statement taking in all those who are in the Bill, I should not have presumed the right to continue, because I know that I should have been out of order. But I believe I am still in order in discussing, not only what should be introduced here on the basis of the promise made by the Prime Minister himself, but what should have been included as a result of the claims that have been made not merely in the Blanesburgh Report, but by the local representatives in the city from which I come, and in other places.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. HARDIEIf neither of these questions can be discussed, it would seem that the Minister's idea was this. We will get together a certain number of workers. We will not be very particular as to what we intend to do, and the more involved we become the more involved Will be the conduct of the Committee. The more involved the Committee becomes, the more involved will the Deputy-Chairman become in trying to understand the situation. That seems to be the motive of those who evolved paragraph (b). They also involve the question of the waste of the time of the Committee of the House of Commons.
§ Mr. HARDIErose—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is not in order, and, if the hon. Member continues I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
§ Mr. HARDIEVery well, then, paragraph (b) reads as follows:
As from and after the 2nd day of July, 1928, until the expiration of the extended period, the rates of contribution on which the amount of the contribution payable under the Employment Insurance Acts out of moneys provided by Parliament is to be calculated, shall, so far as relates to young men and young women, be the rates set out in the Second Schedule to this Act, instead of the rates applicable to men and women under the Second Schedule to the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926.The second Schedule, of course, cannot be in order. The same thing happened in Clause 1. Although Clause 1 referred to the Schedule, the question was ruled out of order because it was a question to be dealt with in the Schedule. Supposing you take the Second Schedule. All you have there is the rate. The application of that rate is contained in the amount of the rate that is set out in the Schedule. The rate set out in the Schedule is not sufficient under present-day conditions with so many young people on the unemployment list. If it be competent to discuss the fact—known even to the Ministers—that the sum is not sufficient to deal with the numbers of young people 1722 who are unemployed, surely it is in order to deal with the question as to what we should do with these young people when they are unemployed. Can we not discuss whether the system of unemployment benefit is good or bad for these individuals, and now that we have a chance of dealing with the money point, cannot we ask that the sum be increased in order to do something more for the unemployed young men and young women. Is there any more bitter tragedy in life than to see these disappointed young men and young women? Take the boyhood years, where the boy feels new responsibility on having left school entering into the world and becoming a responsible individual, earning something. That is the great ideal in the adolescent mind. How must it feel when, under this particular Clause, those ideals and aspirations are thrown away, and these young people are flung upon something which is only so many coppers per week? Any nation which denies the right of expression to the full spiritual results of education in the youth is destroying everything that he has to depend upon in the future.
§ Mr. THURTLEThe right hon. Gentleman, in defence of the State contribution, argued that it would be sufficient for all the charges that would be imposed upon it. I would like to discuss with him and with the Committee the prospects of British trade in the immediate future, because upon that depends whether or not the estimate of the Minister is accurate.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member will not be in order in discussing that upon this Amendment. I tell him that at the beginning.
§ Mr. THURTLEWhether this contribution of the State is adequate or not depends upon the amount of unemployment which is going to prevail in the future. The contribution has been based upon the assumption that there will be unemployment to the extent of 6 per cent. of the workers employed in industry. If I can show by a survey of trade conditions and trade prospects that the unemployment is going to be much more than 6 per cent.—
§ Mr. THURTLEWith great respect, I do think it material for us to discuss whether or not there is likely to be 6 per cent. of unemployment in the future, and if you will show me how that is out of order on this particular Amendment I will not venture to trespass one moment longer upon the patience of the House. I do submit that that is a very material consideration.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI tell the hon. Member frankly that he is out of order, and I shall not allow him to proceed on those lines.
§ Mr. THURTLEThat being so, and that being the only point which I wished to establish, and as I never attempt to waste the time of the House, I will say nothing further.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI would like to put a few points to the Parliamentary Secretary, which I hope he will answer. I am glad to see him on the Front Bench, because it is the first time that I have seen a pleasant face there. During the weekend the Minister of Labour put, down in his name two Amendments altering the Clause. Under the original Bill there was one class of young people from 18 to 21, but during the week-end the Minister drafted an Amendment to alter that class by dividing it into three classes, from 18 to 19 years, from 19 to 20 and from 20 to 21. This makes three classes of recipients of unemployed benefits, but the curious thing is that he has kept for those three classes the same amount of State contribution. Seeing that the Minister was putting down Amendments to increase the benefits to certain classes, he ought to have put down at the same time an Amendment increasing the State contribution, in order that the additional amount of benefit might be paid from the Fund. The Minister is going to take more from the pool for certain classes. I am not arguing against that, but I do suggest that when he put down his Amendment to add to the benefit he ought to have put down an Amendment increasing the State contribution in respect of those persons between 19 and 20 years and between 20 and 21 years. If he thought that the State contribution formerly, as laid down in the Bill, was only enough for the lower amount of benefit, where is the increased amount of benefits to come from? Is it to come 1724 from the workers' contributions or from the employers' contributions, and is the State going to make no additional contribution? A person between the age of 18 and 19 will pay the same contribution for four shillings less benefit than a person between 20 and 21. It cannot be argued, as the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) argued, that there is any great difference in the unemployment of persons between 18 and 19 and of persons between 19 and 21. The State will only make the same contribution in respect of a person between 18 and 19 years as it does for a person between 20 and 21 years, and yet in the one case they will receive four shillings more benefit. Surely that cannot be justified. If the State is increasing the amount of benefit by four shillings it should increase the amount of its contribution towards that benefit.
While it is true, and I accept the ruling of the Chair on the subject, that we are not discussing the Blanesburgh Report, I think the Deputy-Chairman will be the first to admit that the Blanesburgh Report has a certain influence on our discussion. I am not discussing the Blanesburgh Report, but I think I should be in order in referring to the Committee's recommendations on this subject. They recommended that the State, the employer and the employed person should contribute the same. I never accepted that view, for I have always argued that the State ought to contribute not the same amount as the workman, not the same amount as the employer, but a sum equivalent to the joint contribution of the worker and the employer.
We have been told that the Blanesburgh Committee was almost infallible. One might have thought that it had descended from the heavens instead of coming from ordinary earthly people. It recommended that the State contribution, the employer's contribution and the workmen's contribution should be the same, but the Government has departed from that recommendation. It was put to us that in doing us we should get the principle of equal payments. Why cannot the Government accept this principle in the case of young people? Why cannot they adopt the recommendation of this infallible Committee, this Committee of of giants and experts, in regard to this part of the Bill? We might be called 1725 extremists, and far be it from me to be desired to be called an extremist. It might be called extreme to say that the Government should contribute all, but all we ask is that the Government's contribution should be equal to the contribution of the employer and employed combined, and on that point I contend that there is an unanswerable case. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) knows something about the training of the youth and he will agree with me that the State ought to be more careful in handling the youthful part of the population than it is in dealing with adults. While it may be argued on the general Bill that the State's contribution should not be as much as that of the employers and employed, I submit that in the case of the younger part of the population there is every argument in favour of it being at least equal to the joint contribution of the workers and the employers.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is in order in criticising the State contribution as it is proposed, but if he proposes anything in the nature of what he is now suggesting it would not be in order.
§ Mr. BUCHANANPossibly that was going outside the scope of the discussion, but there is this to be said. In the original Act the State contribution was much larger and only the operation of the Economy Provisions Act reduced it. I would urge that the provisions of this Act should be withdrawn. I come back to my first point—I want to obey the ruling of the Chair because I think we shall get on much better if we do than if we do not. The point is this. The Parliamentary Secretary must admit that the Amendment of the Minister of Labour alters the whole foundation of this Clause. He proposes to increase the amount. What is the Government going to do to meet this increase? Are they going to ask young people of 19 and 20 to pay the same contribution for a benefit which is 4s. less than that received by older people?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton)May I ask the Committee to come to a decision now on this Amendment? It has been very fully discussed and a variety of questions have been 1726 asked with regard to training, the new proposals of the Minister, the prospects of trade and industry, which are quite outside the scope of the discussion on this Amendment. I suggest to the Committee that it would be much better to defer these various important questions to the Amendments and those parts of the Bill on which they would be relevant, when we could have a full discussion.
§ Mr. BETTERTONThat again is not a point which I can discuss on this Amendment. Actually the amount of contributions will be open for full discussion on the Schedule, and I suggest in all seriousness that it is much more in accordance with the traditions of the Committee to deal with these important matters on the Clauses and Schedules in the Bill.
§ Mr. BATEYI have a good deal of sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary when he asks us to come to a decision. I can well understand him getting weary and tired of the discussion. He reminds me of the Home Secretary who, before the Recess in the autumn, said that what they wanted was a home for weary and tired Ministers. However, I intervene in this Debate against the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary because this is my first intervention, although we have had a Second Reading Debate and several days in Committee. I have never had an opportunity of speaking before, and I represent one of the most important Divisions in this country. I support the Amendment. I remember when that Act was being discussed—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has said quite enough to make me realise what his point is going to be.
§ Mr. BATEYI was going to say that if the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act is bad this is worse. It seems to me that the Government is unable to make up its mind with regard to contributions or anything else so far as the 1727 Unemployment Fund is concerned. The ink was scarcely dry on the Act of 1925 before they brought in the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in order to save the Government expense, and now we have another attempt to save money for the Government at the expense of the unemployed. One of the meanest things the Government could do would be to attempt to save money for the Treasury at the expense of the unemployed. I would remind the Minister, when he is asking for power to reduce the State contribution to the Unemployment Fund in respect of these young people, that this year the Government contributed less to the Unemployment Fund than they did in the years 1924 and 1925. When the Labour party were in office they provided for a payment to the Fund from the Treasury of £13,145,100 and the Government this year are only paying £11,800,000. That is an enormous reduction, and I hold it is wicked on the part of the Government to bring in another proposal to reduce the Treasury contribution further. Nor is it wise for the Government to ask for the power to reduce their contribution.
We have been told that there is a debt on the Fund of £32,000,000 and that this year £4,000,000 of that debt will be paid, but if the Government get this power the Fund will not be in a position to repay debt as it did formerly. In the past the Fund has been in debt and the debt has been repaid very rapidly. I
§ remember that the Fund was in debt previously and in two years no less than £17,000,000 was repaid, but that was done because the Government paid larger contributions than they are paying to-day. I wish to keep the contributions as they are at present, because to reduce them will be to ruin the Fund. This ought to be a Fund upon which men can rely for benefit if they are not able to find work. We ought not to have, as we have in many districts, men being thrown on to the guardians and compelled to live on poor relief. These men have the right to receive benefit from the Fund unless they can get employmnt. They will not be able to do so if we allow the Government to reduce their contributions, and I hope that the Committee will refuse to grant them this power. In fact, the Government instead of paying less ought to pay more than they are paying at the present time. As I say, it would be wicked on their part to use their big majority in the House in order that the Treasury may pay less than they are paying now, and to do so at the expense of these unemployed young people.
§ Mr. J. HUDSONrose—
§ Mr. BETTERTONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Quesbe now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 140.
1731| Division No. 364.] | AYES. | [9.30 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Briggs, J. Harold | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) |
| Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Daikeith, Earl of |
| Albery, Irving James | Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) | Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Buchan, John | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) |
| Apsley, Lord | Burman, J. B. | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Burton, Colonel H. W. | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Dawson, Sir Philip |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Campbell, E. T. | Dean, Arthur Wellesley |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Cassels, J. D. | Drewe, C. |
| Atkinson, C. | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Eden, Captain Anthony |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Balniel, Lord | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Elliot, Major Walter E. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Chapman, Sir S | Ellis, R. G. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Clayton, G. C. | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P H. | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Berry, Sir George | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Fairfax, Captain J. G. |
| Bethel, A. | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Falle, Sir Bertram G. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Colman, N. C. D. | Fielden, E. B. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Finburgh, S. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Couper, J. B. | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) | Ganzonl, Sir John |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Goff, Sir Park | McLean, Major A. | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Macmillan, Captain H. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Grant, Sir J A. | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Malone, Major P. B. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Margesson, Captain D. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Merriman, F. B. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Meyer, Sir Frank | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Hanbury, C. | Moore. Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Tasker, R. Inigo. |
| Harland, A. | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | Templeton, W. P. |
| Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Nelson, Sir Frank | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Neville, Sir Reginald J. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Thomson, F. C (Aberdeen, South) |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Nuttall, Ellis | Tinne, J. A. |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Oakley, T. | Tichfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootie) | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Philipson, Mabel | Waddington, R. |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Pilcher, G. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Preston, William | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Radford, E. A. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Homan, C. W. J. | Raine, Sir Walter | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Ramsden, E. | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Remer, J. R. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Wells, S. R. |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple- |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Salmon, Major I. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Withers, John James |
| King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Sandeman, N. Stewart | Womersley, W. J |
| Knox, Sir Alfred | Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Sanderson, Sir Frank | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Wood. Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Loder, J. de V. | Savery, S. S. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Looker, Herbert William | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.) | |
| Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Lumley, L. R. | Shepperson, E. W. | Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr. Penny. |
| MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.) | |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Smithers, Waldron | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Duncan, C. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock) | Dunnico, H. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Fenby, T. D. | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Gardner, J. P. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Baker, Walter | Gibbins, Joseph | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Gillett, George M. | Kelly, W. T. |
| Barnes, A. | Gosling, Harry | Kennedy, T. |
| Batey, Joseph | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lansbury, George |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Lawrence, Susan |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Greenall, T. | Lawson, John James |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Lee, F. |
| Broad, F. A. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lindley, F. W. |
| Bromley, J. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Lowth, T. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Groves, T. | Lunn, William |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Grundy, T. W. | Mackinder, W. |
| Buchanan, G. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | MacLaren, Andrew |
| Cape, Thomas | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | MacNeill-Weir, L. |
| Clowes, S. | Hardle, George D. | March, S. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Harney, E. A. | Maxton, James |
| Compton, Joseph | Harris, Percy A. | Montague, Frederick |
| Connolly, M. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Morris, R. H. |
| Cove, W. G. | Hayday, Arthur | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Hayes, John Henry | Murnin H. |
| Crawford, H. E. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Naylor, T. E. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Oliver, George Harold |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Hirst, G. H. | Owen, Major G. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Palin, John Henry |
| Dennison, R. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Paling, W. |
| Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles | Welsh, J. C. |
| Ponsonby, Arthur | Stamford, T. W. | Westwood, J. |
| Potts, John S. | Stephen, Campbell | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Riley, Ben | Strauss. E. A. | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Ritson, J. | Sullivan, Joseph | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Sutton, J. E. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Rose, Frank H. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Scrymgeour, E. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Sexton, James | Thurtle, Ernest | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Tinker, John Joseph | Windsor, Walter |
| Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Townend, A. E. | Wright, W. |
| Sitch, Charles H. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon C. P. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Varley, Frank B. | |
| Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley. |
| Snell, Harry | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
1732§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 144.
1733| Division No. 365.] | AYES. | [9.39 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Davidson, J. (Hertf'd. Hemel Hempst'd) | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) |
| Albery, Irving James | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) |
| Apsley, Lord | Dawson, Sir Philip | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | King, Commodore Henry Douglas |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W. | Drewe, C. | Knox, Sir Alfred |
| Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Eden, Captain Anthony | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) |
| Atkinson, C. | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Loder, J. de V. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Ellis, R. G. | Looker, Herbert William |
| Balniel, Lord | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Everard, W. Lindsay | Lumley, L. R. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Fairfax, Captain J G. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Berry, Sir George | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Bethel, A. | Fielden, E. B. | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Finburgh, S. | McLean, Major A. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Ganzonl, Sir John | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Goff, Sir Park | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Grant, Sir J. A. | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Merriman, F. B. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Meyer, Sir Frank |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Buchan, John | Grotrian, H. Brent | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Burman, J. B. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Murchison, Sir Kenneth |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Neville, Sir Reginald J. |
| Cassels, J. D. | Hammersley, S. S. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hanbury, C. | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) | Harland, A. | Oakley, T. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Philipson, Mabel |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hawke, John Anthony | Pilcher, G. |
| Charterls, Brigadier-General J. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Preston, Wliliam |
| Clayton, G. C. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Radford, E. A. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Raine, Sir Walter |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Ramsden, E. |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Remer, J. R. |
| Colman, N. C. D. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Homan, C. W. J. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Couper, J. B. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Hume, Sir G. H. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Salmon, Major I. |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Sandeman, N. Stewart | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Wells, S. R. |
| Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple- |
| Sanderson, Sir Frank | Suetor, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Savery, S. S. | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) | Tasker, R. Inigo. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.) | Templeton, W. P. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Shepperson, E. W. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | Withers, John James |
| Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Smithers, Waldron | Tinne, J. A. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Wragg, Herbert |
| Sprot, Sir Alexander | Waddington, R. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. | Wallace, Captain D. E. | |
| Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. | Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr. Penney. |
| Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Warrender, Sir Victor | |
| Storry-Deans, R. | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hardie, George D. | Rose, Frank H. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Harney, E. A. | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Harris, Percy A. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Baker, Walter | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Sexton, James |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hayday, Arthur | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Batey, Joseph | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Broad, F. A. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bromley, J. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Snell, Harry |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Buchanan, G. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Strauss, E. A. |
| Clowes, S. | Kelly, W. T. | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kennedy, T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Compton, Joseph | Lansbury, George | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) |
| Connolly, M. | Lawrence, Susan | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Cove, W. G. | Lawson, John James | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lee, F. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lindley, F. W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lowth, T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lunn, William | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dennison, R. | Mackinder, W. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Duncan, C. | MacLaren, Andrew | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Dunnico, H. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| England, Colonel A. | March, S. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Fenby, T. D. | Maxton, James | Westwood, J. |
| Forrest, W. | Montague, Frederick | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Morris, R. H. | Whiteley, W. |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Murnin, H. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gillett, George M. | Naylor, T. E | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Gosling, Harry | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Owen, Major G. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Palin, John Henry | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Greenall, T. | Paling, W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Windsor, Walter |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wright, W. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Groves, T. | Potts, John S. | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Riley, Ben | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Ritson, J. | Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes. |
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. T. SHAWWe on this side of the House can scarcely be expected to consent to this Clause standing part of the 1734 Bill. I will say very little about the finance of the Clause. That has been riddled over and over again by my hon. Friends behind me, and, indeed, the Minister himself does not claim that he has any figures on which the can base an actuarial calculation. I would recall 1735 to the memory of the House an answer that was given by the Minister last week, an answer which proves that what I have said is based on the admission of the Minister himself. In reply to a question dealing with the statistics of people under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and with registers of Employment Exchanges, the right hon. Gentleman said that corresponding statistics are not available in respect of persons of 18 to 20 years of age. So that any statement that any actuarial calculation of any value has been made in respect of the proposed new class of contributors is, by the admission of the Minister himself, absolutely beyond the mark. Therefore, we have to begin, even in a financial consideration of the Clause, with the acknowledgment of the Minister that there are no figures at all on which he bases his estimates. If we were dealing with any ordinary business organisation in the world, that organisation would reject this Clause until the Minister did bring forward some definite information that would lead to the belief that his figures were based on some ascertained facts and bore some resemblance to the probabilities of the situation.
Another objection that we have to the Clause is that in this new scheme of contributions there has been no effort to bring the State's contribution higher in relation to the contributions of employers and employed, and to make unemployment insurance more of a national responsibility and less of an industrial and district responsibility than it is to-day. For that reason we shall certainly oppose the Clause. We might have expected that if the Government had done nothing more, they could at any rate have made the Government's contribution equal to that of the employer; we might have expected that they would have made it slightly higher than that of the employer. But everything in this Bill points to one fact, and that is that the Bill is based on the assumption that Exchequer money must be saved, whoever suffers as a consequence. The whole of this Clause, whether deliberately drafted with that intention or not, realises that idea, that the money of the Exchequer has to be saved whatever the consequences to the people who are unemployed. Then we have the explanation why this Clause 1736 has been put into the Bill, and we are referred by the Memorandum of the Bill itself to the Blanesburgh Report. The extraordinary thing is that whenever support is sought for a Clause in this Bill the Blanesburgh Report suddenly becomes sacrosanct, but when anything does not please the Minister, when any suggestion is made by the Blanesburgh Committee that is to cost money, the Report ceases to be sacrosanct and is thrown on one side.
We have an old saying in Lancashire that some children like both the ha'penny and the toffee. The Government is exactly in that position with regard to Blanesburgh; it wants both the ha'penny and the toffee. If Blanesburgh pleases, then it is the law and the prophets. The Labour representatives on the Committee are cited as being in favour of the Report. When the Government does not like the Report it becomes less than the Gospel and is thrown ruthlessly on one side. In considering this Clause let us see what the Blanesburgh Committee said. With regard to juveniles it said:
If we had not been recommending that useful training should be provided, some of us would not have agreed to reduce the existing scale.It said also, with regard to the young persons who are dealt with in this Clause:Training is scarcely less important in the case of young men and women from 18 to 21, and we earnestly desire that in their cases also facilities for training will be available or made available to the greatest possible extent.Therefore, when the Minister brings Blanesburgh to support him in this Clause, I say let him give us all Blanesburgh. Let him give us the law and the prophets and the whole of the 39 Articles at once; do not let him pick out the Articles that he chooses and the text he chooses, and leave on one side those that disagree with his stomach. Let us have the lot, if we are to have Blanesburgh, or let us have none at all. It is quite true that this Report would never have been agreed to if the quid pro quo of training, with a hot meal in the middle of the day, had not been expected as one of the benefits that would make up for the benefits that have been reduced. We object to this Clause because it introduces a principle to which we are strongly opposed, and it is, if 1737 not the most dangerous Clause, one of the most dangerous Clauses in the Bill, for many reasons. The contributions are deliberately fixed in order to cut benefits to such proportions that the young men and women cannot even attempt to live on what they receive as benefits, because we must combine the Clause with what it is intended to do. We must deal with it not because of the mere words in it, but because of the implication of those words, and we know that when the Clause says that the contributions shall be as set out in a certain Schedule, the connection must be made between those words and the words that are intended to fall into contact with them in the other Schedule.Consequently, we shall refuse to vote for a Clause which is intended to be part of a general scheme for reducing the conditions of our young men and women to such an extent that they will, willy nilly, either become parasites on their parents and friends or drop into something worse. There has never been an attempt in the House to justify these conditions, and all that we have got is "Blanesburgh said so." The Minister is not Blanesburgh, and Blanesburgh is not on trial in this House. We are dealing, not with the Blanesburgh Committee, but with the Government, and we ask them to make out a case for their new scheme for people between 18 and 21, and to try to prove, if they can, that their scheme is adequate and that under it these young people will not become parasites or something worse. Up to now we have waited in vain. It is whipping a dead horse to refer to the financial principles, which have been riddled over and over again. Never, I think, in the history of Parliament has a scheme been proposed with so little real actuarial basis as this, and the only thing the scheme is aimed at is to save a certain amount of money at the expense of the poor people who are suffering badly enough as things are to-day. We cannot agree at all even to be connected with the idea that young men and women of 18 to 21 should be considered either in payments or in benefits or in anything else as being quite different from workers of over 21.
10.0 p.m.
What is the actual condition in the great industries where women work? I think the largest insurable industry in the country in which women work is the 1738 textile industry, principally concentrated in Yorkshire and Lancashire, and everybody who knows industrial life in those counties knows that the boy and girl from 18 upwards are generally supposed to be helping parents who have screwed themselves in order to keep them up to that age. They are not people who are just leaving school, or just going to the university, but full grown men and women, with the responsibilities of men and women, earning the wages of men and women, self-reliant, independent, self-maintaining; and to offer them conditions of this kind is to disclose either a lamentable ignorance of the state of affairs or a want of sympathy with the actual conditions of the people in these two big counties, at any rate, which I have not sufficient adjectives to describe. I think I know what I am talking about as well as most people. I am one of these people myself. I went through the mill myself. I started work at 10; at 14 I was supposed to be a worker; and at 16 I was supposed to be earning almost as much money as I could ever hope to earn at my trade during my life. What applied to me, applies to countless thousands of young men and women in Lancashire and Yorkshire and in other parts of the country as well, and if anybody had told me at 18 that I was a kind of infant, who had to be treated on a lower scale than a man of above 21, who had to be supposed for some reason to pay less money and to have, at the present price of food, what these contributions are likely to provide, I should have thought that person was incompetent or ignorant or both.
The Government must try to realise what they are doing in this respect. I do not want to paint too gloomy a picture of what this kind of contribution means, with its correlated benefits. I do not want to tell the Committee that our girls will all lead bad lives and that our boys will all become criminals, but I say that where a tendency of that kind exists, this is the kind of thing that will do more to help that tendency than any other thing. The people in my own county, whom I know best, are as good in every respect as any body of people in the world, morally and intellectually; they are decent, clean-living, hard-working people. Through no fault of their own, they are in the condition in which 1739 they are to-day, with six solid years of bad trade behind them—the cleverest workers in the world at their trade. I have seen men and women working at the same trade nearly all over the world, but there are none that can approach ours, and yet they are in this position; and to come and talk to our girls and our boys, self-reliant, proud of the fact that they earn their own living, that they are decent and like to be well dressed, to tell them they should be treated like children, put on different scales, paid in a different way, given a starvation rate, and forced to become parasites on their parents and friends, is an insult that no Government ought to offer to my people. If we are indignant about it, that is the fault of the Government. They sit with the problem of unemployment, and they try to do nothing to help it. Not a single scheme do they begin, by which to help make the country richer and pay wages for honest work rather than benefits for no work. They sit and wait until time or starvation gets their problem away, and in order to get their problem away more quickly, this is what they propose for the young people.
We resent it, we bitterly resent it; and going into a Lobby is not much, but I prefer to go into the Lobby against this Clause rather than to go into the Lobby for it. Better were it that we had a mill-stone round our necks and were thrown into the depths of the sea than that we should commit ourselves to the principles that are laid down in this Clause and what follows it for the young people who live and work in the counties that I know best. The whole of this Clause is thoroughly reactionary, a reversion to the old idea that people out of work should be punished, that the State should not help to keep them, but that their treatment should be such as to make them worse than criminals. You spend more on a criminal and you give a criminal better treatment than you want to give these decent boys and girls. It is a sorry commentary on British civilisation when we are prepared to spend more money on a criminal than we are on decent working men and women. They are not criminals. The War was not caused by them. Unemployment due to the War was not caused by them. They did their duty in the War, and this is what they are going to get for their 1740 parents' efforts during the War. It is a sorry state of things. The Government may save on it, but I would rather be Judas with his 30 pieces of silver than the Chancellor with the 30 pieces of silver he gets out of this. At any rate, the one to me is as big a criminal as the other. Man is made in his Maker's image, and if Judas betrayed his Maker, the Government is betraying its Maker's image.
The real basis of this Clause is the old, bad, vicious idea that the only way of treating the suffering workpeople is to treat them in such a way as to make it impossible for them to live without starving. If the Government were able to say, "We are going to lay down these contributions, with what they imply in the shape of benefits, because the necessaries of the case are such as to justify us in doing it," one could understond that action, but the Government never said that these people can get work. The Government cannot find them work, and everybody knows that factories and mines are stopped. Everybody knows that in the great areas along the East coast young men have not a dog's chance of getting work, and yet precisely at this moment, after another year of unemployment, when conditions have become worse, when people have become poorer, when those who have been most hardly hit are still further reduced, this crushing thing comes along in order to make the conditions much worse. What is the use of preaching to us about your patriotism that consists in considering just a few people at the top and treating those at the bottom as inferior cattle? What is the use of prating to us about a Britain which contains above 1,000,000 people to whom this Clause will be only degradation? What is the use of talking to us about being proud of our country? We are proud of our country, but we are not proud of our Government. We are proud of the Empire to which we belong. We want to see it an Empire which shall belong to its people, when the first duty of the Empire will be to see that every one of its people has a decent living.
Will this Clause give our people a decent living? No. Everybody with a heart to feel and a brain to think knows what this Clause means, and we certainly will not take either part or lot in voting for a condition of affairs which, in our opinion, is an insult to our young man- 1741 hood and womanhood, and which discloses a lamentable ignorance of the conditions of the working classes. It will hit most hardly the district which has suffered for six years now. I am speaking particularly of Lancashire and Yorkshire, because this Clause will hit them more than any other part of the country. These people have suffered so long and so uncomplainingly—too uncomplainingly—and I wish people in my own county had been more vocal than they have been. How could I go to my own people in my own constituency and say to them, "I have voted for a Clause like this," when I know that in voting for it I would have betrayed the young men and women who work at the same occupation at which I used to work myself—the young men and women who are proud of their status, and proud of the fact that they keep themselves, proud of the fact that they are decent, and that they dress as decently as any person in the land? I cannot do it. It would he treacherous on my part if I did it. The whole scheme underlying this Clause is vicious and bad, and because I believe that, I trust that my hon. Friends will go, as I know they will, into the Lobby behind me solidly to vote against the Clause.
§ Mr. BETTERTONThe right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has repeated a great portion of the speech he made on Second Reading, but on the present occasion, however relevant it may have been on Second Reading, my submission to the Committee is that his indignation is misplaced, because the principle about which he has protested so much—and it is the only principle contained in the Clause at present under discussion—is that where there is a lower benefit to a certain class of person, then there shall be a lower contribution. That principle has always been the principle of every Insurance Bill, including the right hon. Gentleman's own. Where you have had a lower rate for a class of workers, then you have always had a lower rate of benefit. So, therefore, the only question of principle contained in this Clause is the principle which has always found acceptance in this House. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to discuss a very different principle, namely, the general question of differentiation in respect of the class between 18 and 21. That discussion would have been quite irrelevant to this Clause and 1742 the proper place for that discussion to come, as indeed it will come, will be on the next Clause but one. The same applies exactly to what the right hon. Gentleman says with regard to training. A good deal may be said in the discussions on that matter, but this is not the place; so whatever views we may have, and whatever answers we may have to the points which the right hon. Gentleman made, will be given at the proper time and in the proper place.
§ Mr. PALINGThe reply is an insult to the Committee.
§ Mr. HAYDAYThroughout the Debate we have not had from the Ministry any statement which can in any way justify the institution of this new class of insured persons, nor have we been given any idea of the number of insured persons this new class is likely to represent. I submit that the creation of this new class has been inspired by one paragraph out of the whole of the Blanesburgh Report. It is paragraph 57, which says we must have a form of insurance that
must not interfere unduly with the mobility of labour in this country.It must not deter from emigration those who would be benefited by a life overseas.It adds that:The scheme must not by the extent of benefit promised, tempt the insured contributor to improvidence when in receipt of good pay.I suggest that is the real reason for the creation of this new class. Throughout the history of unemployment insurance there has never been a class between 16 and 18 years of age or between 18 and 21. There is no mention in paragraph 57 of any reason why young women between 18 and 21 should have a reduction of benefit, but the reason is quite obvious—domestic service either overseas or at home is suggested. What is likely to be the effect of the creation of this new class on insurance generally, on administration in particular, and in the field of industry from the employability point of view? First, I would say the creation of the new class will make it more difficult for trade unions to administer the Act. Trade unions have no varied contributions according to the age of their members. All their members will pay the same amount and all will receive the same amount of the union benefit, but it 1743 will be varied by the amount they hand over to the insured person. A person 20 years of age will receive through his approved society less than a trade union member who is 21 or more, and this will make things so complicated as to make administration well nigh impossible.One wonders whether the Ministry of Labour are not desirous of wiping out trade union administration. If that is so, I am sure they are doing wrong—committing an injustice against the industrial societies and increasing their own difficulties. The administration will be ten times more difficult when the insured person must produce his birth certificate showing that he has now completed 18 years of age and has entered upon his nineteenth year. There is a difference between your saving in the benefit from 18 years and over. You will require the clerical staff to keep a proper check, and investigate all these payments, and this will do more credit to the Department than enlarging the administrative staff which stands at round about 11,000. The employer will pay less on the contribution for the young person between 18 and 21, but in my view the temptation will be to employ the younger men on account of their strength and their increased value as human units in the workshop as well as on account of their cheapness, which is considerable when taken over the year and multiplied by a large number. The result will be that those of 50 years and above that age must give way to those from 18 to 21.
Hon. Members ought not to receive that statement in a smiling sort of way. We know already that the 16 to 18 class has had that effect with employers, who have dismissed them after 18 and filled up again with those from 16 to 18 in order to save a few coppers. I suggest that it is very strange indeed that this new class, so created, should be a non-voting class, which does not enjoy full citizenship. This is a class that has no vote from 18 to 21. Consequently, they are the more helpless, and yet you are singling them out to bear the full blast of any reduction in this particular sense. I have a very good reason for opposing this Clause, because there was a time of unemployment donation under the 1918 scheme of contributions when not one class was left unprotected. It dealt with dependants tip to 15 and donation benefit 1744 from 15 upwards. There was no gap such as there is now, and no class entirely left without any provision. That leads me to suggest a far different new class that might have been created instead of the one suggested. We find, in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Scheme of Out-of-Work Donation, published in 1919, this statement:
The original weekly rates of donation, as decided by the Government, were 24s. for men and 20s. for women, together with supplementary allowances in respect of dependent children under 15 years of age. By the 12th December, these allowances were increased, and boys and girls between the ages of 15 and 18 received half the adult rate of donation. That means that, where the adult rate in December, 1918, was 29s. for men, 14s. 6d. was paid to a male between the ages of 15 and 18.There you had just two classes, between 15 and 18 and from 18 onwards. There was no question even of a contribution being paid. I want, in passing, to say how sad I felt when the suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) that if the benefit were increased, and married people were excluded from this Clause, there was a possibility that that would encourage marriage. We all know that the hon. Member for Reading and others granted easy facilities for separation allowances to young soldiers at the age of 18 and upwards during the period of the War, and paced at their disposal clerks to boards of guardians, in order that they might have easy facilities for marriage, and so qualify at that time for separation allowance. It is now suggested that, while in one set of circumstances you can offer a monetary inducement for that, this monetary inducement, in the case of the new class, is likely to lead to it. I know that the Minister has agreed to consider the point, but, as the Clause now stands, it means that a married person under 21, if a male, will receive 10s., and he will, perhaps, get the 7s. for his wife as a dependant. That, however, is not quite clear, but it may be cleared up at a subsequent stage of the Debate. If he does, he will get 17s. as a married man slightly under the age of 21, while a married man who has just turned 21 would be getting 24s. per week. To suggest that 17s. a week is an inducement for any folk to marry in present-day circumstances is fallacious in the extreme1745 It would have been far better had the Ministry decided to include another class that is now left out. It would have been more profitable and more beneficial if, instead of making a class from 18 to 21, it had been made from the school-leaving age up to the age of 16. That period is not covered by unemployment insurance. I know it is very difficult to give a real picture of these things, but the Minister might have told us how many individuals there were in this class. I find, however, that there are young men and women of the age of 18 who still come to our juvenile centres. There are some who left school at 14 and have not yet found employment at the age of 18. It is sometimes suggested that they ought not to be brought in, because they would swell the unemployment figures. They are not included in the unemployment statistics now, nor do they all come to these juvenile centres. I find that, of 1,349 in one area who were eligible to leave school at the mid-summer period, only 545 attended for interview at the juvenile centre, showing that at least 800 of that number did not go near the juvenile centre.
Then I have a list that shows that there are numbers between 14 and 15, 15 and 16, 16 and 17, and 17 and 18, so that had we been in order and been able to create a new class it was our intention to suggest that the new class should be from school leaving age to 16, that each child leaving school should have the statutory stamp credit so that they would have some continuation of credit as a condition for receiving the proportion of benefit paid through the educational authorities acting as agents to the parents at home for their general maintenance. It was felt that that would have been a far better and more valuable class to create, because even the class you have, 16 to 18, if they have to qualify, will be required to go so many weeks before ever they can get a stamp qualification. They are handicapped from the start. Here you have a general squeezing process, a reduction of possibilities for even physical or educational equipment. The children from school leaving age you leave out. They are the class that I once described as orphans of the storm. The educationists will not have them or make provision for them, industry cannot absorb them all, and industrial insurance will make no 1746 provision for them. There is the impressionable age, there is a new class that wants reclaiming from all the dangers that beset the young mind. But, instead of that, they may go on to 18 years of age without any employment at all, and drop into this new class, which under the best circumstances will not give them provision that would buy food alone for them for the whole of the week. They may be as robust as you can imagine when they first leave school, but by the time they have reached this new class that has been set up with all its restrictions you will find they will enter into a stage already in part demoralised, because they have been a class set apart by themselves They pass through the class which has had a reduction without any reduction in the contribution at all. They enter into the 18 to 21 class having passed through the juvenile centres, and I am sure the Minister will make up his mind that some provision must be made.
I pass a juvenile centre every morning in Nottingham going to my office. I have seen many who look 17 or 18 having their bits of fun on the corner. It struck me that it was a little dangerous. If they are there in conjunction with those of 14 to 16, they ought to be taken away as soon as they pass the age of 16. I wondered if that juvenile bureau took on registration for any above 16, because that was their only intention, and I was certain some of these boys and girls looked 18 or 19. Yet, strange to say, when I discreetly inquired of one or two of the 15-years-of-age boys or girls, they had not had a start from the school leaving age. No one cared about them. The juvenile centres do their best. Do not let it be imagined that they do not try to place them. They do, and they are successful under some circumstances. They say no one seems to care after they have registered and had their interview. These 15-year-old boys look like 17 or 18 and develop the sort of cunning that you can see in the slums. If that is to develop as they pass on into this new class you have made, without any preparation that will equip them to remain honest, you will make old men and women and weak and decrepit citizens of them. You are preventing the fullness of their development that ought to be nursed and matured in order that they may repay the State in some form or another in their usual makeup as good. 1747 honest citizens. You are crippling and harassing them. I ask even now that you will not further complicate the matter after the period of distress we have passed through, but will repay the nation for its suffering, not by increasing its suffering, but by trying to lighten its load at the most perilous part of its journey.
§ Mr. ROBERT HUDSONWe shall be at the end, in a very short time, of the second day of this discussion, and we have not passed Clause 2. At this rate of progress, it seems to me, the Government have not much chance of getting to the end of the Committee stage by Monday night, as was suggested and anticipated to-day at Question time. I must say, with all respect, that I think the Government have only themselves to blame for the mess they have got into. This Bill has been put forward, apparently, on various actuarial calculations, or we are told so. I was prevented from being here yesterday, but on reading through an account of the Debate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, it occurs to me the Minister, if I may be allowed to say so with respect, failed lamentably to give adequate answers.
§ The CHAIRMANI must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to the particular provisions of Clause 2.
§ Mr. HUDSONThe point I am endeavouring to make is, that the delay was due to the fact that we are unable to determine what is the basis of the various proposals that are made in Clause 2 and in other parts of the Bill. I think the ex-Minister of Labour made a very good point when he was discussing it, and I was endeavouring to suggest that exactly the same cause for delay occurred yesterday, as far as I can see, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the—
§ The CHAIRMANWe are concerned now with Clause 2 and not with what was passed yesterday on Clause 1.
§ Mr. HUDSONI bow to your ruling, Mr. Hope, and will now confine myself to Clause 2. We have been told that Clause 2 is dependent on certain calculations, and again to-day I have listened very nearly to the whole of this Debate, including the speech of the Minister of Labour and the speech of the Parliament- 1748 ary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary made no attempt at all to answer the point brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), and I must confess that the answer of the Minister of Labour himself earlier on left me in very considerable doubt personally as to the basis on which the calculations had been made. We were told at the beginning of this afternoon that we would be afforded, in the form of a White Paper, an estimate of how certain figures had been arrived at. It is to be hoped when that estimate comes before us, it will allay the misgiving that many of us cherish as to the accuracy of the figures quoted, because, certainly from investigations that I have made in my constituency, the estimate will prove to be entirely fallacious and incorrect. In view of the fact that we are now only on the first two Clauses how long are we going to take to debate snd settle the remaining Clauses of this Bill?
The Bill is said to be based, and this Clause, too, on certain recommendations of the Blanesburgh Committee. The Blanesburgh Committee's Report, taken as a whole, is a very good one, I think. We have been shown by the right hon. Member for Preston how in this particular Clause the Bill varies materially from the recommendations of the Committee's Report, which, I submit, should be taken either as a whole or rejected as a whole. The hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan) made humorous reference the other day to the qualifications of the Minister of Labour. If I may be allowed to do so, more especially in view of the fact that possibly with one exception no hon. Member on these benches has got up to defend or to help the Minister in the conduct of this Debate, I would suggest that the Minister of Labour would do very much better to swallow his pride and withdraw this Bill and—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot discuss the general conduct of the Minister of Labour.
§ Mr. HUDSONThe point of my remarks was that if the discussions are to continue at this rate we shall, in fact, be wasting our time.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must either discuss the provisions of the Clause, or resume his seat.
§ Mr. HUDSONSurely, we are in order in discussing on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," the extent to which the actuarial basis could be improved, as we have had no figures to support the actuarial basis. Seeing that that is the case on Clause 2, we shall be in a hopeless position when we come to discuss the two Schedules that are mentioned.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must discuss Clause 2, and not talk about the general conduct of the Minister.
§ Mr. E. BROWNWe welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Hudson) as evidence that there are a great many people in this country, in all parties and out of them, who are in grave doubt as to the effect of this Clause, or of the causes that have produced it. The hon. Member has referred to the lack of figures. There are some figures available. We do know that the new class under this Clause is estimated by the actuary to be 1,200,000. The actuary says:
Assuming that the reduction in the number of insured persons which, under the provisions of the Contributory Pensions Act, will result from the exclusion from insurance of persons aged over 65 from January, 1928, will be off-set in a short period by the natural increase in the working population, these numbers are as follows:Then follow the numbers:Youths, ages 18 to 21, 783,000; Girls, ages 18 to 21, 480,000.That makes a total of 1,263,000. Therefore, the Committee knows that it has that reliable figure to go upon. It is now debating the contributions of this class in relation to the benefits, and we have to bear in mind that they affect not fewer than 1¼ millions of young people. I make this point, as there are a number of people outside the House who seem to have come to the conclusion that the new class between 18 and 21 affected by this Clause is only a small one comprising a limited number of young people, whereas it represents 1¼ millions. We know what contributions they will have to pay, but we are not quite sure what benefits they will get. The Minister, through criticisms inside and outside the House, has suggested a new scale. I have been very interested in listening to the speech of the Parliamentary Secre- 1750 tary when he discussed the genesis of this new class. He suggested that, first of all, the Chairman, Lord Blanesburgh, wrote to the chairmen of the local employment committees asking them to call a conference of the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the local Employment Exchange Divisions for the purpose of settling replies to the question which would as nearly as possible reflect the collective views of the local employment committee in that division. I want to go a little further back than that.I have taken the trouble to go through the whole of the evidence, and if the hon. Member for Whitehaven has had doubts, so have I, for when I read the original Report of the Blanesburgh Committee it must be obvious that the four short references to this class do not warrant the step we are now being asked to take by voting for Clause 2. I found during the course of my researches a very delightful exercise in the gentle art of suggestion. That exercise was first commenced by Mr. Price, of the Ministry of Labour, in his original evidence. Hon. Members will find these words on page 49:
There is some evidence of slackness in seeking work among young men and women and I am afraid that is particularly the case where they are still living at home. Parental authority is, no doubt, exercised to some extent, but it gets less as the young man or woman gets a bit older. We say in general that the evidence is insufficient"—Let me repeat that:the evidence is insufficient to enable any final conclusions to be reached as to the general effect of benefit schemes and the relation between rates of benefit to rates of normal earnings for persons between 18 and 20 years of age.It does not say persons between 18 and 21 years of age. Then I find Mr. Price says this:That is a point on which you may be inclined to put questions to later witnesses.I am not exaggerating when I describe that as an exercise in the gentle art of suggestion, and the Chairman of the Committee proceeded at once to act upon it, at first without success. The Committee next received evidence from the Iron and Steel Federation, and in that evidence there was no demand of this kind whatever. Then we go a little further—[An HON. MEMBER: "Safe-guarding!"] If hon. Members have no more intelligent interjection to make than 1751 that, they might pay some attention to those who have taken some trouble to inquire into the matter. In any case, I refuse to be drawn into a discussion on safeguarding. We are trying to safeguard the rights of these young persons. Then comes the interesting evidence, rejected in part by the Committee, of the National Federation of Employers' Organisations. They suggested, among other things, that there should be no benefit up to 18 years of age, that the maximum benefit for girls should be 15s., and that benefits should be graduated between the ages of 18 and 21. They said:It follows that the present high rates of benefit for juveniles tend to undermine the system of apprenticeship and encourage at an early age a disinclination to work.This evidence was given by two gentlemen, Mr. Foster Watson and Mr. John A. Gregorson, and it is worth pursuing by Members of the Committee. Let me go a little further with it. During the evidence questions were put to the witnesses as to their views about this question of 18 to 21 years, and as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out during the Second Reading Debate, the Blanesburgh Committee made the suggestion to the chairman of the local employment areas—the suggestion did not come from the local employment areas to the Blanesburgh Committee—the gentle art of suggestion had become very powerful by this time, and they received from the chairman and vice-chairman of the areas of the local employment committees very mixed replies. The Committee should understand that the replies on the question of making this new class were not unanimous. There were great differences of opinion, and I am not aware from my reading of the evidence that any evidence was called on the part of the employed persons or representatives of those between 18 and 21, as to their views on such a segregation. I find on analysing the evidence one or two considerations which seem to have escaped the attention of the Blanesburgh Committee. There was, for instance, a discussion of this very problem which, in my judgment is the cause of this Clause appearing in the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary rather misquoted the Blanesburgh Report 1752 —quite unintentionally. I give the quotation which he made:We have considered it of the first importance so to frame our scheme that it is as free as possible from all injurious tendencies.… The prior payment of 30 weekly contributions, the reduction in the rate of benefit to young persons … are expressly designed for this purpose.But then the Parliamentary Secretary went on to talk, not about "injurious tendencies," but about "evil tendencies"—a term connoting very different tendencies indeed. "Injurious tendencies" would not be injurious tendencies, affecting this small class only, but affecting the whole realm of 12,000,000 insured persons. With regard to "injurious tendencies," towards not seeking work because the rates of benefit are too high, there are points which the Blanesburgh Committee overlooked, and to which this Committee ought to give attention. There was an examination and analysis of certain claims on this very point. A certain number of claims were queried as being doubtful claims, and in the evidence given before the Blanesburgh Committee I find that 27 per cent. of the total number of these claims—they were 192,480 in number—that is to say, 51,959 claims were examined, and the following is the analysis given to the Committee. With regard to standard benefit, 22.2 per cent. men had claims queried; 47.9 per cent. married women had claims queried; 37 per cent. widows with children had claims queried; and 40 per cent. other women had claims queried.When we come to the boys and girls the proportion of queried claims falls to 10.3 per cent. in the case of boys, and 16.5 per cent. in the case of girls. So, it seems to me that the evidence in regard to queried claims shows that there is less "injurious tendency" at the moment among the boys and girls and the young people than there is among the older people. I go further. I find in Part 4 of the evidence, an analysis in groups of these figures, and all I need do is to point out to the Committee that there are six groups—unskilled workers, workpeople hoping to return to their old employment, rural recruits, married women who did a little work since marriage, and then, young men and women not belonging to a definite trade and young women such as shop assistants, dressmakers, tailoresses, etc., who in 1753 some cases have been discharged by employers to make room for younger persons at less wages. These are the very people who are going to be affected by the proposals contained in this Clause.
We ought not to part with this Clause before we get a great deal more information about the evidence upon which it is based. I have done my best, in my constituency and in other parts of the country, in consultation with those who have to work the Employment Exchanges and with those who have to work the Poor Law organisation and by reading the evidence, to ascertain the truth about this Clause. I share the honest doubts of my hon. Friend. I believe there is in that Report no evidence about these injurious tendencies which is worth calling evidence in this House or in a Court of law.
We are entitled to ask the Committee to reject this Clause because no adequate case has been made out for it by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary on the Floor of the House or in the Report upon which this Bill is supposedly based, because the evidence put up before the Committee was not sufficient, because according to the Report of the Actuary there will be a profit in this section of
§ young people from 18 to 21 and they ought not therefore to be deprived of this profit, and because the evidence given before the Committee as to the need was so vague and so unsatisfactory. This proposal is the result of suspicion and of some little amount of departmental experience and is drafted on a purely departmental basis. This Clause pays no regard to the situation in certain areas where there are thousands of these young people who have never yet had a start. The Committee ought not to part with this Clause, because all the basis we have had is a discussion of general figures covering the whole insurance field, the discussion of 1,260 persons about whom the Minister of Labour knows very little, while neither he nor his Department can form any genuine estimate as to how many are likely to be out of work during the period of transition—
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDrose in his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question he now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 147.
1757| Division No. 366.] | AYES. | [11.0 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Erskine. Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Campbell, E. T. | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Cassels, J. D. | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Albery, Irving James | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Fairfax, Captain J. G. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Cayzer,Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Falle, Sir Bertram G. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. |
| Apsley, Lord | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Fielden, E. B. |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Chapman, Sir S. | Finburgh, S. |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent. Dover) | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Chilcott, Sir Warden | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. |
| Atkinson, C. | Clayton, G. C. | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Gates, Percy |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham |
| Balniel, Lord | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Goff, Sir Park |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Colman, N. C. D. | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Grace, John |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Ccpe, Major William | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Couper, J. B. | Grant, Sir J. A. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Grattan-Doyle. Sir N. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish. | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Bethel, A. | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Grotrian, H. Brent |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Curzon. Captain Viscount | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Dalkeith. Earl of | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Davidson, J.(Hertf'd. Hemel Hempst'd) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hammersley, S. S. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Dawson, Sir Philip | Hanbury, C. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Brown,Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newby) | Drewe, C. | Harland, A. |
| Buchan, John | Eden, Captain Anthony | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) |
| Burman, J. B. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Ellis, R. G. | Hawke, John Anthony |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Murchison, Sir Kenneth | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R.J. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Neville, Sir Reginald J. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Hoare, Lt -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Homan, C. W. J. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Nuttall, Ellis | Stuart, Crichton., Lord C. |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Oakley, T. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.) | Penny, Frederick George | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Pilcher, G. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Power, Sir John Cecil | Thom, Lt. Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Preston, William | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Jackson. Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Radford, E. A. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Raine, Sir Walter | Tinne. J. A. |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Ramsden, E. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Waddington, R. |
| Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Remer, J. R. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Knox, Sir Alfred | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Little, Dr. E. Graham | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Watson. Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Loder, J. de V. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Looker, Herbert William | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Wells, S. R. |
| Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple- |
| Lumley. L. R. | Rye, F. G. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Lynn, Sir R. J. | Salmon, Major I. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Sandeman, N. Stewart | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus | Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| McLean, Major A. | Sanderson, Sir Frank | Withers, John James |
| Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Sandon, Lord | Wolmer, Viscount |
| MacRobert, Alexander M. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Savery, S. S. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyh'dge & Hyde) |
| Malone, Major P. B. | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.) | Wragq, Herbert |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Margesson, Captain D. | Shepperson, E. W. | |
| Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Merriman, F. B. | Smithers, Waldron | Captain Bowyer and Major the Marquess of Titchfield. |
| Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Forrest, W. | Kelly, W. T. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Gardner, J. P. | Kennedy, T. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Gibbins, Joseph | Lansbury, George |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Gillett, George M. | Lawrence, Susan |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston) | Gosling, Harry | Lawson, John James |
| Baker, Walter | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lee, F. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Lindley, F. W. |
| Barnes, A. | Greenall, T. | Lowth, T. |
| Batey, Joseph | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Lunn, William |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | MacDonald, Rt Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Mackinder, W. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Groves, T. | MacLaren, Andrew |
| Broad, F. A. | Grundy, T. W. | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Bromley, J. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | March, S. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Maxton, James |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) |
| Buchanan. G. | Hardie, George D. | Montague, Frederick |
| Cape, Thomas | Harney, E. A. | Morris, R. H. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Harris. Percy A. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Clowes, S. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Murnin, H. |
| Compton, Joseph | Hayday, Arthur | Naylor, T. E. |
| Connolly. M. | Hayes, John Henry | Oliver, George Harold |
| Cove, W. G. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Owen, Major G. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Patin, John Henry |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Hirst, G. H. | Paling, W. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Potts, John S. |
| Dennison, R. | Hudson. R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Riley, Ben |
| Duckworth, John | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Ritson, J. |
| Duncan, C. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Dunnico, H. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) |
| England, Colonel A. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Rose, Frank H. |
| Fenby, T. D. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Scrymgeour, E. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Westwood, J. |
| Sexton, James | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Thurtle, Ernest | Whiteley, W. |
| Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Tinker, John Joseph | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Towneed, A. E. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Varley, Frank B. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Snell, Harry | Viant, S. P. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Wallhead, Richard C. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Stamford, T. W. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen | Windsor, Walter |
| Stephen, Campbell | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Wright, W. |
| Strauss, E. A. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Sullivan, J. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah | |
| Sutton, J. E. | Wellock, Wilfred | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Thomson. Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) | Welsh, J. C. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
1758§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 145.
1759| Division No. 367.] | AYES. | [11.8 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Davidson, J. (Hertf'd. Hemel Hempst'd) | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer |
| Albery, Irving James | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hurd, Percy A |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Dawson, Sir Philip | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) |
| Apsley, Lord | Drewe, C. | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent. Dever) | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) |
| Atkinson, C. | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Ellis, R. G. | King, Commodore Henry Douglas |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Knox, Sir Alfred |
| Balniel, Lord | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Everard, W. Lindsay | Little, Dr. E. Graham |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Loder, J. de V. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Looker, Herbert William |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Fielden, E. B. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Finburgh, S. | Lumley, L. R. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Lynn, Sir R. J. |
| Bethel, A. | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Gates, Percy | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Bird, E. R, (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Gilmour, Lt.- Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | McLean, Major A. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Goff, Sir Park | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Gower, Sir Robert | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Grace, John | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Grant, Sir J. A. | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K. |
| Buchan, John | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Merriman, F. B. |
| Burman, J. B. | Grotrian, H. Brent | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Moore,Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Moore, Sir Newton J. |
| Cassels, J. D. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Murchison, Sir Kenneth |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Hammersley, S. S | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hanbury, C. | Neville, Sir Reginald J. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Harland, A. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
| Chilcott, Sir Warden | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hartington, Marquess of | Oakley, T. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon A. D. | Hawke, John Anthony | Penny, Frederick George |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Plieher, G. |
| Colman, N. C. D. | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Preston, William |
| Cope, Major William | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Radford, E. A. |
| Couper, J. B. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Raine, Sir Walter |
| Courtautd, Major J. S. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Ramsden, E. |
| Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Hoare, Lt.- Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Homan, C. W. J. | Reid, D. D. (County Down) |
| Crookehank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Remer, J. R. |
| Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y,Ch'ts'y) |
| Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon G. F. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsay and Otley) |
| Robinson, Sir T. (Lanc., Stretford) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Wastson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Storry-Deans, R. | Wells, S. R. |
| Rye, F. G. | Stotte, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple- |
| Salmon, Major I. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Sandeman, N. Stewart | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Sanderson, Sir Frank | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Sandon, Lord | Tasker, R. Inigo. | Withers, John James |
| Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Templeton, W. P. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Savery, S. S. | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Womersiey, W. J. |
| Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Shepperson, E. W. | Tinne, J. A. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Smithers, Waldron | Waddington, R. | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich) |
| Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wallace, Captain D. E. | |
| Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Sprot, Sir Alexander | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W | Captain Bowyer and Major the Marquess of Titchfield. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Grundy, T. W. | Riley, Ben |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Ritson, J. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hardie, George D. | Rose, Frank H. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Harney, E. A. | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Baker, Walter | Harris, Percy A. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Sexton, James |
| Barnes, A. | Hayday, Arthur | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Batey, Joseph | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Snell, Harry |
| Broad, F. A. | Hore-Bellsha, Leslie | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Bromley, J. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | John William (Rhondda West) | Strauss, E. A. |
| Buchanan, G. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) |
| Clowes, S. | Kelly, W. T. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Compton, Joseph | Kennedy, T. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Connolly, M. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Cove, W. G. | Lansbury, George | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lawrence, Susan | Townend, A. E. |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lawson, John James | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lee, F. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lindley, F. W. | Viant, S. P. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lowth, T. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Dennison, R. | Lunn, William | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Duckworth, John | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Duncan, C. | MacKinder, W. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Dunnico, H. | MacLaren, Andrew | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | March, S. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| England, Colonel A. | Maxton, James | Welsh, J. C. |
| Fenby, T. D. | Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) | Westwood, J. |
| Forrest, W. | Montague, Frederick | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Morris, R. H. | Whiteley, W. |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Murnin, H. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gillett, George M. | Naylor, T. E. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Gosling, Harry | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Owen, Major G. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Palin, John Henry | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Greenall, T. | Paling, W. | Windsor, Walter |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wright, W. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Ponsonby, Arthur | |
| Groves, T. | Potts, John S. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ It being after Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
1760§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.