HC Deb 13 December 1928 vol 223 cc2450-75
Major-General Sir RICHARD LUCE

I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, to leave out from the beginning to the word "any" in line 29.

The object of this Amendment is to remove the option which is given to local authorities in regard to the working of certain parts of the health services and to insure as far as possible that in future those services which can be administered under existing Acts shall be so administered, and not administered by way of poor relief. I have two further Amendments on the Paper dealing with the same point. I realise that they will not completely carry out the transfer of the medical services from the assistance committees, unless certain further action is taken under Clause 5, but if the Amendment is accepted it will leave practically nothing to be done which would not be automatically done under Clause 5, where power is given to the county councils to direct that other parts of their duties shall be transferred to committees other than the assistance committees.

It does not seem that the Minister is carrying out the first of his proposals completely to co-ordinate the medical services in the area unless this is done. The very first of his proposals two years ago was to co-ordinate medical effort, and to concentrate it. If a large portion of the duties is to be left to the new assistance committee, which is really only taking the place of the old guardians, except, of course, that it is now under a different authority, the effect will not be to divorce the medical service from the other service, although that is so necessary for the effective co-ordination of medical services. The assistance committee does not seem to me to be a really suitable committee to undertake the duties which will be imposed upon it in this way. It will always have, as its first duty, the provision of monetary assistance to the poor in the way that the guardians give it. That is its chief function. There is no doubt that one of the great failures of the guardians in the past has been the administration of the medical service. There have been, of course, notable exceptions, but on the whole, speaking from a professional point of view, one cannot say that the medical services for the poor provided by the guardians have been anything like as good as those administered through voluntary hospitals and so on.

Therefore, I think it must be admitted that it would be advantageous to transfer such duties as are concerned with medical matters—education comes into it also—to those committees which are already devoting their time to, and have been brought up to deal with, these particular subjects in the best possible way. It is difficult to train a new committee in two distinct duties. You are going to start a new assistance committee, and that committee will have to start with the ordinary relief of the poor as its chief function. It will have to be trained in the duty of medical relief. You will be duplicating the work. And you will have to train the committee in work in which other committees are already trained. Moreover, you will have a medical officer of health who is the adviser of the health committees and other committees that deal with these matters. He will be compelled to divide his attention; he will have to be one of the officers in direct touch with this new assistance committee, a duty which it is not really necessary for him to have. Apart from that, it would be only fair to the poor sick to give them the full advantage in every way of what assistance and work and machinery are already set up, or are rapidly being set up under the Acts enumerated in Clause 4. Otherwise they will be still going on under an inferior service such as that which is provided in Poor Law institutions now.

Then, again, it is admitted by everyone that something should be done to remove the stigma which results from pauperism, especially in the case of those to whom the stigma is attached merely from the fact that they are sick or are suffering from some disability. It will be difficult to do that unless there is a divorce between the medical cases and the cases of paupers who are paupers only. There is one further point. Until you can divorce these two services it will be impossible to carry out the new organisation that is required and the co-ordination that is so essential between the voluntary system and the medical systems of the country. That is one of the most important questions to be faced. It will be very difficult to achieve that end until you have one definite authority in each area by whom the co-ordination can be organised. In the matter of details, in deciding how it can be done, I realise that there are certain difficulties. Poor Law hospitals at the present time are very often in the same building as the rest of the Poor Law institutions, and one can realise that there are difficulties in dividing buildings between two authorities. But it seems to me that the object of the schemes which will have to be prepared should be as far as possible to divert the various hospitals and institutions to different duties. That cannot be done as long as each hospital or each institution is doing all sorts of different work in the way that the Poor Law hospitals are doing it now.

The Minister of Health, in his opening speech on the Second Beading of the Bill, expressed himself as favourable to to the eventual divorce of the medical service from the rest of the Poor Law, but he gave two objections. The first objection and the, most important was that many of the local authorities are not now ready for and have not the machinery to carry out the various services as they ought to be carried out under these Acts. We in one of our Amendments have put in a proviso which will get over that difficulty to a great extent, by allowing the Minister to give a time limit to the authorities which are not yet ready. Within that time limit they could still work on their existing method of pauper relief until they are ready. That would give them an incentive to get ready as soon as possible. Otherwise a refractory or reactionary area might go on indefinitely under the present system, and there would be no possibility of making any progress at all. One can quite realise that the assistance committees, once started on medical work and on looking after the sick people under their control, will be very unwilling to give up their work. We shall have over again all the business that we have now in getting rid of the guardians. The committees will be very loath to give up their work, and the various councils will have great difficulty in reorganising the work so as to do away with a large part of what is undertaken by the Assistance Committee. The greatest objection has been removed by the proviso which we propose to put in.

The other objection that the Minister raised was that he was loath to interfere with the local authorities in the management of their own affairs, and that he would prefer to give them the option to work in the way that they thought best. But it seems to me that if there is a danger of their not working according to the best method—it must be agreed that the best method is by the divorce of the medical service from the other services—it is not right to give them this option simply in order that they may have their freedom. If it is desired to give them their freedom simply because they are not ready, we have provided for that, but if it is desired in order that they may act in a reactionary manner, or go slowly without developing along the lines which everybody agrees they should develop, then I do not think it is wise to give them that freedom. For these reasons, I am moving the Amendments that we have put down. We are engaged in a very important piece of work in the reform of the Poor Law, and it does seem that to halt half-way, as it were, would be a great pity, and that it would be very unwise to leave it where it is. Of course, I realise that the vast majority of local authorities will adopt the better method, but it does not seem right to allow those who are unwilling to do so, to work in a reactionary manner.

Mr. WEBB

This is one of those points, I think, on which we ought to respond to the request of the Minister that we should really try to improve his Bill. I do most heartily and with absolute sincerity support the Amendment. I am not going to repeat the points which the hon. and gallant Member has made, because he has put them extremely well. There are some other points which I should like the Minister to consider before he gives a decision. The right hon. Gentleman said with reference to this matter in his Second Reading speech, that the local authorities felt a very natural resentment against being told how they were to do their business, and he wished as far as possible to leave it to them as to how they should do it. I remember that objection being expressed on the Maclean Committee, though I was not a member of that Committee. I should like to distinguish between the objections made. There is the objection to prescribing in an Act of Parliament that this or that function should be carried out by such-and-such a committee. To such an objection I think we ought to defer as far as we can. But it is a much more important matter when it comes to the question of the rights of citizenship. I can understand allowing a municipality or town council to decide by what particular piece of machinery it will carry out a function, but that is a different thing from allowing the town council to decide whether they shall maintain or decrease the rights of a citizen.

An alternative is given under Clause 4, which will be taken by some councils and not by others, as to whether they should treat this public assistance under one or other of the seven Acts as a matter of municipal duty, carrying with it no stigma of pauperism or disqualification or inferiority of status, or whether they should give that same assistance under the Poor Law with the stigma, disqualification and inferiority of status. If the Bill is passed as it now stands, you will have the anomalous situation that in one county a man will receive this form of Government assistance for himself or his dependants, and he will still remain a citizen free from disqualification or in- ferior status. In the next county a man in exactly the same circumstances will be allowed, by the Bill as it now stands, to receive that assistance only in the form of poor relief, receiving exactly the same assistance out of exactly the same fund and the same rates, but in this case it is called poor relief and the recipient will be subjected to all manner of inferiority. It is not merely that there is the disqualification for serving on a council which the right hon. Gentleman's Bill is going to enlarge, but there is the stigma of pauperism involved.

On that let me observe that the biggest reason why this public assistance of a medical character is given is that it is in the interests of the quickest possible restoration of the health of the patient that he should go for treatment at the earliest possible moment. We give very large sums out of the rates to deal with cancer, for instance. In some places that is done under the Public Health Acts and in other places under the Poor Law. If we are going to do that, the only sensible way is to induce the unfortunate people to come at the earliest possible moment before they are incapacitated. The difficulty is that they do not come at once, and we ought to induce them to do so. Unless they do that, you will have the mortality intensified by delay. I want them to come as quickly as possible, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does. I am sure that to give it as poor relief is not the way to induce these people to come as quickly as possible. As to the status of pauperism, I think hon. Members do not realise that that does not merely mean some imaginary or sentimental stigma which we may disregard and largely remove by enabling the pauper to vote. It means a great deal more than that. It means a positive legal disability to which the pauper, as such, is subjected as is no, other citizen. He is actually deprived of some valuable rights in the way of protection because he is a pauper, and for no other reason, whereas if he gets the same amount of public assistance under any- one of these Acts he is not a pauper and he has all these rights.

Let me give one or two instances. It is said by law that if a patient goes even into a voluntary hospital and receives medical treatment as a mere matter of charity, nevertheless he has a right of action against the hospital authorities and the servants of the hospital if there is any gross negligence. The other day I saw in a newspaper a case tried in connection with a maternity home, and though the action was not successful, the right of action was not denied. I do not want to suggest that any considerable amount of damages is going to be obtained, but it is a very valuable safeguard that there should be this liability for an action in case of negligence. Of that, the pauper is deprived, and you will have the anomaly of patients in the same institution, one in one bed and one in the other, the one having full rights and the other being negligibly dealt with with impunity, and without having the right of action in the Courts for negligence. That is a very real diminution of the citizen's status. It may be that it is up to people not to be paupers, but what cannot be defended is the suggestion that all over England, in one county and in one borough, a man receiving assistance will be a pauper and subject to inferiority of status and left undefended against negligence by the superintendent or nurse—I do not like to say doctors, although there have been such cases—and in the next county a similar man receiving the same assistance in the same kind of institution will have full citizen rights. I do not think that can possibly be defended, and it takes the issue altogether out of the category of the town clerk who raises an objection that the town council do not like to be dictated to as to which committee should be concerned with these particular duties.

I would like to defer to that feeling, but it is hardly fair that the desires of this, that, or the other town council, should be allowed to deprive a number of citizens of their full rights. I cite another case. At the present time boards of guardians make use both of voluntary hospitals and public health hospitals on payment for their patients. They will continue doing so. The public assistance committee will, no doubt, have the wisdom, if it has not a good hospital of its own, to make use of some other hospital, voluntary or otherwise, on pay meat. Will it be believed that the question of whether the person sent by a Poor Law authority to that outside hospital—it may be a public hospital or a voluntary hospital—is a pauper or not, will depend on the method of payment to the hospital? I am quoting from the Minister's documents. If payment is made per patient, if each patient sent to the hospital is paid for, as is often the case—then, by direction of the Minister, that is entered as out-door relief to that person and he is therefore a pauper. If, on the other hand, an annual sum of £100 or £1,000 a year is paid to the hospital in order that all the Poor Law authority's patients may be taken in, that is not entered as poor relief, and the person concerned is not a pauper. If the Poor Law authority changes from one method to the other, the status of the patient changes as the method of payment is changed.

That is not the kind of thing that should continue. There should not be this very real difference in status, this tangible difference in right, between two patients, according to the methods by which they are treated but that system will continue unless some such Amendment as this is adopted. The Minister might consider whether he could not even add something to the Amendment, because in the proviso which the hon. and gallant Member intends to move later— Provided that if upon representation made to him by any council the Minister is satisfied that the council is not at present able to provide the required assistance under the several Acts named, the scheme may, for such period us the Minister shall determine, provide for the discharge of these functions by way of poor relief. I should like to see a date fixed. It should be done within five years. But I suggest in any case that some such Amendment as this is necessary in order to avoid an undesirable state of geographical patchiness over England in so important a matter as the citizens' rights of these people.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I cannot help admiring the Parliamentary astuteness of the right hon. Gentleman, who has found an opportunity on this Amendment, of treating us to at least a part of the speech which he intended to deliver on a later Amendment in his own name. Perhaps there may be an opportunity of taking that Amendment and, therefore, I will not enter at length into the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I think I must say this— that in his account of the differences between the treatment of the pauper and of those who are not destitute, he has rather overstated the case. Although I do not say that there is no difference in regard to the legal liabilities of the two bodies concerned, it is not as great as he represents. I can tell him of a recent case in which a Metropolitan board of guardians was sued for damages in regard to a boy whose arm had been injured, and they settled the case with the Judge's approval by paying £1,000.

Mr. WEBB

The plaintiff had no case.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Then it seems to me that the guardians must have been extraordinarily wanting in their duty to the ratepayers if they paid away £1,000 where there was no case. On the other side, the case of the other bodies—the public health authorities or voluntary hospitals—is by no means quite that which the right hon. Gentleman's words might seem to imply. It has been held that a public health authority is not responsible, for instance, where a doctor has discharged a patient from a fever hospital improperly. Again, the governors of a voluntary hospital are not responsible where negligence has been alleged on the part of a nurse acting under the orders of a doctor. Therefore, although the right hon. Gentleman's point is theoretically sound, in practice there is not really the great difference between the two classes of case which he sought to show. Now let me come to the more specific point of the actual Amendment. There I cannot help thinking that we are to some extent at cross purposes and that in reality there is no difference between those who have moved and supported the Amendment, and the policy of the Government. Let no hon. Member run away with the impression that the Government desire that those who have been treated under the Poor Law in the past, in the case of medical relief, should continue to be treated in that way.

Our policy, the policy of the Ministry of Health—at any rate as it is conducted at present—is exactly what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby (Sir R. Luce) desires that it should be. We desire that people who are sick shall be treated according to the nature of their sickness, and not according to whether they are destitute or otherwise. It is perfectly true that that policy cannot be carried out completely, that we cannot achieve the improvements in the health services which form part of the objects of this Measure, until the power which is given under Clause 4 has been actually taken advantage of by local authorities. Of course we desire that local authorities should take advantage of it at the earliest possible moment. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is customary when a Measure of this sort has reached the Statute Book to send out a circular letter from the Ministry of Health to the local authorities calling attention to particular points in the Act and indicating the view of the Ministry as to the intention of the Act and the way in which that intention should be carried out. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that what the local authorities resent is, not that Parliament should impose certain functions on them, but that having imposed those functions by the Act it should go on to say by what committee the functions should be carried out. That is what they object to, but that is not in question here. The question here is whether we are to impose functions on them or not.

It is asked why do we not make this Clause mandatory. I should have thought that there was a very obvious and simple reason and one which the right hon. Gentleman when, to use his own words, he "thinks about it," will recognise as absolutely sound. You have to take things as they are at this moment. Things as they are at this moment do not allow this arrangement to be carried out. Some time must be given to local authorities to make necessary adjustments. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Mover of the Amendment has pointed out, you have a number of mixed institutions. You have institutions in which there are sick people, sometimes being treated in a separate building, sometimes in the same building as other people who are not sick, and there are different kinds of sickness. In order to get the full advantage and effect of the reform that we are proposing, you have to allow the authorities who will be responsible in future, the county councils, to make a survey, not only of the needs, but also of the existing institutions, and you have to consider how those institutions could best be adapted in order to carry out these functions; but that, of course, may mean vast structural alteration, and it is impossible to say that they should immediately carry out the powers given under this Clause, because obviously a certain amount of time must elapse, first for them to consider what is wanted, and then for them to make the necessary arrangements.

Therefore, it will be quite impossible to make this mandatory without giving, as my hon. and gallant Friend clearly saw, the Minister power to suspend it. Is it necessary to say, first of all, that a body shall do so and so, and then that the Minister shall have power to suspend that mandatory provision, when you know very well that it must be suspended everywhere, not because there may not be institutions which can be adapted—although there will be a certain proportion of counties where the institutions do not even exist, and where they will have to be built to carry out these functions—but because, even when they do exist, they must be adapted, and the first thing the Minister will have to do will be to suspend the mandatory provisions of this Clause? I do not think that that would be a wise thing to do. But having made perfectly clear what the policy of the Government is, and that really, as far as policy is concerned, there is in this matter no difference between us and even the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I would say that if my hon. and gallant Friend means by his Amendment that he wants a sort of demonstration of that policy, that it should be made more clear that that is the policy of the Government, I would be willing to give further consideration to that point. I cannot adduce words at this moment to enable me to put them into any form which could be adopted as an Amendment now, but I will give further consideration to the point between now and the Report stage, and if further words can be found to make the intentions of the Government more clear, I shall be very happy to have them inserted then.

Mr. WEBB

May I just say that it is not merely medical difference that is involved?

Mr. CRAWFURD

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his concluding words mean that, in the Amendment which he proposes to make at a subsequent date, he will say in effect that the purpose of this Amendment shall be carried out unless there are reasons to prevent it being done at the moment, that he will make this mandatory except in those circumstances where it is not possible owing to the accommodation not being there?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I could not put what I said in those words, which seem to me to be going a great deal further than what I did say, but I think I made clear to the Committee what I meant. I will try and see if I can think of words which will make it more clear that the policy of the Government was that local authorities should pursue this plan as and when facilities were open to them to do so.

Sir R. LUCE

In view of the sympathetic way in which the right hon. Gentleman has treated this Amendment and of his promise to reconsider the point, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain MACMILLAN

I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, to leave out the words "way of poor relief," and to insert instead thereof the words: the discharge of the functions transferred under this part of this Act. This Amendment raises only a very small point and is really a drafting Amendment. Nowhere else in this Bill do these words "by way of poor relief" appear, and I think it would be better to put in the words I have proposed.

Sir K. WOOD

My right hon. Friend and myself were not quite clear, when we saw this Amendment on the Paper, what the intentions of my hon. and gallant Friend were. Now I understand that it is more of a drafting Amendment than anything else, and we will consider, in conjunction with the Parliamentary draftsman, the point he has raised and see whether it is suitable to insert the words proposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir HENRY SLESSER

I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, at the end, to insert the words: (viii) Or any other enactment mentioned in the scheme. The object of this Amendment—and there is a similar Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan)—is to enlarge the scope of the alternative Statutes. The Clause means, I understand, that if the Local Government Act or the other Measures mentioned be amended, those amended Measures are taken, together with the original Measures, as one method whereby the assistance may be given in contradistinction to poor relief. But what has been in our minds is that it may well be that there are other Statutes which either may exist or be passed in the future which cannot be described as Amendments to the Statutes there mentioned. Let me mention one or two which occur to me as instances. There is the question, first, of the old age pensions legislation, and it may well be that old age pensions legislation will at some time provide for persons who may at present be having relief by way of poor relief as aged persons. They do not appear to be governed by any of the classes of Statutes here mentioned. That is one case. It may also be the case similarly with regard to the administration of widows' pensions, if the scheme becomes enlarged; and, finally, there is the question of the able-bodied. There you have already the Unemployed Workmen Act, and you may in future have other legislation dealing with the able-bodied unemployed, who might be persons who might be assisted by way of poor relief or by virtue of some Act dealing with the able-bodied which gave functions to the local authorities, such as the Unemployed Workmen Act.

What we are suggesting is this, that it does not in any way tie either the Government or the local authorities necessarily to include these matters in any particular scheme. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the matter must be left elastic, but we should like to know whether, seeing that there may be other Statutes passed, and it may be a long time before further legislation is introduced, dealing with different classes of indigent persons who may be assisted either by way of poor relief or by some of the forms of legislation I have in- dicated, it would not be well to contemplate the possibility of alternative assistance not included in the Acts dealing with public health, mental deficiency, and so on set forth in the Clause. I cannot quite see why those particular Acts are chosen as the alternative.

I am not wedded, and I do not suppose the hon. and gallant Member is, to this particular form of words, and it may be that this is not the appropriate way of doing it, but I would ask the Government whether a little more elasticity might not here be given, so that, if contingencies arise, it will be possible within the ambit of the scheme contemplated under this Clause, to deal with other alternative legislation that is not in the Bill. Otherwise, the Government may be in this dilemma, that with every intention in the world of transferring the Poor Law functions to the local government functions, if I may use the term, they will find that they are limited to the seven Acts here set out, and that any scheme which included any other Act would be ultra vires unless a new Act were introduced. So I am appealing for more elasticity. It may be said that the scheme once drafted will he the final scheme when approved under Clause 7, which deals with the approval of schemes, but as I understand it, it may be necessary from time to time to amend the scheme, and, if there is no power to amend the scheme, there ought to be. Therefore, in future, when some new legislation comes into operation, there ought to be powers to deal with that situation, so that the Government will not have to come back to Parliament to get powers, but that there will be sufficient elasticity under the scheme to deal with any alternative assistance that may conic along.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. and learned Member is troubled lest under the provisions of this Clause there should be too great rigidity, and that hereafter some new statutes—I am not certain whether he had in mind any existing statutes—might come in the same category as the other seven Acts which are mentioned in the Clause. That was a, matter which engaged the attention of my Department when the Bill was being drafted, but it did not occur to us to put in a provision that any new legislation which might be passed hereafter should be permitted to be put in the scheme without the express sanction of Parliament. Surely, if we contemplate new legislation, the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that that new legislation will naturally, if it is so desired, contain a provision which will add it to the seven Acts which are named here. That, of course, can be done because the administrative scheme can under Clause 109 be modified from time to time. With regard to existing legislation, it might be of course that there is some Act which has been omitted from the list, and I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone sufficiently into the existing statutes to be able to name one. Some legislation has been omitted, namely, the Lunacy Acts. The reason they have been omitted from the list is that they have been the subject of a recent investigation by a Royal Commission which has made recommendations, and we are waiting an opportunity to introduce legislation, and that will be the time to add the amending Act to the Acts which appear here.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 129: Noes, 216.

Division No. 66.] AYES. [10.1 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Brown, Ernest (Leith) Dennison, R.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Dunnico, H.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Buchanan, G. Edge, Sir William
Ammon, Charles George Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston) Cape, Thomas Fenby, T. D.
Baker, Walter Charleton, H. C. Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Cluse, W. S. Gibbins, Joseph
Batey, Joseph Connolly, M. Gillett, George M.
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Cove, W. G. Greenall, T.
Bellamy, A. Crawfurd, H. E. Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Benn, Wedgwood Dalton, Hugh Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Davies, David (Montgomery) Griffith, F. Kingsley
Broad, F. A. Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Bromfield, William Day, Harry Grundy, T. W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) March, S. Stamford, T. W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Maxton, James Stephen, Campbell
Hardle, George D. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Harris, Percy A. Mosley, Sir Oswald Strauss, E. A.
Hayday, Arthur Murnin, H. Sullivan, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Naylor, T. E. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Hirst, G. H. Oliver, George Harold Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Palin, John Henry Thurtle, Ernest
Hollins, A. Paling, W. Tinker, John Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan) Tomlinson, R. P.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Ponsonby, Arthur Viant, S. P.
John, William (Rhondda, West) Potts, John S. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Riley, Ben Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Kelly, W. T. Ritson, J. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Kennedy, T. Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Kirkwood, P Saklatvala, Shapurji Wellock, Wilfred
Lansbury, George Salter, Dr. Alfred Westwood, J.
Lawrence, Susan Scurr, John Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Lawson, John James Sexton, James Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Lee, F. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Longbottom, A. W. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Lowth, T. Shiels, Dr. Drummond Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Lunn, William Shinwell, E. Windsor, Walter
Mackinder, W. Sitch, Charles H. Wright, W.
MacLaren, Andrew Slesser, Sir Henry H. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Smillie, Robert
MacNeill-Weir, L. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Hopkins, J. W. W.
Albery, Irving James Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Davies, Dr. Vernon Hudson, R. S.(Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Hume, Sir G. H.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Dawson, Sir Philip Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Dean, Arthur Wellesley Hurd, Percy A.
Astor, Viscountess Edmondson, Major A. J. Illfle, Sir Edward M.
Atkinson, C. Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Iveagh, Countess of
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Elliot, Major Walter E. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Ellis, R. G. James Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Wenton-s.-M.) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke Ncw'gton)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Falle, Sir Bertram G. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Berry, Sir George Fielden, E. B. Knox, Sir Alfred
Bethel, A. Finburgh, S. Lamb, J. Q.
Betterton, Henry B. Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Forrest, W. Long, Major Eric
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Foster, Sir Harry S. Lougher, Lewis
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Fraser, Captain Ian Lumley, L. R.
Brass, Captain W. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Lynn, Sir R. J.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Galbraith, J. F. W. MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Briscoe, Richard George Ganzoni, Sir John Macintyre, Ian
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Macmillan, Captain H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Macquisten, F. A.
Buchan, John Glyn, Major R. G. C. MacRobert, Alexander M.
Buckingham, Sir H. Goff, Sir Park Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Bullock, Captain M. Gower, Sir Robert Malone, Major P. B.
Burman, J. B. Grace, John Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Campbell, E. T. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Margesson, Captain D.
Carver, Major W. H. Greene, W. P. Crawford Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Cassels, J. D. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) Grotrian, H. Brent Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. univ.) Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter B. Milne. J. S. Wardlaw-
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Gunston, Captain D. W. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Chapman, Sir S. Hamilton, sir George Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Hanbury, C. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Christie, J. A. Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry Moreing, Captain A. H.
Clarry, Reginald George Hartington, Marquess of Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Clayton, G. C. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Nelson, Sir Frank
Conway, Sir W. Martin Haslam, Henry C. Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Cope, Major Sir William Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Couper, J. B. Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Nuttall, Ellis
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Hilton, Cecil Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Penny, Frederick George
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Perkins, Colonel E. K. Sanderson, Sir Frank Tinne, J. A.
Perring, Sir William George Sandon, Lord Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Savery, S. S. Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Philipson, Mabel Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie Waddington, R.
Pilcher, G. Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W) Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Pilditch, Sir Philip Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Radford, E. A. Skelton, A. N. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Raine, Sir Walter Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Ramsden, E. Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Watts, Sir Thomas
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Wells, S. R.
Reid, D. D. (County Down) Southby, Commander A. R. J. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-
Remer, J. R. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Steel, Major Samuel Strang Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, ch'ts'y) Storry-Deans, R. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Streatfeild, Captain S. R. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Ropner, Major L. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Withers, John James
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Womersley, W. J.
Salmon, Major I. Templeton, W. P. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) Wright, Brig.-General W. D.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Sandeman, N. Stewart Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Sanders, Sir Robert A. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.
Mr. ROBERT HUDSON

I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, after the word "but," to insert the words: where the scheme does not so declare, the receipt of any such assistance by way of poor relief shall not involve any disqualification or disability which would not have been occasioned if the assistance had been provided by virtue of any of the aforesaid Bills and. The object of this Amendment will, I hope, meet with the approval of the Minister, and of all parties in the House. Speaking generally, at present, under the existing law the receipt of Poor Law relief involves certain disqualifications, such as the rights to sit as a member of an urban district council or a rural district council, to receive pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act, and various other disqualifications. It is quite obvious that, if you want people to take full advantage of these new medical services, you want to remove any objection on their part to entering these institutions when they are under the control of the county council. It is with a view to removing any danger of such disqualifications taking place that this Amendment has been put on the Paper. There are two other Amendments with similar objects standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb). The latter goes very much further than my Amendment in that it does not limit the removal of this disqualification merely to persons who receive medical services; it extends it to all persons in receipt of Poor Law relief. The other Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mile End, does not, I am advised, actually carry out the object which he has in view. It is with the view of securing the object that I feel all sides of the Committee have in common that we have put down this Amendment.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I would just like to add a word or two to those of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in urging the Minister to give this matter his serious consideration, and, if he can, to accept the Amendment. I want him thoroughly to understand that there is a strong feeling among Members of his own party that something on the lines indicated by this Amendment should be enacted in this Bill. Those of us who have had experience in the working of local authorities on this very question realise the difficulties that have existed in the past. We welcome Clause 4, but we feel that it ought to be strengthened in the way in which we have indicated. I agree that the other two Amendments on the Paper go much too far; this Amendment merely lays it down that the mere receipt of Poor Law relief by way of medical benefit shall not be a disqualification. I have at present a case in mind where an old lady had to be removed at very short notice to the Poor Law institution hospital. It was impossible to get her anywhere else. The relatives were quite prepared to pay for the cost of that old lady during the time she was in that hospital. But, even in those circumstances, they were advised that she would be disqualified from receiving benefit under the Old Age Pensions Act. That is the sort of thing we want to see remedied. If the Minister does not agree to the form of words as drafted by my hon. Friend, myself and other hon. Members, if he thinks that those words do not exactly fit the case, I hope that he will be able to tell us that he is prepared to give very sympathetic consideration to this matter, and that he will insert the necessary words to cover the point which we all so much desire to see remedied. If he can do so I am sure that it will meet with approbation from all parties in the Committee.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

With the objects, as I understand it, of this Amendment, I am very much in sympathy. That is to say, I sympathise with the view that there ought not to be a, distinction in different counties as to the disqualifications according to the way the local authority has, or has not, adopted the powers existing under Clause 4. But, when we come to consider what the disqualifications or the disabilities may be, we find that they are spread, in fact, over a number of Acts of Parliament. It seems to me that to deal with this matter—and I am quite prepared to do so—it would be much better to deal with it by specific Amendments directed towards these specific points than by words such as those in the Amendment now before the Committee, which would be more or less vague in character. Therefore, I have to try and find out exactly what would be the grievance, or the cause which might become a grievance, which ought to be removed. One which has not been mentioned is that, whilst under Clause 9 a person is not disqualified from being a member of a council of a county or county borough by reason only that he or a member of his family has received medical or surgical treatment, or been an inmate of an institution for that purpose. that exemption from disqualification does not apply to a member of a district council or a parish council. I think we ought to remove that anomaly, and when we come to Clause 9 I propose to move an Amendment which will have the effect of extending the same exemption from disqualification to members of district or parish councils as is given under Clause 9 to members of county or county borough councils.

Then comes the point with regard to old age pensions. Here again, I think, as we have the possibility of persons who might be treated under the Poor Law being treated, as a matter of fact, in some cases, under one of the other Acts, that we ought to try to equalise the position as between the two. I have not put down, but I have a draft of, a new Clause which I think will deal with that point. I will read the terms of the Clause which I propose to put down. On and after the appointed day a person shall not be disqualified for receiving or continuing to receive any pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, or under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, by reason of being an inmate of a Poor Law institution or part of a Poor Law institution specially provided or appropriated for the reception of the sick. There also remains the question of the cases of certain persons who may at present be treated under the Poor Law or under certain other Acts, but who would not, in that case, be in receipt of Poor Law relief—I mean blind persons treated under the Blind Persons Act. There, again, I think I can put down an Amendment to Clause 9 which will deal with them, by adding a few words at the end of line 40 on page 8, to this effect: Or receive relief which could have been granted under the Blind Persons Act, 1920. That. I think, really deals with all the substance, at any rate, of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and although the point which the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about some time ago on another Amendment, as to the difference between the legal position of the two, still remains, yet, as I said at the time, that is more a theoretical than a practical difference. There is not really, I think, any serious hardship. In any case it seems to me that it is not a matter which should be dealt with here, but dealt with whenever the Poor Law as a whole is reviewed. I think when you are transferring the functions of the guardians to new authorities it is only reasonable that the latter should have a certain amount of time in which to see what are the difficulties which confront them in the working of the Poor Law as it stands at present and to make certain representations to the Government as to any alterations which should he made before we actually bring in a Measure to revise and reform the Poor Law. For those reasons I say, first of all, that I do not think the difference in the legal position is a serious matter, and, secondly, that the time to alter it, if it is to be altered, is not now but at some later period.

Mr. WEBB

I hope the Committee will forgive me if I say a few words in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. First of all, I want sincerely to thank him for having given way as far as he has done so, and it is no doubt right that the Amendment which he is prepared to insert is better than the Amendment before the Committee. But the right hon. Gentleman has not carried out the terms of the Amendment which has been moved, because they go so far as to say: The receipt of any such assistance by way of poor relief shall not involve any disqualification or disability which would not have been occasioned if the assistance had been provided by virtue of any of the aforesaid Bills. Therefore, when the Minister of Health has carried out his undertaking and has made the three specific Amendments which he has mentioned, there will still remain the stigma of pauperism, which is a big thing. Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman's experts have told him that what I have stated previously was right in theory, and, if that is so, surely it is time that all this was altered after the admission that there is this loss of status. There is a great deal more than theory in this point. I have been looking into the subject, and I have made inquiries into the particular case which the Minister of Health quoted, where an unfortunate child was shockingly neglected- in a Poor Law infirmary, and the parent of the child actually did recover £1,000, so gross was the negligence. It has been admitted by those who were engaged in that case that the plaintiff had, in law, not a leg to stand upon, and every reported case shows that the pauper has no right of action against the board of guardians or the officials of the board of guardians.

Are we to have no sort of protection in such cases against guardians, workhouse masters, or labour yard masters who are not always humane and kind? Surely a right to take action in cases of that kind is a real protection to the pauper. Surely the Minister cannot defend a distinction of that kind and that is a disability which has not been removed by this Amendment. In what has now been suggested the right hon. Gentleman has not given full effect to the Amendment. It is true that the Judge in the case I have mentioned approved the settlement arrived at, but that occurred because the board of guardians threw up the sponge and came to a settlement. Everybody concerned in that case held the opinion that if the case had gone for trial there must have been a verdict for the defendants.

It is the nature of Poor Law guardians to be timorous just now when there is a Conservative Government in office, and in the particular case I have cited the judge in the interests of humanity allowed agreement voluntarily arrived at to be entered as a judgment. If the Parliamentary Secretary will refresh his knowledge of the law by talking to those concerned in the case I have mentioned he will find that I am stating what is correct. It is a very real disability to every poor woman and child in a workhouse that the authorities concerned are immune from liability in law except under the criminal law. And that is not the whole of it. The pauper status carries a great deal more. For instance, under a great many schemes of the Charity Commissioners a person who is or has been in receipt of Poor Law relief is disqualified. We want to remove that.

Then the right hon. Gentleman said that this ought to wait until there is a general amendment of the Poor Law. There was a general amendment to the Poor Law in 1834, and there was not another until 1927. That is an interval of 93 years, and I am sure we cannot wait that time. I suggest that this is the time, because these 14 Clauses are a big amendment of the Poor Law—the biggest that there has been since 1834. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot see his way to use this opportunity now to accept either the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton (Captain Macmillan), or one of the other Amendments after it has been re-drafted, and so sweep away the pauper status. If he will not take this opportunity, and if we cannot convince the Committee that this opportunity ought to be taken, I. should like to see a Division taken on the point, so that we may at any rate register our protest against the unneccessary continuance of the pauper status.

Mr. BENN

I do not think that anyone will complain of the Debate to-day so far as regards the character of the speeches. They have been confined to the very narrowest limits. Where do we stand now, at three minutes before the Guillotine falls? We have nine questions on the Paper that might be put from the Chair, as well as the question that this important Clause stand part of the Bill. The Minister has found it necessary already to promise three separate Amendments to his own Bill, and he has promised on this Amendment—I do not complain—a further Amendment and a new Clause which will have to be discussed within the limits of the existing

time-table. Despite all the sincere efforts that have been made to confine our criticism within the narrowest limits, most of the time has been taken up by uninvited speeches by the Parliamentary Secretary, and I simply content myself with making this remark, that this is not legislation by the House of Commons, but legislation by the officials of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. R. HUDSON

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS

No.

Question put, "That those words be these inserted."

Tae Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 217.

Division No. 67.] AYES. [10.30 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Ritson, J.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hardle, George D. Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Ammon, Charles George Harney, E. A. Saktatvala, Shapurji
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston) Harris, Percy A. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Baker, Walter Hayday, Arthur Scurr, John
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Sexton, James
Batey, Joseph Hirst, G. H. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Bellamy, A. Hollins, A. Shiels, Dr. Drummond.
Benn, Wedgwood Hore-Belisha, Lesile Shinwell, E.
Bondfiefd, Margaret Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld) Sitch, Charles H.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Briant, Frank John, William (Rhondda, West) Smillie, Robert
Broad, F. A. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Bromfield, William Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Kelly, W. T. Stamford, T. W.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Kennedy, T. Stephen, Campbell
Buchanan, G. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Kirkwood, D. Strauss, E. A.
Cape, Thomas Lansbury, George Sullivan, J.
Chariston, H. C. Lawrence, Susan Sutton, J. E.
Cluse, W. S. Lawson, John James Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Connolly, M. Lee, F. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)
Cove, W. G. Longbottom, A. W. Thurtle, Ernest
Crawfurd, H. E. Lowth, T. Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh Lunn, William Tomlinson, R. P.
Davies, David (Montgomery) Mackinder, W. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) MacLaren, Andrew Viant, S. P.
Day, Harry Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Dunnico, H. MacNeill-Weir, L. Watson, W. M (Dunfermline)
Edge, Sir William Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) March,. S. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Maxton, James Wellock, Wilfred
Fenby, T. D. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Westwood, J.
Forrest, W. Mosley, Sir Oswald Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Murnin, H. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gibbins, Joseph Naylor, T. E. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gillett, George M. Oliver, George Harold Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Palin, John Henry Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Greenall, T. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Windsor, Walter
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wright, W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Ponsonby, Arthur Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Griffith, F. Kingsley Potts, John S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grundy, T. W. Riley, Ben Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Albery, Irving James Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Astor, Viscountess Burnett, Major Sir Richard
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Atkinson, C. Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Berry, Sir George
Bethel, A. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Betterton, Henry B. Hamilton, Sir George Philipson, Mabel
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Hanbury, C. Plicher, G.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Pilditch, Sir Philip
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Hartington, Marquess of Power, Sir John Cecil
Brass, Captain W. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Pownall, Sir Assheton
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Radford, E. A.
Briscoe, Richard George Haslam, Henry C. Raine, Sir Walter
Brittain, Sir Harry Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Ramsden, E.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxt'd, Henley) Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Buchan, John Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Remer, J. R.
Buckingham, Sir H. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Bullock, Captain M. Hilton, Cecil Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Burman, J. B. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Campbell, E. T. Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Ropner, Major L.
Carver, Major W. H. Hopkins, J. W. W. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cassels, J. D. Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Salmon, Major I.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtmth. S.) Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) Sandeman, N. Stewart
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Hume, Sir G. H. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Christie, J. A. Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Sanderson, Sir Frank
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Hurd, Percy A. Sandon, Lord
Clarry, Reginald George Illffe, Sir Edward M. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Clayton, G. C. Iveagh, Countess of Savery, S. S.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Conway, Sir W. Martin James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. O. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Cope, Major Sir William Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Couper, J. B. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Skelton, A. N.
Courtauld, Major J. S King, Commodore Henry Douglas Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Kinloch-Cooke Sir Clement Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Knox, Sir Alfred Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Lamb, J. Q. Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Long, Major Eric Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'cland)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Lougher, Lewis Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Storry-Deans, R
Davies, Dr. Vernon Lumley, L. R. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Lynn, Sir R. J. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Dawson, Sir Philip MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Macintyre, Ian Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Macmillan, Captain H. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Elliott, Major Walter E. MacRobert, Alexander M. Tinne, J. A.
Ellis, R. G. Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Margesson, Captain D. Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Fielden, E. B. Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Waddington, R.
Finburgh, S. Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Wallace, Captain D. E.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Foster, Sir Harry S. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Warrender, Sir Victor
Fraser, Captain Ian Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Galbraith, J. F. W. Moreing, Captain A. H. Watts, Sir Thomas
Ganzoni, Sir John Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Wells, S. R.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Nelson, Sir Frank Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Goff, Sir Park Neville, Sir Reginald J. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Gower, Sir Robert Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Grace, John Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Withers, John James
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Nuttall, Ellis Womersley, W J.
Greene, W. P. Crawford O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Oman, Sir Charles William C. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L
Grotrian, H. Brent Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wright, Brig.-General W. D.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Gunston, Captain D. W. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.

Question put, and agreed to.

It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.