§ Lord E. PERCYI beg to move, in page 9, line 35, to leave out the words "for the purpose of payment of grant," and to insert instead thereof the words "as efficient."
The effect of the Amendment will be that persons who attend a course of instruction can be credited with contributions if they attend a school recognised by the Board of Education as efficient, whether or not the Board of Education recognise it for the purpose of the payment of grant. When I first read this Clause as it stands, I thought for one moment there was some intention behind it to confine its benefit to schools which were grant-aided by the Board of Education, with, perhaps, a view to giving those schools a definite advantage. But I do not believe that that is the case. I think that we all wish to deal in this matter with the young person as a person quite irrespective of the kind of education that he is going through. All we are anxious to do is to encourage that young person to stay at any efficient school as long as possible. I want to prevent him from prematurely going into employment. The President of the Board of Education, in the course of a Debate the other day, event went as far—I could not have gone quite as far myself—as to say it was better for a child to be in the most inefficient school than in the best employment.
The effect of the Clause as it stands I can explain better by giving an actual instance. Take Dulwich College, in South London. Dulwich was in receipt of a grant from the Board of Education for some years. It has now ceased to receive grants, but it still admits, and will, I hope, always continue to admit, a number of free place scholars from the London elementary schools. Under this Clause, a boy who went from an elementary school to Dulwich and stayed there until the age of 16 and then entered some insurable employment, would receive no credit for 179 his education in Dulwich College, while a similar boy of the same age who went to a grant-aided secondary school would receive credit for the time he spent at that school. I think the whole Committee will concur that, as we are dealing with the child and trying to keep him on at any efficient school anywhere as long as possible, the benefit credit shall be extended to the child, no matter at what school he attends, as long as the Board of Education recognises it as efficient. The only difficulty I can see is that it might be said that the mere machinery of this proposal offered a difficulty, as in the case of the grant-aided school the local education authority can certify that the child had actually been at the school, whereas, if it is an independent school, though inspected and declared efficient by the Board of Education, the local education authority might know nothing about it. I think the Committee will agree that a certificate from the headmaster, seeing that it is a school recognised as efficient by the Board of Education, is a quite sufficient guarantee that the young person had actually been at the school for a certain period and gone through a certain course of instruction.
§ Miss BONDFIELDI have been considering this Amendment in the light of the report of the National Advisory Council. I say at once, without any waste of time, that, as far as I can see, there is nothing in it which conflicts with the recommendations of the Council, and in so far as the Amendment does in any way widen the area of educational opportunities, I am prepared to accept it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made:
§ In page 9, line 40, leave out the word "to," and insert instead thereof the word "for."—[Miss Bondfield.]
§ Lord E. PERCYI beg to move, in page 9, line 41, to leave out the word "eighteen," and to insert instead thereof the word "nineteen."
The present position under the Clause is that a person is credited with contributions up to the age of 16, but not beyond, and that none of the contributions with which he is credited can be taken into account in any claim for benefit which he makes after the age of 18. My pro- 180 posal is that contributions shall be credited to him up to the age of 18, and that at any rate he should receive the benefit of those contributions in respect of any claim he may make up to the age of 19. I agree that the extra year is not very much, but you must hold out some carrot to a donkey, so to speak, and it is necessary that the right to receive some benefit for contributions credited shall continue beyond the time to which those contributions would be credited.
The main point is the question whether you should in an Act of Parliament lay down the assumption that the age to which the future insured worker may reasonably expect to be educated is not beyond 16. It may be true that the Amendment is one more of principle than of practice, but what you are saying here is this: The Bill foreshadows and presupposes that a child shall be compelled to remain at school till 15 years of age, and if he remains one year longer, contributions can be credited, but if he presumes to stay on at a secondary school up to the age of 18 and then goes into insurable employment, those last two years of education shall not be years in which he can be credited with any contributions. I do not think that is desirable. I know there is a kind of idea that if a boy stays on at a secondary school until 18, he is destined for some black-coated employment which shall not be insurable, and that there is no reason for anybody who is going to be a mere insurable worker, to stay on at a secondary school until 18.
It is immensely important that we should lay it down quite clearly that for any boy whose ability justifies it, no matter to what employment he is going afterwards, a secondary school education up to the age of 18 is worth while, and may be immensely worth while in insurable employment in enabling him to rise to a high standard. I confess that, to a certain extent, this is not an Amendment of substance, because it does not make any Amendment of the limitation in the Bill as to the total number of contributions which can be credited to any person remaining at school. I should like to alter that, but I have hesitated to put clown any Amendment because it would affect, to a certain extent, the financial position of the fund, and I do not feel that any Amendment which would affect 181 that position, considering the serious jeopardy in which the fund is under the Bill as it is should be moved by anyone but the Government.
Of course the Minister may have a complete answer to the technical side of my Amendment if she replies by saying that such a boy will have all the contributions credited to him that can be credited before he reaches the age of 16, so what is the good of extending it to the age of 18? I wish she would herself move an Amendment enabling a boy who does stay at school until he is 18 years of age to be credited with more contributions. A certain number of contributions should be credited for every year that a boy stays at school. I do not want to go into an Act of Parliament that we assume that the future insurable worker has no use for a secondary education between the ages of 16 and 18. I know that hon. Members opposite object to my views about the compulsory school-leaving age, but I think they will agree that I have always been very keen on providing opportunities for every boy who desires to do so to stay on at a secondary school until the age of 18, and get a full secondary education. I do not want anything put into an Act of Parliament which would seem to imply that that is an unnecessary and irrelevant idea for a boy who is to go into an insurable occupation.
§ Miss BONDFIELDI am sure that the Committee is in sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the Noble Lord, but I think he has overlooked the technical position in more ways than one. Under the present provision, a young person under 18 years of age is subject to the full statutory conditions of 30 contributions; over 18 a person comes under the transitional conditions. That is to say, that under 18 these young persons must have shown that they have had 30 weeks' work. These provisos, which have been worked out by the National Advisory Councils, are to relax the conditions on behalf of those young persons under 18. Persons over 18 come under the transitional regulations, and are in a different category. In these circumstances, I cannot see that the argument put forward by Noble Lord has very much substance in it. There is another point that I am very anxious to maintain, and that is that the national advisory councils have given particular care and attention to these pro- 182 visions, they have thought them out well and have made valuable suggestions, and I am very desirous of maintaining in this Clause the provisions laid down by the National Advisory Councils. If hon. Members look at the Order Paper they will find that hon. and right hon. Members opposite cancel each other out, because the Amendment which follows the one now moved by the Noble Lord desires to reduce the credit in regard to age, just as this Amendment desires to increase it. In view of that fact it seems to me that it would be wise on my part to maintain the position laid down in the Clause, and resist the Amendment.
§ Mr. HARRISI am sorry that the Minister of Labour is suspicious of the Noble Lord. I agree that hon. Members behind him, in their subsequent Amendment are proposing something reactionary, but there is no reason why when the Noble Lord comes forward with an excellent suggestion, representing the views of the Committee, that the right hon. Lady should not accept in principle what he advocates. There could be nothing more fatal than that the idea should get abroad that a boy should necessarily leave school at the age of 15 or 16. The future of our industrial cadets largely depends upon our encouraging them to stay, I will not say at school but at some place of education up to the age of 17, 18 and even later. The reason why such immense progress is made in the United States of America and Germany is because engineers, mechanics and craftsmen go on with their education until they are 17, 18 and 19 years of age. The Noble Lord made great play of the word "secondary" education. I am sorry that he laid such emphasis on secondary education, because the argument applies equally to technical schools and polytechnics.
§ Lord E. PERCYI should have liked to have said that, but there is in this Bill what seems to me an extraordinary provision that you shall not be credited with any contributions if you are at the same time paying contributions yourselves. If you are attending a technical college, part-time day classes, you will be paying contributions and, therefore, the question of credit does not arise.
§ Mr. HARRISI was not referring to that. The Noble Lord knows that there 183 are mechanics, engineers and others who go on for the full-time course by the aid of scholarships from county councils, and even from the Board of Education. They go to technical colleges, the Royal College of Arts, etc., and obtain training as designers and as engineers. It is common knowledge that there is a very large amount of unemployment amongst skilled engineers. There may be similar unemployment at a future time of industrial depression, when engineers will be very glad to draw benefit under the Unemployment Insurance scheme owing to the fact that their training centre was a technical college or a polytechnic. It is difficult to alter a Bill where financial difficulties have always to he faced, but I am sorry that the Minister of Labour was not a little more sympathetic to the idea expressed in the Noble Lord's Amendment. The Amendment is excellent and deserves every support and sympathy.
Viscountess ASTORI would ask the right hon. Lady to accept the Amendment. If she will cast her mind back she will remember that on the 1924 Act when the proposal was made to lower the age of insurance to 15 a tremendous fight was carried on by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who said that if the insurable age was lowered it would be prejudicial to the raising of the school age. That is what we have had to fight for. Now, the right hon. Lady is bringing in a Bill which as far as juveniles are concerned is really opposed to the principle of raising the school age, and is going to make it more difficult for the further raising of the school age. Although hon. Members apposite may not agree with me on these matters, I think that everyone who is interested in education are hoping that the school-leaving age will be raised eventually to 16. That is what we have to fight for. The Amendment favours the principle which the Government and hon. Members opposite have been talking about for the last four and a half years.
I cannot see why hon. Members opposite should sit silent and allow this Amendment to fail, and say nothing about it. It shows that the Government are far more interested in the funds of the Insurance Bill than they are in the education of the juveniles. If the Government 184 do not accept the Amendment, it will be very difficult to get children to go in for secondary education. It is hard enough already, and the right hon. Lady is making it harder. By making 15 the age at which children can come into insurance, she is making it more difficult for us to raise the school age. If she does not accept this Amendment, she will make it almost impossible for those of us who are interested in secondary education to get the children to stay on at school. I hope that she will accept the Amendment and prove her goodwill to some of us who have fought even against our party and against her party for the raising of the school age. It is not only against one party that we have had to fight for the raising of the school age.
The late Minister of Education told us, when there was a majority for raising the school age to 15, that it was not popular. We all knew it was not popular, but some of us fight for things that are not popular with our own party; and some of us would never sit still and let things for which we fought go by; we should not sit still like mice. I am deeply disappointed with the right hon. Lady. The whole policy of this Bill in regard to juvenile unemployment is not in the interests of the children themselves but in the interests of the fund. I hope the right hon. Lady will think well before she finally turns down the Amendment. She must not take too much heed of the extremists on our side or her own side; they do not really represent the opinion of the country.
§ Mr. O. STANLEYI congratulate the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountes Astor) for having disturbed the rather unnatural placidity with which the Debate so far has been conducted. I had hoped that the right hon. Lady would have answered this perfectly serious Amendment in a rather less perfunctory manner. It raises a large question of educational principle. Some of us are rather concerned with the fact that a parent is inclined to look on secondary education, at whatever age, as merely an avenue to a particular form of career unconnected with industry, and anything of this kind, which seems to mark out the child who, takes on a secondary career from a child that goes into the ordinary industrial occupation, seems to me to have rather an evil effect. The right hon. 185 Lady did not give any satisfactory reason for refusing to accept what I believe the Committee is agreed upon in principle. She sheltered herself behind the Report of a Committee. She said that the Juvenile Advisory Committee have considered it, and it was not in their Report. I should like to remind her that another Committee sat not a very long time ago, the Morris Committee, which made perfectly lucid recommendations about certain other things, and she has not taken such a firm stand behind the Report of that Committee. I hope she will look at the Amendment in a rather broader spirit, and recognise that it has a real point of educational substance behind it. The President of the Board of Education, if he were listening to the Debate, would no doubt confirm this, and might consider whether it is not possible, without sheltering behind technicalities, to do something to meet the obvious wishes of Members of the Committee in all parts of the House.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKI do not think we should allow the Amendment to go seeing that we have both Ministers responsible for education on the Front Bench and not one of them has attempted to answer the Noble Lord, or listened to a single word that has been said. Perhaps the President of the Board of Education will listen now and favour the Committee with his views on the matter. The Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) has told us that she has fought for many unpopular causes. We know that, but the cause of education is not one which is particularly unpopular, taking the Committee as a whole: and as far as I understand the Amendment it has nothing to do with the dim future and the further raising of the school age to 16, but applies to circumstances here and now, where there are boys and girls voluntarily undergoing second education without any compulsion on the part of the State. It is their position we are anxious to safeguard, and I should have thought that it is the position of such boys and girls, who are able to take advantage of the facilities which exist, whose position the President of the Board of Education ought to safeguard. He should come forward and say a word on their behalf, and try and persuade the Minister of Labour to see that she is going a little beyond her province 186 when she says that it is not exactly what the National Advisory Committee recommended. I remember on a previous occasion when the Blanesburgh Committee was being quoted that the Secretary for War used to utter diatribes against the constant quoting of the Blanesburgh Committee. We may say that it is not the National Advisory Committee which is to control our activities, but Parliament itself. I ask the right hon. Lady to be a little more forthcoming and give in to the reasonable appeal which has been made by hon. Members.
§ Miss BONDFIELDThe whole purpose of this particular provision is to enable youths up to the age of 18 to qualify for benefit by assisting them with credit stamps to secure the necessary maximum contributions. That carries him right up to the age of 18. The age from 15 to 18 is dealt with in this Clause. The Amendment would overlap that period and carry them into the adult age, which is dealt with by other provisions. That seems to me to be the proper course. It is not that I refuse to increase educational facilities, but it seems to me the commonsense view when dealing with the age group from 15 to 18.
§ Lord E. PERCYI want to understand what the right hon. Lady's point is. It seems to be this. The object of these credited contributions is to make sure that the young person between the age of 16 and 18 can claim benefit?
§ Miss BONDFIELDCan qualify for benefit.
§ Lord E. PERCYIt is not necessary after the age of 18, because a person after that age can qualify for benefit, whether he has made contributions or not. Is that the case?
§ Miss BONDFIELDIt is not the case.
§ Lord E. PERCYThen I fail to understand the position. The right hon. Lady says that after 18 years of age the person comes under the transitional provisions, and no matter how many contributions they have made they can receive benefit out of the coffers of the State.
§ Lord E. PERCYI want to know. I want to find out whether it is the right hon. Lady's case.
§ Miss BONDFIELDDuring that period a young person is qualified and credited with the stamps. When they get to 18 they come under the transitional provisions.
§ Lord E. PERCYI quite understand why it is of so supreme importance that you should have this credit system between the ages of 15 and 16. They are not credited with any contributions after 18. The right hon. Lady's case is it is of supreme importance that contributions should be credited between 16 and 18 in order that young persons between those ages shall be able to qualify although they remain at school. But she says that at the age of 18 conditions for qualification are far more stringent, and, therefore they do not need to be credited with any contributions. Is not that the case? Mark what, an extraordinary argument this is—"I want to consider whether it is desirable or justifiable for the Insurance Fund to credit contributions between the ages of 16 and 18, because I have made special transitional provisions whereby anyone—"
§ Miss BONDFIELDI beg your pardon; it is not I who did it, but your side.
§ Lord E. PERCYThe Minister is now basing herself, as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite usually do, on her predecessors. It is the lack of originality of which I complain. Because a thing is old, they say, what is the good of saying whether under an insurance scheme a boy of 16 to 18 should be credited with contributions, because we have made special transitional arrangements by which they shall get that money, not out of the Insurance Fund but out of the Exchequer. Really that is no far-sighted way of dealing with a matter of this kind, and especially with an educational problem.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Duchess of ATHOLLThe Minister in resisting the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), as on former occasions has sheltered behind the recommendations of the Advisory Councils. 188 But in doing so she overlooked a very important part of that recommendation—that contributions should be paid on the strength of full-time attendance at instruction centres. I can find nothing in the Clause as drafted to ensure that the attendance shall be full-time attendance. I would remind the right hon. Lady that this qualification of full-time attendance was not only required by the English Advisory Council but by the Salvesen Committee. As a rule a, child does not attend a juvenile centre more than 15 hours a week. Apparently under the Bill contributions are to be credited as much for half-time as for full-time attendance at a day school, either primary or secondary.
With regard to the juvenile instruction centres, we know that the children attending are free to leave as soon as they get a job, and to walk in again on any day when they have fallen out of employment. It is therefore extremely difficult to get, in these centres, anything in the nature of continuous and consecutive instruction. Though I yield to no one in my admiration of the work of these centres, yet I do not think that anyone who has studied the work that they are doing from an educational point of view can put that work alongside the work of the full-time day school from the standpoint of real consecutive and carefully planned instruction. This seems to be a very grave defect in the Clause. Then again, if we come to attendance at continuation classes, the Minister must know that very often a young person attending such classes is in employment and attends the classes for part time only. There is nothing in the Clause to leave out cases of that kind. Are we to understand that even if a young person is in employment for more hours in the week than the hours during which he is receiving instruction, contributions are to be credited to him without any contribution being required from him?
10.0 p.m.
This point is worthy of serious attention. The Clause, as drafted, is far too wide and has gone far beyond the recommendations which the Minister has had from any council. I do not think that the English Advisory Council has really devoted a great deal of time to the consideration of this question. There really has not been much time for any council to give consideration to this very important point since these questions were 189 referred to it by the Minister. If we look at Sub-section (3) we find a reference to the question how far holidays are to be allowed to count in calculating periods of attendance. That goes very much beyond any recommendations that the Minister has received. The matter calls for a great deal of thought. We must beware as to how far we encourage people to regard attendance at a half-time centre or continuation class as a favour which they are conferring on anyone. We want, surely, to encourage the children to regard attendance at any class or school as a privilege which they, on their part, will turn to good account.
I want to ask the Minister's attention to another very serious point, which I can hardly believe has escaped her notice, and that is that this crediting of contributions in respect of insurable occupations seems to me to weight the scales still further against young people who desire to enter uninsured occupations. On the Second Reading she spoke to us of her desire to include agriculture among the insured occupations and she frankly said that she saw great difficulties in doing so. She certainly gave the House to understand that she was not yet in a position to recommend any proposal either for including agriculture under the existing insurance scheme, or for drawing up a special scheme for agriculture. It seems to me inevitable that, if young people know that by attendance at a school, or continuation class, or Juvenile Instruction Centre for a year, they will pile up as much as 20 contributions towards benefit, provided they have entered an insured occupation, they will hesitate even more than some of them do now before entering an uninsured one. I need not enlarge on the difficulties in which the agricultural community finds itself and it seems to me that this Clause is going to add greatly to those difficulties. I feel that the right hon. Lady is going to rush agriculture on the rocks of those very difficulties which she described to us on the Second Reading.
There is another very important occupation which is uninsured, namely, domestic service. I know I shall have the Minister with me when I point out the importance of this occupation and how it is the best preparation for the art of home-making, an art which has to be practised at some time by almost every woman in the country. It is an occupa- 190 tion on which the health and comfort and happiness of the homes of this country largely depend. The right hon. Lady must know as well as I do how grave is the deficiency in the number of young people who are prepared to enter domestic work. The difficulty of getting domestic assistance is experienced in every home in the country. It applies to homes of every kind, and, indeed, probably most of all to the homes where, as a rule, only one or two assistants are desired. She must know how many women who have duties to perform outside their homes experience great difficulties because they have to give so much time to home duties which in former times would have been devoted to those outside duties. She must know of the number of professional women who have to give time to domestic work which they would be much better qualified to devote to painting or writing or something of that kind. The difficulties of which I speak are experienced by people in homes of all kinds, but most of all I believe by those who only need the services of one girl to help them. We all know the difficulty which these people experience in getting help of any kind.
Further, I venture to think that the reluctance of girls to enter domestic service adds to overcrowding in a great many homes. Girls of 15 and 16 are staying at home, looking out for insured work, instead of going into private domestic service, and this, undoubtedly, adds to overcrowding in the homes of those girls. The right hon. Lady, I am sure, is aware of these considerations, and I raise this question because it is essentially one for women. Women can appreciate the position in which practically all the housewives of this country find themselves in this matter. Every housewife knows that at any moment she may be bereft of assistance which is of great importance to her and she may be very hard put to it to find any alternative assistance. It is only a few months ago since the Minister and I spoke at a large public meeting specially convened to deal with this matter, and the right hon. Lady yielded to no one in her recognition of the shortage of domestic workers and the importance of work of this kind, and she made an eloquent speech well calculated to help young people to realise its importance.
191 It seems obvious that this Clause is bound to increase the reluctance which some young people feel about entering this occupation. When they know that they will have these contributions credited to them if they go into an insured occupation, such as clerical work, as we all know is, then, inevitably, this Clause will seriously increase the shortage of domestic workers. That point seems to have escaped the attention of the Committees which have made the recommendations on which the right hon. Lady has, so far, acted, but I submit that it was not the duty of either the Malcolm Committee or the Salvesen Committee to consider these points. They were set up to consider mainly educational matters and I dare say this larger point of view never occurred to them, or if it did, that they did not consider it to be within their terms of reference. But here I submit we have to take an all round view. We have to think of the needs of the country as a whole, and we cannot afford to leave out of account the need for a steady supply of labour to our basic industry of agriculture, nor can we afford, in the interest of the physical and moral well-being of our homes, to leave out of account the serious effects which I am certain this Clause will have on the supply of young people for domestic service.
§ Mr. SANDERSI think that on this side of the Committee we have appreciated the orgy of enthusiasm for education which has been displayed on the other side, but, instead of criticising the Minister in connection with this Clause, that enthusiasm, so eloquently and frequently displayed this evening, might have been followed by thanks to the Minister for drawing such a wide Clause—a Clause that will give countless opportunities for providing that education and training which Members on the other side seem to be longing to establish as the right of all young persons. We have just heard that it is degrading to education to drive young people to attend continuation classes by offering them the magnificent sum of 20 contributions which amounts to 8s. 4d. The Noble, Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) comes from Scotland and probably knows the attractive power of 192 8s. 4d. to a country man or a country woman; but I can assure her that offering 8s. 4d. to boys or girls of 16 or 17 in London will not be a sufficient attraction if they do not want to go to training centres. Therefore there is no danger of degrading—
Duchess of ATHOLLThe juvenile instruction centre really cannot he called a training centre. It is better described as a centre for social salvage.
§ Mr. SANDERSThat rather indicates that a great deal of this talk of education for young people of 16, 17, and 18, while they are out of work, is fallacious. I know something about education. I was for nine years on the London County Council Education Committee, and I was Chairman of the Evening Schools and Polytechnics Sub-committee, and I know very well that a good deal of the education given there, excepting where the students were really in earnest and attended voluntarily very regularly, was not of a remarkably fine order; but the advantage of the evening schools and the polytechnics is that there is an opportunity offered in those institutions for talent which desires to train itself, and I do not think that any kind of training centre for children in and out of work is going to do much more than steady them. It is not going to give them very much valuable education, but it may just be sufficient to keep them from acquiring habits that are not desirable in young citizens. Therefore, if we want to prevent these young persons from acquiring certain habits that can be found in the streets of London and elsewhere, not only by giving them an opportunity, but by pressing them, to go to these training centres, we may not be educating them very thoroughly, but we are doing, through the Ministry of Labour, what the other side have asked us to do, and that is to make a certain disciplinary order in return for the amount of contributions these people receive.
That, in my opinion, is as much as we can expect. If we are going to talk seriously of education, we must deal with it entirely apart from the question of unemployment, and I do not think that whether or not we give contributions up to the age of 18 for children to go to secondary schools, it will have any influence whatever on how many children 193 go there. Quite another set of difficulties, of principles, and of circumstances must be brought into account when we are discussing education, and therefore, as I have said before, I think we ought to be grateful to the Minister of Labour for drawing up this very wide Clause, under which she will be able to make large and varied experiments in dealing with the unfortunate young people who are not engaged in steady and continuous employment.
§ Captain BOURNEI am sure the hon. Member opposite will forgive me if I do not pursue the educational aspect of this Clause. The point on which I should be obliged to the Minister for a reply is on the financial effect of this Clause, because, so far as I have heard the Debate, it has been confined entirely to the educational aspect. As I understand this Clause, it is proposed to credit juveniles between the ages of 15 and 16, provided they are attending certain approved forms of education—and into the merits of that I will not go—with 20 contributions for the year, and these contributions are not to be effective after the juvenile attains the age of 18. The Minister explained on the last Amendment that that was not necessary, because after the age of 18 they come under the transitional provisions of either this Bill or the Act of 1927. As I understand the Unemployment Insurance Act, contributions are received from three sources, namely, the employer, the employed and the State.
It is obvious that, in the case of the child who is attending an instructional course, he or she has no wage from which a contribution can be made, and for that child there must obviously be a credit if any contribution is to be paid. The same would appear to apply to the employers, because you can hardly count the education authorities under which the child is receiving instruction as employers. What is the position of the third party to the insurance, the State? Does the State make a contribution in respect of each of these juveniles who, for the purpose of this Clause, is being credited with 20 contributions? If no provision is made at all, I should be obliged if the right hon. Lady can give some estimate as to what is really to be drawn from the fund for the credited 194 contributions, for which no money has been paid by anybody.
I represent in this House a city which has very little unemployment, and where the bulk of the people who pay unemployment insurance contributions have had very little need to draw from the Fund. We are very largely dependent on a certain industry, and should anything happen to render that industry less prosperous, there would be a very heavy drain by my constituents-upon that Fund in respect of contributions which, in the vast majority of cases, they have made for many years, and in respect of which they have drawn nothing. In justice to them, it is my business to see that no provision is put into this or any other unemployment Measure, which might prejudice their rights, and one of the most important features of this Clause is the amount of liability which it will put upon the Bill when it comes into force.
So far as we have had any estimate, I understand that the amount of juvenile unemployment during the next few years is likely to be pretty small. In that case, I am puzzled to see what benefit any juvenile is going to gain by the credit of contributions up to the age of 18, when the probability that they rill be out of work is not very grew. The right hon. Lady must assume that there will be at least a reasonable proportion of juvenile unemployment between 16 and 18 in the next few years, or she would not have inserted this Clause. We ought to know whether any contribution is to be paid from the Exchequer towards the credited contributions, and what is the total amount which the Government actuary estimates is likely to be thrown on the Fund in consequence of the Clause. I agree that one of the results of this Clause may be to prejudice and put a weight in favour of the insurable employments as against the uninsurable employments. That particularly concerns agriculture, and one or two employments of that kind, which are not in the Bill. Of these, far the most important is agriculture, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will consider the position of agriculture between now and the Report stage, and see if something cannot be done to prevent the scales, which are heavily weighted against intelligent boys and girls in the agricultural industry, being still more heavily weighted in consequence of this Clause.
§ Mr. HARRISI did not quite understand whether the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) was in favour of this Clause or against it; nor do I understand whether the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University, who spoke last—
§ Captain BOURNEMay I inform the hon. Member that I do not represent Oxford University, but Oxford City.
§ Mr. HARRISThe hon. and gallant Member speaks for a more important place than I gave him credit for. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oxford City with its historic traditions; ought to be associated with educational advance. I was not quite clear whether he was against this Clause or for it, whether he thought it was a good way of making provision or a had one. The hon. Member opposite also seemed a bit confused. I could not quite follow whether he was for or against the Clause. He suggested that the educational value of attending a course recognised by the Board of Education was not so very great.
§ Mr. SANDERSMy point was that when attendance there was broken by employment for short periods it would not be of such great value.
§ Mr. HARRISObviously, the hon. Member has not read the Clause, because it is one to provide for people who have not gone into industry. The idea is to persuade young people to stay on at school instead of going into industry. That is why I am in favour of it, and I thank the right hon. Lady for bringing it in. It is a natural sequence to the first Clause. If we are to bring into insurance young persons between 15 and 16 years of age who go to work, it is essential that those who stay on at a continuation school or a technical college ought not to be in a worse position so far as insurance is concerned.
§ Major GLYNAfter the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), I confess that I am still at a loss to know where the Liberal party stands in regard to this Clause. All would agree, I think, that it would be preferable for juveniles who are unable to get work to attend some school of 196 instruction rather than to hang about Employment Exchanges, but does the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken really believe that it would not be to the advantage of the juvenile to get into a trade as soon as possible if he can find a job? I believe it is the greatest nonsense in the world to suppose that it is beyond our capacity as a nation to make regulations in conjunction with the trade unions and others under which a juvenile could enter a trade to learn his or her work, and at the same time, as part of that work, gain experience and instruction which would help him or her to go right forward in that industry.
There is a terrible lot of nonsense talked—[Interruption.] I am trying to break away from it. There is a certain amount of nonsense talked about young people not getting in their jobs at too early an age—providing those jobs are properly supervised. No one wants to advocate child labour, but I am convinced that many a skilled craftsman of 40 or 50 who is working to-day, and is proud of his work, does not in the least regret having gone into industry as a juvenile. There is more chance that a young person will take pride in his work and become skilled if he goes into his trade early than if he attends some school where there is no guarantee that the teacher will be really capable of making the work interesting. When I was young I had to go to school—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may believe that my instructors were indifferent teachers. While we agree about the machinery for giving instruction, it is necessary to see that the standard among those who impart the instruction is of an ever-increasingly high order.
The hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Sanders), in his interesting speech, said that these places are not so much places for instruction as for social salvage. That is quite true. Obviously, the education is to be taken in stages. First of all, you want to save the juveniles from going down the slippery slope to helplessness; you want to save them from being discouraged, and it is necessary to enlist their sympathy, direct them into suitable channels, and see that the instruction they receive is more or less technical. I find that in this Clause the words
("other than a day continuation school")197 are put in brackets. Why are they put inside brackets The words to which I am referring are to be found in Sub-section (2, a) of this Clause which reads:Provided that in the case of a person attending a school (other than a day continuation school) or a course of instruction.I should like to know why this exception was made in the case of a day continuation school, which in many areas is the only form of instruction. The position can be summed up by saying that everybody wants to see some form of interest put in front of the juveniles. Education is the desire of people who want to know more, and those are the people whom you want to interest in this work. You should never put any bar in the way of a juvenile having the opportunity of getting to the very top of the tree. One way of assisting in this work is by means of enlightened employers working with organised labour to help people in jobs to get additional education which will help them in their work, enable them to get better wages, and take a greater pride in their work.
§ Miss BONDFIELDMay I remind the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) that the Clause reads:
Provided that in the case of a person attending a school (other than a day continuation school) or a course of instruction no contributions shall be so credited unless and until that person becomes entitled to have five contributions so credited;This provision makes it easier for the person attending a day continuation school. In regard to the point raised about the uninsurable trades, the great basis of this scheme is that we shall bring all the juveniles under the care of juvenile centres, and they will receive advice as to the best kind of education to be given to those juveniles. We are only dealing with those in insurable occupations. I can assure hon. Members that, if it were possible, I should have no objection to bringing domestic servants and those engaged in agriculture inside this Clause. The decision on that point does not rest with me. There is great objection on the part of domestic servants to be insured, there is great objection on the part of mistresses to paying insurance contributions, and at present we are examining how far we can get over the objections that there are in relation to agriculture. But I do not propose to stop at the point 198 of investigation that we have reached; I hope to go on and extend the insurance scheme.
Duchess of ATHOLLDid not the right hon. Lady herself say what great difficulty there was in including agricultural workers, and is it not the case that the difficulty in regard to including domestic servants is that there is no unemployment among domestic servants, so that they would be paying their contributions year after year with very little prospect of getting any benefit?
§ Miss BONDFIELDThey are what I call the "good lives" in relation to the national insurance scheme, and we want the good lives as well as the bad ones. If hon. Members will refer to the Appendix to the Report of the Advisory Councils, they will find there the conditions governing the proposed scheme, and among those conditions it is laid down that one contribution should be credited for two complete weeks' attendance, including holiday periods falling within the period of continued attendance. If, for instance, a child is attending for the whole term, the Advisory Councils recommend that these periods should be regarded as weeks for the purpose of the 20 stamps, but there will be no more than 20 stamps under any conditions, and it would not apply in the case of short-time attendance at schools. I think that the position is entirely safeguarded by the regulations that will be issued under this Clause. I am entirely at one with those who deplore the fact that so many children have to go into industry so early. In connection with juvenile instruction centres that is the most difficult end of the whole problem in relation to educational facilities; but we try to make it regular in this sense, that, while the opportunity is afforded on any half-day for following up any opportunity which will allow them to return to employment, it is laid down that they shall attend on five half-days within the week—that they shall be regular in that sense; and every half-day in the week on which they attend a centre helps to qualify for the 20 stamps.
Duchess of ATHOLLThen I was right, was I not, in understanding that contributions are to be credited equally for part-time attendance at a juvenile instruction centre and for whole-time attendance?
§ Miss BONDFIELDNot equally. If the Noble Lady will refer to the regulations, she will see that a definite distinction is drawn between those attending part-time and those attending full-time. Finally, I would like to say that one feels that the result of this discussion on the Clause dealing with the bridging of the gap is very helpful, and that an extraordinary sentiment has been established and approved of in all quarters of the Committee in favour of continuing the educational period of the child. We are experimenting, and I am glad to be able to make this contribution. It is not perfect by any means, but we hope to go on to still better and more perfect schemes; but at any rate the Committee will have the satisfaction of knowing that it has helped to build one more step of the ladder.
§ Sir B. PETOrose—
§ Sir B. PETOI should not have intervened had it not been, in the first place, for the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) asked some very pertinent questions of the right hon. Lady who represents the Government, but it appears to me that he has received, so far as I have been able to gather, a very inadequate answer. His principal question was as to where the money was really coming from to pay the contributions of the employer, the employé and the State, and I heard no definite reply on that point. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green ventured to criticise my hon. and gallant Friend on the ground that, on the question of the Clause standing part, he had not made it perfectly clear whether he was in favour or was not in favour of the Clause. This is the first time I have ever heard in this House the doctrine laid down that it is improper for auy Member to rise on this question except to state whether he is going into the Aye Lobby or the No. The object of putting the question you, Sir, have put to the Committee, as I understand it, is to elucidate points on the Clause on which hon. Members may require guidance before they decide whether they are going into the Aye Lobby or the No. My hon. and gallant Friend, having received no 200 adequate reply to his question, I can only suppose he is still in doubt whether he should support the Clause on the whole or not.
My second reason for rising is the speech which we have just heard from the right hon. Lady. She told us she was longing for the day when she would be able to include in the insurance scheme against unemployment domestic servants and members of the agricultural community. She said she wanted to get what she called the good lives of industrial insurance in order to bolster up—I am not using her exact words, but that was the gist of the argument—this fund which is now so vastly in arrears.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Minister said she hoped to do certain things, but I cannot allow the hon. Member to discuss the things she hopes to do.
§ Sir B. PETOI hoped I should be allowed a brief word of reply but since you, Sir, have ruled that I must not further refer to this question of improving the financial status of the Insurance Fund by bringing in the agricultural labourer, who will get no adequate return for his contributions, I will leave that subject.
There are other considerations which the Committee should have in mind before they decide the question of this Clause standing part. Firstly, as I understand it, it is to provide a somewhat curious state under which a person who is not employed is deemed to be employed because he is receiving instruction. Under the old system, when a young person left school he became employed, generally as an apprentice. He received instruction as well as wages and was part of the employed community. I wish to record my opinion that, no matter how much you may elaborate this system which the right hon. Lady calls prolonging the period of tutelage—she did not tell us how long she hoped to prolong it, whether it must be till after the age of 21 or some maturer age—you will never get any system so conducive to carrying on the trades and industries of the country and finding employment as the old apprenticeship system which is now falling into disuse. It cost nothing. The young people knew where they were. It gave instruction in the trade or industry in which they had to earn their living and there was no question of having this 201 curious prolongation of the period of tutelage, when you do not know whether the child is a child or a man, and when you have an elaborate system of State contribution to an unemployment fund in which he has no possible chance of getting anything and into which he is only introduced in order once more to bolster up a fund which is practically bankrupt. On those grounds, and particularly in view of Sub-section (3), I think that it is a very unsatisfactory Clause indeed. Sub-section (3) says:
Provision may be made by the regulations under this section for determining how far holidays are to be included in calculating periods of attendance.We have now a system under which a young person who is not employed is deemed to be in employment and has his contributions paid entirely by the State, as far as I understand it, towards this fund. But, even when under instruction, that is not the end of it. The question arises under Subsection (3) as to how far, when he is not under instruction but is enjoying his holiday, he is still deemed to be under instruction, and so ex hypothesi a member of the employed community. I cannot imagine an absurdity either on the educational or the unemployment question carried to a greater extent than that the young person who is still at school is deemed to be employed. There is no contribution from the young person. He has no employer, so that there are no contributions from the employer, and, even when he is not being educated and is on holiday, he is still deemed to be employed.
§ Mr. HASLAMI should like to express my disappointment that the right hon. Lady has not given any answer to the question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). It may not be in order to discuss the right hon. Lady's benevolent intentions in regard to the industry of agriculture, but I take it that it is in order to discuss the effect of this Clause on those engaged in agriculture. In general terms, I would like to say that I am entirely in favour of this Clause. I agree that it is very much better that these young persons should receive education than that they should be hanging about doing nothing; yet on the face of the Clause, it is very apparent and stands to reason that, as there are no contributions 202 from the employer and there can practically be very few contributions from the young people themselves, the greater part of the money expended must be derived from the State. If that is so, and if the greater part of the contributions come out of the pockets of the general taxpayer, then those engaged in agriculture are making a contribution to this project. I was hoping the right hon. Lady would give us figures which would elucidate that point. If those engaged in agriculture, as part of the general taxpayers of the country, are going to contribute to these schemes with educational objects, I maintain that it is only just and fair that the agricultural population should derive some benefit. I would point out that the agricultural population to-day is very desirous to having educational opportunities, and it would be an immense advantage to them if they could have some share.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think that comes under this Bill and therefore, whatever they may desire, it would not be in Order to discuss it now.
§ Mr. HASLAMI submit that, in view of the fact that the agricultural community is going to pay for the facilities given under this Clause, they ought to have some right to participate in them, as a matter of common justice. I beg the right hon. Lady to give us some information as to where the financial burden will fall and how far it will fall on the general community.
§ Miss BONDFIELDI apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). It was entirely an oversight that I did not reply to his question, and I am glad to have the opportunity of doing so now. The position is quite clear, if you read the Clause together with the conditions to which I have referred on page 10, that no unemployment insurance pay can be given until the young person enters an insurable trade. Then simultaneously the liability begins for the State, the employer and the young person. It is a question of a mere transaction, and no money passes at all. The scheme of instruction through juvenile centres is not confined to persons who are going into insurable trades. It is open to all young persons. We want as far as we can to develop educational opportunities for children whether they are going into an insured trade or not, and 203 that is going to be done. The finances are borne in part by the Ministry of Labour, part by the Education Fund, and part by the Treasury. The Treasury pays 75 per cent., and the education authorities 25 per cent., and of the 75 per cent. the Unemployment Insurance Fund pays half.
§ Sir B. PETODoes not that mean that the taxpayer pays the lot?
§ Miss BONDFIELDI accepted the Amendment moved by the Noble Lord opposite to insert the word "efficient" in reference to the instruction provided by the Board of Education. That is the 75 per cent.
§ Captain BOURNEMay I ask, firstly, whether the expenditure that the Minister has said will be borne by the State up to 75 per cent. is for education, and whether the credit contribution is purely a book-keeping entry?
§ Miss BONDFIELDYes, purely a hook-keeping entry.
§ Captain BOURNEThe second question is: What is the consequent liability thrown on the public because of the book entry contributions in respect of juveniles who may be paid insured benefit between the ages of 16 and 18?
§ Miss BONDFIELDIt is the liability which is involved in the franking of 20 contributions as against 30 contributions. Insured persons will be paying 10 instead of 30, but the amount of unemployment among juveniles is such that it amounts to a very small sum indeed.
§ Captain EDENThe right hon. Lady's answer has not explained the extraordinary statement that she made a few minutes ago. Some of us on this side are very much interested in the effect of this Clause on the agricultural industry. As a mere aside, the right hon. Lady informed us of her ultimate hopes in respect to that industry. You ruled that out of order. Therefore, I will not deal with it, but I will say to the right hon. Lady that if she thinks that it is going to lie in her power, under this Clause or under any other, by some sorry or sinister stratagem to mulct the agricultural worker, who is the lowest paid of all skilled workers—
§ The CHAIRMANWhen legislation is produced for the purpose of doing that, it will be time for the hon. and gallant Member to raise the point.
§ Captain EDENYes, but I would point out that this Clause does directly affect the agricultural industry. Moreover, the right hon. Lady went out of her way to point out how it did affect the agricultural industry. Therefore, we on this side of the House who are more concerned with the future of that industry than is the right hon. Lady are entitled to draw her attention to the effect of this Clause, and simply to say to her that the future of that industry will not allow of extravagant attempts to take money from it, either for the purpose of this Clause or any other Clause, in order to subsidise urban industries, where the wages are higher than those that are paid in rural areas.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 130.
207| Division No. 83.] | AYES. | [10.58 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Burgin, Dr. E. L. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Benson, G. | Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) |
| Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. | Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Calne, Derwent Hall- |
| Alpass, J. H. | Birkett, W. Norman | Cameron, A. G. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Blindell, James | Cape, Thomas |
| Angell, Norman | Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) |
| Arnott, John | Bowen, J. w. | Charleton, H. C. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Chater, Daniel |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Broad, Francis Alfred | Church, Major A. G. |
| Ayles, Walter | Brockway, A. Fenner | Cluse, W. S. |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston) | Bromfield, William | Cocks, Frederick Seymour |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Bromley, J. | Compton, Joseph |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Brothers, M. | Cowan, D. M. |
| Batey, Joseph | Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Daggar, George |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Dallas, George |
| Bellamy, Albert | Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Dalton, Hugh |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Buchanan, G. | Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) |
| Bennett, Captain E.N.(Cardiff, Central) | Burgess, F. G. | Denman, Hon. R. D. |
| Dickson, T. | Lawson, John James | Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R | Lawther, W. (Barnard Cattle) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Dukes, C. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Duncan, Charles | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lees, J. | Sanders, W. S. |
| Edge, Sir William | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Sandham, E. |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Lindley, Fred W. | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Scott, James |
| Egan, W. H. | Longbottom, A. W. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Eimley, Viscount | Longden F. | Scurr, John |
| England, Colonel A. | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Sexton, James |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) | Lunn, William | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Foot, Isaac | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | McElwee, A. | Shield, George William |
| Gibbins, Joseph | McEntee, V. L. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Gill, T. H. | Mackinder, W. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Gillett, George M. | McKinlay, A. | Shinwell, E. |
| Glassey, A. E. | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Gosling, Harry | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Simmons, C. J, |
| Gossling, A. G. | McShane, John James | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Gould, F. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Mansfield, W. | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Granville, E. | Markham, S. F. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Gray, Milner | Marley, J. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Mathers, George | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Matters, L. W. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Maxton, James | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, pontypool) | Melville, Sir James | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Messer, Fred | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Middleton, G. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Mills, J. E. | Sorensen, R. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Milner, J. | Spero, Dr. G. E. |
| Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Montague, Frederick | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Harbord, A. | Morley, Ralph | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Hardie, George D. | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Harris, Percy A. | Mort, D. L. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Moses, J. J. H. | Sullivan, J. |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Haycock, A. W. | Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) | Taylor R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Hayday, Arthur | Muff, G. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) |
| Hayes, John Henry | Muggeridge, H. T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Murnin, Hugh | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Naylor, T. E. | Tillett, Ben |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Henderson, W. w. (Middx., Enfield) | Noel Baker, P. J. | Tout, W. J. |
| Herriotts, J. | Oldfield, J. R. | Townend, A. E. |
| Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth) | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Turner, B. |
| Hoffman, P. C. | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Hollins, A. | Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | Viant, S. P. |
| Hopkin, Daniel | Palin, John Henry | Wallace, H. W. |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Palmer, E. T. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Perry, S. F. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Phillips, Dr. Marlon | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Johnston, Thomas | Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Pole, Major D. G. | West, F. R. |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) | Ponsonby, Arthur | White, H. G. |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Potts, John S. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Price, M. P. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Pybus, Percy John | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Ouibell, D. F. K. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Kelly, W. T. | Rathbone, Eleanor | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Kennedy, Thomas | Raynes, W. R. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Kinley, J. | Richards, R. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wise, E. F. |
| Lang, Gordon | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Ritson, J. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Lathan, G. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich) | |
| Law, Albert (Bolton) | Romeril, H. G. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Law, A. (Rosendale) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. |
| Lawrence, Susan | Rowson, Guy | Paling. |
| NOES. | ||
| Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles | Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. |
| Albery, Irving James | Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Atholl, Duchess of | Balfour, George (Hampstead) |
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Atkinson, C. | Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. |
| Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Reynolds, Col. Sir James |
| Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. sir James Rennell |
| Boyce, H. L. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Bracken, B. | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l d"., Hexham) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hartington, Marquess of | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Haslam, Henry C. | Savory, S. S. |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Colman, N. C. D, | Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.) |
| Cranbourne, Viscount | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Croom-Johnson, R. p. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Long, Major Eric | Tinne, J. A. |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Mac Robert, Rt. Han. Alexander M. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Dixey, A. C. | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Duckworth, G. A. V, | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Meller, R. J. | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Ferguson, Sir John | Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Fermoy, Lord | Mond, Hon. Henry | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Fielden, E. B. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Fison, F. G. Clavering | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Muirhead, A. J. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld) | |
| Ganzonl, Sir John | O'Neill, Sir H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Sir George Penny and Captain |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Wallace. |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
§ resolved "that the chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
§ committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.