- (1) It shall be lawful for the county council of every county and the town council of every large burgh to recover from any person who has been maintained by them in any institution, other than as an inmate of an institution for the purpose of receiving treatment for infectious disease, or from any person legally liable to maintain that person, a reasonable charge in respect of the expenses incurred by the council in the maintenance and treatment of that person, or, if the council are satisfied that the person from whom such charge is recoverable is unable by reason of circumstances other than his own default to pay the whole of such charge such part thereof, if any, as he is in the opinion of the council able to pay.
- (2) For the purpose of this section "institution" means any hospital, maternity home, or other residential institution.
- (3) Nothing in this section shall affect any right which a council may have under any enactment or otherwise to recover expenses other than the charge in respect thereof to which the foregoing provisions of this section apply. —[The Lord Advocate.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause relates to a different aspect of the matter that was dealt with in the last Clause. At the present time the Poor Law authority has power to recover expenses for the treatment of poor persons from those who are legally liable for the maintenance of those persons, and of course if a poor person has some money put away somewhere, equally the Poor Law authority is entitled to recover from that poor person. We propose that all the hospitals under the new sick persons scheme shall be put more or less on the same basis. Of course that Poor Law rower will remain with the new body. Obviously it will be undesirable to discriminate between the hospitals or between the patients other than the Poor Law patients by making the other hospitals or the other persons free. The only result would be to deter local authorities from doing what we wish them to do, namely, remove the so-called stigma of pauperism from the sick poor; it would be a deterrent against taking them out of the category of the sick poor. The wise way is to leave a general discretion all over the field for 1649 recovering expenses where it is reasonable that recovery should take place of a sum that reasonably represents the cost.
There is the exception in the case of infectious disease, and the reason for that is obvious: According to the customary practice they are compulsorily removed, so to speak, for the benefit of the community at large. The right of recovery from persons other than the actual patient is quite familiar not only under the Poor Law but in other cases. It is done under the Children Act, 1908, and under the Education (Scotland) Act of that year. If a person who is legally liable to maintain is worth what is called powder and shot, it is only fair that he should contribute towards the maintenance and treatment of a patient, and that the burden should not be left on the ratepayers. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) by which he would seek to reverse what is the existing practice with regard to maternity homes—not hospitals. The practice at the present time is to make a reasonable charge where it can reasonably be made. We see no reason for altering that arrangement. The Clause as originally drafted made this duty obligatory for the local authority. It is now optional.
Another improvement has been made in the Clause. There was a long definition of the expenses. That, obviously, was a very unsatisfactory basis. An institution may have a radiological clinic —I am not sure whether that is the right description—and treatment in it would enormously increase the cost of treating a patient. We have therefore adopted the simple phrase:
a reasonable charge in respect of the expenses incurred by the council in the maintenance and treatment of that person.I understand that at the present time, in the case of maternity schemes, there are scales which are generally recognised as being of a fair standard, and that there is no difficulty in ascertaining what Is a reasonable charge.
§ Mr. STEWARTI am glad to notice that the department has withdrawn the cruel and harsh Clause that was originally drafted on this subject of recovery of expenses, and that some 1650 notice has been taken of suggestions and Amendments emanating from this side of the Committee. The Clause is now not as bad as it was originally. The Clause still provides for legal recovery of expenses from those who are legally liable. That is extending to public health what is at present applicable to the Poor Law. It may be that the charge will be recoverable. Under the Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1915, we have provided maternity hospitals and clinics and nursing homes, and otherwise extended maternity and child welfare work. Now we are to make a charge. We have 2,600 patients in the year in the maternity hospital in Glasgow. It costs us, on an average, £6 15s., and at the moment we are recovering, on the average, 15s. Now we are to go further and we are asked to pursue those who are legally liable for a patient's upkeep. It may be that a patient has a grandfather who has a few pounds. If so, we are to go after him to recover the cost of the patient's treatment. We are spending £116,000 on maternity and child welfare. The Government, at the moment, find £53,000. We are being asked, in the name of the development of public health, to take this retrograde step, and we are asked to do so in order to meet a liability which the community has gladly borne. No desire has been expressed by any health authority that this step should be taken. I hope those who are in power will see to it, on the Report stage, that this matter is dealt with on the lines I have indicated, as far as functions connected with maternity and child welfare are concerned. I notice that the Lord Advocate shakes his head. If I am misstating the case, I shall be glad to be told so.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEI am not suggesting that.
§ Mr. STEWARTThen I take it I am not misstating the case. The Lord Advocate knows better than I do what is the law.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEWhat I meant to convey was that we are not prepared to consider the matter between now and the Report stage.
§ Mr. STEWARTThen, of course, we shall be under the necessity of taking a Division on the matter and trying to get 1651 public opinion to support us. If I were only concerned with electioneering, I should be very glad that the Lord Advocate and the Department had taken up this position. The people of Glasgow and of Scotland have no desire that every person who is legally liable should be made responsible for these expenses. I have already referred to the cost of these institutions. In the case of a costly institution it is going to run these people into a tremendous amount of money. Every person treated in the infections diseases hospital in Glasgow costs over 54s. per week.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENThis Clause does not apply to infectious diseases.
§ Mr. STEWARTI want to draw a moral. I want to point out how heavy the charge will be. Further, you are going to have this thing carried out under the old inquisitorial method of the Poor Law. Of necessity you will set up committees, and of necessity these committees will investigate, and one committee will come to one decision and another committee to another. I have been through it all. I know of what I am speaking, and I do not desire to see this proposal carried out. Believing 'as I do that this is a backward step, I hope that the Committee will support us, and that we will defeat the Government on this point.
§ Dr. SHIELSI am glad to think that this new Clause has been amended in the direction suggested by Amendments on the Paper in the name of hon. Members on this side, and to that extent I think it is a great improvement on the original Clause. The use of the word "reasonable" is also a great improvement on the former wording, which left the patient or the patient's relatives liable for a sum based on the full cost of maintenance and treatment and of running the institution divided by the number of patients in the institution. I had armed myself with a great many figures showing the different costs per head, of maintenance and treatment, in different institutions, but these I am now able to spare the Committee. As the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) has said, while we are glad that the Clause has been modified, we protest against the distinction still 1652 drawn between infectious and other diseases. It is obviously a rather cynical motive which leads to infectious diseases being treated free by the public authority. The reason is that the patients are not only a danger to themselves, but to every person in the community from the lowest to the highest. If a person has some organic or surgical disease, like cancer or appendicitis—well, it is their own disease and they keep it and they either die or get better, but there is no danger to the rest of the community. We live in an age, however, when the former crude ideas on these matters are no longer so generally held, and this party, at any rate, stands for the full resources of medical and surgical science being available to the poorest and humblest member of the community.
Therefore, in spite of the improvement which has been made, we protest against the retention of the distinction between those suffering from venereal and other infectious diseases on the one hand, and those suffering from general diseases on the other. I should like to reinforce also, what has been said about maternity hospitals. A great deal is being done in connection with the subject of maternal mortality and one proposal which seems likely to be fruitful is that, instead of one big maternity hospital, there should be a number of smaller maternity hospitals in different parts of the town or the county where patients could be more readily and quickly attended and where a certain amount of isolation could be secured in cases where there was an infective condition. There is great scope for this development, because we know that diseases associated with these conditions are responsible, not only for many deaths, but for a great deal of chronic ill-health. We want to encourage the most ample provision for maternity hospitals. Yet, in spite of the optional nature of this Clause, and in spite of the word "reasonable," it is still possible under it, that a maternity hospital would have charges so high that women who required the treatment very badly would not he able to take advantage of its facilities. If even one woman who needs these facilities is deprived of them because of these charges—whether they are reasonable or otherwise—then I think it is a blot on the Bill.
1653 When we reduce this proposition to the extreme of absurdity and say what is true that a person suffering from venereal disease is to have treatment covering, perhaps, two years and costing a very large sum and is to have it entirely free, while the poor or working-class mother who needs maternity hospital treatment is to be charged for it, at the discretion—which may or may not be wisely exercised—of a local authority, then, I think, we reach a position which is impossible to defend. Therefore, I ask the Lord Advocate very strongly to concede the exemption of maternity hospitals from the general operation of the Clause. In regard to the question of recovery from relatives, it is quite true that the Poor Law provisions are carried into this Measure and that it will be the duty of a local authority to recover from people legally poor in accordance with the provisions set forth here, but it is not necessary in the case of the new comers. We ought not to be afraid to make a distinction here, if the effect as a whole is good, and if we can wipe out, for one section of the sick poor, this necessity of a relative, who may not be interested in the patient or willing to pay, being forced into Court to pay. I hope this suggestion will be considered, and I emphasise the question of the exemption of the maternity hospitals from the payment section, concerning which proposal, I am sure, there will be sympathy in all quarters of the Committee.
§ Mr. WHEATLEYI wish to add my voice to the protest against the idea of maternity cases being treated in the manner suggested in this proposal. The Committee and the country are familiar with the fact that we have made less progress in the prevention of maternal mortality, than, possibly, in dealing with any other problem of the kind. I remember a speech by the Minister of Health 12 months ago in which he laid it down that it should be the duty of the Government to give first and effective consideration to this problem. This was an excellent opportunity, and I am sorry that Scotland has not led the way in taking advantage of it. I admit that the new Clause is a considerable improvement on the original Clause. We have made some impression on the Government—and every impression we have made on them has, undoubtedly, been in 1654 the interests of the community. But even as it stands, the Clause is objectionable.
7.0.p.m.
I believe that progressive authorities like Glasgow will take advantage of the option and will refrain from making the charge suggested here, but what is going to happen in the less progressive counties? In Scotland, in places where there are very large conservative majorities—I am not using the word "conservative" in the political sense entirely—there will be an inclination to make the charge and, thus, you will have, in some cases, lives lost in order that a few pounds may be saved. I protest very much against that. The whole principle of making a charge to the sick poor or to those responsible for their maintenance for necessary hospital treatment is a bad one. It will frighten them off from taking advantage of the facilities which are there, and we shall have an unnecessary increase in deaths. Scotland will not thank the Government for a policy which sacrifices a number of its people to the saving of a few pounds of the richer ratepayers and taxpayers.
§ Mr. SHINWELLThere was one observation which fell from the lips of the Lord Advocate to which I would refer. He said that this proposal would to some extent remove the stigma of pauperism. As I understand that, it means that, if you charge people for treatment, even although they find some difficulty in meeting the charge, they are protected from the accusation of pauperism. I cannot see the advantage of that. It seemed to me that when the Lord Advocate made that observation he was talking with his tongue in his cheek. I want to draw attention to a very remarkable anomaly in this Clause. We have been told that it has been considerably improved because it is no longer mandatory. I would direct attention to the fact that in the majority of other optional Clauses there is no such language as in this Clause. Here we speak of a proposal which may be adopted by a local authority as being lawful and the Clause begins with the words "It shall be lawful." If it were intended to be purely optional in character, the Government might have introduced the word "may" In all other Clauses that word appears and 1655 clearly makes them optional. In this Clause it is only optional in part and there is a direct inducement to a local authority to exercise the powers contained in the Clause. From that standpoint we regard it as defective.
The Lord Advocate said that there was a discretion vested in the local authority to charge or abstain from charging as they thought fit. It is clear that that depends largely on the political calibre of the members of that local authority. If they are representatives of the Labour party they will absain from charging; if they happen to be members of the Tory party they will charge. It ought not to be left in the hands of the local authority to say whether charges should be made or not. It should be laid down quite definitely that no charge should be imposed upon any person who is compelled from whatever cause to receive treatment in an institution. We are told that it is desirable to make an exception in the case of infectious disease. That means that, if one is a danger to one's self, one is to be mulcted for treatment, but, if one happens to be a, danger not only to one's self but to the community, then the community is to be charitably disposed and to abstain from charging. The whole things is preposterous. The treatment, which is applied to a person suffering from an infectious disease should be applied equally to a person suffering from any other illness.
I will take a concrete illustration of what might happen if this Clause passes. Take the case of a woman who is compelled to enter a maternity institution. She may have some children who have to be cared for at home. It is clear that in her absence an additional charge is incurred. There is the expense of finding someone competent to look after the home in her absence. In such circumstances which are bound to lead to greater impoverishment, the Government actually places in the hands of a local authority the power to impose charges upon the household which they will find it impossible to meet. It is true that the Government propose that there should be an inquiry into the circumstances of the person called upon to pay. That clearly denotes interrogations and unnecessary questionings to all 1656 of which we offer a very strong protest. There is no need for that. The mere fact that a person requires to enter an institution should in itself be adequate proof without any need for further inquiry. Speaking for myself, I do not regard this modification of the proposal as being in any sense satisfactory. It is very unsatisfactory and grossly inadequate. I hope we shall not only go into the Division Lobby against the Government, but that we will take the first opportunity of repealing what I regard as a most objectionable inquisition.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENI would join issue with the last speaker in regard to the optional nature of this Clause. There is no doubt about it. The Clause says: "It shall be lawful." You cannot say: "It shall be optional." That is not a phrase which you can use. The words "It shall be lawful" mean that you shall be entitled to do it. You cannot say "It may be lawful."
§ Mr. SHINWELLYou can say "A county council or town council may."
§ Mr. MACQUISTENThat would not alter the position in the slightest. There would be no difference. The reason for the essential difference made between infectious diseases and other complaints is obviously that when people have infectious diseases they are compulsorily taken to these hospitals and detained, and they would object if charged, that they had been compelled to go there. As to the suggestion that a Labour town council would, of course, not charge, whereas a hard-hearted Tory town council would charge, I am perfectly sure that a Labour town council would charge up to the very hilt any man who refused to join a trade union. Nothing is more certain than that.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODThat is self-protection again.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENI am glad to see that I have the assent of the hon. Member and that I have correctly interpreted the psychological attitude of the Labour party. It is no use the hon. Member who has just spoken shaking his head in incredulity, because the hon. Member beside him has already given him away. I would also point out that in the second line of this Clause there appear the words "to recover." These fears 1657 that are expressed by my hon. Friends might be perfectly legitimate if pre-payment was an antecedent to treatment, but it is not. The councils are only to recover, and they cannot recover from people who have not got it. We have a saying in the Highlands, which was more applicable after 1788 when the right to wear certain garments distinctive of the Highland people was recognised. They said that you could not deprive them of certain articles of clothing which they did not possess. In the same way the councils have to recover in these cases, and they cannot recover if the people have not the money. I would also point out that they must ask the people for a reasonable charge, and I submit that there are a great many decent people with a comparatively small and moderate income who, if they have any illness, do not want to trouble their families and prefer to go to institutions. They cannot go to a nursing home because anyone who knows anything about nursing homes knows that their charges are absolutely prohibitive. I have heard of cases where they charge 30 guineas a week, a charge which is absolutely prohibitive except to plutocrats. It is prohibitive to people of my class. There are a number of middle-class people who would sooner go to something of this kind and pay two guineas, £2 10s. or £2 15s. a week.
§ Mr. SHINWELLIs this a proposal to protect the middle class?
§ Mr. MACQUISTENIt all depends upon what you call the middle class. I should say that £2 10s. or £2 15s. a week would be a very small matter for a trade union secretary.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENThis Clause would be very beneficial to people of very moderate means who will go to these institutions and who can pay a small charge. The figure which has been mentioned is a reasonable charge for such persons. It is, of course, a large charge for a working man. It could not be paid by him, and it would not be asked. No man in receipt of an engineer's wage could pay £2 145. a week. These charges could not, and would not, be made to them. There is no danger of that at all.
1658 As to the phrase "or from any person legally liable to maintain that person," if that extends to the grandfather, as I believe it does, then it is a bit hard. It is one of the curious features between our law as compared with that of China that with us it is descendant worship and with the Chinese it is ancestor worship. Unless the grandfather is prosperous or has made his money in pre-War days, he will not be in a position to be mulcted in this way. I would, however, point out to hon. Members opposite that our town councils and county councils are in the main very humane and very democratic. One finds that those who object to county council government and town council government say, if ever there is a proposal to abolish those bodies, that it is breaking away from the great principles of democracy. "Taking away home rule" and "The will of the people," and such phrases are poured forth from the other side of the House in the most eloquent speeches. But when you are to leave it to the local people, the people who know the circumstances, to say whether this beneficent institution is to be supported partly by people who have a reasonable charge imposed upon them and are able to pay, then it is quite another matter. Of course, one assumes that the charge will be a reasonable one. If you get a reasonable charge, it will make it all the more possible to keep and develop these institutions, to make them larger, more efficient, and better equipped for the very poor, who will not then have to pay anything at all. That is the logic of this Clause, but if you say that not even the rich—
§ Mr. KIRKWOODWe would see to it that there were no rich.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENIf everybody conducted their business as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) suggests, there would be nobody wealthy except the trade union secretaries and—
§ Mr. MACQUISTENThe hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs attracts me like a magnet, and I cannot help sparking. The Clause says: 1659
If the council are satisfied that the person from whom such charge is recoverable is unable by reason of circumstances other than his own default"…We do not know what "his own default" might mean. It goes on:to pay the whole of such charge,and so on. You could not get a more reasonable provision than that, and I think this Clause gives the poor a better chance. We see the constant outcry in the country about motorists who get into an accident and are taken into a hospital, where they recover, and then they disappear, leaving a heavy charge on the ratepayers. It is a great hardship, and there ought to be power to make such people pay. This Clause is really only directed against the people who ought to pay and do not pay, and when I see a Clause like this, which is going to make people who ought to pay, pay, I cannot understand hon. Members opposite, whose whole attitude on all matters of paying is that the people who very often should not pay should be made to pay, simply because they happen to have got some money, which is an unpardonable offence.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONWill the hon. and learned Gentleman address himself to the argument put from this side?
§ Mr. JOHNSTONThe question I should like to put to the hon. and learned Member is, How does he justify charging a poor woman for maternity treatment and allowing a person suffering from venereal disease to be treated free?
Mr. MACOUISTENThat question may come up when we deal with venereal disease cases, but I do not see that there is anything here which says that there is to be a charge for maternity treatment, unless those on whom the patient is dependent can afford to pay. There would be far more opportunities for taking in those who cannot afford, if you had those paying who can afford. I can give hon. Members opposite arguments which, to my humble mind, meet their arguments, but, of course, I cannot give them the understanding to appreciate them, not because I have not 1660 got it to give them, but because, if you sound music to deaf mutes, you cannot expect them to appreciate it. The last Sub-section reads:
Nothing in this Section shall affect any right which a county council may have under any enactment or otherwise to recover expenses other than the charge in respect thereof to which the foregoing provisions of this Section apply.This Clause really means nothing else than that people who ought to pay are to be asked to pay, and that will mean a better chance for those who cannot pay and who, therefore, will not be asked to pay.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURThe argument employed by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) would be more effective if he had dealt with the reason for the omission from this Clause of a charge for treatment for venereal disease. That is the special point which he advisedly left out of his argument. You have under the Clause the special omission of those affected by venereal disease. What is the difficulty?
§ Mr. MACQUISTENThe person afflicted with venereal disease may be a perfectly innocent person, but he may put others in danger, whereas the person who is going to have maternity benefit is not likely to inflict that upon anybody else.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURThat might have some significance up in Argyllshire, but we, here, would like to have a serious consideration of this essential point, which the hon. and learned Member advisedly refrains from dealing with. The hon. and learned Member was saying that we might have a case where a person might not have been responsible, but I submit that in any number of cases the persons with venereal disease have been actually responsible for acquiring that disease, and yet we have the Government deliberately leaving out that disease, which does contribute so directly to those terrible conditions affecting public health. That is the line of argument taken by the Government. If it can be discovered, as it can, many a time, in such eases, that there has been individual responsibility, why is there not provision made for such a charge being submitted? We quite understand the hon. and learned Member, who has 1661 quite a knowledge of some of those agencies which are particularly responsible for producing venereal disease, and that is why we have a trifling with this subject, a trifling with a vital question.
I submit that here we have a most remarkable anomaly, namely, that where there is reasonable treatment to be afforded in cases such as maternity, and where you have the Opposition approving of the scheme already agreed to in the previous Clause, concerning the organisation and the linking-up of hospitals, here we have a stultifying Clause applied to eases where, though there may be some funds available, they are not able to pay. I submit that the cases that are likely to go into these public hospitals are not at all those of people whom you could reasonably expect to put pressure upon in order to obtain financial recovery. The generality of cases in those hospitals are those of people who are not able to find the requisite provision in their own home circle. Those who can make such provision naturally retain their own patients at home, or adopt what is perhaps more familiar to the hon. and learned Member, namely, the private nursing home, in cases where there is plenty of money. But why should there be a direct legal incentive, in the first words of the Clause, to the local authorities to obtain recovery of expenses concerning people who cannot afford to nurse their own patients? The Government have had to face the fact of the necessity of making better provision for hospital treatment and have found it necessary—
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURI submit that here you have a marked and very discreditable disparity in the selection of those whom you are to charge for treatment.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORESurely the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) is casting a serious reflection on the local authorities in Scotland. He is assuming that these are authorities consisting of men who have no care for the poor or their interests, men who have no knowledge of those for whom they are 1662 catering and no interest in the y,e11-being of the community, but men who are crushing out the very souls of the poor. I protest, on the part of the local authorities of Scotland that such an attack should be made on them.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURNo such attack was made.
Lieut.-Colonel MOOREThe right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) referred to the sick poor. There is no mention of the sick poor in this Clause. It is not intended to attack the sick poor, but to help them, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) said. Hon. Members opposite have read into this Clause more than is intended, and they have done so, purely for the purpose of party politics, and I strongly protest against such an attack on the local authorities of Scotland. At the very end of the Clause there are two words that have never yet been mentioned, and they are the words "if any," where the Clause says—
to pay the whole of such charge, such part thereof, if any"—There is no compulsion on the local authority to charge, and the Government are not responsible for insinuating to the local authorities that they must charge. The charge will only be made if there are funds to meet the charge. In other words, we are going to get the money from those who can afford to pay, so that those who cannot afford will have the advantage of the means of the others who can. I have never listened to a debate in which there was more class politics talked.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time.
§ Dr. SHIELSI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 10, to leave out the words "maternity home."
§ Question put, "That the words 'maternity home' stand part of the proposed Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 203; Noes. 88.
1665| Division No. 227.] | AYES. | [7.20 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Ford, Sir P. J. | Murchison, Sir Kenneth |
| Albery, Irving James | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Neville, Sir Reginald J. |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Fraser, Captain Ian | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Newton, sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Gates, Percy | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Gower, sir Robert | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Oakley, T. |
| Atkinson, C. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Balniel, Lord | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Perring, Sir William George |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Hacking, Douglas H. | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Berry, Sir George | Hamilton, Sir George | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Bevan, S. J. | Hammersley, S. S. | Ralne, Sir Walter |
| Blundell, F. N. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Reld, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Harrison, G. J. C. | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Haslam, Henry C. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf''d,Henley) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemoutk) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian | Rye, F. G. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) | Herbert, S. (York.N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by) | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Hilton, Cecil | Sandon, Lord |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Savery, S. S. |
| Burman, J. B. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nut.) | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ.,Bellst) |
| Caine, Gordon Hall | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Cassels, J. D. | Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.C) | Iveagh, Countess of | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Styles, Captain H. Walter |
| Christie, J. A. | Lamb, J. Q | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Clayton, G. C. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handew'th) | Tasker, R. Inlgo. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Loder, J. de V. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Long, Major Eric | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Lougher, Lewis | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Colfox, Major William Phillips | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Lumley, L. R. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Cope, Major Sir William | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Couper, J. B. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Maclntyre, Ian | Wells, S. R. |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | McLean, Major A. | White, Lleut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Macmillan, Captain H. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern! |
| Davies, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Macquisten, F. A. | Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks,Richm'd) |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Withers, John James |
| Ellis, R. G. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-e-M.) | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R (Ayr) | |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Moore, Sir Newton J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Fermoy, Lord | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Captain Margesson and Sir Victor Warrender. |
| Fielden, E. B. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Broad, F. A. | Day, Harry |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Bromfield, William | Dennison, R. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Buchanan, G. | Duncan, C. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Cape, Thomas | England, Colonel A. |
| Barnes, A. | Charieton, H. C. | Garro-Jones, Captain a. M. |
| Barr, J. | Cluse, W. S. | Gillett, George M. |
| Batey, Joseph | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) |
| Bellamy, A. | Compton, Joseph | Griffith, F. Kingsley |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Cove, W. G. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypooll |
| Briant, Frank | Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Grundy, T. W. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Hardle, George D. | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Smith, Rennie (Penlstone) |
| Hayday Arthur | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Snell, Harry |
| Hirst, G. H. | Montague, Frederick | Stephen, Campbell |
| Hollins, A. | Morris, R. H. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Strauss, E. A. |
| Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Naylor, T. E. | Sutton, J. E. |
| John, William (Rhondda, Welt) | Owen, Major G. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Kelly, W. T. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Kennedy, T. | Potts, John S. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Kirkwood, D. | Richardson, R. (Houahton-le-Spring) | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Lansbury, George | Ritson, J. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Lawrence, Susan | Saklatvala, Shapurji | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Lawson, John James | Scrymgeour, E. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Scurr, John | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Lowth, T. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Shield, G. W. | Windsor, Walter |
| Mackinder, W. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | |
| MacLaren, Andrew | Shinwell, E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T. Henderson. |
§ It being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which Notice had been given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.
§ Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.