§ Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 16, at the end, insert:1282
§ "until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one."
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I would again point out to the House -that this Amendment raises the question of Privilege.
§ Mr. LAWSON
I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House will take note of the fact that the intention of this Amendment is to limit the operation of the Bill to something like one year. It means that the other House, in dealing with legislation with which it disagrees, is undertaking to place a time limit upon that legislation, so that whatever may be the virtue of this Bill and of the Clauses to which they object, whatever may be the virtues of the House of Commons and whatever may be the sum total of the wisdom and experience of the House of Commons, it is to be taken for granted that there is to fee a time limit upon legislation with which the other House is not in agreement. I believe that that fact has only to be stated for this House to disagree with the line taken by the other House. I have no doubt whatever that it will be the wish of this House to reject the Amendment which limits the operation of this Bill.
Even from the practical point of view, the time limit is badly devised. The Unemployment Insurance Act of 1927 substituted new machinery for scrutinising claims, and this new machinery took considerable time to come into play and did not come fully into operation until the end of 1928. I think that those who are familiar with the working of the Act of 1927 will agree that it was really not until the early part of 1929 that the work had actually been overcome and we were in a position to see the effect of that Act in actual practice. Therefore, from the point of view of practical experience and of getting a real test of the operation of the Measure which is now before the House, it would not be possible to obtain that experience and test in the time specified in this Amendment.
I should like to point out that the time limit was discussed in this House during the passage of the Bill. I do not know whether it is by a coincidence or not that something like the same time limit suggested by the Members of the other House was suggested by hon. Members opposite. At that time, the subject was fully discussed, and it appears to the Government that, in view of the rejection of the proposal at the time when the Bill was being discussed in its 1284 various stages, and in view of its impracticability from the point of view of a test, the House should not allow a time limit to be put upon this legislation by another House, merely because it is legislation which has been passed by a Labour Administration. Therefore, I ask the House to disagree with this Amendment.
§ Major GLYN
As I had the honour to move the Amendment to which the hon. Gentleman has referred the first time that this matter was discussed in this House, I should like to say at once that I do not think the hon. Gentleman should assume that because we proposed something which is sensible in this House and the Second Chamber also adopts the same sensible view there has been any collusion. Obviously, if you both agree about a sensible thing there is collusion in that you are both wise men.
§ Major GLYN
Anyway, I wish that there were more fortunate, coincidences in legislation. The real point is, that we on this side are not anxious to stick to a definite period of a year, but we believe that the principle of fixing a time limit is of tremendous value in order to enable the Minister of Labour for the time being to review again the circumstances and to fill in the gaps. I have listened to this Debate to-day, and in every part of the House there are faint echoes that while hon. Members may not agree with the actual wording they think that there may be a chaotic condition. Even the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) in his speech, to which I listened with great care, said: "Everybody is aware that the whole thing has now got into a chaotic condition." If things are in a chaotic condition, surely it is as well that there should be a statutory period fixed for this legislation for the benefit of the Minister and her or his advisers with a view to seeing what gap should be stopped. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, I am sure, did not mean for a moment what he said concerning the attitude of the other House.
I do not think that the other House, in sending down these Amendments came 1285 to their decision merely because it is legislation which has been proposed by the hon. Gentleman's party. The business of the Second Chamber is to review legislation and send it back to this House, to give us another chance of discussing the matter. I beg the Government to consider, once again, whether a time limit is not a useful thing to have. When the Bill was introduced, the Minister of Labour said that she would like to fix a limit, because she wanted, sometime or other, she did not say when, to review the whole of this question with the Poor Law and the Insurance Fund, and with some sort of new legislation, perhaps, which would enable those people who have fallen out of benefit and cannot be called insured contributors to have some form of assistance which, while it would not run the Fund into bankruptcy, would be quite distinct from what we call the Poor Law as we know it to-day.
The discussions on this Bill in this House and in another place have been extremely useful in drawing the attention of the country to the real need of all parties to recognise that we are going through an industrial revolution. How we are going to deal with it is a matter for the good sense of Parliament. if we can get that good sense, and perhaps that Council of State to which the Prime Minister has referred. There appeared in the "Times" newspaper a short time ago an amazingly interesting article, founded upon the facts brought out in a recent Government paper, showing the proportions of people who were unemployed. We are far too much inclined to look upon the 1,200,000 persons out of work as if they were a solid block. We all know that they are not. What was really interesting was the statement that there were 400,000 out of the total number of unemployed who might be called the hard core that resists every attempt to bring in legislation for the relief of that number. Let us hope that, somehow or other, all parties will try to seize the opportunity, when it occurs, to give special treatment to those 400,000 who are, perhaps, unemployable. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) who has so ably conducted the opposition to this Bill, has described the three situations into 1286 which people can be placed as being Heaven, purgatory as the middle stage, and the other location for the third stage. We must recognise that there are these three stages.
There is not a single hon. Member who has any knowledge of industrial conditions who will not recognise three things: (1) that the trade unions will suffer as a result of this Bill, because there will be less inducement for people to join trade unions from the benefit point of view; (2) there will be a feeling of tremendous resentment on the part of workers who are employed, if there is a loophole—I think there are very few, but there are some—whereby persons who are workshy can obtain benefit, and (3) that the employers have their share of blame; but that is not a view held altogether on this side of the House. I believe that the Employment Exchanges have been suffering under a tremendous handicap because the officials, who have done admirable work, very often have not known that jobs to which they have sent men have been filled. The Employment Exchanges should have the support of the employers, and, I hope, of the trade unions, in order that they may be made aware of what vacancies there are, what vacancies have been filled, and what have not been filled. There is nothing so depressing or bad for a worker than to be parading round the district in a heart-breaking search for work.
One hon. Member below the Gangway made some very astounding statements regarding the line we have taken. They were statements that ought never to have been made. Such statements have never been made by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), who has always been fair in his criticism and just in his comments, but the other hon. Member accused us of something which we must nail down to the Table of this House, or to the Records of the House, namely, that in our opposition to this Clause, we were so degraded that we were looking for excuses to prevent men who were genuinely seeking work from obtaining the benefits to which they were entitled. That is an absolutely blatant untruth. It is a statement which ought not to have been made. It imputes motives to us which we bitterly resent. It is possible to conduct these Debates without throwing about these insinuations. I feel it 1287 most acutely, because what we want to do is to see that there is justice and fair play for all. If there is abuse on the part of employers or trade union officials or the Employment Exchange officials, or anybody else, let us say so, and prove the case, but do not let us insinuate motives which are non-existent.
If we look back on the legislation which has been passed since the War, I am afraid that we cannot be very proud of our success. I believe that we shall never be prosperous in this country until politicians and the House of Commons begin to take account of what industry requires and not what we think industry should have. We are a great industrial country, and out of the depression from which we are suffering, two wonderful things will emerge. I think we have seen the last of misunderstandings between employers and employed. The next thing that we have to see is that, if we get rid of that misunderstanding, there shall be nothing brought into politics which shall be destructive of the initiative of the people engaged in trade and industry. There is an obligation on all of us to see that the Insurance Fund is made a real Insurance Fund. The Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary are both great believers in the friendly society movement, of which they have had much experience. In a small way I have had experience of the friendly society movement for a good many years.
In regard to this Bill, while hon. Members opposite are 6eeing the horrors of the present industrial depression, some of us are looking a little bit ahead, and we wish to be quite sure that the character of the people and the children is not going to be upset. I do not think that it will be upset in many cases, because I believe the character of our people will be proof even against this thing, but I do think that if we could have a time limit, say, 18 months, if the Government will not accept one year, it would give an opportunity for making Parliament again face up to facts which we have so often ignored. It is no use the House of Commons running away from stark reality, and it is no use anyone pretending that we do not know of the appalling misery of a great many unemployed people. Those of us who have had to do with the British Legion 1288 know that the condition of the fund of the Legion is due to no other cause than having to pay out money to unemployed ex-service men who belong to the Legion, and who cannot get employment.
What have we done to get employment for people? We have piled up taxation, which has done no good to industry. We ought to ask ourselves what is our share of the blame for the people who are not able to get work. I think the blame lies very much more it the doors of politicians than at the doors of employers of labour.
§ Major GLYN
I am. I stand fully condemned, along with the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones). I do not pretend to be in any different position from the hon. Member. I think we are both guilty. Not only in this Parliament but in previous Parliaments hon. Members have acted in accordance with' what we thought might be very good politically, but which has been proved unsound, industrially. Are we going to succeed in legislation of this character? I do believe that within a period of 18 months or two years there will be a change in the industrial outlook. We cannot go on as we are now. The Lord Privy Seal, in all his efforts to obtain extra employment, bas found that the only way to cure the canker is to get employment.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young)
I think the hon. Member is getting away from the subject of the proposed Amendment.
§ Major GLYN
I was trying to point out the importance of dealing with the question of unemployment insurance as proposed in the Government's Bill, within a limited period, and I hope that I may be allowed to say that if we are going to cure unemployment we can only do it by improving the chances of people being employed.
§ Major GLYN
It is a limited period, and if we can get a limited period, as suggested by the Lords Amendment, the whole matter would come up for review within the period laid down. If the 1289 period suggested does not satisfy the Government, then if we could have a limit of 18 months or two years it would be better than no limit. I think that the industrial situation will by that time have taken on a different aspect, and the limit will enable this House and the Government of the day to review the whole situation. I will not trespass further upon the time of the House, except to say that I am certain that if this Amendment cannot be accepted by the Government, there will be before 18 months have passed such a demand from the country to have the Bill reviewed that the Government of the day will be forced to take action.
I am certain that trade unions and friendly societies will recognise in this Bill, after experience, that there is a germ of something which may perhaps develop into the triple organisation that we on this side referred to during the discussion of the Bill. I mean by that, that we should segregate once and for all the true Insurance Fund from the extended benefit system. There should be some method, which would have to be worked out, whereby persons who, through no fault of their own, have been unable to obtain employment, and cannot pay their contributions, should be looked after during the middle stage, and that there should be a third stage, namely, ordinary Poor Law administration. It is a slur on the very word "insurance" to pretend that those persons who have for a long period been outside the scope of paying their contributions, should be brought in. I have always contradicted persons when they have talked about people being on the dole. It has been a too frequent expression on the lips of people.
§ Major GLYN
This slur about people being on the dole would not obtain if we could divide this Bill into the three parts to which I have referred.
§ Mr. E. BROWN
The field opened by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) is a very interesting one. I have myself, although I regret to say unsupported by the hon. and gallant Member, made many speeches 1290 on the subject, and it is therefore not necessary for me to put myself into conflict with the Chair by repeating those speeches, which would be out of order. I will only refer him to the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT for some powerful arguments in favour of the course he has proposed. His other proposal was also most interesting. The hon. and gallant Member is always ingenuous, and always able. The suggestion in favour of limiting this Bill to 12 months in order to save the characters of the children by a time limit, is too attractive to be followed without deep consideration. It must be obvious to every hon. Member that you cannot put an end to the transitional period inside 12 months. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) was optimistic enough to believe that by next year we may have got down to about 8 per cent. unemployment, but I do not think his optimism exists in any part of the House, and that alone is sufficient to nullify the proposal to limit the transitional period to 12 months.
What is the position under this proposal? You have men who have had three different codes of rules to satisfy in the years since 1924. We are now bringing in a new test, an objective test, for the first time, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment because I think this objective test should be fairly tried. The Government are considering the whole realm of insurance, and therefore I think this test should be fairly worked out, and that the experience based on the working of the test through the Employment Exchanges should be considered in connection with the whole insurance scheme. It is obvious that the Amendment will not give time enough for that to be done. I do not share the opinions which some hon. Members have expressed, and I think that the test which has been taken out of the Bill in another place may prove to be more drastic in its nature than they appear to think. I am entirely against the Amendment.
§ Mr. J. JONES
It is marvellous to sit on these benches, as a representative of what may be called the unskilled labour classes, and listen to the marvellous exhibition of knowledge of unemployment that some hon. Members opposite have displayed. Having been out of work for generations they know all about it, and 1291 they are anxious that a test should be applied for the benefit of other people. I should be quite prepared to accept the test that a man out of work should resume work within 18 months, and if he could show no reasons why he had not found it that he should be sent to penal servitude for the rest of his life. We on these benches would escape, but hon. Members opposite would find a difficulty in keeping their freedom. It is always the working classes to whom these tests are to be applied. National insurance was sup posed to be an act whereby every industrial worker should pay into it, and also his employer, but as soon as the fund gets into difficulties, as soon as it is discovered that it is not able to meet its responsibilities—
I must draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that this is a limiting Amendment and he must confine himself to it.
§ Mr. JONES
I am only pointing out that the attempt to limit the benefit which may accrue to the unemployed man or woman is simply an attempt to see that the ordinary unemployed working man does not get something for nothing. It is the old argument over and over again. I want to suggest quite frankly that if hon. Members opposite are put to the same test as a man who is now receiving unemployment benefit they would not stand the examination. When did they genuinely seek work? They do not ask for it unless there is a profit behind it. I do not understand the peculiarities of this Bill or the Amendments; I have never studied them. I have been compelled by economic circumstances to look for work; some hon. Members opposite have never tried to work, and do not want to find it. When the Insurance Act came into operation, I, like many others, thought that once I became part and parcel of that scheme that I became legally entitled to receive benefit. That is what they thought. What do we find?
I know it is difficult to confine one's remarks to the Amendment before the House but the hon. Member must do it. This is an Amendment providing that the question of benefits shall come up for review in April, 1931.
§ Mr. JONES
I hope it will come to an end at the earliest possible date. That will be the date when hon. Members opposite find work. Then the people I represent will be able to draw their benefit for years to come. I have never known hon. Members opposite look for a decent job except when it is a case of exploiting other people's labour. I hope the Amendment will not be carried and that the Bill will remain until the Tory party are found to be genuinely seeking employment.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones; has, in his usual dignified manner, cast aspersions on hon. Members on this side of the House. I would not dream of following him except to say that it is curious that only a day or two ago I was approached by a member of the Government who told me that I was not looking very well and overworked, that it was time I went away; and, would I go away? I am different to the hon. Member for Silvertown. I try to get some idea of the Bill which is being considered, which I presume is the purpose for which we are paid £400 a year. Of course, this is really a matter of a time limit. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) referred to ray right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) as having said that in a year or two's time we might get back to the normal in unemployment. The whole question of normality is bound up with the limit of time. My right hon. Friend never said that that might happen under a Government such as the country is afflicted with at the present time. No one would prophesy any such thing.
We are really in a transitory period. We have already been told that there is a wave of opinion throughout the country that in some way or other we should separate the block, not of unemployables, but of men who would give anything to be employed, from the people who can no longer draw their benefit because of some temporary disability or other. Opinion as to this block of workers, in the coal mines and one or two other industries, is very fluctuating. This Bill has been brought in for the purposes of remedying a particular trouble which arose, not through the fault of the Conservative party and 1293 not entirely through the fault of the Minister of Labour, but because of an anomaly in the old Bill which I should not be in order in discussing. We are now trying to find a way out of the difficulty. Everyone admits that we want a practical insurance scheme. Personally, over and over again, amongst groups of my own supporters, I have argued that people should not call the benefit a "dole." I have said that on public platforms.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
As far as the limitation of the Bill is concerned I was trying to use an illustration to show why the Bill should be limited. One of the reasons why a time limit is necessary is that there was an uncertainty in the Bill when it left this House, and that uncertainty may cause misunderstanding outside the House. I think I am entitled to say that anything which might cause disturbance or misunderstanding outside this House is a matter to which I can refer? If the Bill is a thoroughly sound Bill in every respect, at the end of 12 or 15 months it will be possible to carry it on with practically the unanimous consent of the House. The more convinced the supporters of the Government are that the Bill is a perfect Bill the more they ought to come round to our point of view. The Minister of Labour has complained rather bitterly that she has had to answer questions over and over again. Suppose that at the end of 12 months she was able to come here and say, "All my answers have been right and have been confirmed in every way." It is a pity that there is a growing feeling that in the Bill as it left this House there was something wroug. No one can state what will be the effect of Clause 4 on the younger generation. At the end of 12 months we shall know the effect.
There are those who believe that there is an intention to exploit the younger generation. At the end of 12 months we shall have some evidence as to whether the younger generation is benefiting or otherwise. The Minister herself is the best evidence of all of the necessity for a time limit. She came here will all the courage of the Department at the back of her, with all the courage of a Member who is almost a West-countrywoman. 1294 She came down to this House with her opinions. We naturally thought that all those opinions were carefully thought out. We had not proceeded very far before those opinions began to waver and to weaken. Finally, she was overborne and the whole Bill was drastically redrafted.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
Is the hon. Member suggesting that the women of the West Country are as loquacious as he himself and, if so, is that the reason why Drake left Devonshire for the Spanish Main?
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I and others of my party have been accused to-night of not taking sufficient part in these discussions and I thought that, just on this one occasion, I might be allowed to raise my voice in this matter. I have listened very often to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead) speaking on all sorts of questions and sometimes I have wished for a time limit in connection with other things as well as this Bill. After the hon. Member's interruption I have to find my way back to the points on which I was encouraged by the other side to speak. I was referring to the extraordinary agility with which the Minister changed on certain points in connection with this Bill.
In trying to fix a time limit for a Bill of this sort one has to consider certain points pretty closely, and, obviously, one is influenced very largely by the opinions of those who are considered to know most about these matters. When an expert who has used every argument in connection with the Bill until it is almost threadbare—when anyone with an understanding of the question such as the hon. Lady possesses, suddenly changes her mind, as she did not so very long ago, we must realise that the time may come again very soon when she will wish to change her mind again in reference to this Bill. After all, she changed her mind on the previous occasion in the course of only a week or two, and how are we to know that, at the end of about six weeks' time, she may not be feeling bitter agony at having taken the chief part in passing this Bill at all? How are we to know that we shall not be doing her a great kindness by presuming that she may have reasons for changing her mind again?
1295 If, within the next few months, as must almost inevitably happen, the Government dies a natural death, a death of absolute ignominy like most of its acts, and we get another Government with an entirely different point of view, what will happen? I would not be justified on this occasion in going into the alternatives, but it is quite conceivable, as an hon. Member has already pointed out, that some of the provisions in this Bill might be administered very harshly. If that were the case, I can conceive the hon. Lady's position in the country being very different from what it is now. She would be out of office and would be powerless for the time being to make these things right, and yet she would be the person on whom all the faults of the Bill would be fastened. I suggest that it would be only just and kind to the hon. Lady if we had a strictly limited provision of this sort. I am delighted to see the Attorney-General in his place once again. He arrives just at the right time. No one knows better than he the definite value of, occasionally, having a time limit because there are limits to all sorts of things as well as this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I want to know from the Attorney-General—
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
Unfortunately, that is not the case. The hon. Member is the only person who thinks that of himself. I am sure that many of the Clauses of this Bill, in the course of the next 12 months, will produce a considerable crop of legal difficulties. Cases of all sorts and kinds will arise and arbitrators and umpires will be giving decisions on many different points. May I ask the Attorney-General to consider this aspect of the matter? A great number of decisions given under this Measure will have to be taken into account, and there is the possibility of vast changes being made over the whole of the insurance system. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am told, has a very fluctuating mind and has an extraordinary facility for getting round different questions in different ways. May I ask him if, with his extraordinary mind and ability, he can say that this Bill is perfect? He is under a great disadvantage. He has not had, like 1296 the hon. Lady, a certain amount of Parliamentary experience. He has not had, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, a very considerable amount of Parliamentary experience. He has not even had great experience, if I may say so with due respect, of those who are his own allies at the present time. I would not like it to be thought in the course of the next month that he had not really considered this matter deeply. All I am appealing for is that the Government should be given another chance. I, personally, think that the Government have made a hopeless mess of this Bill; that they have been divided upon it, and that many members of the Government would like to see the Bill reorganised. I, personally, hold that the majority of the supporters of the Government believe as fundamentally as I do that the workers of this country desire to get work and would like to have a change. For that reason, I ask the Members of this House to do everything in their power to limit the time of the Bill, if only to save the Government from the discredit of their own actions.
It is not a question of limiting the Bill, but of limiting the fourth statutory condition.
§ Captain HUDSON
I think this condition should be limited to the time mentioned in the Amendment. We on this side are putting this forward, but at the same time I think that everybody will have noticed that this opinion as to the limitation of the Bill has been held both on the Government side and on this side. The Minister herself, on one of the first occasions on which she spoke in the House on the fourth statutory condition, said herself that it should be temporary. That quotation was made from the Front Bench about an hour ago, and I understand that the same line was taken in another place, that it was a temporary Bill and that therefore there was no necessity to go so deeply into it as if the Bill was to be a permanent solution. Therefore, everyone who has taken an interest in this Bill and in previous Bills has said again and again in this House and elsewhere that this is not a per- 1297 manent solution of the problem, and that sooner or later the whole system must be altered.
The Clause we are discussing deals with the fourth statutory condition for the receipt of benefit.
§ Captain HUDSON
I was saying that in this House and outside again and again on this particular Clause it has been said that the whole system must be altered. I do not mean the whole system of insurance, but the whole system as to genuinely seeking work.
§ Captain HUDSON
Although the actual term "genuinely seeking work" has been taken away, the Clause means that the applicant must do certain things, and that is one of the reasons why this Amendment has been put in. I think I have sat throughout the whole of the Debates here, and I have read those in another place, and on each occasion the speakers have said that this is a temporary Measure, because the whole thing—what I called just now the whole system—is fundamentally wrong. Therefore I am pleading that this Amendment should be accepted. Another reason is because of the obscurity. I am certain there is obscurity in the wording as we have it at the present moment. We have only to see what has taken place in the Debates here and elsewhere to find that what we on this side think will happen is objected to by the other side, and that the very same words are taken by the two sides to mean something entirely different.
§ Captain HUDSON
But the limiting date is put in for the obvious reason that they do not believe that this will work, and therefore they want a limiting date at which the system must be overhauled.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
If the object of the date is perfectly obvious, how on earth can the hon. and gallant Member argue that it is obscure?
§ Captain HUDSON
The Bill is so obscure, as I say, and it is so bad, that 1298 the people who put this date in, and we who ask for the date to stay in, do not believe that the Bill will work. Therefore, we put a definite time limit at the end of which the whole thing must be overhauled. I hope the House will seriously consider whether it would not be a very good thing to put this date in and to make a drastic overhaul necessary at a definite date.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
I do not intend to stand long between the House and the Division which is so obviously desired. At the same time, I feel that I am bound not to give a silent vote on an important occasion such as this. I have so frequently sat silent under the taunts of hon. Members opposite as to why I did not get up and speak in reply to their arguments that I may remind them of the proverb "Even a worm will turn," and if they find that I at last get up in response to their taunts, they have no one to blame but themselves. I am not one of those people who believe that because an Amendment comes down from another place it must necessarily be good or necessarily be bad. I am one of those who believe in judging every Amendment upon its own merits, and I should like to explain to the House, and indirectly to my constituency, why it is nay intention to support this particular Amendment. This is a very narrow point, and the point it raises is whether or notCondition (iv) in Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the principal Act (which prescribes the statutory conditions for the receipt of benefit) shall cease to have effect,and the Amendment suggests that it shall only cease to have effect until the 1st April, 1981. Why am I supporting that this condition ought to come to an end on that date? I do not think even the most pessimistic of hon. Members opposite can suggest that the state of affairs in industry in this country is a permanent one. We have heard a great dealt about percentages of unemployment, but I do not believe in dealing with percentages. Let us have plain figures. I do not think the figure of 1,300,000 or 1,400,000 unemployed is one that is likely to last for more than a few months. I therefore suggest that the statutory conditions for the receipt of 1299 benefit should again apply after a comparatively abort period, and the period which this Amendment proposes, namely, 16 months, seems to me to be a sufficient length of time in which to decide whether or not these statutory conditions should again take effect. I think this particular period is a reasonable time in which to allow circumstances to work themselves out, and all that time we shall be able to see where we are and whether, without inflicting hardship on recipients of benefit, we can by that time reasonably afford to put these statutory conditions once more in motion. That is my reason for supporting the Amendment.
§ Major ELLIOT
There are one or two reasons why this Amendment should not be rejected. The case for it is a very strong one. The Parliamentary Secretary founded his case for the rejection of this Amendment, in the first place, on the ground that it is a strange thing that the other House should have attacked this particular piece of legislation, and he said that it was perhaps due to the fact that it was Labour legislation. If I find him a precedent connected with a Bill which I brought forward, I hope that that will give him some evidence to disabuse him of that idea, because I am sure that he would not suggest that I deliberately worked here to have a Bill passed, and then ran along the Lobby to the other place to arrange for Amendments to be moved limiting it. In the Poor Law Bill of 1927, which our Government introduced, there were certain provisions which were a subject of comment in this House and we managed to have them passed, and the Bill extended until 1930. In the other place a Motion was moved to limit it to 31st December, 1928, that is to say, to give the provisions only a year's run. That is an almost exact precedent for the case which we have at present under consideration. The Bill was of a somewhat experimental nature, and we thought it right to accept the Lords' Amendment, for the very reason that it would force upon the Government of the day the necessity of reviewing the provisions at a later period.
§ Major ELLIOT
The De-rating Bill has so far commended itself to the Government that it has been put into operation by them. The Liberal party on a previous occasion, when they were actually supporting the Labour Government of the day, and when the Labour Government could not remain in office unless they were actively supported by the Liberal vote, moved and carried a limiting provision in a Bill which had certainly much more chance of remaining as a permanent feature of the legislation of this country than the present Bill, which in a great proportion of its provisions is avowedly a temporary Bill, and has so been described in both Houses of Parliament and in the words of the Statute. Mr. Masterman pointed on that occasion:The Minister in charge has declared definitely that the idea is to carry on temporarily unemployment relief with a view to some large reconsideration of the whole question.9.0 p.m.
The same statement has been made with regard to this Bill by the right hon. Lady, who said that a reconsideration of the whole question is under way. She said, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), that she had an important Cabinet Committee considering the whole question of insurance, and that Committee would report within the period of 12 months. For that reason, she was limiting the Bill in important provisions which deal with the transitional period. It may be said that that does not apply to what is intended to be the main substance of the Bill, but we come to a further statement by the right hon. Lady, which is nothing less than a Parliamentary pledge. That is an important matter, and not a matter to be lightly broken. The right hon. Lady did not give it in any casual way, but with full definiteness in her Second Reading speech; that speech must have been considered at considerable length, for in such a speech the Minister makes a declaration of policy which governs the whole consideration of the Measure. I should be glad to have the attention of the right hon. Lady, because this is a Parliamentary pledge, and I am claiming that as such it must be honoured. She used these words: 1301If during the experimental year this Sub-section proves to be still open to criticism "—that is Sub-section (2) of Clause 4—opportunity to amend it will occur at the end of the year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21at November, 1929; col. 743, Vol. 232.]I claim that that is language that could scarcely be more definite.
§ Miss BONDFIELD
Obviously, the experimental year refers to the transitional period, for which I have to put a date in the Bill.
§ Major ELLIOT
I ask the right hon. Lady to consult the OFFICIAL REPORT. She will see that it is not possible for her to begin her sentence by referring to "Clause 4 (2)," and go on referring to Clause 4 (2), and then ride off on the fact that her sentence referred to the transitional period. It refers to Clause 4 (2), and can refer to nothing else. It is, if I may say so, scarcely worthy of the lucid and vigorous mind of the right hon. Lady that she should suggest that an opportunity to review Sub-section (2) of Clause 4, will come when she is dealing with the Clause which contains the transitory provisions.
§ Miss BONDFIELD
It is perfectly clear, whatever my grammar may have been, that this provision will operate in relation to the transitional group, as well as to those who are in the insured field. It is obvious from the context that that has relation to the transitional group.
§ Major ELLIOT
The right hon. Lady is surely not asking us to believe that, when she used these very definite words, she was dealing with the transitory provisions. She deals with those provisions at a much later stage in her speech at some length.
§ Major ELLIOT
It is within the knowledge of all of us that Clause 4 and Clause 5, that is to say, the insertion of the new provision and the repeal of the old, hung together, and was stated by the Prime Minister to hang together; and, when the right hon. Lady moved out the original Clause 4, she moved to withdraw Clause 5, because it was the repeal provision, and because the two were so 1302 woven together, that they could not be discussed separately. We are now dealing with a proposal—
It is quite possible to amend the qualification for benefit at the proper time without changing the statutory conditions.
§ Major ELLIOT
Here it is suggested that there should be the permanent repeal of the Fourth Statutory Condition. The Amendment proposes its temporary repeal, and suggests that it is dealing with the conditions with which we are now dealing—not only the conditions under which benefit shall be received under the transitory Clause but under the whole provisions of the Bill. I submit it is perfectly germane for us to point out that the Minister said the opportunity for the review of those conditions would arise at the end of the year, and that under the Bill as it is now before us there is no opportunity for any such review. On the Second Reading of the Bill the Minister disarmed a certain amount of criticism by specifically stating that the opportunity for review would occur at the end of the year. The Minister went further, because in defending her proposals she said:I am convinced that the substitution of this new condition for the old condition will remove the hardships, the injustices and the temptation inherent in the old procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1929; col. 741, Vol. 232.]Within 10 days, or less, under pressure from her back benches, or, let us say, under the explanations from her back benches, she had resolved that the new condition would not remove the injustices, the hardships and the temptation inherent in the old procedure, and therefore it is clear that the matter is one which it is worth while for this House to keep under review. The Minister brought forward a definite proposal and said she was convinced that it would remove injustices. Within a few days she was not convinced that it would remove the injustices of the present position, and she offered us, without any hesitation or qualification, a review of her first proposal within twelve months; and surely it is only fair that she should offer it also in regard to the second proposal, which is of a still more experimental and temporary kind. The proposals of the Bill as a whole are novel; but the ease for the review of the whole 1303 of the proposals of the Bill arises on a further Amendment from another place, and therefore I shall not attempt to go into them at the moment. But I would say that the case seems to me to be so clear that I cannot understand the reluctance of the right hon. Lady to accede to it.
The experimental nature, the provisional nature, of the Bill applies to one of its main features, that is, the transitional period. Some review of a main feature, therefore, must take place within twelve months, by the Statute which she herself brought forward. The quasi permanent features of the Bill, the conditions under which benefit is to be drawn not merely by those in receipt of transitional benefit, but by those in receipt of permanent benefit, have been remodelled and redrafted while the Bill was passing through the House. The right hon. Lady herself said an opportunity for reviewing them would occur before the end of the year. The other place made an Amendment to her Bill not from any prejudice against Labour legislation, as I have shown by the fact that a precedent exists for it in the action which they took with regard to a Bill for which I myself was partly responsible. The other place put in an Amendment that the matter should be reviewed within twelve months because they knew the right hon. Lady herself had said that a Cabinet Committee was reviewing the whole matter and would report within that time. Hon. Members below the Gangway have said, apparently with child-like faith, that there is no doubt that they will review the whole question in that time. I have not the same faith in Cabinet Committees reporting so promptly, and legislation being so quickly framed upon their decisions, and I desire to make it a statutory condition that the matter shall be reviewed, and the Cabinet Committee thus have a stimulus to come to some decision.
No grave dislocation of the legislation of the country need be feared. If the Cabinet have not been able to come to a decision it is always open to them to continue the proposals in this Bill by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. All that this Amendment does is to say that the last word has not been said on the subject, and that the period 1304 for review which is proposed for the transitory provisions should be the period for review for all provisions and in particular should be the period for review of those qualifications for the receipt of benefit on which so much discussion has already gone on. For all these reasons we hope it will be possible for the right hon. Lady to accede to our request, and we say that the Lords Amendment should be accepted by this House.
§ Captain EDEN
I share with, I think, the whole House a measure of amazement at the Government's attitude towards this Amendment. All who listened attentively to the right hon. Lady's speech on the Second Reading of the Bill were certainly of the impression that there could be no conceivable objection in principle to a timely review of the statutory conditions, and it is news to us to hear the right hon Lady saying to-night that such a review, while it may be considered, cannot be included in the Bill. If the Government are prepared to consider a revision of the statutory conditions, as we understood they were prepared at the time of the Second Reading, there can be no conceivable objection to such a provision being included in the Bill. A mere profession of willingness cannot be accepted as a substitute for actual inclusion in the Bill. The Government are not wholly immune in this respect. They have changed their mind. It is a very good thing that governments should change their mind from time to time, but, in view of that change of mind having come about within a few weeks, it is not surprising that we should ask that these statutory provisions should again be available for revision by the House.
This is a most important matter. It is impossible here and now to discuss the question of the time limit for the Bill as a whole, which conies up later, and is, in my view, the most important of all these Amendments; but, even so, I think the House has a right to feel some surprise at the attitude of the Government. We should have felt that surprise apart from the right hon. Lady s speech on the Second Reading, and I think we have a right to ask that what she herself wanted should now be included within the limits of the Bill. I would remind her that the Attorney-General's professions on this 1305 subject were very definite on one occasion and equally definite in antithesis on the next. We might almost say that in the case of the Attorney-General his genius lies in an infinite capacity for making change. May it not be the case that by this time next year that genius will require some further exercise, and it will be deplorable if this Bill makes it impossible for him to indulge it. The Opposition are not unreasonable in asking that the right hon. Lady, for whose professions we have the greatest respect, to whose professions we have lent all credit, and in whose assurances we have placed implicit faith, should allow us to back our credulity by placing within the ambit of the Bill what we believed to be and what she has not yet denied, were her in-tentions on the Second Reading. That is not an unreasonable condition, and I feel that we on this side of the House should press for it firmly.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I hope we shall have an answer to the question which has been put to the Minister of Labour. I will put the case again in two or three sentences, because I think we are entitled to have some reply. I have already asked a question to which I was assured the right hon. Lady would give an answer, but up to the present we have not had any answer at all. A specific question has been put with regard to a specific statement which the Minister of Labour made during the debate on the Second Reading. It is quite clear that the creation of the new condition and the abolition of the old condition of "genuinely seeking work" are two opposite sides of the same thing, and they are absolutely interdependent. With regard to the new condition, which carries with it Clause 6, we have a definite, a specific statement from the Minister of Labour which was made in the Second Reading debate, and I will read that statement once again. The Minister of Labour said:Clause 4 (2) is so important that I am very desirous to have no doubt as to its precise meaning. I frankly confess that this has not been an easy Clause to draft, and for this reason I am fully prepared to consider drafting Amendments in Committee. I want to use the collective wisdom of the House to make this Subsection completely watertight. If during the experimental year this Sub-section proves to be still open to criticism, opportunity to amend it will occur at the end 1306 of the year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1929; col. 743, Vol. 232.]Now the Minister in an intervention states that what she was referring to was the transitional conditions. That could not be so. The speech was carefully prepared. The right hon. Lady referred to Clause 4, Sub-section (2). She was dealing with something which was perfectly-clear, and she made this explicit statement:If during the experimental year this Sub-section proves to be still open to criticism, an opportunity to amend it will occur at the end of the year.I press this point, and I think we are entitled to have a specific explanation. I think the whole of the change which is now put forward is a disastrous one, and will need to be amended at the end of the year. I must back up the statement which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) and I ask the right hon. Lady to give an explanation of what she meant by the undertaking which has been read out.
§ Miss BONDFIELD
I cannot help admiring the ingenuity of hon. Members opposite in regard to this point. The fact is that I was referring to an experimental year, and it was the experiment of having a direct Treasury grant to deal with the persons who were not contributing to the Insurance Fund. It is a fact that for the first time I have separated those people who did not contribute to the Insurance Fund, and I have placed them in a separate category which I assure the House was an experiment, and I said it was an experiment. I have made financial provision for 12 months for that experiment, and it has no relation whatever to any other part of the Bill. Whatever ingenuity may be displayed by hon. Members for the purpose of this Debate, that is what I meant.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I do not wish to make any imputation on the Minister, but the point we are raising is not merely the coinage of some ingenuity on the part of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) or myself, but we want her to explain the meaning of the words which she used in her speech on the Second Reading. The right hon. Lady now says that she referred to an experimental year which was merely intended to apply to 1307 the transitory Clauses. I would like to point out to the Minister of Labour that whatever happens to the transitional conditions at the end of the year that does not necessarily mean giving an opportunity for amending this Sub-section, and I challenge the right hon. Lady to prove that it does. I want the House to understand that it is not merely a matter of ingenuity on our part.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
On a point of Order. I would like to ask is it not somewhat unusual, even by leave of the House, for a Member to make such a long speech in which he is merely repeating his original statements?
§ Captain CROOKSHANK
How does the Minister of Labour explain away her statement that this Sub-section would he liable to review?
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
On a point of Order. May I point out that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have not replied to the point which I have just put to you?
§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
The right hon. Gentleman has only just sat down, and here is another one ready to jump up.
§ Captain CROOKSHANK
I did not mean to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I thought he had finished his speech, and if he is still in possession I will not continue my remarks. I would like to know how the right hon. Lady explains away the statement which the Paymaster-General, Lord Arnold, made in another place, and whether the Noble Lord was speaking the mind of the Government at the time. The Noble Lord definitely stated that this Bill was
§ not a permanent Measure, and that it was merely one to meet a special state of things. Will the right hon. Lady explain that statement? Lord Arnold was making a statement on this Bill; that was the explanation which he gave on behalf of the Government, and the Noble Lord definitely stated in another place that this was not a permanent Measure. I cannot see how the Minister of Labour finds it possible to resist the Amendment which we are now discussing.
§ Major ELLIOT
It is true I can speak again only, by leave of the House [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then I beg to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) to make another speech? He has just made one speech, and now he rises to make another. How is that in order? It is treating the House with contempt.
May I point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he cannot move that Motion.
§ Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON
I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I do so formally so as to put the matter in order.
§ Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 124.1311
|Division No. 124.]||AYES.||[9.27 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)|
|Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Bennett, Captain E. N.(Cardiff, Central)||Brown, Ernest (Leith)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Benson, G.||Buchanan, G.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Burgees, F. G.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Burgin, Dr. E. L.|
|Angell, Norman||Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Buxton, C. H. (York. W. R. Elland)|
|Arnott, John||Bowen, J. W.||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Caine, Derwent Hall-|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Broad, Francis Alfred||Cameron, A. G.|
|Ayles, Walter||Bromfield, William||Cape, Thomas|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Bromley, J.||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Brooke, W.||Charleton, H. C.|
|Batey, Joseph||Brothers, M.||Church, Major A. S.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Kinley, J.||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kirkwood, D.||Ritson, J.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Lang, Gordon||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Compton, Joseph||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Romeril, H. G.|
|Cove, William G.||Lathan, G.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Daggar, George||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Rowson, Guy|
|Dallas, George||Law, A. (Rosendale)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lawrence, Susan||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lawson, John James||Sandham, E.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Dickson, T.||Leach, W.||Scott, James|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Dukes, C.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Scurr, John|
|Duncan, Charles||Lees, J.||Sexton, James|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Lindley, Fred W.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Longbottom, A. W.||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Egan, W. H.||Longden, F.||Shield, George William|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Foot, Isaac||Lowth, Thomas||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Forgan, Dr. Robert||Lunn, William||Simmons, C. J.|
|Freeman, Peter||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||McElwee, A.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||McEntee, V. L.||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||McKinlay, A.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Gill, T. H.||MacLaren, Andrew||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Gillett, George M.||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Glassey, A. E.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Gossling, A. G.||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Snell, Harry|
|Gould, F.||Mansfield, W.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||March, S.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Marcus, M.||Sorensen, R.|
|Gray, Milner||Markham, S. F.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)||Marley, J.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Mathers, George||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Matters, L. W.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Maxton, James||Strauss, G. R.|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Melville, Sir James||Sullivan, J.|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Messer, Fred||Sutton, J. E.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Millar, J. D.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mills, J. E.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Milner, J.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Montague, Frederick||Toole, Joseph|
|Harbison, T. J.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Tout, W. J.|
|Harbord, A.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Townend, A. E.|
|Hardie, George D.||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Turner, B.|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Mort, D. L.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Haycock, A. W.||Motley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Viant, S. P.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Motley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Walker, J.|
|Hayes, John Henry||Muggeridge, H. T.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Murnin, Hugh||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Nathan, Major H. L.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Naylor, T. E.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Noel Baker, P. J.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Herriotts, J.||Oldfield, J. R.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Oliver, p. M. (Man., Blackley)||West, F. R.|
|Hoffman, p. C.||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Westwood, Joseph|
|Horrabin, J. F.||Palin, John Henry.||White, H. G.|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Paling, Wilfrid||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Palmer, E. T.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Hutchison, Maj. Gen. Sir R.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Isaacs, George||Perry, S. F.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Johnston, Thomas||Phillips, Dr. Marlon||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Wilson, C. R. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Pole, Major D. G.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Potts, John S.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Pybus, Percy John||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Quibell, D. J. K.||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Raynes, W. R.|
|Kelly, W. T.||Richards, R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Kennedy, Thomas||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Mr. B. Smith and Mr. A. Barnes.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Bellairs, Commander Carlyon|
|Albery, Irving James||Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Balniel, Lord||Bird, Ernest Roy|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft|
|Atkinson, C.||Beaumont, M. W.||Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.|
|Boyce, H. L.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Bracken, B.||Haslam, Henry C.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Buchan, John||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hurd, Percy A.||Savery, S. S.|
|Cattle Stewart, Earl of||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Christie, J. A.||Iveagh, Countess of||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Smithers, Waldron|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Long, Major Eric||Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Lymington, Viscount||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Train, J.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Mond, Hon. Henry||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Fison, F. G. Clavering||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Forestler-Walker, Sir L.||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Muirhead, A. J.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Penny, Sir George||Withers, Sir John James|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Power, Sir John Cecil||Womersley, W. J.|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Rathbone, Eleanor||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Reid, David D. (County Down)||Captain Margesson and Captain|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Reynolds, Col. Sir James||Wallace.|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)|
Question put, and agreed to.