§ Miss RATHBONEI beg to move, in page 19, line 38, after "agriculture," to insert:
and of persons whose salaries exceed two hundred and fifty pounds per annum.When I was called upon last night, five minutes before the Adjournment, the House was in the kind of conversazione which always takes place in the Chamber at about a quarter to Eleven, and I am afraid that very few Members present were able to hear what I was saying. I will not repeat myself beyond saying briefly that this Amendment, which stands in the names of myself and a number of other University representatives, has for its object the taking of the only step which appears to be immediately practicable to move persons who have been earning salaries of over £250 within the scope of the Bill. The strait waist-coat in which the Financial Resolution restricts the powers under the Bill debars us, I understand, from attempting to move persons of this kind directly within unemployment insurance, and it also debars us from trying to remove the still more glaring anomaly which prevents persons earning over £250 a year from applying to the Unemployment Insurance Board if they should be so unfortunate as to require assistance from public funds; but it is within the power of the Government to do both of these things by recommitting the Bill, and I would urge them at least to do the latter. There may be controversy as to the desirability of bringing persons of this class within compulsory insurance, but, while there is some doubt as to whether the professional or executive officer class themselves desire compulsory insurance, there can, I think, be no difference of opinion as to the grave injustice of excluding them from the operations of the new body that is to be set up under Part II of the Bill, 1772 and leaving them, if they should require assistance, to the operation of the Poor Law. If the Poor Law is not good enough for the agricultural labourer, it is not good enough for the university graduate, the professional man or the executive officer class.When I first saw how my own constituents, men and women belonging to the professional occupations and chiefly recruited from them, were treated under the Bill I saw red. I could hardly believe that I had read the Bill aright. It is astonishing that this matter has attracted so little public attention. The explanation is obvious. It is that there is relatively a very small number of educated unemployed persons who are in such straits that they are compelled to apply for assistance to public funds. I do not say that educated unemployed people themselves are few in number. Unfortunately, there are no ways of measuring the number, but I believe that if the truth were known it would be found that there are far more of them than is generally suspected. Undoubtedly the great majority of them manage to keep their heads above water by the aid of savings and family assistance, and they do not have to apply either for charity or public aid, but there is a certain number who, either from bad luck or ill health or heavy family claims and the like and lack of well-to-do relatives, are brought actually to destitution by unemployment.
May I mention three cases? One is that of a Manchester graduate who served right through the War, distinguished himself at Manchester University and took an honours degree, and he now writes that he has been for 2½ years out of employment. He has written over 500 letters to private employers and has answered double that number of advertisements, scarcely ever so much as getting a reply. He adds, "You cannot conceive the depth of misery to which those unavailing efforts have brought one." Another case is that of a Cambridge graduate, a commissioned officer throughout the War, who then held a post of great importance in one of the Dominions and returned home and put all his savings into a school. It failed utterly and now his family are left destitute. The third is the case of a man educated at a Scottish secondary school who for many 1773 years was a bank manager in one of our Colonies, earning at one time £1,500, and now a friend who knows him personally writes that he and his wife and four children are down and out, on the rocks, literally starving. It is pitiful to witness the misery shown in their faces. They look almost demented.
Two-thirds of my constituents began their education in elementary schools. That is an indication that they are not men and women with wealthy families behind them. Largely through their own exceptional ability and industry and the sacrifice of their parents, they have raised themselves to a position in which they are able to earn more than £250 a year. It is contrary to all common sense and justice that, when owing to this long continued economic depression they are thrown out of work there should be no resource for them but the Poor Law and that they should be utterly ignored under this Bill, just because they have been more successful than some of their comrades and reached a relatively high salary. Why should it be so? Is it simply because they are relatively few? Is it because they have not a trade union with several million members behind them? I cannot help thinking that the small attention that has been paid to their case is due to the fact that these people are thought to be of little political importance, but it is not good to leave men and women of that sort profoundly discontented, labouring under a deep sense of injustice.
My Amendment does not propose to set any limit of income. I am aware that the Unemployment Insurance Commission recommended that insurance should be extended up to the income limit of £350, and there is a later Amendment proposing an income limit of £500, but there is really no reason for an income limit. It will be a matter for the Statutory Committee to decide if it brings forward proposals. I suggest that an income limit would be troublesome to work. The better off these salaried persons are, the better they can afford contributions and the less likely they are to make claims for benefit. Therefore, they will be a positive asset and will not be a heavy drain on the assistance boards if they are brought within them. As the Commission pointed out, there are objections to an income limit, because those round 1774 about the border line change. Sometimes a man gets a rise which raises him above £250, when he loses the benefit of his previous contributions. Then he may have a cut in salary or may have to take a lower paid job and falls below the limit and has to start over again. It will do no harm if we Members of Parliament have to buy our 1s. 1d. or 11d. stamp. The 15s. or 13s. a week benefit might come in useful to some of us.
There is a very considerable case for the Statutory Committee considering whether these persons should not be put into separate classes with benefits and contributions higher than the general range of contributors, the Exchequer contribution being, of course, the same for everyone, in order that there may be some relation between contributions and benefits and the standard of life. I should like to see the principle of graded contributions and graded benefits extended to all classes of contributors, as is done in other European countries which have developed the system of unemployment insurance. I appeal to the Government not only to accept this very modest Amendment but to go further and see whether, by recommitting the Financial Resolution, they cannot do justly by this class of people both under Part I and Part II of the Bill. Sometimes one thinks that Members of this House forget that the fact that disability and injustice and suffering only affect a few persons is no reason for ignoring it. Suffering is always individual. There cannot be any suffering greater than the suffering of one mind, one body and one heart, but that is no reason why the suffering of these men and women should be ignored.
§ 3.50 p.m.
§ The CHAIRMANBefore we go on with the Debate, I should like to deal with a question with which I have been asked to try and deal with a view to economising the time available for the Committee on this and the following Amendments. Following this will come an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) and others with a view to setting up machinery for the bringing into Employment Insurance of share fishermen, and that will be followed by one in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) deal- 1775 ing in a similar way with domestic servants. There is, of course, a common principle concerned in regard to all these Amendments although the classes are different. The class dealt with in the Amendment now before the Committee is most commonly known as black-coated workers, and this will be followed by similar questions relating to share fishermen and domestic servants. Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee in general to discuss on this Amendment the provisions of the following Amendments dealing with share fishermen and domestic servants, and then only to take a Division, if required, on the following Amendments. That, of course, can be done with the general assent of the Committee.
§ 3.52 p.m.
§ Sir JOHN WITHERSI wish to support the hon. Lady in this Amendment. University Members are aware of a large number of very serious cases covered by the Amendment. They arise out of a rather curious state of circumstances which probably the Committee have not quite realised. Since the War a large number of members of the Universities have come into residence from poor homes, and, assisted by charity, their numbers have very greatly increased. In fact, at Cambridge it reaches a total of very nearly half the University. These young men have very poor homes, but they go on. When I say that in one of my colleges I know of two boys who are going through their university course, having come from homes maintained on unemployment relief, hon. Members will see the sort of cases that we have in mind. These boys will naturally take their degrees in due course, and when they take their degrees they will very likely get black-coated employment in offices and such like occupations and perhaps have a salary of more than £250 a year. When these men get out of employment, as large numbers of them do, they have not the well-to-do homes, as was the case with the old university student, to which to return and obtain assistance. They have to face a state of absolute destitution. The Amendment asks that the Unemployment Statutory Committee should be asked to look into the matter and to report, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will see his way to accept it.
§ 3.54 p.m.
§ The CHAIRMANMay I say a few further words to the Committee following upon what I said just now? Obviously, if we are to adopt the course proposed it will be for the convenience of the Committee generally that the Chair should first of all call upon hon. Members to speak in the discussion who are interested in the black-coated workers, and then pass on to call those interested in the share fisherman, and afterwards those interested in domestic servants. I need only say that it will of necessity assist the Chair and facilitate debate if when Members are called upon to speak on one of the later Amendments they will regard the Debate on the earlier Amendments to some extent as being closed.
§ Mr. LAWSONI believe that the proposal which you have made will have unanimous acceptance among the Committee and that it will give an opportunity to discuss this principle in a general way and the movers of the Amendments an opportunity to put their respective views. The proposal has been accepted so unanimously that I feel sure that it will be honoured.
§ The CHAIRMANI merely ask that those who wish to speak with regard to share fishermen or to domestic servants should not rise in their places until after I have called the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth and that those who are interested in domestic servants should not rise until after I have called the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon.
§ Mr. ANEURIN BEVANWill you make clear, Sir Dennis, what you mean when you say that you will call those interested in black-coated workers. Do you mean those whose names are down to the Amendment?
§ The CHAIRMANThat is what I mean, and I shall know, if hon. Members rise before I call upon the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth, that they have done so because they want to speak on the question of black coated workers.
§ 3.57 p.m.
§ Mr. GRAHAM WHITEI wish to support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), and, in view of the general desire 1777 for economy of time, I will compress my remarks into a very small compass. It is true that neither my name nor the names of my hon. Friends are among the names to this Amendment or to the other Amendments mentioned, but we have Amendments down which, if not exactly the same in scope, are, at all events, seeking to achieve the some objects as the Amendment of the hon. Lady. The Amendment is one which will receive the sympathetic consideration of the whole Committee, and it will no doubt be the wish of the Committee that the matter should be referred to the Statutory Committee for consideration. The hon. Lady expressed some doubt as to how widespread was the desire among the higher salaried workers for an Amendment of this kind for the purpose of including them within this scheme. The demand for it is somewhat wider than the hon. Lady seems to think. Certainly all those organisations which are concerned to represent the professional classes and the black-coated workers are in favour of the consideration of this matter by the Committee, and, indeed, would go further and ask to be included in the scheme or brought within the scope of Part TI of the Bill.
Judging from the correspondence which has reached me from all parts of the country since the Amendments have appeared on the Paper, I have little doubt that there is a very widespread desire indeed for treatment of this kind for these people who are in misfortune. It is only natural that there should be. A few years ago things were different, but now, owing to trade depression, accentuated by amalgamation of businesses, which is such a feature in our modern organisation, and also the mechanisation of office practice, not only has the volume of unemployment among the black-coated workers been very much increased but it has tended to be very much more aggravated. After a long period of unemployment it becomes increasingly difficult to find work in other directions, and it is exceedingly difficult for these men to find work in a reasonable time.
I take encouragement in this matter when I refer to the fact that the importance of this proposal was recognised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one of his speeches on the Second Reading 1778 of the Bill. He admitted that there was a strong argument in favour of the inclusion of this type of worker within insurance, and went on to point out that there were certain consequential difficulties of an administrative character which might arise, especially in relation to health insurance and in connection with pensionable rights. But if there are difficulties—and it would be idle to say that there are none—they are not a reason for not submitting these cases to the committee for their consideration, but rather a reason for submitting them as quickly as possible, in order that the matter may be thoroughly explored, and justice may be done where it is badly needed. It is perhaps apt to be overlooked that those who work in an office and wear a black coat, belong just as much to an industrial organisation as those who are carrying out process work in the factories. They are just as essential to the conduct of the industry as those in manual work. I have no wish to add to the list of hard cases quoted by the hon. Lady. I imagine that it is the experience of everyone of us to hear of cases which are heartrending in their character. In the majority of these cases there are social obligations, which, although they are an unwritten law, are nevertheless effective. I think that these cases call for as much sympathy as any others, and therefore, I hope sincerely that the Government will accept this Amendment, and give some assurance which will afford relief, and do justice to a class which is deserving of it.
§ 4.2 p.m.
§ Mr. DENMANThe hon. Member who has just spoken has given very conclusive reasons why the Statutory Committee should consider and report upon this problem, and I need not add, in confirmation, any words to the argument that he has used on the general case. I want merely to refer to a special case which has been brought to my attention—the case of musicians working in orchestras, theatres and such places. They are ruled out of Unemployment Insurance and Health Insurance, although their wages are often a good deal less than £250, because their wages are deemed to be higher than that, as their hours are short, and also because they are deemed not to be manual workers.
I really do not know why a musician in an orchestra should be deemed not to be a manual worker if he wants to be. I 1779 do not know if my right hon. Friend has passed the time in playing the violin, or piano, or even the flute. If he has done so, he will find that these pastimes need manual dexterity at least equal to that of a mechanic, and I should have thought that musicians had every right to be deemed to be manual workers. Anyhow, the limit of salary is particularly hard on them, because a very normal wage for that class is worker is, I understand, something between £3 and £3 10s. per week. Although their hours are, perhaps, only 24 to 30 during the week, they cannot spend their leisure hours gainfully in any other way. For their 30-hour week they get, perhaps, £160 to £180 a year, and surely those people should be deemed not to have an income in excess of £250 when the facts are all against it. A case of that kind, I submit, is one which the Statutory Committee should reasonably look into and report upon. Because I hope that the Minister will encourage them to do so, I ask him favourably to consider this case.
§ 4.5 p.m.
§ Mr. BUCHANANOne cannot discuss one section of workers without having regard to the whole field of insurance, and I have felt all along that there was a great deal of selfishness in this approach to the question. There are to-day certain sections of working people who, because of the alteration in economic circumstances, now come along and ask to be brought in, and I confess that this Amendment raises the whole question of bringing within the insurance field and scope of this Bill every section of the community. You cannot go on exempting railwaymen, and, at the same time, demand that these other people should be brought in. To-day the issue arises of covering every field by insurance as a whole. The point here is that of the black-coated workers, as they are familiarly called. While I think there is still for the doctor, teacher and clergyman a fairly regular continuity of employment, the real tragedy—and I speak with some knowledge of Scotland and the universities there—is with regard to those who have been to the universities and are never placed. We have in Scotland a tradition, which is still fairly highly honoured, of very poor people sending their sons and daughters to the great universities in order that they may give 1780 them a better chance than their parents had. One of the tragedies is that these poor people—frequently miners, labourers or those belonging to the engineering trade, earning a very insufficient wage—save and stint themselves in order to maintain certain members of their family at the university, and when they have finished, they find that the great public authorities who employ the school teachers in Scotland have no vacancies for those men and women.
I speak only for those places I know best, but to-day one of the tragedies is that of women who have taken the degree of Master of Arts, or Bachelor of Science, pleading to become temporary clerks in the Employment Exchange. The same applies to the men who have finished, and find it impossible to be placed as doctors. The result is that they have nothing to keep them during the most awful period, perhaps, of their career. It is not so important, in my view, although I do not say it is not important, for the doctor who has been established for a number of years. But it is vitally important for the young man who has been through the university, and I think that in any scheme which is brought in—and I hope that a scheme will be brought in—these people attending the university, and keeping out of the labour market, ought to be credited with stamps for the time they attend the university. I say to the people who control the fund that that is one of the best things that could be done.
One hears constantly in this House that we want people, not on unemployment benefit but in work. It is a commonplace phrase. I have little patience with it, but it is said every day in the week here. Everyone who keeps a son out of the labour market at 14, 15 or 16 years of age, and from the terrible competition, ought to be encouraged and recompensed for so doing. We are constantly punishing decent people. Under the Anomalies Act, if a man deserts his wife, the wife is treated better than if the man lives with her in decency. Encouragement should be given to these people who are trying to do the right and decent thing. The present system is miscalled insurance. Every working person, whether he be a doctor, Member of Parliament, or railwayman, should be included within the four walls of this 1781 scheme, each contributing their quota to it. The present scheme has never been an insurance scheme. Anything which exempts good lives and leaves in the bad ones is not insurance. Everything should be revised. Certain people in municipalities who are within the income limit are exempted because they have a superannuation scheme. I say that those people are good lives, and ought not to be allowed to contract-out. They have a duty to the insurance fund just as much as the regularly employed bricklayer or miner. Nobody because they happen to be privileged should be allowed to contract-out. All should take their equal share, and I trust that this Amendment, limited as it is, will be carried, and that every section of workers will be brought within the field of insurance.
§ 4.13 p.m.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson)I would venture to make an appeal to the Committee on this matter. We have still to get through 14 Clauses before 7.30. Some of them raise quite important points of principle, and the point of this Amendment and the succeeding Amendments is really a narrow one. It is not whether or not black-coated workers should be included in the scheme, or whether share fishermen should be included, or whether domestic servants should be included. None of those three classes can possibly be included in the scheme under the Bill any more than agricultural workers, and if it were desired to include those classes, it would be necessary to have a new Measure altogether.
§ Miss RATHBONECould it not be done by recommitting the Financial Resolution?
§ Mr. HUDSONNo; it would be necessary to have an entirely new Bill. Therefore, the point which we are discussing this afternoon is the very narrow one of whether or not this House desires to lay on the Advisory Committee the statutory duty of considering immediately whether they can produce practicable proposals for these three classes. This Statutory Committee is being set up by my right hon. Friend advisedly in order to fulfil the sort of duties that hon. Members desire to see them do. We are concerned more particularly to-night to see that the 1782 very valuable time of the committee should not be mortgaged unduly at the very beginning of its existence. The committee will have to review the whole finance of the scheme and see whether or not any alteration should be made in the rates of contribution, or the rates of benefit, or the statutory conditions for the receipt of benefit. Clause 20 also lays on the committee the duty of considering impartially whether any practicable proposals for an insurance scheme for agriculture can be drawn up. In addition to that, my right hon. Friend, at an earlier stage of the Debates, promised that he would refer to the Statutory Committee certain issues arising out of the operation of the Anomalies Act. It is impossible to-day to foresee exactly what other important problems will arise on which we shall require the considered opinion of the committee shortly after its appointment.
As regards the three classes we are discussing this afternoon, they stand in a rather different position from agriculture. Agriculture and the other three classes were all considered in great detail and with great care for a long period of time by the Royal Commission, who received a great deal of evidence on the subject. In the case of agriculture the Royal Commission definitely recommended the course that has been roughly followed in the Bill, namely, that of asking the committee to see whether they can devise a means of getting round the difficulties to which my right hon. Friend referred last night in dealing with the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). In the case of the other three occupations which we are discussing this afternoon the Royal Commission said that they ought not to be included in an insurance scheme at all. Therefore, without expressing any considered view as to whether the Royal Commission was right or not, there is a prima facie case against the inclusion of these three occupations, whereas in the case of agriculture there is a prima facie case that it should be considered immediately by the Statutory Committee.
My right hon. Friend has no intention of opposing his mind to the three particular cases. Indeed, the plea made by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. 1783 Withers) was very powerful and, in due course, no doubt the Statutory Committee will be asked whether there is any means of carrying out the suggestion of the hon. Members. The same thing applies to the cases of the share fishermen and domestic servants, but to impose upon the Advisory Committee the statutory duty of considering at once those three cases when the Royal Commission have said that they are not suitable for inclusion in the scheme, would not be possible. For these reasons, I hope that hon. Members will not press the Amendment, and I appeal to other hon. Members to allow us to get away from these particular Amendments to the remaining Clauses with which we have to deal.
§ Miss RATHBONEHow does the hon. Member reconcile his statement that the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance advised against the insurance of black-coated workers, when they say in their report:
After reviewing the evidence, we consider that, so far as unemployment insurance is concerned, it is desirable on general grounds to raise the income limit to £350.
§ Mr. HUDSONPerhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to finish the quotation:
There are, however, administrative advantages in maintaining the same income limit for Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance, and we are of opinion that the income limit for Unemployment Insurance should not be raised unless and until the income limit for Health Insurance is raised, and that the two schemes should so far as is practicable be co-terminus.It is precisely because the Statutory Committee will have no jurisdiction over the matter of health insurance that, apart from the question of mortgaging their time, it would be wholly undesirable that we should impose upon them the task of considering an alien subject, namely, health insurance.
§ 4.22 p.m.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYThe subject raised by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) and also by the Parliamentary Secretary deals with a matter of vital importance, namely, how far the system of unemployment insurance can be extended, or ought to be extended. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that that is not a question which the House ought to part from without a few 1784 moments consideration. The Parliamentary Secretary made it fairly plain that no considerable extensions are practicable under the present Bill, and I think he was perfectly correct, but at the same time I would point out that there is a great deal to be said in favour of the argument that if you confine the scheme of contributions to bad lives you will never make a satisfactory insurance scheme, however much you may alter it and tinker with it. Our experience during the last ten years goes a long way to prove that fact. In this Bill, we are confining unemployment insurance to bad lives, and we are saddling the fund with a considerable debt. In the long run, whether by a modification of this Bill or by another Measure, the Government will be compelled, or some Government will be compelled, widely to extend all of the categories of the people insured, so as to cover the good lives as well as the bad lives. The principle will ultimately have to be accepted by the people of this country that every man in employment will have to make a contribution to unemployment insurance according to the amount of his salary or remuneration, and benefits will ultimately have to be paid in accordance with the contributions that have been paid. Then we may get a really satisfactory insurance scheme. At this particular moment I should like to deal with the specific question of share fishermen.
§ Mr. PETHERICKOn a point of Order. I was under the impression that we were not to discuss share fishermen until the Debate on previous Amendment had been exhausted.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYI understood the Ruling to be that we were to discuss all these three classes simultaneously.
§ The CHAIRMANWe can only do that with the assistance and general good will of the Committee. We have been discussing a question of principle, that of bringing in some other classes into Unemployment Insurance, and the idea was that we should not discuss the question of share fishermen until we had made up our minds that no one else desired to speak about the black-coated worker. Hon. Members must bear in mind that they can speak a second time in this Debate in Committee.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYI feel very strongly the necessity of saying a word or two about share fishermen.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member can do so later, his name is down to an Amendment on that subject. I can call the hon. Member more than once.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYI have no intention of speaking more than once.
§ 4.26 p.m.
§ Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASSI do not want to speak on the subject of share fishermen. I agree with the remark made by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the Statutory Committee has enough work to do already and that it would be inadvisable to ask them not only to inquire into the question whether agricultural workers should be brought into the insurance scheme but whether anyone, without income limit, should be included. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the Minister of Labour could, if he liked, later on, ask the Committee to go into the question raised by this Amendment. I am not certain whether the Minister has the power in the Bill to ask the Committee to inquire whether certain other classes should be included in the insurance scheme, but, if he has such power, I am satisfied to leave it at that. I should like to know under which Clause he has the opportunity of asking the Committee to give that advice.
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton)Clause 19 (5).
§ 4.27 p.m.
§ Mr. A. BEVANI am not going to keep the Committee, because we want to get on with the other Amendments, but we ought not to part with this important question before we have a promise from the Government that they will immediately go into this matter with a view to preparing a Bill. I agree that perhaps it would be unwise to add to the labours of the Statutory Committee immediately and that this is not the sort of work that they can properly do at this stage. Nevertheless, this is the only opportunity we have of discussing the matter and we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary to give us stronger assurances of their intentions sympathetically to consider the matter than we have had up to now. The party to which I have the honour to belong is 1786 no less interested in the black-coated workers than any other party. We are deeply interested in them, and I would like to point out that the treatment now being accorded to black-coated workers is the direct consequence of attempting to deal with unemployment by means of insurance. The scheme which was presented to the Royal Commission by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress would deal amply with the black-coated workers, because it would base the contribution upon income and not upon the basis of so much per head of the population. In that way the black-coated workers would be within the scheme. Therefore, we have made proposals to the Government to deal with this problem.
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will consult with the Minister of Health, for we understand that the obstacle in the way is not the Minister of Labour but the Minister of Health, who is not here at the moment? We are not inclined to allow this business to remain where it is. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Health to consult with him with a view to preparing a Bill and bring it before the House at the earliest opportunity, in order to reconcile National Health Insurance schemes and Unemployment Insurance schemes? Unless he gives an assurance of that kind the Debate will continue, because the same principle is involved in other Amendments relating to share fishermen and domestic servants. We shall then find ourselves in precisely the same difficulty and shall have speeches about them. Hon. Members feel very keenly on this subject. We are entitled to have a little warmer assurance from the Front Bench than we have had so far, although I agree that the Parliamentary Secretary has adequately answered the point before the Committee, but only by saying we have no power at the moment to discuss a major issue. When are we going to have a chance of discussing a major issue on the Bill?
§ 4.30 p.m.
Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMANThank goodness I can make my point in about two minutes. The Parliamentary Secretary has made certain statements in which I am not entirely in accord with him. I think the Statutory Committee 1787 will thank him for what he has said, because he is trying to lighten its work. I have not the same sympathy, because I do not care a rap whether they work overtime or not. In Lancashire, and especially in my constituency, there are hundreds and thousands of these black-coated men who with the best will in the world cannot possibly get a job, and I wish to enphasise the necessity for the Statutory Committee to go into the question of how they can arrange some plan that can be brought before the House, so that we can manage to bring in some sort of legislation that will put such men within the sphere of insurance. They are what insurance people would call good lives as a rule and would make excellent contributors to the scheme, so that in the long run it might be a very good investment.
§ 4.32 p.m.
§ Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHTThe Committee accepts the grounds as stated by the Parliamentary Secretary for thinking that this matter cannot be dealt with at this moment, but it is a matter which ought to be investigated as soon as possible. It refers to a terrible problem which is to be met with all over the country. There cannot be a constituency in the country where there are not persons who come within the category the Committee is asked to consider. The better class of artisan and craftsman, the small professional man, the middle-class man in all sorts of occupations are all asking us to consider the precariousness of their present position, and the need that they should be supplied with some sort of assistance if they fall out of employment. My right hon. Friend and I come from an area in the Midlands where there are thousands. In his own constituency there must be many cases of this sort, and in the City of Nottingham I know many where a great benefit not only to individuals but to the State would be provided by giving a helping hand to these people when they fall out of employment. I realise that this new Statutory Committee has many duties. It has to survey the whole of these complicated matters and all kinds of complicated questions are coming up, so that at an early stage it would be unreasonable to put this duty on to the Statutory Committee, but here is a problem which 1788 is arising in every constituency, and it should be considered as soon as possible. If my right hon. Friend can give that assurance, he will give satisfaction in all quarters.
§ 4.35 p.m.
§ Mr. ERNEST EVANSI too want to detain the Committee for only two minutes, and I think the Committee should clear its mind, in view of the persuasive and I am afraid rather misleading answer of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. It was pointed out quite properly that we are not asking in this Amendment that any particular class of people shall be included in the Bill, but that the Statutory Committee set up for this purpose shall consider the classes of people covered by this Amendment. The answer of the Parliamentary Secretary was that you could not do that, because the Committee will already be faced with a difficult problem, and we must not overburden them with details at the outset; but the day may come, when we shall have to seek advice about the black-coated workers.
I want to know what power the Minister has under the Bill to consult this Committee in regard to black-coated workers. The Minister says he has that power under Sub-section (5) of Clause 19. With due respect, I doubt if he has the power under that Clause. That gives him the power to refer to the Committee from time to time for consideration and advice questions relating to the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Acts and possible amendments of those Acts. In my submission, the proper interpretation is that he can refer to the Committee questions which arise out of the practical working of the Acts, and for their advice as to the direction, if any, in which the Acts have to be amended in order to cover difficulties in actual operation, but it does not cover the powers we are asking the Minister to take to submit to this Committee the question of advising as to the inclusion of new classes within the ambit of insurance.
I think the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was a very strong argument in favour of the Amendment on the Paper. He referred to the Report of the Royal Commission. One of the things it impresses upon one is 1789 that the Commission found great difficulty in arriving at a decision in regard to many of these questions, and it seems to me that the Statutory Committee is a body which might be of greatest assistance to the Ministry of Labour in deciding in the future as to what extension should be made in the ambit of the Insurance Acts. I should have thought the Minister would have been glad to have the assistance of a Committee of this character on this question. We do not want to impose on the Committee at the outset a greater burden than it can be expected to bear, and all we are asking is that the Minister shall take power to refer these questions to the Committee when it has time and opportunity to decide them. On its report the Minister and the Members of this House and the public generally will have the information to enable them to arrive at a decision.
§ 4.39 p.m.
§ Mr. HUDSONWe are advised that there can be no question at all, that the words in Sub-section (5) of Clause 19 give us the power to ask the advice of the committee on matters affecting the extension, or the contraction for that matter, of the number of people coming under the scheme. We can quite definitely ask whether this or that class at present outside the scheme should be brought in.
§ 4.40 p.m.
§ Mr. LAWSONI heard the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary last night on Clause 19, Sub-section (5), and I gathered that there was a possibility of referring these questions for almost immediate settlement. If it had not been for the time limitation imposed on us, I am sure that one of the questions which would have brought the House to its feet would have been the question of the income level as laid down here. It is true we have tended in the past to put an income bar into the insurance scheme, and there are a great many people outside the scheme who might be in. It affects black-coated workers, share fishermen, agricultural and domestic workers, and I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who will have a great deal of work to do, if he cannot give serious consideration to the point put by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and give us some definite legislation on this point at an early date. As a matter of fact, I 1790 think that, giving the right hon. Gentleman all the new structure of this Bill, giving him all he asks for in the principles to which we definitely object, he would from his own point of view be wise to consider this matter. I think the Bill lacks fulness in that it leaves out all these classes who might have been contributors to the scheme and helped to make it more solvent than it is likely to be in present circumstances. I should like to ask him if, perhaps after the present Bill has gone through, he cannot consider legislation at some early date.
§ 4.42 p.m.
§ Sir H. BETTERTONThe hon. Member has asked us to consider legislation after this Bill is passed, but we are not through this one yet. I cannot be expected to give a pledge that I will at once introduce more unemployment legislation dealing with this point. The Committee will, I think, realise from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the object of this Clause is to enable him to refer this and other questions to the Statutory Committee for consideration and advice. I hope the Committee will be content now, if I say that we will bear most carefully in mind everything that has been said.
§ 4.43 p.m.
§ Mr. DINGLE FOOTThe replies which the right hon. Gentleman has given seem to me a very good reason why the Movers of this Amendment should persist with it, because it is perfectly obvious that, having passed one considerable Measure dealing with Unemployment Insurance, any Government would be reluctant in a year or two to embark on a fresh Measure of that kind, and we ought to try on this Bill to get some assurance on the question of the people with incomes of £250. The Parliamentary Secretary a few minutes ago said the effect of this Amendment would be to impose an immediate statutory duty on the Committee, but, with respect, I suggest that he has misconstrued the words of Clause 20, because it provides that the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee shall, as soon as may be, after the passing of this Act, make such proposals. "As soon as may be" is surely a very elastic phrase, and merely means that the Committee would have to deal with this matter as soon as time permitted. I put it to the 1791 Parliamentary Secretary: If an Amendment were put down on the Report stage, ordering that the Statutory Committee should consider the matter and make proposals in due course, would he be prepared to accept an Amendment of that kind?
I would like to say something on what was said by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) who pointed out that the difficulty of dealing with this matter arose from the difficulty of trying to deal with unemployment by means of unemployment insurance. It seems to me that the moral to be drawn from this Debate is quite different It was drawn by the hon. Lady who moved the Amendment. The Debate shows, not that we ought to diminish unemployment insurance, but that we ought to extend it. The days are long passed when anyone objects to some form of unemployment relief, and the great majority of the Members of this House accept the principle of unemployment insurance. But it has always seemed to me that there is one valid objection to unemployment insurance, and that is that you place on your low-paid workers a form of compulsion which you do not place on other classes in the community. You say: "We are compelling you to insure, but that compulsion shall not apply to people who are better off than you are." For that reason I think we ought not to diminish insurance but that the way out of the difficulty is to extend it to everyone of His Majesty's subjects, from the Minister of Labour downwards.
It would be unfortunate if this Bill went through without our getting any satisfaction on this point. Almost every Member of the House can give examples of members of the middle and professional classes whom they know personally, who have become unemployed and who would have been glad to have been inside the scope of the insurance scheme. When a man enters into insurance he insures against two things. First of all he insures against destitution. But he also insures against the fear of destitution, and I suggest that the fear of destitution is often stronger in the middle classes than in the wage-earning classes.
§ 4.48 p.m.
§ Mr. JANNERI would like to add a few words with a view to finding out from 1792 the Minister what explanation is to be given in the event of this matter being brought forward at a later stage when he is agreeable to the introduction of an Amendment providing for certain classes of persons to be dealt with, although he may not be prepared to include those people to whom we are referring now. It appears to me to be wholly illogical to introduce the question even of the agricultural worker now, if the Sub-section of Clause 19 is sufficient to allow the Minister to deal with the matter without any addition. I and many of my hon. Friends are deeply perturbed about the position, because it means that the Statutory Committee when considering matters will be confined now and for some time to come to dealing with the question of those persons which are specifically mentioned, and others will be regarded as outside their scope unless and until the Minister himself sees fit to raise the question of the black-coated worker, the share fishermen and others. We want this question raised. We do not see how the matter will be discussed or considered by the Statutory Committee unless this House says now that it must be considered. We realise that what the Minister has said is quite right. He says he is satiated with this Bill, and obviously if his condition is such as to make him feel like that now, it is not likely that he or anyone connected with him is going to add to the condition by introducing matters not already dealt with in the Bill.
I think that the argument brought forward for including in the field of unemployment insurance other sections of the community have been very well put. It is not a minor matter; it is a matter of grave importance. We feel that if it is to be dealt with at all, not only ought we to be assured that this Sub-section gives the Minister the power of dealing with it, but that there is an obligation upon the Statutory Committee at some time or other, as soon as may be after the passing of this Bill, to go into the matter and see what ought to be done. In those circumstances I think that the assurance which has been given is not sufficient. We should be given the additional assurance that the matter will be brought before the Statutory Committee at some time or other.
§ 4.51 p.m.
§ Mr. PETHERICKWhen you, Mr. Chairman, proposed to the Committee that the three categories of workers 1793 covered by three separate Amendments should be considered together in the same group, I must say with respect that I was a little doubtful; but in deference to you and the evident wish of the Committee I raised no objection. I think that consideration of the case of the share fishermen carries with it many factors and implications which do not apply at all to domestic servants or the brain workers of over £250 a year income limit. Domestic work is a very much more fluctuating industry, and the case of the black-coated workers carries with it very wide implications indeed. As has been said many times, fishermen are undergoing very bad times indeed. I have every sympathy with the Scottish Members who put forward the case for men in the industry to be included in unemployment insurance. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out just now that the Government would be unable to accept the Amendment as the case of the share fishermen was different from that of the agricultural workers who are covered in Clause 20. I agree that the incidence is different. I agree also that the Unemployment Insurance Commission turned down the case of the share fishermen, whereas they recommended that the Statutory Committee should examine the case of the agricultural workers. I admit that, but at the same time I feel that the share fishermen have a case which should be considered anew by the impartial body which is to be set up under the Bill.
The reason why the share fishermen were originally turned down by the Royal Commission was, first, that all share fishermen in the trawling industry got more than £250 a year. That statement was based on evidence which was taken some time ago. I think that share fishermen at the present time would be extremely pleased indeed if they could get that sum of money each year. Another point on which they were turned down was that the drifters and the inshore men are engaged in a purely seasonal trade. That is true. I understand the difficulty in that connection, and that is why a special scheme would have to be devised, because I do not think that share fishermen in any circumstances could possibly come under the overhead scheme. The third reason for which they were turned down was also a fairly accurate one, that the sharers are not working for an employer and that there 1794 is no contracted service. That difficulty could also be overcome.
At any rate we are not asking very much. All we are asking is that the Statutory Committee examine the case, and if they find it is possible to devise a special scheme for the insurance of these share fishermen, they should make a report to the Minister. I realise the difficulties in the way of the Government accepting such an Amendment or accepting the implication that the Statutory Committee were obliged to come out with a scheme. We do not ask as much as that. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that under Clause 19, Sub-section (5), it was within the power of the Statutory Committee to examine the cases of the various classes of workers omitted from the Act. I appeal to the Minister, in view of that, if he cannot see his way to accept the Amendment which stands in my name, to give some indication or make some sort of declaration to the effect that as soon as he finds that the Statutory Committee has time to examine the case of the share fishermen, he will under this Clause approach them and ask them to do so. That is not asking very much. I want to be assured that the case of the share fishermen is not turned down out of hand.
§ 4.57 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel MOOREI would like to reinforce the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend. What he has not mentioned is that this job or profession of share fishermen is probably one of the most precarious in our island to-day. That is not the fault of the fishermen; it is the fault of the fish. That is one of the things that is not recognised possibly by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary in dealing with this question. Fish are singularly odd, as no doubt anyone who has studied piscatorial methods will have found. Fish are like women, they are uncertain; they are coy; and they are hard to please. I will prove that statement. A woman had a hat last season, but she must have an entirely different hat next season, not because the hat of last season is worn out, but because there is a new fashion in hats. It is exactly the same with fish. Last season they spawned in one ground, and next season for no reason whatever—it is not that the ground is not equally good—they will go to an entirely different ground, simply because of a change of 1795 innate fashion in fish. How is a fisherman to ascertain where the fish is to go next year? How is a designer of a hat to know what a woman will want next year? That is where share fishermen are peculiarly handicapped, because there is no indication at any time or from year to year where he is to seek his fish. So his whole livelihood is endangered, not by his own lack of intelligence or enthusiasm or desire to find an honest living—
§ Mr. BOOTHBYOn a point of Order. Would it be in order for the Committee to tender congratulations to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) for having joined the National Government?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MOOREI am glad to think that, knowing the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) as the rest of the Committee does, you, Sir Dennis, were not drawn by that red herring. Indeed, I am astonished that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) should have tried to interfere with the sequence of my remarks upon a cause which he has, I understand, greatly at heart, by bringing in this totally irrelevant subject of the hon. Member for Bridgeton having so far raised himself to a situation of intelligence as to have joined the National Government. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is more intrigued by the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgeton than by my plea for the share fishermen, but I wish to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend who introduced the Amendment.
We are not asking for anything extraordinary or difficult. We are not asking for the immediate inclusion of these fishermen in the scheme. We are merely asking that the Statutory Committee should examine the case of the share fishermen and should, within six months, bring forward some scheme which will give these people the hope of being removed from a position in which they are at the mercy of the eccentricities of the fish. Although some of my remarks may have been in a lighter vein, I do not wish to minimise the importance of this appeal. Those of use who live in coastwise towns know the hardships which these men have to undergo and the precarious existence of themselves and their families under present conditions. Now that their own differences have been more 1796 or less composed, now that they are united on this question, I hope that the Minister will give them that sympathetic hearing which I know he always gives to appeals on behalf of those who are unfortunately placed.
§ 5.3 p.m.
§ Mr. RICHARD LAWI do not wish to detain the Committee, nor do I wish to disregard the plea which has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary. At the same time, when a matter of so much interest to my constituents is being discussed I cannot allow their case to go by default. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was a prima facie case against the inclusion of share fishermen because of the opinion of the Royal Commission. That is arguable but I do not want to argue it now. What I do want to point out is that there is a strong prima facie case in favour of their inclusion, from the very facts of their employment. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the case of a long-distance steam trawler sailing from the port of Hull. On such a trawler, as he no doubt knows, there would be a crew of 12. Of those 12 men, who are engaged in almost exactly the same employment, 10 will come under both Part I and Part II of this Bill. One of them will come under Part II only, and one will not come under the Measure at all. Merely on account of such anomalies as that, arising in their employment, there is a strong case for the examination by the Statutory Committee of the whole position in relation to share fishermen. We ask for no more. We do not ask the Government to make any recommendation. We ask however that this Committee should be empowered to examine the share fishermen's case, at their leisure if you like, when the opportunity arises—not necessarily now, or next month but when they have disposed of other and more important matters. Those who represent fishing constituencies have a duty to urge upon the Government that the case of these men should not, as I have said, go by default.
§ 5.6 p.m.
§ Mr. HUDSONMay I renew the appeal which I made to the Committee some time ago not to spend any more time on these Amendments, on account of the other matters which remain to be discussed? On this question of share fishermen I have already stated that we 1797 have full power to refer the matter to the Statutory Committee later on. I would remind hon. Members of what the Royal Commission said:
There is not the same difficulty of testing a claim to sickness benefit as there is in the case of a claim to unemployment benefit. From the nature of his occupation a share fisherman during his period on shore may ordinarily be living on the proceeds of a previous trip. The period on shore may in some cases be prolonged but it would be a matter of insuperable difficulty to fix, either generally or in any individual case, the point at which genuine involuntary unemployment, justifying a claim for benefit, began.It may reassure hon. Members who are particularly interested in this question if I remind them that share fishermen sharing in the proceeds of the catch come under the provisions of Part II of the Bill and that in the case of Part II the difficulty of proving when involuntary unemployment starts does not arise, because the test under Part II is not whether a man is wholly unemployed, but whether he has sufficient wages to enable him to support himself. I do not think that the constituents of the hon. Members who have dealt with this matter, have yet fully realised the enormous advantage which will accrue to them under Part II of the Bill as compared with their present position. I venture to think that when they have had five or six months' experience of the working of Part II of this Measure they will be reluctant to have any claim put forward on their behalf for inclusion in Part I.
§ 5.8 p.m.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYI appreciate the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, but, while I have no wish to detain the Committee unduly, I must point out that this matter is regarded as of vital importance by thousands of people in the North of Scotland, who constitute a considerable element in the population of Scotland. I am in agreement with the observations of the hon. Gentleman. I have been requested by a majority of the share fishermen in my constituency to bring forward this request, and I believe that there is a majority in most of the other constituencies concerned, in favour of inclusion in the Unemployment Insurance scheme. But I feel bound to point out that, having examined the question closely, I do not think the fishermen fully realise the benefits which accrue to them under Part II of the Bill and which they 1798 will get without making any contributions at all. I also recognise that there are administrative difficulties which make their inclusion in Part I of the present Bill practically impossible.
In the first place, how can one say when a share fisherman, in the herring fishing industry at any rate, is unemployed? I do not think it is possible to define unemployment in that industry because one cannot tell how long a man has been living on the proceeds of a previous trip or to what extent he is occupied in repairing boats and so forth. The second difficulty is in regard to the contributions. These men are not employed by anybody. Are they to be asked themselves to pay these enormous contributions in order to qualify for a benefit which, in my judgment, under the present Bill would prove to be largely illusory? At the present time they are covered by the Health Insurance Scheme and they will be covered by Part II of this Bill. I believe that they themselves will realise, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that they will be better off than they have ever been before. But my hon. Friend realises I am sure that this Bill is not the end of unemployment insurance. It is, indeed, only the beginning. We shall be discussing this question for the next 50 years and later schemes will extend this principle over the whole income-earning population of this country. I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises as readily as any of us that the share fishermen will have a right to be considered on their merits and to take their place in the Unemployment Insurance Scheme of 1935, 1936, 1937 or 1938.
§ 5.11 p.m.
§ Major HILLSI desire to bring before the Committee the case of domestic servants. Under the Act of 1920 only those domestic servants employed in any trade or business carried on for the purposes of gain were insurable. The total number of domestic servants of all sorts was 1,600,000 and of these only 350,000 were insured persons and so the matter stood when the Royal Commission reported, and they suggested in paragraph 368 of their report that certain classes indicated in paragraphs 362 and 363 should be brought within the insurance scheme. I wish to know whether the Government intend that servants employed in institu- 1799 tions should be included in the insurable class. These would be servants employed in clubs, schools, universities, hospitals, whole-time caretakers and office cleaners and the domestic staffs in shops and offices. Whether the Government include these or not there will remain great inequalities unless insurance is extended to all servants including private domestic servants.
If I may give some instances of the position which exists at present, a servant employed in a nursing home is insurable, whereas a servant in a hostel for nurses attached to a hospital is not insurable. A servant in a hostel provided by a firm for its staff is insurable, whereas a servant in a Y.M.C.A. hostel is not insurable. The parlour maid of a doctor who shows in the patients is insurable, but the parlour maid of a doctor who does not show in the patients is not insurable. The chauffeur who acts for a doctor or a professional man in his business is insurable, but the chauffeur who acts for the doctor or professional man during his leisure, is not insurable. These inequalities have a serious effect and convey an idea of unfairness.
§ Mr. HUDSONThis question arose on Clause 2 of the Bill and we have taken power, I think, to deal with those precise anomalies.
§ Major HILLSI do not think with respect that the hon. Gentleman dealt with the case of the chauffeur who drives the doctor round to his patients, as compared with the chauffeur who drives him out on Sunday with his family. I do not think you have power to deal with that case, but the difficulty is, and I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate it, that a man is nervous about taking up domestic service because he will lose his insurance rights. I agree that a woman is more protected, for she can return to insured employment within two years without her claim to benefit being prejudiced. Therefore, the free movement of applicants among all classes of domestic service is restricted. A large number of men servants in the last few years have fallen out of work, and if any hon. Member doubts whether there is real unemployment among men servants, I hope those of my colleagues who are so fortunate as to possess a chauffeur will 1800 ask him when they go home to-night. I am sure they will find that there is very severe and terrible unemployment among chauffeurs, because so many car owners either drive themselves or possess a son or a daughter who does it for them.
Then a large number of elderly servants are being replaced by young day servants, and there is a large amount of unemployment there. It is very hard to give the exact figures. The percentage of unemployment among insurable servants in December last was 17.3, which is about the average of the whole country. Still, I am informed that there is a very large number out of work. Further, it would increase the status of domestic service, which now stands a good deal too low, if it were included in the general insurance scheme for the country, and it would make men and women take to that service where they are now reluctant to do so.
I would like to deal with the objections of the Royal Commission, which really all come down to the difficulty of finding when servants are at work and when they are not, the difficulty of estimating the revenue that their contributions and those of their employers would amount to, and the difficulty of assessing claims. I think we must all admit that there are difficulties. If a man or a woman is employed in an office, it is easy to see when he or she is out of work, but when people are employed in a home, especially the part-time workers, it is difficult, I admit. But are these difficulties beyond the power of the Ministry and its highly skilled staff to meet? In the past, especially when the scheme was started, there were far more difficult problems than this. I agree that here we have a new class brought into insurance, a class that works under different conditions from those of most of the insurable subjects, but I am not at all convinced that the skill and knowledge of the Ministry of Labour are incapable of dealing with this difficult subject. This is a very real case, because there is a large amount of unemployment. Domestic service is not popular. You would increase its popularity, and you would unify the service, so that a man or a woman could move freely from one part to another without losing benefit. For these reasons I submit the Amendment to the good judgment of my right hon. Friend.
§ 5.20 p.m.
Viscountess ASTORI hope the Minister of Labour will make a real effort to bring in something to include domestic servants. It was said that it would be impossible to do so under health insurance, but some people put their minds to it, and they were brought in and are now almost under a perfect scheme. If anyone is in doubt as to the plight of domestic servants, they have only to advertise for a chauffeur. The other day a friend of mine advertised for a chauffeur-gardener, and in two days got over 1,500 applications. I have a feeling that if domestic servants and share fishermen were organised it would be different. We are so apt, as politicians, to overcome the difficulties when the people who press for reforms are organised, and so I think it is very much up to the House of Commons to look after the unorganised workers. These domestic servants, we know, are unorganised from the nature of their work. After all, so much of our personal happiness depends on them, and we have to get more people into domestic service and not make it more difficult for them than for other people to be insured.
I know that there are difficulties, but the Minister has his experts, and the difficulties, I am sure, can be overcome. I only hope that he will realise that sooner or later they must be overcome. I know the right hon. Gentleman said he was fed up with this question, or rather he did not say "fed up," but that he was tired or something of that sort, but he has given us an almost perfect scheme in other respects, and I hope he will give us some promise that he will go into the question of domestic service, because I am certain that more trouble is not taken because these people are unorganised. Once they got organised, if they should do it, the House of Commons would soon
§ find a way to get over the difficulties, but the very nature of their hours and work makes it very difficult for them to organise, so I beg the Minister to give us an assurance that he will put his great and sympathetic heart on to this question.
§ 5.23 p.m.
§ Mr. BRIANTI am very anxious about this matter, because some time ago I came into contact with a large class of cleaners of Government offices, many of whom were paying in for a long period before it was discovered that they came under the category of domestic work. They were greatly disappointed that, after having stamped their cards for a long period, they were not insured, and all the satisfaction that they got was that the value of the stamps which they had put on was returned to them. So anomalous is the position that if cleaners clean an office when the office is in use, they are insured, but if they clean the office at other times, to the advantage of the staff, they are not insured. I agree about the chauffeurs. I want to mention one case. There is a man at present employed in this very House, and only this morning he is applying, I find, for relief. He is employed while the House is open, and the nature of his employment classifies him as a domestic servant, but he finds it almost impossible to get work during the four months when the House is closed. I cannot help thinking that the common sense of this House will demand that men of that character, who are legitimately workers just as much as anybody else, should be brought within the ambit of this scheme, and I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 249.
1803| Division No. 102.] | AYES. | [5.26 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke | Cocks, Frederick Seymour | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) | Cove, William G. | Gluckstein, Louis Halle |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Cripps, Sir Stafford | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) |
| Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) | Curry, A. C. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Daggar, George | Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) |
| Batey, Joseph | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) |
| Bernays, Robert | Dickle, John P. | Griffith, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Dobble, William | Groves, Thomas E. |
| Briant, Frank | Edwards, Charles | Grundy, Thomas W. |
| Buchanan, George | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Burton, Colonel Henry Walter | Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd) |
| Cape, Thomas | Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | Harris, Sir Percy |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Ford, Sir Patrick J. | Hicks, Ernest George |
| Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Holdsworth, Herbert | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) | Mainwaring, William Henry | Smith, Tom (Normanton) |
| John, William | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot | Stewart, J. H. (File, E.) |
| Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) | Mander, Geoffrey le M. | Thorne, William James |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Kirkwood, David | Maxton, James | Wallace, John (Dunfermline) |
| Lawson, John James | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Leckie, J. A. | Owen, Major Goronwy | White, Henry Graham |
| Leonard, William | Paling, Wilfred | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Liddall, Walter S. | Parkinson, John Alien | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock) | Radford, E. A. | Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly) |
| Lunn, William | Rea, Walter Russell | Wilmot, John |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) | |
| McEntee, Valentine L. | Salt, Edward W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Miss Rathbone and Sir J. Withers. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Dunglass, Lord | Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Eady, George H. | Loder, Captain J. de Vere |
| Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) | Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey | Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. |
| Apsley, Lord | Elliston, Captain George Sampson | Lyons, Abraham Montagu |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | Mabane, William |
| Balley, Eric Alfred George | Emrys-Evans, P. V. | MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick) |
| Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) |
| Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) | McKie, John Hamilton |
| Balniel, Lord | Everard, W. Lindsay | McLean, Major Sir Alan |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Fraser, Captain Ian | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian |
| Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) | Fremantle, Sir Francis | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. |
| Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel | Fuller, Captain A. G. | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. |
| Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. | Galbraith, James Francis Wallace | Marsden, Commander Arthur |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton | Martin, Thomas B. |
| Boothby, Robert John Graham | Gillett, Sir George Masterman | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John |
| Borodale, Viscount | Glossop, C. W. H. | Meller, Sir Richard James |
| Boulton, W. W. | Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Gower, Sir Robert | Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas | Morrison, William Shephard |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Graves, Marjorie | Moss, Captain H. J. |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Grigg, Sir Edward | Munro, Patrick |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Grimston, R. V. | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) |
| Browne, Captain A. C. | Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) |
| Buchan, John | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Nunn, William |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. |
| Burnett, John George | Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) | Palmer, Francis Noel |
| Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Patrick, Colin M. |
| Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) | Hanbury, Cecil | Peat, Charles U. |
| Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Penny, Sir George |
| Carver, Major William H. | Harbord, Arthur | Percy, Lord Eustace |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hartington, Marquess of | Peters, Dr. Sidney John |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hartland, George A. | Petherick, M. |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Procter, Major Henry Adam |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. | Pybus, Sir Percy John |
| Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. |
| Christie, James Archibald | Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) | Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) |
| Clarke, Frank | Horsbrugh, Florence | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) |
| Clayton, Sir Christopher | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Ramsbotham, Herwald |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Hurd, Sir Percy | Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham- |
| Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
| Conant, R. J. E. | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. |
| Cook, Thomas A. | James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. | Robinson, John Roland |
| Cooke, Douglas | Jamieson, Douglas | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Craven-Ellis, William | Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Ross, Ronald D. |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | Joel, Dudley J. Barnato | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Ker, J. Campbell | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. |
| Cross, R. H. | Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Crossley, A. C. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Runge, Norah Cecil |
| Culverwell, Cyril Tom | Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) |
| Denville, Alfred | Law, Sir Alfred | Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury) |
| Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.) | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) |
| Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert | Leech, Dr. J. W. | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Doran, Edward | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Savery, Samuel Servington |
| Drewe, Cedric | Levy, Thomas | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Duggan, Hubert John | Lewis, Oswald | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | Lloyd, Geoffrey | Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) |
| Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. |
| Simmonds, Oliver Edwin | Strickland, Captain W. F. | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F. | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast) | Summersby, Charles H. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Skelton, Archibald Noel | Sutcliffe, Harold | Watt, Captain George Steven H. |
| Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. | Tate, Mavis Constance | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) | Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.) | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Templeton, William P. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Somervell, Sir Donald | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd) |
| Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles | Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth) |
| Spencer, Captain Richard A. | Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick.on-T.) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) | Touche, Gordon Cosmo | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) | Train, John | Woimer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Tree, Ronald | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks) |
| Stones, James | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | |
| Storey, Samuel | Turton, Robert Hugh | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Stourton, Hon. John J. | Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) | Mr. Womersley and Commander Southby. |
| Strauss, Edward A. | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
§ The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:
§
In page 19, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(2) The Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, examine the case for the insurance against unemployment of share fishermen, and shall, within six months after the passing of this Act, make a report to the Minister containing any proposals and any recommendations they may consider practicable in the interests of the fishing industry with respect thereto, and the report shall be laid before Parliament."—[Mr. Petherick.]
§ The CHAIRMANDoes the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) desire to move the Amendment in his name?
§ Mr. PETHERICKIn view of the explanation of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANIn accordance with the arrangement that was made, if the hon. Member does not wish for a Division he will not move his Amendment, and I will not propose it from the Chair.
§ Major HILLSI beg to move, in page 19, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(2) The Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, make such proposals as may seem to them practicable for the insurance against unemployment of domestic servants, and shall make a report to the Minister containing the proposals and any recommendations of the committee with respect thereto, and the report shall be laid before Parliament.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 265.
1807| Division No. 103.] | AYES. | [5.37 p.m. |
| Aciand, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke | Grenfelt, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Malialleu, Edward Lancelot |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.) | Mander, Geoffrey le M. |
| Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Groves. Thomas E. | Maxton, James |
| Batey, Joseph | Grundy, Thomas W. | Owen, Major Goronwy |
| Bernays, Robert | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Paling, Wilfred |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Buchanan, George | Harris, Sir Percy | Rathbone, Eleanor |
| Cape, Thomas | Hicks, Ernest George | Rea, Walter Russell |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Holdsworth, Herbert | Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) |
| Copeland, Ida | Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Cove, William G. | Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | John, William | Smith, Tom (Normanton) |
| Curry, A. C. | Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) | Thorne, William James |
| Daggar, George | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Kirkwood, David | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Dobble, William | Lawson, John James | White, Henry Graham |
| Edwards, Charles | Leckie, J. A. | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) | Leonard, William | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) | Lunn, William | Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly) |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Wilmot, John |
| Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | McEntee, Valentine L. | Withers, Sir John James |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton | |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur | Mainwaring, William Henry | Major Hills and Mr. F. Briant. |
| NOES. | ||
| Aciend-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Apsley, Lord | Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Aske, Sir Robert William | Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Bailey, Eric Alfred George | Balniel, Lord |
| Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) | Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. | Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Radford, E. A. |
| Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) | Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Raikes, Henry V. A. N. |
| Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) |
| Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. | Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) |
| Boothby, Robert John Graham | Hamilton, Sir George (llford) | Ramsbotham, Herwald |
| Borodale, Viscount | Hanbury, Cecil | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) |
| Boulton, W. W. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham- |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Harbord, Arthur | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George S. W. | Hartington, Marquess of | Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Robinson, John Roland |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert N. | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. | Ross, Ronald D. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham) | Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Horsbrugh, Florence | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Buchan, John | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Runge, Norah Cecil |
| Buchan-Hepburn. P. G. T. | Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) | Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy) |
| Burnett, John George | Hurd, Sir Percy | Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tsids) |
| Burton, Colonel Henry Walter | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Russell, H. J. (Eddisbury) |
| Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Salt, Edward W. |
| Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) | James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) |
| Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm | Jamieson, Douglas | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Savery, Samuel Servington |
| Carver, Major William H. | Joel, Dudley J. Barnato | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Kerr, Hamilton W. | Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) | Knox, Sir Alfred | Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Simmonds, Oliver Edwin |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston) | Law, Sir Alfred | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast) |
| Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, s.) | Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) | Skelton, Archibald Noel |
| Christie, James Archibald | Leech, Dr. J. W. | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Clarke, Frank | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Clayton, Sir, Christopher | Levy, Thomas | Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Lewis, Oswald | Somervell, Sir Donald |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Liddall, Walter S. | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Lloyd, Geoffrey | Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. |
| Conant, R. J. E. | Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Cook, Thomas A. | Loder, Captain J. de Vere | Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. |
| Cooke, Douglas | Lumley, Captain Lawrence N. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyide) |
| Craven-Ellis, William | Lyons, Abraham Montagu | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) |
| Crook, J. Smedley | Mabane, William | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro) | MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C.G.(Partick) | Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.) |
| Cross, R. H. | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Stones, James |
| Crossley, A. C. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Storey, Samuel |
| Culverwell, Cyril Tom | McEwen. Captain J. H. F. | Stourton, Hon. John J. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | McKie, John Hamilton | Strauss, Edward A. |
| Denville, Alfred | McLean, Major Sir Alan | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F. |
| Dickle, John P. | Macmillan, Maurice Harold | Summersby, Charles H. |
| Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| Doran, Edward | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. | Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,s.) |
| Drewe, Cedric | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. H. | Templeton, William P. |
| Duggan, Hubert John | Marsden, Commander Arthur | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Duncan James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | Martin, Thomas B. | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) |
| Dunglass, Lord | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Eady, George H. | Melier, Sir Richard James | Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.) |
| Ellis, Sir H. Geoffrey | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Touche, Gordon Cosmo |
| Elliston, Captain George Sampson | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Train, John |
| Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale | Tree, Ronald |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Entwistle, Cyril fullard | Moore Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Erskine-Bolst. Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | Morrison, William Shephard | Wallace Captain D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) | Moss, Captain H. J. | Wallace, John (Dunfermline) |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Munro, Patrick | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walisend) |
| Ford, Sir Patrick J. | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Watt, Captain George Steven H. |
| Fremantle, Sir Francis | Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Fuller, Captain A. G. | Nunn, William | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Galbraith, James Francis Wallace | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton | Palmer, Francis Noel | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Gillett, Sir George Masterrman | Patrick, Colin M. | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd) |
| Glossop, C. W. H. | Peake, Captain Osbert | Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth) |
| Gluckstein, Louis Hall. | Pearson, William G. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C. | Peat, Charles U. | Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Penny, Sir George | Wolmer. Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Percy, Lord Eustace | Womersley, Walter James |
| Graham, Sir F. Fergus, (C'mb'rl'd, N.) | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas | Petherick. M. | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noacks) |
| Graves, Marjorie | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple) | |
| Greaves-Lord, Sir Waiter | Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Lord Erskine and Commander Southby. |
| Grigg, Sir Edward | Procter, Major Henry Adam | |
| Grimston, R. V. | Pybus, Sir Percy John |
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ 5.46 p.m.
§ Mr. TURTONI beg to move, in page 20, line 6, after "employed," to insert "or persons engaged."
The effect of this Amendment is to allow the Committee to receive representations from persons engaged in the agricultural industry. The Minister said last night that the position of a smallholder, with members of his family working on the holding, had presented some difficulty. This Amendment would allow such persons to make representations. As I understand that the Government are willing to accept the Amendment, I will say nothing further.
§ 5.47 p.m.
§ Sir H. BETTERTONI am prepared to accept the Amendment, which I think does help us to attain the object of the Clause.
§ Amendment agreed to.