HC Deb 15 July 1930 vol 241 cc1241-56
Mr. WOMERSLEY

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that Regulation 25 of the National Health Insurance (Additional Benefits) Regulations, 1930, dated 18th June, 1930, be annulled. The point to which I want to call the attention of the House and the reason why I am moving this Address, appear at the bottom of page 10 and the top of page 17 of the Regulations as issued on 18th June, 1930. That Regulation deals with a question of additional benefits for insured persons respecting ophthalmic treatment and the supply of optical glasses, and the portion to which I raise objection reads as follows: Where a member has submitted himself to the examination of a medical practitioner under the scheme of a body or organisation which provides both ophthalmic examination and optical appliances, he shall not be entitled to obtain the appliance prescribed by such practitioner from an optician who is not associated with that body or organisation. That may seem like Greek to some Members of this House, but it will not to those who are associated with approved societies, because they know exactly how this is going to work out. Under the present arrangements we have a body of qualified opticians which is known as the Joint Council of Qualified Opticians. They have been prescribing for some considerable time for members of approved societies, and to show exactly how the thing has worked out I should like to quote a paragraph from an article which appears in the National Insurance Gazette. This is not a journal devoted to the interests of this particular organization; it is a journal which deals with National Health Insurance matters in general, and this is what it says: When Approved Societies decided to give ophthalmic benefits they found a state of affairs which can best be described as chaotic, but eventually they were able to make arrangements with a good class of sight testing opticians, members of the Joint Council of Qualified Opticians"; I am going to make the assertion that the arrangement which was entered into between the approved societies and this particular body has worked very satisfactorily indeed; there have been no complaints that I know of. But we find that another body has come along. It is the fact that whenever a member of the Qualified Opticians' Council examines a patient and finds that the case really requires surgical treatment, he immediately reports that to the approved society, and arrangements are then made for the patient to be examined by an ophthalmic surgeon. The ophthalmic surgeons have set up a board which is known as the National Ophthalmic Treatment Board, and they have taken on to that board certain selected firms who supply optical glasses. We find that they have come to the Ministry of Health and made a request that they should be given special privileges for that particular board.

This question was raised in 1928, when the National Health Insurance (Amendment) Act was before this House and before a Committee upstairs. It was then stated that there were various objections to making regulations approving this suggested arrangement on behalf of that particular board. In the first place the societies objected very much indeed, because the fees were far too high, but I understand that those fees have now been reduced. Secondly, they were up against this problem: that although this board had been formed, those who were members of that board who could supply the optical glasses required were so few in number that it was not possible for them to meet the needs of the people requiring those glasses fitted for them. Then, again, it was proved beyond a shadow of doubt that no one had any complaint whatever against the body which, was already carrying on this work, and therefore it was felt that there was no reason why special privileges should be given to that particular body.

The approved societies want to know why there should be this change-over. Certainly, a little time has elapsed since 1928, but still we are in the position that there has been no complaint with regard to this body which has been doing the work, and still we are up against the position that the number of people who can carry on this work is very small indeed. I have here a list of those who are attached to the particular body which I have mentioned, the National Ophthalmic Treatment Board. What do we find? That we have scattered here and there those who are able to supply these particular optical glasses. Altogether, throughout the United Kingdom, there are 30 firms, but 90 per cent. of these are in the hands of four firms only, who have branches scattered throughout the country, and if this Regulation is allowed to pass this House they will be the only people available to make up the glasses required by members of approved societies.

Let us glance at this for a moment. Take my own county of Lincolnshire, the second largest in acreage in the country. There are only three of these people in the whole of the county. Therefore, if a member of an approved society has to be examined by an ophthalmic surgeon he or she must go to the person belonging to this particular board that the surgeon says he or she must go to. What is the position going to be? On the other council which had been doing this work ever since these additional facts were brought into being, in that same county we have 49 available at any time and doing work about which no one has ever complained. In Scotland there are only three of these particular people; in Wales only eight. And belonging to the joint council you have 4,000 members and 4,000 establishments capable of giving the glasses that are required.

I suggest to the Minister that it is not fair to bring in such a drastic change, buried in the midst of many new regulations that it may be desirable to make. Before any such action had been taken a round table conference ought to have been held so that the parties concerned, whether members or officials of approved societies, those who have in the past been supplying these glasses to the satisfaction of members of approved societies, and the doctors themselves, should have met, and there should have been some consultation with the officials of the Ministry and the Minister before a definite decision was come to on the matter. Here is a paragraph which precedes this new regulation: A member shall be entitled to obtain optical appliances from any optician who is a member of an organisation of opticians for the time being recognised by his society. then it goes on: Any optician, not being a member of any such organisation, if the consent of the society has previously been obtained, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. That is a very wide provision, and it allows all sorts of people to come in and supply glasses. Below, we find this: Provided that the Committee may require as a condition of payment of the whole or part of the cost of the provision of an appliance, that the member shall submit himself to an ophthalmic examination. Then we get to a point to which I wish to raise objection. In the first place the Minister is making regulations which allow members a choice, and even something more than that; it allows them to go outside even the recognised bodies. Then we get, further on, this regulation which will not allow a person, simply because he has gone to an ophthalmic surgeon, to go to a member of this particular organisation that has been supplying glasses for so long. The position will be this: A member of an approved society comes along to a member of the organisation that has been supplying these glasses up to now, and the doctor, realising that the defect in the person's eyesight requires something more than the attention of a refractionist, says, "You must go to a surgeon." He is reported back to the society and the society sends the person along to a surgeon. That surgeon cannot send the person back to have the prescription made up by the man who first called attention to the defect. He has to go to one of the members of this favoured board. It is distinctly unfair and the House ought not to allow this regulation to pass. I ask the Minister to agree that there shall be consultation before these regulations are made absolute and to take into account also the point that if it is right to give an insured person a free choice in the one case, it is equally right to give him a free choice in the other. I make this plea on behalf of members of approved societies who have expressed to me their dissatisfaction with these regulations. They say that they ought to have a free choice to go to qualified men and approved men. I am not here to defend quacks who may do harm to the eyesight of the people; I am here to defend the properly qualified man who has done the work well in the past and who ought to be given a reasonable chance to continue to supply glasses.

Mr. BIRD

I beg to second the Motion.

I wish to remind the Minister that if it had not been for the hearty co-operation of the approved societies, the Insurance Acts would have been very difficult to work. I also ask him to bear in mind the communications which, I understand, he has received from the approved societies pointing out their concern at this provision in the Regulations. My hon. Friend has referred to the General Council of Qualified Opticians, and the House may be interested to know that this is a body of opticians who have either passed the examination of the British Optical Association or the examination of the Worshipful Company of Spectacle-Makers—not examinations set by their own members, but examinations the papers for which have been set by ophthalmic surgeons in conjunction with the members of those two bodies. I think the papers are set by eight of their own members and six ophthalmic surgeons. Therefore, I think the House will agree that it is not an examination which anybody can pass. It is an examination which requires some years of careful study, There are in the country 4,000 of these people who are qualified.

This other body referred to in these regulations, the National Ophthalmic Treatment Board, is quite a new board, and I should like to ask the Minister why he had not the pluck to put this title in the regulations. If he had done so hon. Members would have known where they stood, but as it is, I dare say that many of them, like myself, thought there were many boards which would have come under this provision. There is only the one. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary shakes hey bead, but I know that statement to be correct, and there are very few members of this body my hon. Friend has referred to his own county. I should like to refer to my county, Yorkshire. Whereas there are 305 qualified opticians, members of the qualified opticians body, there are only 15 or 16 members on the new board referred to in paragraph 2. I ask the Minister to withdraw this provision, and I support the proposal of my hon. Friend that we should have another conference about this matter, at which everybody interested in it, should be represented. I understand that this regulation was put in after the conference had finished, quite unknown to the general council of qualified opticians. It was not until the last minute that somebody found this provision mixed up in this great mass of regulations. If the Minister will now withdraw it, and give it further consideration, and give consideration to those who have helped the Insurance Acts, and to the question of the approved societies, he will be following a very wise course.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood)

I still find it a little difficult to understand what all this is about. The hon. Members who moved and seconded this Prayer have been trying to ride two horses at once. It is not a very easy thing to do, and I am afraid that they have not succeeded. Are they defending the professional claims of the Joint Council, or are they concerned about the free choice of the approved societies? I should like to know which case I am to answer. No drastic changes have been made. All the arrangements for additional benefit used to be made in special schemes which had to be approved by the Minister. Under the Insurance Act of 1924, as amended by the Act of 1928, they have to be dealt with by regulations. The Regulations which are now lying on the Table are Regulations concerning the whole field of additional benefits. Attention has been drawn to a particular section of these Regulations. One would imagine that these things sprang from somebody's brain without any consultation with anybody at all. We have heard from those benches defenders of the approved societies, but all these Regulations were only formulated after full consultation with the Approved Societies Consultative Council of the Ministry, and it is a little late in the day now for people advocating the claims of unmentioned approved societies to come to the House—[Interruption.] We have had no mention of the approved societies which the hon. Members have in mind.

We all Know that there has been for years two different schools of thought on this question of ophthalmic treatment. I can see them both represented here to-night—and I mention no names. There is what I may call the view of the medical profession—and again I mention no names—and there is the view expressed by the Joint Council. I am not concerned with conflicting professional interests. My concern is service to the members of the approved societies. It is my duty to hold the balance as fairly as I can, and to give the maximum of alternative opportunities for service to insured persons. That I claim is done in the Regulations which are now under discussion. One would assume, although the speech of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) referred to other ways of paying ophthalmic benefit, that there was some now method which was the only method. What is the truth about it? The truth is that under the Regulations any approved society is to be free to make its normal arrangements, if it is providing ophthalmic treatment, directly with a representative body of opticians, and in the vast majority of cases, that is the course which will be followed. The leading organisation of opticians is this Joint Council of Qualified Opticians, to which the hon. Member refers.

That will be the scheme which will apply, I imagine, to the vast majority of insured persons who are fortunate enough to be able to get ophthalmic treatment if they so desire. When I am told that there is an interference with the free choice of the insured person, I am bound to point out that under this scheme the member is free, but he is only free to go to any member of that organisation. It is true that be can, if he likes, make a fuss and get his society to enable him to go out, but the normal course is that if his society chooses this method then, apart from his taking special action on his own, his choice is limited to those who are members of this Joint Council. But that is not the only method. I will not go into details as to how that might be followed by the use of ophthalmic surgeons, but the Regulation also allows a society to arrange for examination in all cases by ophthalmic surgeons.

We come now to two other alternatives with a view to making it possible to get advice from ophthalmic surgeons and at the same time to provide that service with a minimum of cost. The British Medical Association have made two alternative schemes. In the first one they have prepared a list of medical practitioners who have had experience of dealing with ophthalmic cases and ace willing to test the sight of insured persons and prescribe glasses. In that first scheme the insured person, having got his prescription, can go to any qualified optician he chooses throughout, the length and breadth of the land. The second scheme is a combined scheme and is an arrangement between the medical profession on the one hand and—it is quite true—a body not representing a large number of firms, the Association of Dispensing Opticians, on the other hand, firms, I imagine, to which most Members of the House of Commons go when they have their prescriptions made up. They are the people who never prescribe, but who always make up prescriptions which come to them from ophthalmic surgeons. Under that combined scheme it is quite clear that you cannot have that free choice of optician that you do under other schemes. If you had the scheme would go to pieces. It is reasonable to say to an insured person, "If you wish to go to an ophthalmic surgeon, if you feel that your eyesight needs highly skilled advice"—and that may be so in many cases—" then we have got to tell you that there are only a limited number of opticians to whom you can go to have your prescription made up." That does, in a way, interfere with the free choice of the insured person; but he acts with his eyes open. The insured person need not have this scheme unless he wants to.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

Is it not a fact that if the person does want examining by an ophthalmic surgeon he must come into this scheme? That is the point at issue. If he can go to an ophthalmic surgeon and be examined, and then go to his own optician and get the glasses, he has no complaint to make.

Mr. GREENWOOD

But surely the hon. Member is wrong. Provision is made in the scheme to maintain the right of the individual to go to the ophthalmic surgeon if he wants to do so.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

It does not say so here.

Mr. GREENWOOD

If my hon. Friend wit read the regulation he will see that a series of alternatives are provided leaving the insured person with a choice of schemes. Are we to rule out entirely what I believe is a sincere attempt made by the Minister of Pensions and the Society of Dispensing Opticians to provide a combined service? There is no compulsion to accept that service, and, if insured persons prefer it, they do so with their eyes open, and they have freedom of choice. There is no hardship in that. All we have to do is to maintain a fair balance between these two schools of thought. I am not prepared to accept entirely the medical view or the view of the Joint Council. While it is true that there may be many cases which may be attended to by the Joint Council there may be many other cases where skilled advice is imperative, but the two bodies will meet everybody's needs. The discussion to-night has not been about this particular subject at all, but it is one of the discussions which always takes place under the Health Insurance Acts between the interests concerned. I am not concerned with those interests but with the interests of the insured person, and we have tried in these regulations to give him the best possible service and a choice of opportunity. I hope the House will not be so ill-advised as not to permit these regulations to go through, but will allow them to pass as provisional regulations designed for the benefit of insured persons.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I have endeavoured but failed to reconcile myself to the regulations complained of in the Prayer. I should like to call the attention of the House to two or three points which must be borne in mind in this connection. When the National Health Insurance scheme was first established in 1911, it was laid down as almost a sacred promise, that the freedom of choice of the insured person should be inviolate, and every approved society, however small, has been determined that that principle shall be maintained. I would like to remind the Minister of Health quite respectfully that this is the first time that that principle is being assailed. Let me put the point as clearly as I can. I am probably compelled to be as much concerned about the interests of the insured person as any hon. Member of this House. There is now freedom of choice on the part of the insured person to go to either a panel practitioner or a dentist or chemist. There is also freedom of choice up to now for the insured person to choose his optician, but, by passing these regulations that freedom of choice for the insured person himself will be taken away. To provide that the approved society has freedom of choice under the scheme is not giving to the insured person personal freedom of choice. There are societies representing up to 3,000,000 insured persons. Let me ask how many members of a large society of that kind would have a say in deciding whether their society should adopt this scheme. The decision would naturally he taken in the central office of the approved society. Its members would not be consulted. This new scheme provides that the following practice shall be followed. The approved society, having adopted the scheme, will tell its members that, if they want ophthalmic treatment and advice, they must go to a specialist provided under the scheme. The specialist will then undertake his task for half-a-guinea, provided however that the insured person goes to the optician in league with the ophthalmic surgeon—

Dr. V. DAVIES

Do not say "in league."

Mr. DAVIES

In conjunction with the ophthalmic surgeon, I ought to say. The ophthalmic surgeon decides who the optician shall be—

Dr. MORGAN

No.

Mr. DAVIES

But I have a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis, try of Health to say that it is so. I think the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will agree that the scheme provides two things. If an approved society adopts the scheme, the ophthalmic surgeon will examine the insured person for a fee of half-a-guinea, provided always that the insured person goes to the optician chosen by the ophthalmic surgeon. If however the same insured person falls outside the scheme, then, by going to the very same ophthalmic surgeon, he will be compelled to pay a guinea, because he chooses his own optician. Can anybody say that such a scheme provides freedom of choice for the insured person? It does not. I speak as the secretary of a society that has fought strongly for freedom of choice for its members and not merely for the society.

It is all very well to say that you give freedom of choice to one of these huge approved societies in London with 3,000,000 insured persons. How can they determine freedom of choice for their members? They never hold a members' meeting; they never have a ballot; the whole decision is taken by two or three gentlemen may be at the head office. I do not blame them; probably they cannot do anything else.

I say, therefore, that it would be well if the Minister would take this part of the regulations back. From my knowledge of the regulations, this one is not imperative to the whole scheme; it is a very small part, and, in fact, the approved societies have gone on fairly well without this particular section already.

Most of my insured members are employés of co-operative societies. This scheme does not provide for a single insured person to have his prescription for glasses dispensed by co-operative societies' opticians anywhere in the country, and no co-operative society's optician will obviously ever be allowed to dispense under this scheme. I say, therefore, that as a society of co-operative employés, we could not possibly operate a scheme of this kind. The Parliamentary Secretary appears astonished that I say that. The society of which I am secretary has 40,000 members, of whom about 35,000 are employed in co-operative societies. A considerable number of co-operative societies employ opticians of their own. Most of the employés go to the co-operative society's optician, but they do not get a chance under the scheme, and never will. Consequently I say the scheme is very unfair to approved societies, and I would ask the Minister once again seriously to consider taking back this part of the regulations, because they do for the first time, violate very strongly the principle of free choice for the insured person himself.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES

The hon. Member has been arguing that under this scheme there is no free choice for the insured person. I say if this regulation is deleted, according to the Prayer, it will certainly take away whatever choice there is. What are the two schemes before the House? An insured person can go to an optician who is a member of this organisation and get his eyes tested, and he can get glasses for a fee of 15s. He can, under this scheme of a National Ophthalmic Treatment Board, go to a specially qualified medical man approved by eminent ophthalmic surgeons appointed by the Board, specially qualified to examine eyes for an inclusive fee of 18s., namely 10s. 6d. for the examination and 7s. 6d. for the glasses, as compared with 15s. which he paid under the other scheme. Surely you are not going to deprive the insured person of the right of choosing which of the two he prefers. If he prefers, for a fee of 3s. extra, to be examined by a duly qualified ophthalmic surgeon and have his glasses, why deprive him of the right of choice? There is a body of opticians who are modest people. They take the view that it is not their function to examine eyes, and I do not blame them. Modesty is a very good quality in every one. They are an important body of opticians. They say "Our function, which we intend to carry out, is to dispense the glasses which have been prescribed by those who are in our opinion better qualified than we are to give an opinion." The Mover of the Motion wants to force this body of opticians to come into this organisation or, alternatively, to prevent them altogether from making a living. That is what it amounts to.

This Board is one that arose from circumstances. At one time a fee was charged which was considered excessive. It was reduced to what I suppose is regarded by everyone as a moderate fee for an expert examination of the eye, namely half a guinea. It gives absolutely free choice. The opticians who will dispense the glasses are qualified opticians. Let me read the instructions which the approved societies will issue to insured persons. It states: Upon receiving an application for the benefit from a member the Society shall issue to him a form of letter setting out—

  1. (i) particulars of any arrangements which the Society have made with any body or organisation for the provision of the benefit or any part thereof, and the steps to be taken by the member under those arrangements.
  2. (ii) information as to any other method by which the member may obtain the benefit."
Surely you have a right of choice there for an insured person to take whichever of these methods he likes. He has perfect freedom under the regulations either to go to the optician or the doctor. During the discussions in 1928 on the additional regulations the then Minister of Health assured the House that the Ministry would at any rate see that this free choice which was embodied in the regulations was adhered to for all insured persons in the country. I hope the House is not going to deprive a large number of opticians of the opportunity of making a living.

Mr. T. LEWIS

I think there is a great deal of exaggeration upon this matter. I have looked at it very carefully, and at first blush I thought it was very much against the insured person, but on examination I have come to the conclusion that the insured person can, through his society, still have the right to choose. This is a conflict between the optician and the medical profession, who are undoubtedly

trying to get what advantage they can from this very lucrative business. It is the old story of the doctors and the Ministry. The doctors feel they want to be top dog if they can and want to draw the business to themselves. I believe the great bulk of the business is done to-day by the Joint Council of Qualified Opticians. At least 80 per cent. is done by that body and, under the existing regulations, will still he done. The Ministry are agreed to a scheme which will enable the few who wish to take advantage of the scheme prepared by the medical profession with, it is true, a very limited number of opticians to do so. The number under the scheme is very limited and for a long time to come will not supply the needs of those desiring ophthalmic treatment. Under the regulations, there is the right of the Societies to allow any member who desires to go to an optician or to an ophthalmic surgeon not connected with the body named. They have a right to do so and must make their own arrangements. There is a Clause as to the grant which can be allowed. My own organisation is not attached to either of the two bodies. My own opinion is that better treatment can be provided by the Joint Council than by any indiscriminate arrangement. I think the Ministry are doing all that they can, while bound by that very powerful medical profession which—

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN

Is it in order for an hon. Member to stroll about the Gangway?

Mr. T. LEWIS

Some hon. Members want something to do. I believe the Ministry have done all that they can to protect the interests of insured persons, and I think the House might very well allow the Order to go through.

Question put, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that Regulation 25 of the National Health Insurance (Additional Benefits) Regulations, 1930, dated 18th June, 1930, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 144.

Division No. 434.] AYES. [11.58 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel Bracken, B. Edmondson, Major A. J.
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Christie, J. A. Greene, W. P. Crawford
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Colville, Major D. J. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Boyce, H. L. Dixey, A. C. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Kinley, J. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Llewellin, Major J. J. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Southby, Commander A. R. J. Mr. Womersley and Mr. Bird.
Muirhead, A. J. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Herriotts, J. Price, M. P.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Quibell, D. F. K.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Hoffman, P. C. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Arnott, John Hollins, A. Raynes, W. R.
Aske, Sir Robert Hopkin, Daniel Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Attlee, Clement Richard Horrabin, J. F. Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Barr, James Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Ritson, J.
Batey, Joseph Hunter, Dr. Joseph Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Bellamy, Albert Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Romeril, H. G.
Benn, Rt. Hon.- Wedgwood Johnston, Thomas Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Bentham, Dr. Ethel Kennedy, Thomas Rowson, Guy
Bowen, J. W. Lang, Gordon Sanders, W. S.
Brothers, M. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Sawyer, G. F.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Lathan, G. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Law, A (Rosendale) Sherwood, G. H.
Burgess, F. G. Lawrence, Susan Shield, George William
Caine, Derwent Hall- Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Shillaker, J. F.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Lewis, T. (Southampton) Simmons, C. J.
Charleton, H. C. Lloyd, C. Ellis Sinkinson, George
Clarke, J. S. Logan, David Gilbert Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Compton, Joseph Lunn, William Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Daggar, George Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Dallas, George MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Dalton, Hugh McElwee, A. Sorensen, R.
Denman, Hon. R. D. McEntee, V. L. Sullivan, J.
Dickson, T. McKinlay, A. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Dudgeon, Major C. R. McShane, John James Thurtie, Ernest
Duncan, Charles Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Tinker, John Joseph
Ede, James Chuter Mansfield, W. Tout, W. J.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Marcus, M. Townend, A. E.
Elmley, Viscount Marley, J. Vaughan, D. J.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Marshall, Fred Walkden, A. G.
Gibbins, Joseph Mathers, George Hallace, H. W.
Gill, T. H. Matters, L. W. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gossling, A. G. Messer, Fred Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gould, F. Middleton, G. Wellock, Wilfred
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Milner, Major J. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne). Morgan, Dr. H. B. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Morley, Ralph Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Mort, D. L. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Muff, G. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Harbord, A. Murnin, Hugh Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Naylor, T. E. Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Haycock, A. W. Oldfield, J. R. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hayes, John Henry Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Potts, John S. Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Wilfrid Paling.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjourned at Six Minutes after Twelve o'clock.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.