§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
§ Mr. TINKER
I take objection to the consideration of this Bill coming on at this time. We have had this Bill before us on four occasions, and only once have we ever had any time to debate it. I am not convinced of the need of this Bill, and I claim that the people who will get extra benefit from it are certainly not in need. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury argued that this scheme ought to have been in operation in 1919, and that these people have been suffering since that time. I submit that that argument cannot be put forward now, because since 1919 the cost of living has fallen, and when the wages of working men have fallen and we have asked that something should be done for them we have been told that the relative position now is comparable to that in 1914. If that be so, then these men in the Diplomatic Service are certainly not entitled to have more benefits than other people. There are many other anomalies which require attention apart from the case of these particular men. If there is an injustice being done to these men, what about the injustice that is being done to old age pensioners? At 2582 the Tory party conference it was argued that 10s. a week is not enough. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did your party do for the old age pensioners?"] We tried to pass a Bill, which was defeated, to increase the pension to £1 per week. It was objected to by the party opposite.
§ It being Four of the Clock the Debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.