§ Considered in Committee [9th Allotted Day].
§ [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
§ CLAUSE 37.—(Persons to whom and circumstances in which allowances may be granted.)
§ 3.33 p.m.
§ Miss RATHBONE
I beg to move, in page 32, line 43, at the end, to insert:Provided that the need to be taken into account in assessing the allowances made to the applicant shall include a reasonable amount for rent and shall also include the minimum requirements of healthy physical subsistence for himself and for the members of his household in respect of whom the allowances are made.Many of us who voted last Tuesday for the Amendment that the needs of a child should not be assessed at a lesser sum than 3s. did so because it then seemed the only way in which to express the anxiety which we felt—an anxiety in fact shared by the whole country—that the health of the children of the unemployed should be safeguarded; but we recognise the validity of the objections advanced by the Government to that particular Amendment, as expressed in the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary. His contention was that the needs of the applicant and his household ought to be considered as a whole, as a unit, and that to have a fixed, arbitrary figure for the needs of a child alone might hamper rather than assist the board. With both those objections I warmly agree, and this Amendment is devised to meet them by introducing a formula for the assessment of needs which, I submit, the Government can and ought to accept. Without some formula of the kind the Bill is seriously incomplete, and the Government lays itself open to the suspicion, though I do not say it is a true suspicion, of playing a confidence trick on Parliament We have been told time and again by the Government that they want in this Bill to get away from the old traditions of the Poor Law, with its destitution test. If the needs test is not to be a destitution test, then what is it to be?
We have every right to ask what are the general principles on which needs are 768 to be assessed? I submit that it is common sense that if a father said to his son, or if the community say to an unemployed person, "If you fulfil such and such conditions we will provide for your needs, that is, what is necessary for you," the person so addressed would reply, "Necessary for what? Do you mean necessary to keep me and my children from starvation, or necessary to keep me and my children in health, or necessary to enable me to keep up the standard of life which is normal in the occupation to which I belong?" Need is a purely relative term. Until me know the standard in relation to which need is to be measured, need is a meaningless term. It is no use the Government saying, "Trust the board, leave the board a perfectly free hand." The function of the board ought to be to interpret and apply principles which have been clearly laid down by Parliament, and not to lay down principles itself. Contrast the very different way in which the board is treated in the very next Sub-section of this Clause 37. That Sub-section lays down to a penny what part of an applicant's resources may be taken into account and how much he may claim to have disregarded. Why is the Bill so arithmetically precise about that, and so completely vague about the nature of the needs on which the assessment is to be made? Is it because the safeguarding of the taxpayers' purse is regarded as of more importance than the safeguarding of the health and homes of the unemployed?
If the Government are to fulfil the hopes which their spokesmen have held out in their speeches on the Bill, they are by implication committed already to very much the same principle as is laid down in my very modest Amendment. It merely asks that the needs assessed shall cover the requirements of healthy physical subsistence, plus a reasonable allowance for rent. We might have gone further and asked that the assessment should cover the rent actually paid by the unemployed person, but that would have laid us open to the charge of encouraging profiteering landlords or applicants who were extravagantly housed; or we might have asked for what is proposed in an Amendment preceding this one where it is claimed that a man should be able to keep himself and his dependants at such standard as he would be able to do if he were in 769 normal employment. We think this would not be reasonable, because it would involve a recognition of class distinctions which is no business of the board's. The board have no right to say that an electrician's needs are higher than those of a weaver, or a weaver's higher than those of a dock labourer. Except in the one item of rent, which is a liability which cannot be changed quickly, the needs of all persons under the same conditions in the same locality ought to be assessed on the same basis.
There is only one reasonable scientific basis on which needs can be assessed, and that is the primary subsistence needs of healthy human beings living in a civilised community. It is not as though there were any difficulty in finding a formula to express those needs. The board will not have to begin at the beginning with a tabula rasa. The preliminary spadework has already been largely done. For years I have made this very question of the scientific assessment of human needs one of my studies. Until a year ago I had repeatedly to complain that the dieticians and medical people were not doing their duty in this matter, and were compelling us, whose business it was to apply the principles of science and economics to the practical needs of human beings, to use in our calculations data which were completely out of date. But during the last year there has been a perfect crop of inquiries by expert bodies upon this subject. There has been the much discussed British Medical Association inquiry, as compared with that of the Ministry of Health's own Advisory Committee. Then there is the report of that little committee set up by the "Week-End Review" and conducted by Dr. A. L. Bowley, who is surely not an extremist or a left wing politician. Then there were the figures published in the "Lancet" by four medical experts, and there was the inquiry made by expert dietitians of St. Bartholomew's Hospital.
These inquiries all dealt only with food, but there have been several wider inquiries which included other items of living needs. There was the very important investigation by the highly expert bodies engaged in the Life and Labour inquiries in London and other towns, and carried out under university auspices or auspices of equally competent and scientific bodies of experts. Anyone who wishes 770 to study the findings of these inquiries will find them admirably summarised in the little report on "Unemployment and the Child," issued by the Save the Children Fund. I am not going to take up time by quoting any of the findings, but those who study them may be tempted to suspect that the reason why the Government do not want to face up to a rational, scientific basis of assessment of needs is that they fear that if they do so they will be under the necessity of spending more money than they want to spend.
I think I know nearly every inquiry that has been undertaken on this subject in the last 10 years, not only in this country but in the United States of America and on the Continent of Europe, and I believe that I am not exaggerating when I say that the scales laid down and every inquiry have shown that the ordinary rates of unemployment benefit are, by themselves, quite inadequate to provide even for the much less level of physical health. The same thing is true of the rates that are paid by Poor Law authorities. We have been told repeatedly that there is no analogy between what the new board are going to do and the work of the Poor Law, or the assessment of ordinary unemployment benefit; that unemployment insurance is not concerned in providing maintenance, and that the limitations as to how much it was to pay are fixed by actuarial calculations. As was pointed out by the Poor Law Commission of 1909, the Poor Law has made the mistake of taking into account unrevealed resources, and he has gone on making that mistake despite the report of that great Commission. The new board are not to be bound by any of those limits. They are to take into account the whole means of the applicant, after allowing for his own resources, and they ought not to make the mistake of calculating unrevealed resources.
Let the Government face up to the implications of the principle which they have laid down. They say that the assistance to be given by the board is to be adequate assistance and is not to be limited by the amount of ordinary benefit. Also it is not to be supplemented by the Poor Law. Therefore, the whole responsibility is placed upon 771 this board of seeing that the unemployed who do not come within ordinary benefit not only are relieved from destitution but are prevented from falling into destitution. The question arises as to the basis and as to the principles upon which the assessment is to be calculated. The board will decide what amount applicants are to receive. Will the amount be sufficient to keep a man and his family from slowly deteriorating in health and morale, under the long-continued pressure of insufficient food, clothing and house space? It is not only physical deterioration and shortage of food that ought to be taken into account, but the loss of energy, will power and morale, and the feeling of despair that comes over an unemployed man when he is subject, not for a few short weeks, but month after month and sometimes year after year, to the environment imposed upon him by extreme poverty, coupled with his own unemployment, the unemployment of his adolescent boys and girls and the incessant household drudgery and hopeless struggle of his wife to make two ends meet on wholly inadequate means.
If the Government wish to have a means test or a needs test, let that be a real needs test or means test. If every item of the applicant's means and resources is to be taken into account, let every item of his needs be also taken into account. Let his needs be assessed upon a basis which is not haphazard or rule of thumb; not a basis which fixes two or three shillings for a child and leaves all the rest of the family out of account. It should be a basis which is fully worked out and clearly laid down by Parliament, which the Government, with a good conscience can accept. Then leave the working out of those principles to the board, and let the board bring their detailed tables and regulations before Parliament for approval.
The Amendment which I am moving merely suggests the preliminary formula, laying down the principles upon which the board is to proceed, and I hope that the Government will accept that formula. If they reject it, let them tell us what formula and what principles they propose to put in its place.
§ 3.48 p.m.
§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS
Having read this Amendment and listened to the speech in support of it, I come back to my original view, which is that the Amendment is so much verbiage. It seems utterly useless for the purpose of enabling the Unemployment Assistance Board to carry out Clause 51, which lays down thatwithin four months from the passing of this Act,the board shallprepare and submit to the Minister draft regulations.There are a great many factors to be taken into account in determining the principle upon which needs are to be assessed. General circumstances may vary from time to time and it is perfectly absurd to attempt to limit them in such very vague terms. The Amendment includes the dreadful word "reasonable" which has caused the courts of justice infinite trouble. It contains the phrase "minimum … subsistence" about which a number of doctors have been quarrelling in the Press in the last three months. It is absurd to incorporate those unnecessary words in an Act of Parliament. There is already provision for the drafting of regulations, and the regulations, having been drafted and having been submitted to the Minister, ultimately come before Parliament. If it is obviously an unsatisfactory scheme, Parliament will make its views on the subject quite plain.
I go further. It is proposed in the next part of the Bill to specify certain needs which are not to be taken into account in the estimate of income. From the logical point of view one ought to take into account all sorts of income and all needs, but as a matter of practical convenience it has been decided to treat certain forms of income as automatically offset by certain special needs. In principle, we ought to give the maximum measure of freedom to the people who have to gather together all the necessary expert information in drafting their regulations, and I hope that, having regard to all these circumstances, their hands will not be unnecessarily tied by what I regard as so much verbiage.
§ 3.51 p.m.
§ Mr. MANDER
I desire to support this Amendment, because I believe it will do 773 something to diminish the hardships of the means test. According to my experience, it is not really the means test itself that is objected to so much as the inevitable hardships and injustices which go with it, and I believe that this Amendment would avoid that to a considerable extent. Most of the unemployed are admirable, law-abiding people who simply desire in a constitutional way to better their position, and one of their difficulties up to the present time has been that they have not known exactly what they were entitled to. Fortunately, that difficulty will be overcome as a result of this Measure, because I take it that in the future all the scales will be known and published throughout the country. The fact that different scales have been applied in different districts, and that very few scales have been known, has given rise, in my judgment, to a vast amount of suspicion, ill will, and antagonism, going far beyond what the real circumstances of the case have always justified.
It seems to me that this Amendment is a very moderate and reasonable one which would give some real guidance to the board as to the lines on which they are to proceed. With regard to rent, I think it often happens at the present time that an all-round average of 7s. is allowed, and obviously instructions ought to be given to the effect that, where in a particular case the rent is more than that, an allowance ought to be made. Otherwise a premium would be placed upon bad housing and upon some people's reluctance to go into good houses, thereby encouraging an unsocial attitude. Already there is recognition of the desirability of a special allowance for rent. The very fact that a man receives 15s. 3d. and his wife 8s. shows that this matter is taken into consideration, and all that the Amendment asks is that the lines upon which the board are to proceed should be still more clearly marked out and a certain amount of latitude given. The real point about this Amendment is that for the first time we are trying to lay down as a guide, not the rule-of-thumb method that has been adopted up to the present time, but a definite scientific basis.
My hon. Friend has referred to various reports that have been worked out recently and are now available. I desire to quote shortly two or three examples from two of those that have been mentioned, 774 namely, the report of the British Medical Association and the report got out by the "Week-End Review," based on the Ministry of Health's report, just to show the need for some attention to the scientific side of this matter. Taking the figures of the "Week-End Review," it is found that as a minimum, for a child between the ages of one and two, 2s. 9d. is required; between the ages of three and six, 3s. 6d.; between the ages of eight and 10, 4s. 1d.; and between 12 and 14, 4s. 9d. These figures, of course, pay no regard to clothing, but as the period of unemployment is prolonged clothing has to be replaced more and more, and at the present time expenditure under that head must be growing. When one remembers the 2s. that is allowed now, I think it is clear that some definite lead on a proper basis should be given. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that that suggestion receives support, and no doubt we shall hear in due course in what way the Government intend to give that lead. I notice that the report of the British Medical Association ends by expressing anearnest hope that the dietaries forming part of this report will not be regarded as of simply ephemeral value, for 1237 ascribing the local price for the quantities of foodstuffs purchased at any time it will be easily possible to calculate the current minimum cost of the food per man-value per week which in the opinion of the Committee is adequate to ensure the health of the family and the working capacity of the breadwinner.I do not think it can be alleged in any quarter of the Committee that at the present time regard is being paid to the real needs, on a nutrition basis, of the unemployed. I know constituents of mine among the unemployed who tell me that, in order to get through the day and concentrate what little they have to spend on food, they sometimes spend the morning in bed—not on account of any laziness, but owing to the mere fact that by doing that it is possible to consume less food and the better to get through the day and use what is available for the children. It is a tragic thought that men should be driven to such an extremity in this stage of our civilisation. I think the mere fact that bodies like the Personal Service League are doing the admirable work that they are doing throughout the country, in providing clothes and other things for the unemployed, shows that a proper level of subsistence 775 is not being maintained at the present time, because, if a proper amount were being allowed, there would be no necessity for the voluntary activities of such bodies as these.
I would further point out that to secure a proper level of subsistence it is necessary to have regard to the fact, in respect of those members of the family who may be at work—it may be one or more—that a certain allowance should be made for travelling to and from work, and for hospital contributions, insurance contributions, works contributions and trade union subscriptions. These are the minima of modern life; they are not luxuries in any way, but necessities; and I hope that the Government, if they cannot accept the Amendment, will make it clear in some manner and at some stage that they do in practice desire that all these things shall be considered by the board and brought into operation for the benefit of the unemployed in the future. I support the Amendment because I believe that it would make more tolerable the life of those who will come under the administration of the board.
§ 3.59 p.m.
§ Mr. COVE
I believe I am voicing the opinion of all those on these benches when I say that with the spirit and intention behind this Amendment we have a very great deal of sympathy, but, frankly, we have been unable to discover how what is desired by the Mover will be met by the Amendment. We have given most careful thought to the Amendment, and, while I am usually reluctant to agree with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), I must say that, as far as we can understand the effect of the Amendment, it would do very little, if anything at all, to meet what is obviously desired. Therefore, if I may respectfully make the suggestion, I hope that the Committee will quickly pass over this Amendment and come down to the more concrete Amendments which follow. I would only observe that I was very much surprised to hear the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) say that he had no objection to the means test——
§ Mr. COVE
I took particular care to notice that the hon. Member in his speech said that what he objected to was the pain caused by the means test, but I cannot imagine any means test that does not give pain. Apparently, the hon. Member does not object to the thumbscrew, but he objects to the pain that the thumbscrew gives. That, I understood, was the attitude of the hon. Member, but now we have it perfectly clear he is not objecting to the means test as a matter of principle.
§ Mr. MABANE
Does the hon. Gentleman object to the means test at present being used by the city council of Leeds?
§ Miss RATHBONE
The hon. Gentleman said, as I understand him, that he does not see what this Amendment accomplishes. Am I to understand that he and hon. Members surrounding him are of opinion that it would be no achievement to get laid down by Parliament the allowance of a reasonable amount for rent and the minimum requirements of healthy physical subsistence instead of the amount now allowed for transitional benefit and Poor Law relief?
§ Mr. COVE
There is no need to introduce any heat into this discussion. I could get very angry about the means test, but not about the Amendment, which does not affect it. So far as I see it, it all depends on the interpretation of the word "reasonable." It means nothing. I have no trust at all that the board will administer reasonably. If the hon. Lady had put down an Amendment to give definite instructions——
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Lady must understand, that unless the hon. Member who is in possession of the Floor of the House gives way, she ought not to get up to speak.
§ Mr. COVE
That remains to be seen. I do not think that I am. It all hangs on the word "reasonable." Therefore, as far as I can see, it does not get us any further. I do not want to delay the Committee on this Amendment, as I want them to get on to other Amendments which will do something definite and concrete for these people.
§ Miss RATHBONE
On a point of Order, Sir Dennis. Am I not entitled to point out that the hon. Member has read the Amendment wrongly?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Lady, apparently, is not rising to a point of Order at all. She is doing what I have had repeatedly to protest against, that is, hon. Members trying to interject arguments under the guise of rising to a point of Order, when they have no point of Order to raise.
§ 4.4 p.m.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I listened with a feeling of humiliation to the last speaker. Stage by stage Members of the Opposition are getting the Government more frequently out of their difficulties than the Government are getting themselves out. The other night, on the Amendment relating to the 3s., one of the most capable speeches made in defence of the Government was that of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald). A most capable speech for the Government has also been made by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). I hope that when Members come here to attack the Government, the Labour Opposition are not going to constitute themselves the Government defenders.
What does the Amendment now before the Committee in substance try to do? The purpose behind the hon. Lady's Amendment is an attempt to limit the power of the board. The Amendment inserts in the Bill the word "minimum." The question then arises, what is the minimum? The hon. Lady says, in effect, that if sufficient pressure can be exerted, the minimum must be laid down by medical authorities, who in health matters, are the best able to lay down a minimum health standard, and she knows 778 that these medical people will give a minimum standard which will ensure a higher level than is now being paid. Her case is simply that at present there is no minimum, that there is no human standard and that it is done with no regard to human necessities. I agree with the last speaker on this point, that on every one of these questions it will come down, to some extent, to the administration of the fund, but an Amendment of this kind would mean that the House of Commons could constantly be attacking those responsible for not paying regard to the minimum standard of health. The Amendment says:Provided that the need to be taken into account in assessing the allowances made to the applicant shall include a reasonable amount for rent and shall also include the minimum requirements of healthy physical subsistence.At the present time the board have no instructions to provide a healthy minimum. They could make it below the minimum. They are here instructed that they cannot pay less. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or more."] This Amendment says that it shall include the minimum of a healthy standard. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is all."] It does not say that. It says that there shall not be less than the minimum of a healthy physical standard. If they do not pay that, as indeed they will not, is there any Member of this House who thinks that the board are going to grant more than insurance benefit? Insurance benefit is nothing like a minimum for healthy life. Consequently, if they adhere to the same rates, or substantially the same rates, it will be the job of this House to say that they are not carrying out the purpose of this Amendment. Anything which limits this autocratic body in any way, even if it is not in a definite form, is a limitation of the board's power and, therefore, is a good thing for the House of Commons to do.
§ 4.11 p.m.
§ Mr. JANNER
I rise to support the Amendment, and I would point out to those who are raising technical points, which appears to be the line taken by several hon. Members present, that the second part of the Amendment, although it says "shall also include the minimum requirements," does not prevent the board from allowing something which is more and, therefore, includes the minimum. The Amendment clearly indi- 779 cates that what is intended is that the board shall have the direction that it must at least take into consideration the question of the minimum requirements. I realise, however, that that matter has been amply argued in the course of the Debate. I want to deal with the first part of the Amendment which appears to me to be an exceedingly serious and important part. I refer to the phrase which deals with the question of rent. When the Increase of Rent Bill was before this House, an attempt was made by an hon. Member representing one of the Newcastle constituencies to introduce a proviso whereby in certain cases, where people were obtaining relief, they should be entitled to have their house considered as being controlled within the provision of the Increase of Rent Act. Apparently, some objection was taken on technical grounds in respect of that Amendment, and it appears to me, in view of the present unsatisfactory position with regard to the working of the Increase of Rent Act, it is highly essential that we should indicate to those who are administering the provisions of the Unemployment Act that the House is deeply concerned with the question of the rent which is being paid by those who are applying for relief under its regulations. Those of us who have had any contact with people whose houses have been decontrolled, will know that the position is assuming a very serious aspect.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think that the hon. Member is getting more into a discussion of the Rent Acts than of this particular Amendment, and, in view of the importance of other Amendments which follow, I hope that he will be very careful to confine his remarks to the Amendment now before the Committee.
§ Mr. JANNER
I am sorry if I have transgressed against the Rules, but it was my intention to make clear what was the present position in respect of people who are receiving allowances, having regard to the rent they have to pay, and I was trying to point out that the landlord to-day is in a position to be able to charge whatever rent he chooses in many cases, and, consequently, the applicant for relief is placed in a very serious position, unless the rent is taken into consideration at the time the application 780 is being dealt with. In the event of the needs of the household being taken into consideration, should the household be a large one, the house is not likely to be controlled and, consequently, the rent will be an important factor as far as the outgoings of the family are concerned. In view of the manner in which the question of rent has been dealt with in the past, the Amendment will provide an instruction for the board to consider fully on each occasion what the consequences will be to the applicant unless the rent is properly considered.
We had before the Committee some time ago the question of the minimum allowance which should be made in respect of a child. In my view, and I believe in the view of most people who have come in contact with this question of rent, the allowance of 2s. was not even enough to cover the apportioned part of the rent in respect of the child. I hope no quibble will be taken advantage of to oppose the Amendment, because it is a very serious one. If we cannot obtain what we want, we will take the best we can get. There is nothing unreasonable in its terms. There is nothing that anyone could take objection to and, though the hon. Member above the Gangway has raised points which, as far as I can see, are not supported by anything in the nature of a reasonable argument, the fact remains that even he and his party ought to accept the Amendment. [Interruption.] I am glad to hear that there are other Members of his party who take a different view. I hope the hon. Member will see his way to support the Amendment which, if it does not go as far as he wants, at least goes some way towards it.
§ 4.18 p.m.
§ Mr. BATEY
I do not object to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) opposing the Amendment, but I object to him associating his party with opposition to it. It does not go as far as I should like it to go, but, as far as it goes, I am going to support it. With my hon. Friend, I desire to get on to the next Amendment, but that does not say that we are going to oppose this, which goes a little way towards helping us. Apart from an instruction to take rent into consideration the wordsshall include the minimum requirements of healthy physical subsistence for himself and the members of his household"—781 mean to me a good deal. In the distressed areas in Durham you have only to look at the people to see the ravages that are being made on them by the application of the means test. The hospitals are full of children with scarlet fever. I believe that is largely due to undernourishment. If we can get an instruction put in that those who apply the means test must consider the minimum requirements of healthy physical subsistence, I will support it even if it does not give all that I want.
§ 4.20 p.m.
§ Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY
When the hon. Lady asked me to put my name to this Amendment, I did so realising that it is rather a general statement. At the same time, it is extremely difficult to get a form of words which will look after this most vital Section of Part II of the Bill. It is easy enough to say that in respect of war pensions, or some specific thing, you can subtract a specific amount, but when you are dealing with a question of need it seems to me that you must be general. This is an attempt to guide the board, which I regard it as the duty of the Committee to do, to a general principle. I do not think it is the duty of the Committee to talk in terms of details, but some of us have tried to work out details. Certain amounts should not be taken into account in respect of need with regard to various members of the household. There are one or two figures which have been worked out by the British Medical Association and by Dr. Bowley in the "Week-end Review" which give some sort of indication. Surely the hunger march is proof that there is some dissatisfaction. The sooner we can get down to some more scientific estimate of the needs of the family, the better it is going to be for all concerned. May I quote one figure to illustrate my point. Taking an average family income of between 29s. 6d. and 32s. 6d., the rent is no less than 32 per cent. of the income. In the case of a family income between 32s. 6d. and 42s. 6d., the rent is no less than 23 per cent. of the total. Under the various assessments in Poor Law and under transitional payments you have to have a general principle. This is a new thing. It is not Poor Law and it is not transitional, and there is no new principle written in the Bill. May I remind the Committee of what the Parliamentary Secretary said on a previous occasion: 782I gather that a father ought not to be expected to maintain his son or to help to maintain him, or that a son ought not to be expected to help to maintain his father. I, personally, disagree, and I believe that the huge majority, not merely of this House, but of the country, believe that you have to maintain, fundamentally, the family as the unit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1932; col. 1137, Vol. 263.]There is a principle again. It is extremely difficult unless we lay down a principle in regard to the administration of need by the board. I add my support to this simple Amendment, realising that it is general and somewhat vague, because I think it will do far more than a lot of detailed Amendments on which we should dispute for hours.
§ 4.25 p.m.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) that the Amendment is unnecessary. I think it is clear that, if the board are to fulfil their duty under the Bill, they must take into account all the considerations that the hon. Member has just mentioned. I have been trying to consider why it is that anyone should have thought it necessary to bring forward this Amendment. I think, perhaps, there is a clue in the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). If I understood his argument, it was that the Unemployment Assistance Board would not give a larger allowance than the sums paid in benefit under Part I and, since the sums paid in benefit may fall very far short of the normal requirements of healthy subsistence, the hon. Member argues that we ought to put these words in. That is a complete misapprehension but it exists in the minds of many people in the country. I have found it among my own constituents. May I remind the hon. Member of a passage from the Minister's speech last Tuesday when dealing with the children's Amendment. He said:I have observed an anxiety in all parts of the Committee lest what took place the other night on Part I of the Bill would be regarded by the board as a precedent for them to follow under Part II. That point was urged with great force by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) among others. I was not present when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary spoke on this matter, but he tells me that he assured the Committee over and over again that there is no connection at all between the rates of benefit under Part I of the Bill and the assessment under Part II. I give that assurance also, but, if the Committee 783 prefer it, I will insert in subsequent stages of the Bill an Amendment giving an assurance to that effect. Of course, I have not the exact words here, but I will insert an assurance to the effect that the assessment under Part II shall not necessarily be governed by the rates of benefit under Part I."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1934; col. 307, Vol. 286.]If the Minister could see his way to insert such a declaration I should be very glad.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
The present scale for a man with a wife and two children is 27s. 3d. standard benefit. That is not the minimum requirement for healthy subsistence. If the Minister is serious on the point, he ought to put down an Amendment that, so long as 27s. 3d. is the scale for these people, and they have no other income, that is not sufficient and the board must increase it. Merely to say that they have power does not make the position any better.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN
The hon. Member is still assuming that the board, in assessing need, will have in mind in some way the rate of benefit payable under Part I. It is clear that they are not to have any regard to that rate and I believe there is a great amount of genuine misapprehension in the country on the point. It is for that reason that I should be very glad if the Minister would insert such a declaration as he contemplated on Tuesday although, as I read the Bill, it is not really necessary, but it would remove any misunderstanding and I do not see that it could do any harm. I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment, and I hope the Minister will do his best to remove the misgivings which may be present in the minds of those who have moved it.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. TINKER
The hon. Member in a sense agrees with the Amendment in so far as it may influence the Minister to lay down something definite as to what should be done under Part II. I think that is the inference from his quotation from the Minister's speech on Second Reading.
§ Mr. TINKER
The Amendment is for the purpose of getting the point emphasised. 784 I cannot get away from the belief that the scale of Part I will govern Part II. If that is not so, I should like an expression of opinion from the Minister, because evidently, on both sides of the Committee, there is a feeling that something better ought to be given. Although the Amendment is couched in somewhat indefinite terms, it contains the spirit of that idea. Anyone who heard the hon. Lady move the Amendment could follow her intention. The Amendment is for the purpose of trying to govern the board which is to be set up in accordance with the views of the House of Commons. I am afraid that unless we do something on those lines the board may go along believing that the opinion of the House of Commons is that Part I contains the scales which must govern Part II. That is why I want those who sit with me on this side of the Committee to support the spirit of the Amendment. My hon. Friend said that it was indefinite and did not provide a real solution of the position, but I believe that no one can take exception to it, and I shall use all the influence I possess to try and get hon. Members to support it. On every possible occasion on Part II, I intend to raise my voice with the object of showing the board the intention of the House of Commons on the matter. Anybody who followed the discussion on the question of the 3s. will realise the prevailing feeling. Some of the arguments used on that occasion showed that in the general assessment of needs the 3s. would have no effect. If we follow stage by stage all the needs of various members of the family we must give an impression to the board of what we think about the matter. I shall go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
§ 4.33 p.m.
§ Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND
I want to make an appeal to the Committee and to ask them whether we might not exercise a self-denial over this Amendment, in order to give a chance to some of the other Amendments which are on the Paper. There are a number of other points which hon. Members want to raise. The discussion on this Amendment has occupied an hour, and there is only a limited time until the closure falls. There are Amendments of such importance, as, for example, the question of dependants and how far their 785 means should be considered and to what extent, that I hope the Committee will exercise a certain amount of self-denial.
§ 4.34 p.m.
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton)
I think that it will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if we now dispose of the Amendment and proceed to discuss some of the many other Amendments on the Paper. The answer to the Amendment has been given conclusively in three of the speeches which we have heard; the first by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), the second by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), and the third by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn). The answer to the Amendment is a perfectly simple one. It is either unnecessary, in which case there is no object in putting in the words at all; or, if it has any effect at all, the inference which might be drawn from the insertion of the words, so far from helping the applicant, might work actually to his prejudice.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
I will explain why I think so. The Clause provides that the allowances to be granted shall be determined by reference to the means of the applicant, and obviously the board must take into account his requirements for rent when he pays rent. It may be that he is paying for a house by the instalment system. It may even be that he owns the house himself, but clearly one factor of need is the question of shelter or rent. From that point of view, therefore, the Amendment is unnecessary. Let us see whether it might not actually work to the detriment of the applicant himself. The Amendment says:Provided that the need to be taken into account in assessing the allowances made to the applicant shall include a reasonable amount for rent.Does anybody in this Committee know in the very least what those words mean? I do not. Do they mean an amount which the board consider reasonable having regard to the fact that the man is unemployed? It might mean that. If it means that, what is the condition of an applicant who is paying a rent which is unreasonable? The hon. Gentleman 786 the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) pointed out the very grievous burden of rent and the very large proportion which rent very often requires of the income of an applicant—far too large a proportion in many cases. But what is the position of a man to whom the board say, "The rent you are paying is not reasonable having regard to the fact that you are unemployed"? Suppose that that man could not get any house accommodation at all, what would his situation be then? If the Amendment is carried, the board may be compelled to say, "We can allow an amount of rent which is reasonable having regard to the fact that the applicant is unemployed." If a man could not get any alternative accommodation, then, if the Amendment is carried, they might have to say, "We cannot allow you any more." Therefore, his position would be definitely worse than if the Amendment were not inserted at all.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
They must. By reason of the Bill itself they are bound to take it into account. In considering the needs of the household, they are bound to take into account the question of rent.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman is getting beyond the Amendment. It has nothing to do with the commissioners in Durham.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
The Amendment talks about the "requirements of healthy physical subsistence." That is exactly what the board will have to do. They will have to take into account "healthy physical subsistence," because in Clause 34 one of the duties imposed upon them is the promotion of the welfare of the unemployed, and you cannot promote the welfare of a man unless you take into account his physical requirements. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) said that the 787 Amendment raised the means test issue, but did not carry the position any further than the Bill provides. The words of the Amendment are so vague that I doubt whether there are many Members in this Committee who would come to the same conclusion as to their meaning, and I heartily recommend the Committee to reject the Amendment for the reasons which I have given.
§ Miss RATHBONE
Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that we are to take it that in fact the assessment shall not be less than the amount necessary to cover physical subsistence, and does he deny that never yet has any public body accepted so high a standard? Therefore, why does he assume that we
§ are asking for something which is meaningless when we ask for something which goes beyond what has ever yet been accepted either in connection with the Poor Law or with transitional payments?
§ 4.41 p.m.
§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
It is a matter of great regret that the Committee should spend so much time upon an Amendment which is meaningless.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 242.789
|Division No. 123.]||AYES.||[4.43 p.m.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||McKeag, William|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).||Mainwaring, William Henry|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Banfield, John William||Groves, Thomas E.||Maxton, James|
|Batey, Joseph||Grundy, Thomas W.||Paling, Wilfred|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)||Rea, Walter Russell|
|Buchanan, George||Harris, Sir Percy||Rothschild, James A. de|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Holdsworth, Herbert||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Cove, William G.||Janner, Barnett||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||John, William||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Daggar, George||Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)||White, Henry Graham|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Davies, Rhys, John (Westhoughton)||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Dobbie, William||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Edwards, Charles||Logan, David Gilbert||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Lunn, William|
|Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||McEntee, Valentine L.||Miss Rathbone and Mr. Mander.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||McGovern, John|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Butler, Richard Austen||Donner, P. W.|
|Albery, Irving James||Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Doran, Edward|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)||Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Duckworth, George A. V.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Duggan, Hubert John|
|Apsley, Lord||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Elliston, Captain George Sampson|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)||Emmott, Charles E. G. C.|
|Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)||Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Emrys-Evans, P. V.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard|
|Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Clarke, Frank||Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)|
|Beit, Sir Alfred L.||Clayton, Sir Christopher||Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)|
|Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Everard, W. Lindsay|
|Blindell, James||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Fermoy, Lord|
|Bossom, A. C.||Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Boulton, W. W.||Conant, R. J. E.||Ford, Sir Patrick J.|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Crooke, J. Smedley||Fox, Sir Gifford|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||Fraser, Captain Ian|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald||Cross, R. H.||Fuller, Captain A. G.|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Crossley, A. C.||Galbraith, James Francis Wallace|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Culverwell, Cyril Tom||Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Dalkeith, Earl of||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||Gluckstein, Louis Halle|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Davison, Sir William Henry||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Dawson, Sir Philip||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Granville, Edgar|
|Burnett, John George||Denville, Alfred||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Grimston, R. V.||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Savery, Samuel Servington|
|Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Martin, Thomas B.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Guy, J. C. Morrison||Meller, Sir Richard James||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Skelton, Archibald Noel|
|Hartland, George A.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.|
|Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)||Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Somervell, Sir Donald|
|Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Morrison, William Shephard||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)|
|Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald||Soper, Richard|
|Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L|
|Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)||Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Nunn, William||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Patrick, Colin M.||Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)|
|Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Peat, Charles U.||Storey, Samuel|
|Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)||Penny, Sir George||Stourton, Hon. John J.|
|Hurd, Sir Percy||Percy, Lord Eustace||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Perkins, Walter R. D.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Joel, Dudley J. Barnato||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.|
|Ker, J. Campbell||Radford, E. A.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Kerr, Hamilton W.||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Ramsbotham, Herwald||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Law, Sir Alfred||Rankin, Robert||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Leckie, J. A.||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Leech, Dr. J. W.||Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Reid, David D. (County Down)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Levy, Thomas||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Liddall, Walter S.||Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Lindsay, Noel Ker||Remer, John R.||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Lloyd, Geoffrey||Renwick, Major Gustav A.||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.|
|Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)||Robinson, John Roland||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Ropner, Colonel L.||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-|
|Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Ross, Ronald D.||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|McEwen, Captain J. H. F.||Runge, Norah Cecil||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|McKie, John Hamilton||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Womersley, Walter James|
|Macmillan, Maurice Harold||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)|
|Macquisten, Frederick Alexander||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Salmon, Sir Isidore||Sir Victor Warrender and Major George Davies.|
|Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)|
§ 4.51 p.m.
I beg to, move, in page 33, line 11, at the end, to insert:(a) any payments made as a retainer to reservists of the armed forces of the Crown shall be disregarded.This is a small point. It deals with a small body of men who under the present administration of transitional payments have a reasonable grievance. It is the practice for reservists to get their reservist pay in quarterly instalments. The amounts are not large, but it has been the practice to take them into account and, under the existing system, to strike the reservist off transitional payment for such time as is covered by his pay. It is impossible to estimate the numbers of men who might at any given moment be concerned, but to show how small the number is, and 790 therefore how small the concession would be financially, it is sufficient to say that the total number of reservists of the Army, Navy and Air Force does not exceed 150,000 to 160,000. Therefore, under the general law of averages, the number who are likely to be unemployed and are likely to some under the Unemployment Assistance Board would not, I suppose, be much more than 10,000 at any given moment in the present state of unemployment. The number under the law of averages would be much fewer if employment were better.
I do not think the question of cost need bother the Minister in regard to this point. There is difficulty in recruiting in getting men to go into the Services. It is a disadvantage that when men come out of the Services and they find themselves on the Reservist list, they should 791 be in no better position than anybody else. As it is in the public interest to keep the reservists of the Armed Forces contented as far as may be and in as good condition as may be, in view of the obligations that they are under to be called up if occasion arises, this small concession might well be given. I hope the Minister will take into account the facts of the grievance which must have reached him under the existing system. It is probably well known to him, as it must be to hon. Members, that these small quarterly sums received by the reservists are generally used by the recipients for buying clothing and boots, which is a matter of considerable difficulty when men are out of work. The fact of getting £4, or whatever the sum may be, per quarter is something that the men count upon for clothing and boots. I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment and to say that this shall be one of the series of payments to be disregarded.
§ 4.55 p.m.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
I regret to say that I cannot accept the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member has made a speech which must appeal to all quarters of the Committee, but I have to consider whether it is in accordance with the principles of the Bill to make an exception of the kind indicated in the Amendment. There is no question that the reservist's pay, when it is received, is one of the resources of the household. It is usually £4 a quarter, or it may be less or more. What I have to consider is whether there is a special need which this allowance is designed to meet. In so far as there is a special need, or in so far as the reservist is compelled by reason of the fact that he is called up to incur expense which is not provided for by the Army, Navy or Air Force, then such expense to which he is put will be taken into account. The reservist's pay is part of a contract between the man and the State, that the man will rejoin the Colours when he is required.
It follows from what I have said, that you cannot, in principle, distinguish this sum from many similar resources which a man might have. You might have the difficult question of a voluntary pension from an employer, and it might be said 792 with equal force that if you did not take into account the reservist's pay, you should not take into account the voluntary pension. If you made the concession in one case you must do it in the other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because there is no limit to it. There are a great series of reductions which would have to be taken into account if we made the concession in this case. If the Army Council feel that the administration of the board is not proving satisfactory in respect of reservist's pay, and if they feel that what I have said is not being faithfully carried out, and if there is special need which is not taken into account by the board, then the Army Council would be perfectly justified in making representations to the board, and I hope they will do so. I am, however, bound, with very great regret, to say that I cannot accept the Amendment, because in principle it does not differ from other Amendments on analogous matters which might be moved.
§ 4.59 p.m.
§ Mr. ALBERY
I should like the Minister to give us an example that is analogous. The case for the Amendment does not seem to be analogous to other cases. In this particular case we are dealing with a man with whom the State have made a particular contract, the object of which is to secure for the man in view of the services which he has already rendered, and in view of the services which he may be called upon to render, some advantage over and above the advantage that he will have in ordinary civil life. If he is fortunate enough to be employed, he gets the extra £4 a quarter, or whatever the sum may be, over and above what is obtained by others who are employed. The effect of not accepting the Amendment is, that, if the reservist is unfortunate enough to be unemployed, he not only suffers the disadvantage of being unemployed but also loses the advantage which is specifically given to him for his special position. Provisions in the Bill already provide for certain exceptions. There is the £25 of capital; and I do not think that the case of the reservist is altogether dissimilar. In one case the man has saved money and put it by, and the reservist also in a sense has saved money which enables him to get this extra amount when he leaves the Service.
§ 5.3 p.m.
§ Mr. J. JONES
I appreciate the sentiments of the hon. and gallant Member who has moved the Amendment, but I wish that he would extend his sympathy all the way round. Other victims of this Measure have rendered equal service in their civil capacity to any soldier, sailor or airman. They have to face the issues of war now as well as those who are in the Services. We who live in London know that children were killed in their schools during the War. While I am willing to give every possible sympathy by my vote to an Amendment of this character, I do not understand why people should be kept in watertight compartments. Real insurance would bring in all people, and I wish that the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) would go all the way and support the Amendments which we propose to move so that every workman who comes under the Bill will be treated alike. No privilege should be given to any worker. I hope the Amendment will be forced to a Division—I know it will not. Already some Conservative Members have made great capital out of the 3s. as against 2s. in the case of the children, although they could not keep a dog on 3s. per week. If there is going to be any reduction of anomalies this is an opportunity for them to show their patriotism and force the Amendment to a Division. We will go into the Lobby with them, and a combination of the virtuous and the vicious might carry the Amendment.
§ 5.5 p.m.
§ Sir PERCY HARRIS
I should like to enforce the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). Any soldier is handicapped at the start in the industrial field. In normal times he starts many years later to compete in the labour market and his chance of getting a skilled job is inferior to that of the ordinary civilian. The reservist's pay, in fact, does give him some compensation, and also allows the State to call upon him in the hour of need. The soldier, at any rate, can regard his reservist's pay as some slight compensation for the handicap he is under when entering into the industrial world. The old soldier's chance of getting work is materially less in normal times than that of the ordinary citizen, but in times like the present, when there 794 is so much unemployment and when in some areas the chances of getting a job are very slight, it seems rather hard that when he comes before the Assistance Board this small compensation is to be taken into account in considering his claims for maintenance from the State.
§ 5.7 p.m.
§ Mr. BANFIELD
I want to put another short point to the Minister of Labour. The position of the reservists in the labour market is undoubtedly one of great difficulty; he is at considerable disadvantage, but many of these men sign on as reservists for a considerable number of years and it appears to me that there will be little inducement for them to do so because they will consider that what the Government is giving with one hand it is taking away with the other. There is a case in my opinion for exempting this comparatively small amount of£3 or £4 per quarter. It is very seldom much more. Surely it need not be taken into consideration in assessing a man's need. These men have done their duty to the country and they have long looked upon their signing on as reservists as something which will bring them in at the end of each quarter sufficient money to enable them to buy boots and clothes for their families; it is a little nest egg. The difficulty of these men getting employment in these abnormal times is very great; they cannot compete with the skilled worker or with the unskilled worker, and the men themselves will probably think that in this respect the Government have been absolutely mean in taking this small amount into consideration. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter. He has told us that the Army Council might make some representations on the point if it did not work out all right. Surely it would be far better for this House itself to deal with the matter. There is apparently some doubt as to whether it will work out equitably to the men concerned and, therefore, I appeal to him to give these reservists the benefit of the doubt and take this small amount out of consideration in regard to the means test.
§ 5.10 p.m.
§ Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS
I am very sorry that the Minister of Labour has not seen his way to accept the Amendment. We are trying to take a fair view of 795 the resources of the reservists. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the report of his own commissioners for the county of Durham, Command Paper 4339, in which, under the heading "Army, Navy and Reserve Pay, Paid Quarterly," the commissioners say:These cases have caused us some difficulty. The payments are made at quarterly intervals, and our experience has been that in many cases much of the payment has already been mortgaged and is not, in fact, available for the forthcoming period.Later on the commissioners also say:We have to deal with the payments falling due on the 1st January, 1933, and in respect of these payments we decided to interpret literally our obligations under the law and take the payments into account.What difference is there really between these amounts, which are accumulated and paid quarterly, and the £25, which is allowed under a later provision in the Clause? There is no difference at all between them. I would urge the Minister to give special instructions to the Assistance Board about this matter. I fear, if we do not give special instructions to the Committee from this House, that exactly the same procedure will take place as has beep taking place in the past. For that reason I would like to see another special instruction put into the Bill. There are special instructions already in the Bill about pensions and savings, and I would ask the Minister to put in another. I had an Amendment on the Paper, which has not been called, to put in a further instruction——
§ Sir W. BRASS
I was not going to discuss it; I was just referring to it, and I think that I am in order up to the moment in saying what I have said on this particular Amendment. I was merely referring to my own Amendment which was to give special instructions in the same way as are given in other provisions of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give these special instructions before the Assistance Board issue their regulations, and that we shall be able to express the views of this House and show the board what, in fact, we want them to do in framing their draft regulations.
§ 5.13 p.m.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I agree with what the Minister of Labour has said in regard to making exceptions under the Bill, but he also pointed out that if the Army Council held that this was detrimental to the Army he would consider the position. Would he add to that the Navy and the Air Service as well, as I think that was his intention?
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I thank the Minister of Labour. I do not see why this should be considered as being in exactly the same position as other forms of income. In this same Sub-section it is laid down that you are not to consider a certain amount of capital. Surely this reservists' pay, which is paid out in the form of a bonus or instalment every quarter, is really a capital payment. Would the Minister reconsider the matter from that point of view between now and Report? It should be quite easy for him to insert in the Bill the proposal of this particular Amendment, which is entirely different from a series of other Amendments that we have had moved. Would my right hon. Friend consult his colleagues in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, as they may realise that even this small sum, taken away in the method proposed, would result in grave disservice to the forces? Every Member of this Committee knows the difficulties of ex-service men of long standing. Many of them start in civil life not merely with disabilities but with a lower physical standard than that of men who have been at home for long. These payments should, therefore, have very special consideration.
§ 5.17 p.m.
§ Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY
Let me add my voice to that of others in asking my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to reconsider this matter, in view of the fact that the case of these reservists is not on all fours with that of other claimants. I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision. He said it was difficult to take out one class of anomaly from others which were possible, for instance, when employers made payments to people who had left their employment. Even if such cases were more or less on all fours with the case of the reservists I submit that the speeches made in support of this Amendment have shown that the reservists' case is one 797 which deserves special consideration. With great respect I suggest that the reservists' claim is not on all fours with any other cases, because the chief aspect of the reserve pay is that it represents a forward contract by which a man commits himself to a most unpleasant and dangerous duty which no one else undertakes. For patriotic and national reasons, apart from finance, I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider this matter between now and Report.
§ 5.19 p.m.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
From every quarter the Minister is being pressed to undertake new obligations, and his task in resisting the requests to impose new obligations on the national Exchequer is neither an easy nor a pleasant one, because in support of each of the cases brought forward there are produced arguments that quite honestly appeal to the sentiment of every one of us. The trouble is that if only you add up the aggregate financial cost of all these claims, which can be argued with so much earnestness—you cannot take them in isolation—you will get back to the situation which prevailed in August, 1931. The situation of August, 1931, reduced the number of Socialist Members to one-sixth and brought to this side of the House the largest number of Members that ever supported any Government, and that majority was elected to reduce expenditure, to reduce taxation or to avoid increasing it. The circumstances which brought this Parliament in being are forgotten by a very large proportion of those who got into this House as a result of the arguments that they used at the Election of October, 1931.
I take the view that our real purpose is to try to diminish the number of unemployed. Therefore, without hesitation I have supported the Minister in a lot of Divisions, for which I have not the slightest doubt I shall be attacked at the next Election, when I shall see the usual productions "So-and-so's Black Record." Every vote given on this Bill which appears to deprive some poor person of some benefit, will be used against me. Nevertheless, if we do not reduce the volume of unemployment largely, if we do not reduce the burden of taxation, an enraged electorate will turn far more people out of this House than will any vote given to-day on purely sentimental grounds. Therefore, I make the strongest 798 appeal to large numbers of Members who were elected to support a policy of economy, not to abandon that policy just when it is producing success, in order to get cheap popularity on an issue on which there is a sentimental appeal. If the attractions of Reserve pay are not strong enough, that is a matter to be discussed on the Army Estimates. We are not now engaged in recruiting for the British Army.
That has nothing to do with the question. Surely under the Bill the more a Reservist's pay is increased the more would be taken away from him, the larger will be the diminution of his income.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
It is said that if we do not adopt the Amendment it will affect, recruiting for the Army. This is not the occasion on which to discuss recruiting for the Army. The subject is irrelevant to this Debate and introduces an element of prejudice. We ought to judge this proposal on a fair basis. What is the object of the Bill that we are discussing? It is to relieve those in distress.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
On a point of Order. Are we now to be allowed to discuss the objects of the Bill? The hon. Member has raised the whole question of economy, and I would like to know whether it will be in order to debate the general question of economy?
§ The CHAIRMAN
No, certainly not. Up to the present the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has not been out of order in arguing that economy is one of his reasons against the Amendment.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
The hon. Member used the argument that if his friends did not support the Government we would get back to the position of 1931. Would I be in order, in replying, in arguing that without these economies we should not get back to the position of 1931?
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I have advanced the major body of the argument that I wish to present to the Committee, and I do not want to open the floodgates of oratory, not even that of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), much as I would like to hear him on this subject.
§ 5.22 p.m.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I want to ask the Minister to consider one new reason in favour of the Amendment. It is necessary to show that these men require treatment that is not given to others. The case for them is two-fold. These men are paid their reserve pay once a quarter. It means, in effect, when a payment has been made, that for 13 weeks the men receive nothing. What happens is this: It is generally the wife of the man who gets the money. She knows it is coming and in a sense she mortgages it before it is paid. Her rent is paid once a quarter, and when the reserve pay comes she says, "I will pay the reserve money towards the rent." That is a natural and proper thing for her to do. But the board will say, "You have an income of £3 or £3 10s. for the next two or three weeks and, therefore, you will get nothing for that period." But meantime the woman has paid the money away. The present position is not so bad, because the Poor Law authorities say to the man, "We will relieve you." This Bill refuses the Poor Law authorities the right to do that. In that respect the case of the reservist differs from any other case.
One other point I would ask the Minister to consider. The teachers, the unemployed and everyone else subjected to cuts have had only a 10 per cent. reduction. This class of men, the reservists, have had a 25 per cent. reduction. The reservists' pay was a shilling a day and now it is only nine-pence. In view of the fact that for economy purposes the State has taken from reservists more than it has taken from any other section of the community, I hold that they ought to be relieved under this Bill as a recompense for a double cut.
§ 5.30 p.m.
§ Mr. COCKS
The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said he was supporting the Minister of Labour in resisting this Amendment. All I can say say is that in supporting the Minister the hon. Member has overthrown the whole argument of the Government for Part II of this Bill. We have been told frequently by the Minister and by supporters of the Government that Part II of the Bill is not an economy measure at all and is not a measure to perpetuate the means test. It has been argued that it is a measure to take these unfortunate people out of the harsh treatment which they have been receiving from the public assistance committees or at any rate that it does not follow from these proposals, that that treatment is to be continued and perpetuated. We have also been told that this is a measure under which these people will really be better off and by which they will be fitted to regain their place in industry. Now the hon. Member for South Croydon has blown away all that argument. He says that this is an economy measure and that all the philosophy and all the arguments which we have heard in support of it are wrong. That simply shows us that the suggestion that this is a measure to improve the conditions of these unfortunate people is fraudulent. It supports us in our contention that Part II of the Bill is another turn of the screw upon these unfortunate people, to screw them down further, further and further in the interests of the Bank of England and Mr. Montagu Norman.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 234.803
|Division No. 124.]||AYES.||[5.31 p.m.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Asks, Sir Robert William||Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||Lawson, John James|
|Banfield, John William||Fuller, Captain A. G.||Lees-Jones, John|
|Batey, Joseph||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Bernays, Robert||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Lunn, William|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Buchanan, George||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)||McEntee, Valentine L.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||McKeag, William|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Grundy, Thomas W.||Mainwaring, William Henry|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Guy, J. C. Morrison||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Daggar, George||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)||Maxton, James|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Harris, Sir Percy||Milner, Major James|
|Dobble, William||Holdsworth, Herbert||Paling, Wilfred|
|Edwards, Charles||Janner, Barnett||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)||Pickering, Ernest H.|
|Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.||Smith, Tom (Normanton)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Rathbone, Eleanor||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Rea, Walter Russell||Tate, Mavis Constance||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Renwick, Major Gustav A.||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (p'dd'gt'n, S.)||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|Rothschild, James A. de||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||White, Henry Graham||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. Groves and Mr. John.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)||Goldie, Noel B.||Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Nunn, William|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Granville, Edgar||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.|
|Apsley, Lord||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Patrick, Colin M.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Graves, Marjorie||Peat, Charles U.|
|Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Penny, Sir George|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Grimston, R. V.||Percy, Lord Eustace|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Perkins, Walter R. D.|
|Beit, Sir Alfred L.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada|
|Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Blindell, James||Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)||Procter, Major Henry Adam|
|Boothby, Robert John Graham||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Pybus, Sir Percy John|
|Boulton, W. W.||Hartland, George A.||Radford, E. A.|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Rankin, Robert|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)|
|Brown, Col, D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)||Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)|
|Burnett, John George||Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)||Reid, William Allan (Derby)|
|Burton, Colonel Henry Walter||Horobin, Ian M.||Remer, John R.|
|Butler, Richard Austen||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Robinson, John Roland|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas|
|Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)||Hurd, Sir Percy||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)|
|Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Joel, Dudley J. Barnato||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Russell, Hamer Field (Sherf'ld, B'tside)|
|Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Ker, J. Campbell||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric||Kerr, Hamilton W.||Salmon, Sir Isidore|
|Clayton, Sir Christopher||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Law, Sir Alfred||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey||Leckie, J. A.||Savory, Samuel Servington|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Levy, Thomas||Shute, Colonel J. J.|
|Cross, R. H.||Liddall, Walter S.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Crossley, A. C.||Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)|
|Culverwell, Cyril Tom||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.|
|Daikeith, Earl of||Llewellin, Major John J.||Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||Lloyd, Geoffrey||Smithers, Waldron|
|Davies, Maj. G. O. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Somervell, Sir Donald|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)|
|Denman Hon. R. D.||Mabane, William||Soper, Richard|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.|
|Donner, P. W.||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Doran, Edward||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Spens, William Patrick|
|Drewe, Cedric||McKie, John Hamilton||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Duckworth, George A. V.||Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Macquisten, Frederick Alexander||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Duggan, Hubert John||Magnay, Thomas||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.|
|Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Meller, Sir Richard James||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Fermoy, Lord||Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Fox, Sir Gifford||Moreing, Adrian C.||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Morrison, William Shepherd||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Fremantle, Sir Francis||Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Galbraith, James Francis Wallace||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Whiteside, Borras Noel H.||Wise, Alfred R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)||Withers, Sir John James||Mr. Womersley and Dr. Morris-Jones.|
|Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley|
|Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)|
§ 5.40 p.m.
§ Mr. BATEY
On a point of Order Sir Dennis. May I point out that by passing over so many Amendments you have debarred us from discussing the means test? We expected that you would have called the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) to leave out Sub-section (3), which would have given us a chance of discussing the means test. Now we find that that Amendment is not going to be called, and I wish to ask when are we to have an opportunity of discussing the means test.
§ 5.41 p.m.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member asks me when there will be an opportunity of discussing the means test. That is a concrete question to which I cannot give a direct answer. With regard to the Amendment to which the hon. Member refers, the only opportunity now of discussing it in Committee will be on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," if we can reach that Question within the time allotted to this part of the Bill. I have been doing my best, in the very great difficulties under which the whole Committee is obviously labouring, with regard to the large number of Amendments on the Paper, to confine discussion as much as possible to those Amendments raising definite points. I have tried to select Amendments with a view to having those definite points raised and dealt with by the Minister as quickly as possible, in order that there may be some opportunity of discussing the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) asked me a question, and I was willing to answer it, but I cannot allow the Committee to discuss the conduct of the Chairman in the selection of Amendments.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid the hon. Member is now doing what I said the Committee must not do, and that is discuss the exercise by the Chairman of his right of selection of Amendments.
§ 5.43 p.m.
§ Mr. LOGAN
I beg to move, in page 33, line 12, to leave out "first five shillings," and insert "whole."
If there is any Amendment on the Paper which ought to receive support in this Committee, it is this Amendment. If one considers the powers of the Unemployment Assistance Board one finds the determining factor in the following provision of the Bill:The need of an applicant shall be determined and his needs assessed in accordance with regulations made under this Part of this Act, and such regulations shall in particular provide that the resources of an applicant taken into account shall include the resources of all members of the household of which he is himself a member.It may be argued that as regards the genuinely unemployed man who is physically fit there is some reason in the proposed method of assessment. I disagree with it entirely as far as this Measure is concerned, but it may be that, in the opinion of most Members of the Government, that is the proper course to take. I contend that in regard to this particular class of applicants the question of taking sick pay into account ought to be entirely outside the relevancy of this Measure. I understand that for the first time in English history a special line of demarcation is being laid down and a special category is being created apart from the ordinary Unemployment Insurance and apart also from the Poor Law or public assistance. In the whole gamut of my experience I never knew of a special body being set up such as is contemplated here. This is a special class of person, the applicant who is sick, not an unemployed, physically fit man, and we are taking into consideration the assessment of the whole of the household. If that implies anything at all, it implies that the whole of the money that he may receive from outside sources is to go into the assessment of the household. I do not know whether hon. Members think that ought 805 to apply, but let me draw attention to what would certainly happen in a house if the breadwinner should fall sick.
The doctor is called in and examines the patient, and he says to the man's wife, "Tom, or Bill, or whatever his name may be, is in a very bad way, and I should advise you to get him a chicken or two." Doctors generally do advise chicken in the poverty-stricken neighbourhood to which I belong, but they are never able to advise the people where the money is to come from. I know that chicken is necessary and that the patient not only can eat the chicken, but drink the soup which may be made from it. But it cannot be bought, if you consider, in the assessment of the family, the amount that the man receives in sick pay from a benevolent or friendly society. I shall be told that that is the common practice to-day, but we are out to break down these common practices. I am also told by the Minister in charge of the Bill that this special body may exceed the benevolence of the Poor Law committee and may give more than the Unemployment Assistance Board. Then, if it may, I want the 5s. which is the amount that has always been applied to be deleted and the full amount that may be granted from a benevolent body in the case of sickness to be discounted entirely in the question of assessment.
The Minister must be aware that under the National Health Insurance Acts the contributions are paid and fixed rates of benefit are given, and a man may be a member of both a friendly or benefit society and of the national scheme. That member has guarded himself against the day when sickness may come into the home, so that the ordinary necessities of the sickroom can be bought without injuring the rest of the family. It would appear to me to be not only a penalisation of thrift, but a penalisation of the whole of the family, if this money has to be taken into consideration in the assessment. Further, what need will there be any longer, if this Clause becomes operative, for any member of any friendly society to continue to belong to a sick or benevolent society? Covered as he will be by the National Health Insurance scheme, there will be no necessity to belong to such a society from the point of view of thrift. The strain on 806 the family under this Bill will be greater, and this assessment of the family life will reduce the spending power of any home when one of the family becomes sick.
It is fundamental that the first duty in any home should be to have regard to the care of the sick. In Part I of this Bill we deal with the employed and in Part II with the unemployed. Here we are saying that the sound in mind and in body will be kept, but when it comes to the question of an allowance in regard to sickness for which they themselves have paid, they are to be denied the full fruits of their contributions, and a penalty is to be imposed upon them in respect of this first 5s. I am sure the Minister is fully aware that no one can measure the amount of delicacies, the whims and fancies, that are required in a sick room. Many and many a time the ordinary standard of life of a person is not commensurate with the requirements of a sick man or woman, who may call for things and then discard them. In this way the home is put to great expense, and then the sick person may not be able to take these extras. Little tasty things are essential in the sick room, and I contend that as we are altering the law with regard to unemployment, we should fundamentally deal with those special cases that most of us have become acquainted with under the Poor Law.
I know of no case that is more saddening or that calls for more attention than that of the provident man making provision when he is physically fit for the time when he may come to a sick bed, and then, when he is unemployed, being denied the ordinary necessities of life. What exclusion can be greater than the exclusion from being able to bring back a man to a fit and proper standard of life that will enable him to rejoin the ranks of the employed? This is not sentiment; it is based on hard cash. Up and down the country I dare say there are about a couple of million people who are paying out of their wages every week into the provident and benevolent funds of the societies so that when sickness comes they may have adequate compensation without injuring their homes. Has it ever struck the Minister or those associated with the Government that there is not only the question of a little luxury in regard to food in the sick room, but that there is also the question of cloth- 807 ing? And how often do we find, when we go into a house, that the ordinary bedding which was essential when all were able-bodied, is not sufficient in illness, but an extra quilt or counterpane has to be put on the bed and some other little thing put into the sick room? What opportunity is there under this Bill for anything of that sort, when you are going to deny these people the right to the full use of what they have paid for? Extra bedding and extra food combine to add great burdens on the home.
I contend, with full justice, that any man who contributes to a friendly society, voluntarily, sometimes 3s. or 2s. 9d. a month, to get perhaps an allowance of 8s., 10s. or 12s., when he falls ill should not have this money withheld from him. You can find vast bodies of men who are willing to make these contributions out of their small wages every week or every month, and they are doing a great work for the nation. I am not going to pat the Minister on the back. I do not want to eulogies him at all, but I feel that he is just as humane as any other Member of the Committee, and that he must have the same sympathy as all of us when we express these things. These discussions give us the opportunity to bring before him these various points, and I am convinced that if there is any point that calls for discretion on his part, this question of the sick room is such a point. I hope the Minister will agree, therefore, to this Amendment.
§ 5.57 p.m.
§ Mr. T. SMITH
I think the Committee will agree that, since 1931, a good deal of bitterness and resentment has been shown in the country with regard to the inclusion of certain incomes in households, when transitional payment is applied for. Without desiring to step outside the strict terms of the Amendment, I should like to say that that bitterness has largely been caused because of disability pensions, workmen's compensation, and benefits from friendly societies being taken into account.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)
It appears to me that the discussion on this Amendment is practically bound to be repeated in the discussion 808 on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard)—to leave out "the first seven shillings and sixpence of" in line 13. I do not think we can have two discussions, and we had better take the whole question of sick pay on this Amendment.
§ Mr. SMITH
The history of the friendly society movement shows that successive Governments have encouraged men to become members of friendly societies, because they were endeavouring to provide for the inevitable rainy day, and I think the Committee will agree that many men have made sacrifices in order to keep up their contributions to their respective friendly societies. We on this side think that the whole of the benefits paid to the men when sick should be excluded from any calculation made with regard to the household income, and we think we are asking for nothing extravagant. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment said the Minister of Labour was as humane as any other Member of the Committee, and I am not denying that for a moment, but he is showing it on this Bill in a very different manner from what some of us expected. We expected to get from the right hon. Gentleman a good many concessions that have been denied us, and I hope that many Members of this Committee who have taken a keen interest in the work of the friendly societies will support this Amendment in the Lobby.
I wish the Amendment provided a broader discussion, because we in Yorkshire have been trying to do a little kindness towards our elderly people by way of providing them with small pensions. Those small pensions have been taken into account when assessing household resources, and we would like to have had a full opportunity for discussing that matter, among others. As this Amendment is limited to a rather narrow field, however, I will not pursue the matter, but will conclude by hoping that the Committee will support us if the Minister does not accept it.
§ 6 p.m.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson)
I think that perhaps the two hon. Members who have spoken on 809 this Amendment were labouring under a slight misapprehension as to what is intended by, and what will be the effect of, this Sub-section. The Committee has already passed Clauses 34 and 35. Part II of the Bill is meant to deal with persons who are able-bodied and available for and capable of work, and it is specifically laid down that the medical needs of the household or the applicant are excluded from the scope of Part II. For administrative reasons, however, it would have been very awkward if a man who was sick for one or two days had to go over to the public assistance committee for those one or two days. Therefore, in Clause 35 (2), they will find the words:a person shall … be deemed to be capable of and available for work notwithstanding such periods of occasional sickness or incapacity as may be specified therein.The exact rule determining the position will be laid down eventually by the board. But it is unlikely that the period covered will be more than a few days at the outside. Therefore, if the concession in the Amendment were granted, it would upset a perfectly well-established practice under public assistance to-day of disregarding the first 5s. of friendly society benefit or the first 7s. 6d. of health insurance benefit, in respect only of one or two days in any considerable period of the man's industrial life. For these reasons I hope that the hon. Members will agree with me that the Amendment is not worth while because it does not achieve what they have in view. If they had in view that in the case of a man who is sick and goes to the public assistance authorities for the purpose of receiving supplemental relief over and above his sickness benefit, the whole of the friendly society benefit or health insurance payment should be disregarded, then the Amendment does not achieve that because this Clause does not apply to public assistance committees. It would only apply in the case of a very limited period of one or two days.
§ Mr. LOGAN
I am well aware that it is only a matter of two or three days, but I am not concerned with administrative difficulties. I am moving that the 5s. should be deleted and that the whole of the sick pay should be allowed. The question of administrative difficulties will be a question of adjustment, and details of debit and credit account as between one 810 body and another are a matter of bookkeeping. The effect, from the administrative point of view, will be that if this 5s. is not deleted the board never will allow the whole lot.
§ 6.5 p.m.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
The Parliamentary Secretary is usually very clear, but he is not so clear on this matter. If administrative difficulties exist at all, they will exist if you deduct the 5s. as much as if you deduct the whole amount. All that the hon. Member says is that, instead of the first 5s. being disregarded, the whole amount should be disregarded. That should not increase the administrative difficulties at all. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question. If an applicant comes on sickness pay for only a day or two he is not chargeable to the fund, but a member of the applicant's family may be receiving sick benefit. This is a serious point——
§ Mr. HUDSON
That question arises on the next Amendment, in page 33, line 12, to leave out "the applicant's."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The point I raised was that as this Amendment deals with friendly society payments, and there is a later Amendment in respect of National Health Insurance payments, the two Amendments should be taken together. I specially receive the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), in page 33, line 12, to leave out "the applicant's."
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
In those circumstances I will not pursue the point, but I submit that the Parliamentary Secretary has not met the point of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan), because if administrative difficulties exist now, the Amendment will not make them any greater. All that the Amendment does is to increase the amount that the unemployed man will receive.
§ Mr. HUDSON
I am sorry if I did not make myself clear to the Committee. I had no intention of justifying a refusal 811 to accept the Amendment on administrative grounds. The administrative difficulty that I mentioned arises in connection with occasional periods of sickness and is the reason for the provision for a man who is only sick for a day or two to remain under Part II. The reason I am objecting to the Amendment is that it would have a very small effect on the man. He would only be under Part II for a day or two, and the whole amount that the Amendment would give is so small that we do not think it worth while to upset the present arrangement.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I see the point now; the amount is so small that you do not think it worth while giving.
§ 6.8 p.m.
§ Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN
The Parliamentary Secretary raises two points of outstanding importance. The Committee may have been reassured by his reply, but the public assistance authorities who read it afterwards will be very alarmed. Do I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that if a man is idle for only a few days he will be transferred to the public assistance authorities?
§ Mr. BEVAN
That is the implication. If a man falls ill, he receives friendly society or National Health benefit. The Amendment asks that the whole of that benefit should be disregarded. The answer of the Parliamentary Secretary is that it is really not worth while doing it, because if a man is idle for more than a few days he will be chargeable to the public assistance authority and will leave Part II. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but we understood that to be his reply. Am I correct in stating that he says this is so negligible in as much as the man will have no benefit, because if he is idle for more than a few days he will leave Part II and become chargeable to the local rates?
§ Mr. HUDSON
To the best of my knowledge, I did not use the word "idle." I used the word "sick." It makes all the difference in the world. At present if an unemployed man falls sick he ceases to sign on as from the day he falls sick. He ceases to be entitled to unemployment benefit, and he has to depend upon his health benefit. If that 812 is insufficient, he has to go to the Poor Law. In future the same thing will happen, except that the board, if he is ill for only a day or two, will be able to carry on paying him an allowance in spite of the fact that he is sick, and, in addition is entitled to receive health insurance.
§ Mr. BEVAN
A person might become idle owing to sickness, and fall straight on to the public assistance authority. I used the word "idle" when I should have used the word "sick," but I think the Committee knew what I meant. In point of fact, a man may be chargeable to Part II and fall sick, and after a few days he ceases to become chargeable to Part II, and becomes chargeable to the local rates. There are two implications in that. The one is that you are going to allow a man to be sick for only a few days before he becomes chargeable to the local rates. That will clause alarm among public assistance authorities. We were unable to discuss that portion of the Bill dealing with "periods of occasional sickness," but we were anxious that it should be interpreted as meaning some months. Now, however, the Parliamentary Secretary says that it means only a few days. The implication we now get is that a man who falls sick for a few days is to be made chargeable to the local rates for a fortnight or three weeks, although in that period he would still have been chargeable to Part II if he had not fallen sick. That is a grave position.
I can understand the board protecting itself against having to carry a man who is ill and is not available for employment. That is a different matter from exploiting the temporary illness of an individual in order to transfer obligations from the board to the local rates. That is a serious matter, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister to amplify it a little further. Are we to take the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary literally when he speaks of "a few days"? Is that what is meant by "periods of occasional sickness"? The Committee is entitled to a reply, because if he means "a few days," it involves an exploitation of the local rates that was never intended. If it is "a few days" it is precisely for those few days that a man needs extra money for extra nourishment. If the Parliamentary 813 Secretary is correct, men will be deprived of some financial advantage at the very time when they need it most. A man may have a sudden attack of pneumonia, or influenza, or any sort of illness. He will receive National Health Insurance benefit——
§ Mr. HUDSON
On a point of Order. May I point out that the Committee decided in Clause 35 that a man has to be capable of and available for work or to be deemed to be capable notwithstanding occasional sickness to come within the scope of Part II? I submit we have already settled the point with which the hon. Member is dealing.
§ Mr. BEVAN
On that point of Order. I am no more out of order than was the hon. Gentleman, because he drew attention to this question of occasional sickness, and I am now dealing with it. Obviously, some provision has to be made for periods of occasional sickness, because of the blurring of the line of demarcation between those chargeable to the Unemployment Assistance Board and those chargeable to the Poor Law. If a man is unable to follow any employment he ought not to come under Part II—there is no quarrel about that. The quarrel is as to the period of his sickness, because if a man is to be transferred to the local rates immediately he falls ill, then the Government are exploiting the local rates. It is reason-
§ able to suppose that the man would not have got employment in that short time, and would therefore still have been chargeable, as an unemployed person, to the Unemployment Assistance Board—if he had not been ill. I make the point, first, that the term "occasional periods of sickness" is being too narrowly interpreted by the Parliamentary Secretary; and, second, that if we allow only the first 5s. we are depriving the applicant of money at the very time when he is most in need of it to get himself well. The hon. Gentleman who shakes his head ought to visualise the circumstances in a working-class home when sickness occurs. The man has either to get this money from the board or from the local rates. What the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting is that though the first 5s. will be disregarded by the board if the man requires extra nourishment he is to get it from the local rates. I say that for the protection both of the local ratepayers and of the applicant for benefit the Amendment ought to be included in the Bill, and not rejected on a statement which, if it is administratively put into force, will have grave effects on the local rates and the health of applicants.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 292; Noes, 62.817
|Division No. 125.]||AYES.||[6.19 p.m.|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Butler, Richard Austen||Davison, Sir William Henry|
|Albery, Irving James||Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Dawson, Sir Philip|
|Allen, Lt.-Col, J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)||Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Denman, Hon. R. D.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Denville, Alfred|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.|
|Apsley, Lord||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Donner, P. W.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)||Doran, Edward|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Dower, Captain A. V. G.|
|Balniel, Lord||Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Drewe, Cedric|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Duckworth, George A. V.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. A. (Birm., W)||Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel|
|Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Duggan, Hubert John|
|Beit, Sir Alfred L.||Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Bernays, Robert||Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)||Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey|
|Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric||Elliston, Captain George Sampson|
|Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)||Clayton, Sir Christopher||Elmley, Viscount|
|Blindell, James||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Emmott, Charles E. G. C.|
|Boothby, Robert John Graham||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Emrys-Evans, P. V.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Conant, R. J. E.||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Cooke, Douglas||Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry||Essenhigh, Reginald Clare|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Crooke, J. Smedley||Everard, W. Lindsay|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Ford, Sir Patrick J.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Cross, R. P.||Fox, Sir Gifford|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Crossley, A. C.||Fraser, Captain Ian|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Culverwell, Cyril Tom||Fremantle, Sir Francis|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Dalkeith, Earl of||Fuller, Captain A. G.|
|Burnett, John George||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton|
|Burton, Colonel Henry Walter||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Macquisten, Frederick Alexander||Savery, Samuel Servington|
|Goldie, Noel B.||Magnay, Thomas||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col Sir M.||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Shute, Colonel J. J.|
|Graves, Marjorie||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Martin, Thomas B.||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.|
|Greene, William P. C.||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Meller, Sir Richard James||Smithers, Waldron|
|Grimston, R. V.||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Soper, Richard|
|Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Milne, Charles||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Guy, J. C. Morrison||Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Spens, William Patrick|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Moreing, Adrian C.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Stevenson, James|
|Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)||Morrison, William Shephard||Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Moss, Captain H. J||Storey, Samuel|
|Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Stourton, Hon. John J.|
|Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)||Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||North, Edward T.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Nunn, William||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)||Patrick, Colin M.||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)||Pearson, William G.||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Horobin, Ian M.||Peat, Charles U.||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Percy, Lord Eustace||Templeton, William P.|
|Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Hurd, Sir Percy||Procter, Major Henry Adam||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Pybus, Sir Percy John||Tree, Ronald|
|James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Radford, E. A||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Ker, J. Campbell||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Kerr, Hamilton W.||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Rankin, Robert||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Latham, Sir Herbert Paul||Ray, Sir William||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.|
|Law, Sir Alfred||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)||Reid, David D. (County Down)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Leech, Dr. J. W.||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Lees-Jones, John||Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-|
|Levy, Thomas||Remer, John R.||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Liddall, Walter S.||Renwick, Major Gustav A.||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Lindsay, Noel Ker||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Llewellin, Major John J.||Robinson, John Roland||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Lloyd, Geoffrey||Ropner, Colonel L.||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Mabane, William||Ruggles-Bride, Colonel E. A.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Wise, Alfred R.|
|MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Runge, Norah Cecil||Withers, Sir John James|
|McCorquodale, M. S.||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)||Womersley, Walter James|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley|
|Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|McEwen, Captain J. H. F.||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)|
|McKie, John Hamilton||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)|
|Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Salmon, Sir Isidore||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)||Sir George Penny and Commander Southby.|
|Macmillan, Maurice Harold||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Dobbie, William||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Edwards, Charles||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Banfield, John William||Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Batey, Joseph||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)||Hamilton, Sir R.W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Harris, Sir Percy|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Holdsworth, Herbert|
|Buchanan, George||Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||Janner, Barnett|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||John, William|
|Cove, William G.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)|
|Dagger, George||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)||Kirkwood, David|
|Lawson, John James||Milner, Major James||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Leonard, William||Owen, Major Goronwy||White, Henry Graham|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Paling, Wilfred||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Lunn, William||Parkinson, John Allen||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|McEntee, Valentine L||Pickering, Ernest H.||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Rathbone, Eleanor||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|Mainwaring, William Henry||Rea, Walter Russell|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)||Smith, Tom (Normanton)||Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.|
|Maxton, James||Thorne, William James|
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ 6.28 p.m.
§ Major MILNER
I beg to move, in page 33, line 12, to leave out "the applicant's."
The Clause provides that the resources of an applicant to be taken into accountshall include the resources of all members of the household of which he is himself a member,but there is a concession in that the first 5s. of the applicant's sick pay is to be disregarded. The purpose of this Amendment is to make that concession apply to any sick pay coming to the household, whether it is the sick pay of the applicant or any other member of the household. It seems to us that it is a reasonable, a logical and a just Amendment. Why the resources of all members of the household are to be taken into account when computing the resources of the applicant, and yet the applicant's sick pay is alone the subject of this concession we do not understand. If the concession is right in the case of the applicant it must be right in the case of all members of the household. Replying to one of my hon. Friends a moment or two ago, the Parliamentary Secretary said that if the concession asked for by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) were granted, it would be a very small matter, and that was one of the reasons why the Government declined to accept it. I submit that this concession would be a matter of very small expense indeed, because there could be comparatively few cases where more than one person would be drawing sick pay in one household. Because the concession is very small, we hope that the Government will see their way to accept it.
§ 6.31 p.m.
§ Mr. TINKER
I beg to support the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary used a strong argument when he was replying upon the last Amendment. He said that this part of the Bill dealt only with able-bodied men, and therefore, anybody sick or totally disabled was more 818 likely to come under Part II. I saw the force of that argument, and I thought that we might be able to use it against him on this Amendment. If the word "applicant" be left out, other members of the household who are disabled or who are on sick pay will be brought in and we know that they will require all the money that they can obtain to enable them to get back into the labour market. If all that they are getting is taken into account when the able-bodied man is applying under Part II, the means of the household will be reduced accordingly. The acceptance of the Amendment will give a certain amount of sustenance over what is given now, because the 5s. will be spread over the household. This Amendment would not cut across the principle of Part II of the Bill, and we should be giving to the household a certain amount of relief which I believe every hon. Member is inclined to give, in order to help the sick man back to the state of health in which he ought to be.
If this point is not taken into consideration, the means will certainly be much lower than are required for the household. It may be argued, as I daresay we shall hear it argued on every Amendment, that those who assess the needs of the household will take everything relevant into consideration. They might, but I am not sure that they will, and I want to give them a lead as to how we feel on these matters. In other parts of the Bill we are giving a certain amount of money to people who apply for benefit, and we are not leaving in the hands of the Public Assistance Board the whole question of assessing the needs of the household. If we were, there would be no need to put anything in the Bill about what should be excluded from consideration. We believe that we are quite justified in leaving out the word "applicant," so that every one who is on sick pay may have the benefit of the 5s. I think that the point of view which is being put by my hon. Friends and myself is unanswerable. No one can very well 819 argue against it, and I hope that we shall carry it when we go into the Division Lobby.
§ 6.35 p.m.
§ Mr. McENTEE
I hope that the Minister will concede this very small but very important point. The assessment is an assessment of the means of the household, from which one member is making application for assistance, and that is what will be taken into account by the local or national body which assesses the need. Whichever member of a household is drawing benefit from a friendly society, the family will be affected to an extraordinary degree if the benefit is to be excluded from consideration. If in similar circumstances later on, the same member of the household is unemployed, it will seem very strange to them that benefit can only be granted to the applicant notwithstanding the fact that the real assessment is of the need of the household itself. If that be so, and I think the Minister will agree that it is so, any member of the household who is sick will be subject to the same need, whether he be the actual applicant under this Clause or not.
It is very hard that one member only of the household should be permitted to get the concession that is mentioned in this Clause, while another member is unable to get it. As a consequence of that inability to get the concession made in this Clause, the consequences will be rather serious to that household. I hope that the Minister will make the concession, because it would be a logical step. There cannot be any argument in favour of the Clause as it exists. The Minister will admit that, when the assessments are being made, the whole family income is to be taken into account, and the family will have to survive upon what is left of that family income. If a concession is made, any member of the household ought to be entitled to it, if he or she suffers from illness and is drawing from a friendly society a sum of money to enable the household to maintain that disabled member. Whichever member of the family is ill, the household ought to be left in the same state. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
§ 6.39 p.m.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
I have considered the Amendment very carefully, and I 820 have listened with attention to what has been said by the hon. Gentlemen who supported it. I am inclined to think, on the whole, that they have made out their case, and therefore I propose to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Major MILNER
I beg to move, in page 33, line 14, to leave out "the applicant's."
I wish to take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for his acceptance of the last Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ 6.40 p.m.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
I beg to move, in page 33, line 16, after "1932," to insert:and the whole of any maternity benefit under those Acts, exclusive of any increase of such benefit by way of additional benefits and of any second maternity benefit.The object of this Amendment is to meet the point raised by the two hon. Gentlemen whose names appear upon the next Amendment. Looking at the Bill as a whole, I thought it was right that the £2 maternity benefit should not be included. As the Bill stands now, it might be said that among the resources of the family the £2 maternity benefit, which comes in by reason of the Health Insurance Acts should be taken into account. It clear that the needs of the family increase at the same time, because this sum is earmarked for a specific purpose, namely, to help the woman. When this point was brought to my notice by the Amendment put down by the hon. Gentlemen, I at once put down this Amendment myself, in order to be able to make certain of it, and if possible to have an opportunity of saying what I have said.
§ 6.42 p.m.
§ Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD
In the name of the hon. Gentlemen whose names appear on the Amendment to which reference has been made, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman.
§ 6.43 p.m.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
The Amendment which the Minister has moved says:exclusive of any increase of such benefit.In certain cases approved societies pay, I understand, a sum additional to the £2. In some cases they pay £3. Does this Amendment provide that the extra sum will we taken into account? I want to be 821 clear about that. As I interpret the Amendment, any sum granted by approved societies in addition to the £2 will be taken into account. A second point which I want to put is that if there is a second maternity benefit, because the woman has been in work and has a claim in her own right in addition to that of the man, that also will be taken into account. I want to be clear about the meaning of this Amendment. All that we have received as a concession is that the first £2 must be exempt, but any additional sum paid by an approved society as an additional benefit will not be exempt. I am not so keen on the additional benefit, although I should like that to be exempted also, but, as regards the additional money which the woman might be able to claim, I trust that the Minister will not close the door, and for this reason.
In the great majority of cases this money is paid to the newly-married couple; that is to say, the married woman within, say, 12 or 18 months of her marriage has not lost her insurance rights—they have continued during the early period of her marriage; and if there is a time when any additional sum is most required, it is just at this very period. This is the most trying period, the most difficult time, and I trust that at least this additional sum will be safeguarded. Having myself heard the case argued, I think that, of all things, the commission would have in any case exempted the first £2 even without this Amendment, because it cannot be an income; it goes to the doctor and the nurse, and is really only a transfer to them. I place no value on the acceptance of this Amendment, because this first £2 is merely a bookkeeping transaction from the approved society through the person concerned to the doctor and the nurse. What is important is the second sum, which is given to meet the additional human needs of the mother and the child. I trust, therefore, that the second £2 also will be left out and no account taken of it, because, in the great majority of cases, it is paid, as the approved societies know, in the early years of married life, and it is a great advantage which young couples entering into married life ought to have.
§ 6.48 p.m.
§ Mr. HUDSON
I think the Committee will agree that the case which has been 822 put, from his very extensive knowledge of these matters, by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), is a very strong one, and I am sure he will be glad if I reassure him now that, although we are limiting the actual amount to be disregarded under the Statute to the first £2, it is quite clear that, wherever the board's officer is shown by a young married couple that they have in fact spent the additional money on their needs—needs arising in circumstances such as the hon. Member describes—the sum will be regarded as being available for those needs, and in fact, though the amount will not be disregarded, the needs will be allowed for.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
If this Amendment had not been put down, the answer would have been the same, namely, that the first £2 would have been disregarded, and if the disregarding of the first £2 is of any value, the value of such an Amendment as applied to the second £2 would be even greater. The commission would have had no chance of touching the first £2, but they have a chance of touching the second £2, because it might fairly be argued that the second £2 is not being transferred to the doctor and the nurse, whereas the first £2 must go to them.
§ 6.49 p.m.
§ Mr. LOGAN
I do not see that there ought to be any difficulty in passing this proposal. I do not see that the Labour party have anything to be thankful for as regards what has now been granted by the Minister, because anyone who administers National Health Insurance knows that, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has said, that is only a matter of transfer, and practically speaking the person concerned never handles the money. I would point out, moreover, that in many maternity cases the amount allowed under the Act is insufficient to pay the doctor and the nurse. I should like to hear what it is that the Ministry say they are granting; it seems to me that they are giving nothing. What is the use of ambiguity in matters like this, when it means that there is no concession? In ordinary homes in this country where people are insured they are entitled to the insurance benefit, and in the case of a maternity claim, either by the husband or by the wife, when the wife is a worker and entitled to National Health Insurance 823 benefit, she is entitled as an insured person to receive that benefit.
This Amendment gives no concession whatever. It says that, if there is any additional benefit coming to an insured person, the first maternity benefit will not be taken into account, but the second will be. Every child that is born in this country has to be equipped with clothes, but there is no mention here of any provision for that need, and apparently it is not going to be considered. You are going, not to give concessions, but to leave the ordinary amount that comes into a home when there is a claim for maternity benefit to be taken into consideration by this wonderful Unemployment Board that is to be set up. I do not know whether Members of the Committee are accustomed to understand that in most of the poor homes of the country a birth means privation, for the poverty of a poor man's home is tragic when it is not possible to make proper provision. There are benevolent societies who go about, as they do in the large city from which I come, giving bags of clothing. Under a Measure such as this there should be no necessity for the charity-monger in these cases, but justice should be done. The child life of the nation is a national affair, and due and proper provision ought to be made. I say that the Act is damnable when it comes to dealing with child life. The economies all through the piece have been subtle, and the Parliamentary Secretary in dealing with them has been dealing with them in subtle language, as though Members of the Opposition were not aware of what they were dealing with under the provisions of the Bill. Why not be plain and honest and simple about it? Why not say in ordinary English language that in regard to this matter you are perpetuating the old system of the Poor Law, that you are taking every penny into account, even what is needed for the doctor and the nurse, and are not going to allow any other recourse except to the public assistance committee, even in the case of childbirth?
There is not a Member on the Government Benches who can get up and explain that this gives any concession to any working man. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member who interrupts me wishes to get up, I will sit down. I reiterate that there is not a Member on the Government 824 Benches but will have to admit that this is parsimony, that it is meanness, that it is damnable in the House of Commons that we should have reached a point at which you even have to rob the poor in maternity cases from the point of view of public saving. It is a degradation of the House of Commons. I do not view the concession with any pride at all. I think it is mean and contemptible. It is that niggardliness which I have seen permeating the whole national system in this House, and, while we have to be thankful for small mercies, I do not give any thanks to the Government for the concession they have given.
§ 6.57 p.m.
§ Mr. MACMILLAN
I shall leave it to the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the Committee to reconcile his views with those put forward on behalf of the official Opposition by the right hon. Gentleman who is now sitting on the Front Opposition Bench. I fear that this is not the only occasion on which they find it difficult to harmonise their views on the Bill. I think that the whole Committee is very grateful to the Government for the Amendment of the Minister of Labour, but at the same time I would venture to put this point: All the way through this Clause the argument is that there is a certain danger involved in introducing statutory regulations to guide the board, and on many Amendments it has been argued that there is a danger that such regulations, if included in the Bill, would tend to become maxima rather than minima. There is that danger in the present Amendment.
I take it that we really do want the board to exclude maternity benefit from its consideration. The Amendment makes two conditions. They are to be allowed to take into account the addition above the statutory benefit which is paid by certain types of society, and I do not think that the House as a whole would regard that as quite fair. If the applicant happens to be a member of a successful society, which has conducted its affairs well, surely he should have the advantage of being able to spend this small additional sum of money for the benefit of the child which has just come into the world, and I think that in fact, as my hon. Friend has said, the board probably would not take that into 825 account; but according to his own argument throughout, there is a danger that the board will interpret the words which the House has put into the Bill as if the House meant that it should take that additional sum into account.
With regard to the second point, I am bound to say that, when I saw the Amendment on the Paper, I was misled for the moment as to what it meant. I was afraid that the Minister had fallen into some kind of contraceptive heresy that people were only to be allowed to have one child. But the point is that the two benefits are payable in respect of the same child, and I think that where a woman has herself been insured, has been engaged in insurable work, and is married, that also should be regarded as an additional benefit which she may receive as a right. Again, however, the argument is that the board will disregard this amount if they are satisfied through their officers that the money has been spent upon the child, which I suppose means that it has not been spent, say, upon gin or beer. If that is the intention, will not the Minister see whether effect could be given to it on Report? I cannot see why, where the board are satisfied that this sum of money has been spent upon the child, it should not be automatically disregarded. We have heard all the time during our discussions on this Bill a very strong argument by the Minister on the danger of these regulations. If we are to guide the board by Statute, let us guide them in exactly the way we mean. I believe that all these sums obtained by means of maternity benefit should be excluded in assessing needs. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, but I hope at a later stage he may find it possible to extend this Amendment by making it still more generous.
§ 7.1 p.m.
§ Miss RATHBONE
I would like to reinforce the arguments put forward by the last speaker on this point. I would remind the Committee that the additional benefits are paid only by societies which are well managed and successful, and that the money is most urgently needed at such a time. The ordinary benefit, as everyone knows, is barely sufficient for the primary charges of the confinement. It allows nothing for clothing, or extra 826 nourishment. In view of the difficulties of a woman who is bringing a child into a home stricken by a period of unemployment, does the Minister really wish to reduce by one penny the very small amount which, by her insurance or her husband's insurance, the woman obtains? With regard to second maternity benefit, that only accrues where the woman herself has been an insured person, and therefore in cases where the home has been accustomed to being supported by the joint earnings of the man and the woman. In these cases the second maternity benefit is the only substitute for the wage which the woman has been earning. If the standard of the home is to be kept up to anything approaching what it was before the couple fell into unemployment, it is urgently necessary that they should have the advantage not only of ordinary maternity benefit, but of such additional benefit as the woman may receive in her own right as an insured person.
§ 7.3 p.m.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
If I had the support of the Committee I would divide against the Amendment. It is no concession at all, but is, in fact, making the position worse. It cannot be taken as an analogy to other Amendments which have been moved, for this cogent reason. In the other Amendments the minimum was stated, but there was no reference to anything else. This Amendment differs from the others in that it says that the first £2 or the first maternity benefit shall be excluded, but that the others will not be excluded. Take, for example, health insurance. The Bill does not say the first 7s. 6d. shall be excluded, but any additional payments may be made. It simply excludes the 7s. 6d., and does not mention any additional payment. This Amendment makes a definite reference to other payments, and that is a tremendous point of difference. I would not vote against the Amendment if it were simply excluding the first payment and making no reference to any others, but here you are excluding for the only time these additional sums, and it seems to me to be making the Act worse. It is, in my view, definitely instructing the board to take these sums into account. If you approve this Amendment, you approve the principle of these additional sums being taken into account. I know the official Labour party are approving the Amend- 827 ment, but I say it makes the position worse than it is now. At least the Minister ought to consider exempting all maternity benefits. The people do not receive the £2 which is the first maternity benefit. That sum is never added to the family budget; it is merely a transference to somebody else. Any practical value in this Amendment is therefore taken away by the addition of the last part of it, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider his view.
§ 7.7 p.m.
§ Mr. HUDSON
I do not think the hon. Member was correct in saying this is no concession at all. The board is prohibited from taking medical need into account. If this Amendment bad not been moved, the following would have been the position: The man would have received £2 for maternity benefit which the board would have had to take into account.
§ Mr. HUDSON
That money would have been available in the household. It is very doubtful, as the need of the woman is primarily medical, whether the board would have been entitled to say that this £2 should be available only for medical needs. It might well have said that the money was available for ordinary needs. It is to make quite sure that the board shall say that this £2 is definitely for the woman's medical needs that we are putting in this particular Amendment. Any other reasonable expenses which the husband has to incur other than medical needs will be needs which the board will have to take into account, and any additional benefit will also be taken into account.
§ Mr. HUDSON
It is very difficult to make the position clear, and I am trying to do so. We say that the £2 shall be earmarked for medical needs. Any needs other than medical needs will be part of the needs of the man which the board will have to take into consideration.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
The Bill says medical needs are exempt. If the man has to pay the £2 to the doctor and the nurse, how can that £2 be included, for ordinary needs? That is the point I want the hon. Member to answer.
§ 7.10 p.m.
§ Mr. HOLDSWORTH
I would like to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we should put in the words "at least." It does not say that in the Amendment, and it would be an improvement if the Bill were to say clearly that at least £2 should be available for the medical needs of the occasion. The Amendment really says that £2 only shall not be taken into account.
§ Mr. HUDSON
If we are right in thinking that the present wording means that the man cannot apply any of that £2 to household needs, the hon. Member's suggestion does not improve the Amendment.
§ Mr. HOLDSWORTH
I do not contradict that, but it would improve it much further if you said that the board should exclude at least £2.
§ 7.11 p.m.
§ Mr. MACMILLAN
I think I understand the point. I understand that the hon. Member wishes it to be the law that the £2 shall be automatically excluded. I am only worried that the words "exclusive of" and so on, may have effect as though the board shall not feel that it has the right to take additional benefit into account. I suggest that my hon. Friend should consider whether it would not be better to follow the words in another Amendment on the Paper and use some expression such as "the first £2." That would indicate to the board that it had the right to disregard other sums also.
§ Mr. HUDSON
In view of the discussion I will naturally see whether these words do make clear what, I think, the majority of us are agreed on as being desirable. I will certainly see between now and the Report stage whether these words do carry out what we want.
§ 7.12 p.m.
§ Mr. LOGAN
I am at a loss to understand why the Amendment standing in the name of the Labour party cannot be accepted. The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that, as regards what is known as maternity benefit under the Act, there is no such thing as a certain amount of 40s. being paid. Anybody knowing anything about the administration of maternity benefit knows there is no such thing as a fixed sum, and to talk of inserting £2 as maternity benefit when it is an uncertain amount that is paid 829 entirely passes my comprehension. Every approved society has its own amount which it pays in maternity benefit. Some societies may pay 25s., some 30s., some 28s., some 40s., and some may even pay 45s. In no place other than the House of Commons would anybody ever think of doing anything like this. In the way things are done here I would not be surprised at your putting in £5 or £10 and then wondering where it is to come from. The hon. Gentleman has said that later on he will consider something that will meet the views of the majority. But there is a minority to whom the Amendment is no concession at all. The concession is no concession. You are talking about 40s. when it means nothing at all. I am convinced that you would say £5 if you could get it off your hands with no further discussion. It is always "We will deal with it later on." There has never been an Amendment brought forward that you have dealt with on the spot. Later on is no use. I want it done now, and I want to know if the Minister is prepared to bring in the words,and the whole of any maternity benefit under those Acts.I understand plain English, and I understand the National Health Insurance Acts, but I cannot understand the Minister when he mentions 40s. I should like to see this Amendment taken to a Division.
§ 7.17 p.m.
§ Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS
I beg to move, in page 33, line 16, at the end, to insert:(b) any pension under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and any other income by virtue of the provisions of that Act or from any charity for the blind shall be disregarded.I place this Amendment in very much the same category as a war pension. Most Members have received a circular from the executive council of the National League of the Blind. I will read a portion of it:The executive council of the National League of the Blind desire to bring to the notice of all the Members of Parliament the hardships imposed on blind persons as a result of the present administration of the means test, and also to direct their attention to the fact that the Government Unemployment Insurance Bill will not materially affect the present position. In order to acquaint the Members with the 830 facts, and at the same time to indicate the manner in which it is hoped that the Bill will be amended, it is necessary to submit a brief statement.I will read a paragraph:For the past few years the authorities of institutions and workshops for the blind have been experiencing great difficulty in providing regular employment for blind workers. As a consequence of this state of affairs many sightless persons have been thrown out of employment, and have had to seek unemployment benefit at the Labour Exchanges. It Should be explained that most of the institutions for the blind make some monetary allowance to their blind workers when out of employment and these grants are taken into consideration by the local committees for the payment of transitional benefit when the blind workers are transferred from ordinary to transitional benefit. There does not appear to be any uniformity in assessing the incomes of blind workers. Some of the local committees take into account the whole of the allowance granted, while others are content to assess only part of it. When it is remembered that the persons thrown out of work have not the remotest chance of finding alternative employment, it might have been thought that local committees would have taken a more sympathetic view of their plight and availed themselves of the discretionary powers as set forth in Circular L.A.3.I trust that hon. Members will endorse the substance of that appeal. I am certain that most Members are sympathetic to the Amendment and I trust that, if the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to accept it, they will support it in the Division Lobby.
§ 7.26 p.m.
§ Mr. COCKS
I am sure that we all agree with my hon. Friend when he says the whole Committee, and I hope the Government, are in favour of the Amendment. We are dealing with those who are:From the cheerful ways of menCut off, and for the book of knowledge fair,Presented with a universal black.although since the invention of braille that is not so true as it was in the days of Milton. My hon. Friend put one argument regarding the workshops. I want to support that with another. The position, I understand, is that under the Blind Persons Act local authorities are empowered to make grants. I believe it is the practice of public assistance committees, when some member of the blind man's household is unemployed, to take into account the blind man's allowance in assessing the household need. That is humiliating in any case, but it must be 831 terrifically humiliating for any man or woman who is unemployed to feel that he is being maintained on part of the allowance of a blind relative. From that point of view—not merely the blind persons themselves but other members of the household—the Government should accept the Amendment.
§ 7,24 p.m.
§ Mr. HUDSON
I feel certain that the whole Committee will have every sympathy with those with whom the Amendment has to deal, but I would remind the Committee that there is already in operation the Blind Persons Act, which gives pensions amounting at present to over £500,000 a year, and that very extensive provision mas made in the Local Government Act, 1929, to enable local authorities—and many of them have taken advantage of it—to make adequate provision for blind persons. The Middlesex County Council in particular provide that a blind man and his wife shall have an allowance made up to 42s. per week, and the Manchester City Council have a similar allowance of 36s. a week. It must be clear that, with provision like that already made, it will be quite unreasonable to suggest that the whole or a substantial portion of income of that nature should be left out of account. The Mover of the Amendment spoke of the difficulty of finding work for the blind, but, no doubt, he is aware of the very considerable grants that are being made by the Ministry of Health within the block grant to assist that very problem. £20 per blind worker per annum is paid to a workshop, £20 per annum to home workers, £13 per resident per annum is given to homes, £5 per resident per annum to hostels and £78 per annum in respect of teachers of the blind. The net result is that very con-
§ siderable provision indeed is being made for blind persons and, in so far as there may still be any who are in need of assistance from the board, it will be quite open to give them such assistance as they feel their necessities demand. While we have every possible sympathy with blind persons, and realise the difficulties under which they are suffering, I am sorry that we cannot accept the Amendment.
§ 7.27 p.m.
§ Mr. GREENWOOD
The hon. Gentleman's answer is rather disappointing. One has to remember what has already been recognised in the law as regards people suffering from physical disabilities due to War service. An allowance is made which does something to bring a person up to normal. It is as much part of that person as the limb that he has lost. The pension now paid to blind people is paid in respect of a terrible infliction in order to do something to bring them up to the normal standard. Having admitted the case with regard to War service, it is at least reasonable to demand some special compensation as regards the blind. What the hon. Gentleman said about State grants paid under this, that and the other Act was entirely beside the point. Are destitute blind persons to be penalised and, so to speak, made a little more blind by their allowance being taken away? Our contention is that it should be regarded as personal to the blind man or woman and should be disregarded, and I should hope that on this question, which does not involve a large amount of expenditure, the Committee will be prepared to support us.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 310.835
|Division No. 126.]||AYES.||[7.30 p.m.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Dobbie, William||Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Edwards, Charles||Harris, Sir Percy|
|Banfield, John William||Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Holdsworth, Herbert|
|Batey, Joseph||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)||Janner, Barnett|
|Bernays, Robert||Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||John, William|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Buchanan, George||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Burton, Colonel Henry Walter||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Kirkwood, David|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Lawson, John James|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Leonard, William|
|Curry, A. C.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.)||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Dagger, George||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Lunn, William|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Grundy, Thomas W.||McEntee, Valentine L.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Mainwaring, William Henry||Rathbone, Eleanor||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Rea, Walter Russell||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)||Rothschild, James A. de||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Maxton, James||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Wilmot, John|
|Milner, Major James||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|Owen, Major Goronwy||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Paling, Wilfred||Thorne, William James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Parkinson, John Allen||Tinker, John Joseph||Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.|
|Pickering, Ernest H.||White, Henry Graham|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Davison, Sir William Henry||Jesson, Major Thomas E.|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Dawson, Sir Philip||Joel, Dudley J. Barnato|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)|
|Albery, Irving James||Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)||Donner, P. W.||Ker, J. Campbell|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Dower, Captain A. V. G.||Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Drewe, Cedric||Kerr, Hamilton W.|
|Ansley, Lord||Duckworth, George A. V.||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Duggan, Hubert John||Latham, Sir Herbert Paul|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Law, Sir Alfred|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Eastwood, John Francis||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)|
|Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Leech, Dr. J. W.|
|Balniel, Lord||Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Lees-Jones, John|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Levy, Thomas|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Elmley, Viscount||Liddall, Walter S.|
|Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Lindsay, Noel Ker|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Llewellin, Major John J.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)||Lloyd, Geoffrey|
|Beit, Sir Alfred L.||Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)|
|Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)||Loder, Captain J. de Vere|
|Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)||Everard, W. Lindsay||Loftus, Pierce C|
|Blindell, James||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.|
|Borodale, Viscount||Ford, Sir Patrick J.||MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Fox, Sir Gifford||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)|
|Boulton, W. W.||Fremantle, Sir Francis||McCorquodale, M. S.|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Fuller, Captain A. G.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Gault, Lieut.-Cot. A. Hamilton||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||McEwen, Captain J. H. F.|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Gluckstein, Louis Halle||McKie, John Hamilton|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Goldie, Noel B.||Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||McLean, Major Sir Alan|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Gower, Sir Robert||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)||Macmillan, Maurice Harold|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Macquisten, Frederick Alexander|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Graves, Marjorie||Magnay, Thomas|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Greene, William P. C.||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M|
|Burghley, Lord||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.|
|Burnett, John George||Grimston, R. V.||Marsden, Commander Arthur|
|Butler, Richard Austen||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Martin, Thomas B.|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Meller, Sir Richard James|
|Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Guy, J. C. Morrison||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)|
|Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale|
|Cassels, James Dale||Harbord, Arthur||Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hartington, Marquess of||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)||Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)||Moreing, Adrian C.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington. E.)||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Morrison, William Shepherd|
|Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Moss, Captain H. J.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)|
|Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)|
|Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid|
|Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||North, Edward T.|
|Clayton, Sir Christopher||Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)||Nunn, William|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||O'Connor, Terence James|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Hornby, Frank||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Horobin, Ian M.||Patrick, Colin M.|
|Cooke, Douglas||Horsbrugh, Florence||Peat, Charles U.|
|Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Penny, Sir George|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Percy, Lord Eustace|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Perkins, Walter R. D.|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)||Peters, Dr. Sidney John|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Hurd, Sir Percy||Petherick, M.|
|Cross, R. H.||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Crossley, A. C.||Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)||Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)|
|Culverwell, Cyril Tom||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Procter, Major Henry Adam|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Pybus, Sir Percy John|
|Radford, E. A.||Shute, Colonel J. J.||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Smithers, Waldron||Train, John|
|Ramsbotham, Herwald||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)||Tree, Ronald|
|Rawson, Sir Cooper||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Ray, Sir William||Soper, Richard||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Reid, David D. (County Down)||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Spencer, Captain Richard A.||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.|
|Remer, John R.||Spens, William Patrick||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Robinson, John Roland||Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.|
|Ropner, Colonel L.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Rosbotham, Sir Thomas||Stevenson, James||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Ross, Ronald D.||Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)||Storey, Samuel||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.||Stourton, Hon. John J.||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Runge, Norah Cecil||Strauss, Edward A.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)||Strickland, Captain W. F.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)||Summersby, Charles H.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart||Sutcliffe, Harold||Wragg, Herbert|
|Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.||Tate, Mavis Constance||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)|
|Savery, Samuel Servington||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)|
|Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Templeton, William P.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)||Mr. Womersley and Major George Davies.|
|Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
§ It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting.836
§ Amendment made: In page 33, line 17, leave out "any wounds or disability pension and," and insert "the first one pound of any wounds or disability pension shall be disregarded; (c)."—[Sir H. Betterton.]
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 316; Noes, 65.839
|Division No. 127.]||AYES.||[7.41 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Browne, Captain A. C.||Croom-Johnson, R. P.|
|Albery, Irving James||Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Cross, R. H.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)||Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Crossley, A. C.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Burghley, Lord||Culverwell, Cyril Tom|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Burnett, John George||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Apsley, Lord||Burton, Colonel Henry Walter||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Butler, Richard Austen||Davison, Sir William Henry|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Butt, Sir Alfred||Dawson, Sir Philip|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Denman, Hon. R. D.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.|
|Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)||Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)||Donner, P. W.|
|Balniel, Lord||Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Dower, Captain A. V. G.|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Drewe, Cedric|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Cassels, James Dale||Duckworth, George A. V.|
|Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)||Duggan, Hubert John|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)|
|Beit, Sir Alfred L.||Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Eastwood, John Francis|
|Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)||Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey|
|Blindell, James||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Elliston, Captain George Sampson|
|Borodale, Viscount||Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Elmley, Viscount|
|Bossom, A. C.||Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)||Emrys-Evans, P. V.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Clayton, Sir Christopher||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Essenhigh, Reginald Clare|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald||Conant, R. J. E.||Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)|
|Bracken, Brendan||Cooke, Douglas||Everard, W. Lindsay|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Fleming, Edward Lascelles|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Crooke, J. Smedley||Ford, Sir Patrick J.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Fox, Sir Gifford|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)|
|Fremantle, Sir Francis||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)|
|Fuller, Captain A. G.||MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||McCorquodale, M. S.||Savery, Samuel Servington|
|Gluckstein, Louis Halle||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Goldie, Noel B.||McEwen, Captain J. H. F.||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||McKie, John Hamilton||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.|
|Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)||McLean, Major Sir Alan||Shute, Colonel J. J.|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.|
|Graves, Marjorie||Macquisten, Frederick Alexander||Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Magnay, Thomas||Smithers, Waldron|
|Greene, William P. C.||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Grimston, R. V.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Soper, Richard|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.|
|Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Meller, Sir Richard James||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Spens, William Patrick|
|Guy, J. C. Morrison||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Milne, Charles||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale||Stevenson, James|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)|
|Harbord, Arthur||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Storey, Samuel|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Moreing, Adrian C.||Stourton, Hon. John J.|
|Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Morrison, William Shepherd||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Moss, Captain H. J.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)||Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||North, Edward T.||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Nunn, William||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)|
|Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)||O'Connor, Terence James||Templeton, William P.|
|Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Patrick, Colin M.||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Hornby, Frank||Pearson, William G.||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Horobin, Ian M.||Peat, Charles U.||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Percy, Lord Eustace||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Perkins, Walter R. [...].||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Train, John|
|Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Petherick, M.||Tree, Ronald|
|Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)||Pete, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Hurd, Sir Percy||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Procter, Major Henry Adam||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)||Pybus, Sir Percy John||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Radford, E. A.||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.|
|Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Joel, Dudley J. Barnato||Ramsbotham, Herwald||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Rathbone, Eleanor||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour|
|Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Ker, J. Campbell||Ray, Sir William||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Kerr, Hamilton W.||Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Latham, Sir Herbert Paul||Remer, John R.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Law, Sir Alfred||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)||Robinson, John Roland||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Leech, Dr. J. W.||Ropner, Colonel L.||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Lees-Jones, John||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas||Withers, Sir John James|
|Levy, Thomas||Ross, Ronald D.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Liddall, Walter S.||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)|
|Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Lindsay, Noel Ker||Runge, Norah Cecil||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Llewellin, Major John J.||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)||Sir George Penny and Mr. Womersley.|
|Lloyd, Geoffrey||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Dobbie, William|
|Asks, Sir Robert William||Buchanan, George.||Edwards, Charles|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)|
|Banfield, John William||Curry, A. C.||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)|
|Batey, Joseph||Dagger, George||Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)|
|Bernays, Robert||Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Foot, Dingle (Dundee)|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Lawson, John James||Rothschild, James A. de|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Leonard, William||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Logan, David Gilbert||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)|
|Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Lunn, William||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).||McEntee, Valentine L.||Thorne, William James|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Mainwaring, William Henry||White, Henry Graham|
|Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mender, Geoffrey le M.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Harris, Sir Percy||Maxton, James||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Holdsworth, Herbert||Milner, Major James||Wilmot, John|
|Janner, Barnett||Owen, Major Goronwy||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|John, William||Paling, Wilfred|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Parkinson, John Allen||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Pickering, Ernest H.||Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.|
|Kirkwood, David||Rea, Walter Russell|
§ CLAUSE 38.—(Determination of applications for allowances and questions relating thereto.)
§ Amendments made: In page 35, line 5, after "that," insert "there is reason to doubt whether."
§ In line 6, leave out "not."840
§ In line 6, leave out "that," and insert "whether."
§ In line 7, leave out "not."—[Sir H. Betterton.]
§ Question put, "That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 317; Noes, 63.841
|Division No. 128.]||AYES.||[7.53 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)||Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton|
|Agnew, Lieut-Com. P. G.||Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Albery, Irving James||Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Gluckstein, Louis Halle|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)||Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Goldie, Noel B.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.|
|Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Apsley, Lord||Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Clayton, Sir Christopher||Graves, Marjorie|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Greases-Lord, Sir Walter|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Greene, William P. C.|
|Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)||Conant, R. J. E.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John|
|Balniel, Lord||Cooke, Douglas||Grimston, R. V.|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry||Gritten, W. G. Howard|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar||Crooke, J. Smedley||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||Guy, J. C. Morrison|
|Beit, Sir Alfred L.||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.|
|Bernays, Robert||Cross, R. H.||Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)|
|Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Crossley, A. C.||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)|
|Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)||Culverwell, Cyril Tom||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Blindell, James||Dalkeith, Earl of||Harbord, Arthur|
|Borodale, Viscount||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Bossom, A. C.||Dawson, Sir Philip||Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)|
|Boulton, W. W.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Donner, P. W.||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald||Dower, Captain A. V. G.||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)|
|Bracken, Brendan||Drewe, Cedric||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Duckworth, George A. V.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Duggan, Hubert John||Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Hore-Belisha, Leslie|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Eastwood, John Francis||Hornby, Frank|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Horobin, Ian M.|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Horsbrugh, Florence|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Elmley, Viscount||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Burghley, Lord||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)|
|Burnett, John George||Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)||Hume, Sir George Hopwood|
|Burton, Colonel Henry Walter||Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)|
|Butler, Richard Austen||Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)||Hurd, Sir Percy|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Everard, W. Lindsay||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)|
|Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Fleming, Edward Lascelles||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.|
|Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)||Ford, Sir Patrick J.||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Fox, Sir Gifford||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Fraser, Captain Ian||Jesson, Major Thomas E.|
|Cassels, James Dale||Fremantle, Sir Francis||Joel, Dudley J. Barnato|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Fuller, Captain A. G.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)|
|Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||North, Edward T.||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Ker, J. Campbell||Nunn, William||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||O'Connor, Terence James||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Kerr, Hamilton W.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Spens, William Patrick|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Patrick, Colin M.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Pearson, William G.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)|
|Latham, Sir Herbert Paul||Peat, Charles U.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Law, Sir Alfred||Percy, Lord Eustace||Stevenson, James|
|Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)||Perkins, Walter R. D.||Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)|
|Leech, Dr. J. W.||Petherick, M.||Storey, Samuel|
|Lees-Jones, John||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Stourton, Hon. John J.|
|Levy, Thomas||Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Liddall, Walter S.||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)||Procter, Major Henry Adam||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Lindsay, Noel Ker||Pybus, Sir Percy John||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Llewellin, Major John J.||Radford, E. A.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Lloyd, Geoffrsy||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Loftus, Pierce C.||Ramsbotham, Herwald||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)|
|Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Rathbone, Eleanor||Templeton, William P.|
|MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Ray, Sir William||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|McCorquodale, M. S.||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)||Touche, Gorden Cosmo|
|McEwen, Captain J. H. F.||Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Train, John|
|McKie, John Hamilton||Remer, John R.||Tree, Ronald|
|Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|McLean, Major Sir Alan||Robinson, John Roland||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Ropner, Colonel L.||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Macmillan, Maurice Harold||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|Macquisten, Frederick Alexander||Ross, Ronald D.||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Magnay, Thomas||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Runge, Norah Cecil||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.|
|Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Marsden, Commander Arthur||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Martin, Thomas B.||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour|
|Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Meller, Sir Richard James||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Milne, Charles||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Savery, Samuel Servington||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Moreing, Adrian C.||Shute, Colonel J. J.||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Morrison, William Shepherd||Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Wragg, Herbert|
|Moss, Captain H. J.||Smithers, Waldron||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)|
|Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)|
|Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)||Soper, Richard||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.||Sir George Penny and Mr. Womersley.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Maxton, James|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)||Milner, Major James|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Owen, Major Goronwy|
|Banfield, John William||Grundy, Thomas W.||Paling, Wilfred|
|Batey, Joseph||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)||Pickering, Ernest H.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Harris, Sir Percy||Rea, Walter Russell|
|Buchanan, George||Holdsworth, Herbert||Rothschild, James A. de|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Janner, Barnett||Samuel. Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Curry, A. C.||John, William||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)|
|Dagger, George||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Thorne, William James|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Kirkwood, David||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Dobbie, William||Lawson, John James||White, Henry Graham|
|Edwards, Charles||Leonard, William||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Logan, David Gilbert||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)||Lunn, William||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Evans, R. T. (Carmarthes)||McEntee, Valentine L.||Wilmot, John|
|Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Mainwaring, William Henry|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)||Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.|
§ 8.2 p.m.
§ Mr. MACMILLAN
I desire your guidance, Mr. Chairman, on a point of 842 Order. We have passed Clauses 37 and 38 and are now to consider Clause 39. I should like to know whether there is 843 any method under our procedure—I understand that we are not allowed to move to report Progress—whereby the attention of the Committee can be called to the difficulties under which we are conducting the Debate. The Clause dealing with the means test has gone without any discussion at all. Would it be in order on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to ask the Government what they propose to do with these important Clauses?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member rose to a point of Order, but he has asked me a question, the answer to which is perfectly simple. The Committee is working under a Guillotine Order, which is an Order of the House, and I am bound to follow it. The hon. Member has no opportunity of doing what he desires because he is not able to move to report Progress.
§ 8.4 p.m.
§ Mr. GREENWOOD
The other night when similar circumstances arose there was some discussion—the Prime Minister was present—as to the order of business. Important Clauses had been passed without any discussion. If that could be done last Thursday, I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if a question could be put to the Government asking what they propose to do with regard to the two last Clauses which have been passed; whether they propose to make some provision for their adequate discussion by recommittal or on Report stage.
§ 8.5 p.m.
§ Sir HERBERT SAMUEL
A feeling is growing in the Committee that the position is rapidly becoming intolerable. How is the Committee to go on giving serious attention to this Measure when some of the main issues like the means test, in which the whole Committee is interested, cannot be discussed at all?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I must say that the whole of this discussion is out of order. It is a discussion which can only take place on a Motion to report Progress.
§ The CHAIRMAN
That is not a matter with which I am concerned. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman for 844 Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has said, I can only say that sinning once does not justify sinning again and even if such a discussion took place the other night it does not make it in order for a similar discussion to take place on this occasion.
§ Mr. GREENWOOD
But at least we are governed by precedents, and last Monday night we spent several minutes in a most disorderly fashion considering this question. I think we ought to get an answer from the Government.
§ 8.7 p.m.
§ Mr. MAXTON
Your predecessor in the Chair on the occasion when the Money Resolution was under discussion, whom I presume you are not criticising, ruled that it was competent for a Member of the Government to make a Motion in such circumstances for the suspension of the Debate, and that it was competent for him to put such a Motion to the vote. I am asking, on an occasion when we are passing most important Clauses, again without one minute's discussion, if it is not high time for the Government spokesman to make such a Motion so that the proceedings of the Committee may be put on an honest and intelligent basis?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is quite right; it is competent for a Member of the Government to move to report Progress, and, if he does, it is my business to put that Motion without discussion. That therefore would not enable hon. Members to carry on such a discussion as they wish.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I have no objection to a question being put to the Minister, if he chooses to reply; but I must point out to the Committee that this discussion is quite out of order. To use the right hon. Gentleman's own word it is at present "disorderly."
§ 8.8 p.m.
§ Mr. GREENWOOD
May I put a question to the Lord President of the Council? He was not present last Monday night; the Prime Minister was. This is the second occasion on which feeling has run high in all parts of the Committee because of a lack of discussion on important Clauses in the Bill. We have now 845 arrived at a stage when the principle of two important Clauses has not been discussed at all. Will the Government give an undertaking that either by a recommittal of these Clauses or by giving some proper opportunity for discussion on Report stage at least the principle of the Clauses shall be discussed before the Bill leaves this House?
§ 8.9 p.m.
§ The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin)
If I can keep within the rules of order I certainly will. I perfectly understand the situation which has arisen. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) is naturally feeling very indignant because he did not have the training which I had for years, of being trampled underfoot by the largest Liberal majority of modern times. The situation remains as it was; and I repeat the pledge given by the Prime Minister. It is quite impossible as a matter of the business of the House, to break a Guillotine Resolution, but I am perfectly prepared, when the Committee stage as arranged under the Guillotine is finished, to reconsider the situation in the light of the Debate which has taken place. It is not the intention of the Government to avoid a discussion on certain important matters, but that must be left to the discretion of the Government——
§ Mr. BALDWIN
I do not think there are as many difficulties in that as the hon. Member supposes. Beyond that it is impossible for me to say anything at this point. I repeat that it will be done. It is obvious that there are certain features in the Bill of great importance and we must have more discussion. I cannot say more than that at the moment.
§ 8.11 p.m.
§ Mr. GREENWOOD
Will the Lord President of the Council consider this point? It is true that no guillotine has been fixed for the Report stage, and the point is that if we get an extension of time on Report there is still no guarantee that certain of the Clauses which have been passed without discussion will be considered. Will he when he is considering the matter bear that fact in mind with a view to the recommittal of certain Clauses, which could be suggested to him 846 now, so that we might have a full Committee Stage debate on those Clauses which have been omitted from our discussion?
§ Mr. BALDWIN
I cannot at this stage say exactly what will be done. What I have undertaken is that in considering what further time shall be given we will take into consideration before coming to any decision the views expressed in the Committee.
§ CLAUSE 39.—(Method of dealing with cases of special difficulty.)
§ 8.12 p.m.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
May I rise on quite a different point of Order? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is for the benefit of hon. Members opposite as well. This Amendment raises the greater part of the principle of the whole Clause, and I am asking whether we could have a debate on the whole Clause as was the case on previous Clauses. That would enable the principle of the Clause to be discussed in rather less time and afford more time for the discussion of the remaining Clauses.
§ 8.13 p.m.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) says that the Amendment raises the principle of the Clause. If that is so a great deal can be discussed on it, but the Committee will have realised already that I regard it as an abuse of the procedure of this House to put down a first Amendment to a Clause in such a form as to endeavour to obtain at the beginning a discussion which should rightly come on the Question, "That the Clause stand part." Further, no arrangement has been made on any Clause up to this point which has allowed such a discussion to take place. What the right hon. Gentleman says about the gist of the Amendment may be true, but I must ask hon. Members to keep within the terms of the Amendment and not attempt to anticipate a Debate which is only proper on the Question of the Clause standing part.
§ 8.14 p.m.
§ Sir H. SAMUEL
Since under the Guillotine the question of the Clause standing part is hardly ever discussed, is it not necessary that the Committee should adapt its procedure to the most unhappy conditions under which it is working and take the substance of the discussion on the Clause standing part at the beginning instead of at the end?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. But apart from that, in this case I think he is speaking somewhat hastily because before the Guillotine next falls there are no less than six Clauses to be discussed and there should be ample opportunity to debate that the Clause stand part.
§ The CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member wishes to know whether an Amendment is to be ruled out or not, he must wait until we reach it.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Mr. T. SMITH
The Committee will see that the Clause relates to the method of dealing with cases of special difficulty. A case that has been decided to be one of special difficulty can be dealt with in two or three ways. One way is laid down in Sub-section (2), paragraph (c), which states:that the allowance be granted only upon condition that the applicant attends at a work centre provided and maintained under this Section, or, where arrangements in that behalf have been made with a public assistance authority.The effect of the Amendment is to exclude from paragraph (c) any reference to the public assistance authority. I hope we shall get to know from the Minister of Labour what exactly is meant by a work centre under the authority of a public assistance committee. My experience as a Poor Law guardian has taught me that the kind of work centre the old board of guardians established, or that the new public assistance committee will arrange, 848 is based on the idea either of punishing an individual for something done or omitted to be done, or of setting it up on the basis of test labour. The kind of scheme that a public assistance authority is likely to set up is either on the basis of stone-breaking or of some useless and degrading work such as digging over a field and then digging the soil back again. That has been done more than once in the last 10 years as the test labour for able-bodied unemployed.
We on this side are of opinion that when the Minister has decided that a case is one of special difficulty, if the individual concerned has to attend a work centre it ought to be a centre under the control of the board and not under the control of any other body. Two or three other Amendments on the Paper, to which I must not refer now, are based on the same idea. I would like the Minister to tell us what is the intention. Is it to punish a man by making him attend a work centre controlled by a public assistance authority, and what kind of work scheme has the right hon. Gentleman in mind? I cannot imagine any centre but one which is set up as a kind of punishment rather than as one intended to recondition a man.
§ 8.20 p.m.
§ Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH
Are these work centres to be used only for dealing with the specific class of people who are covered by this Clause? Under Sub-section (4) there may be special centres set up to deal with the people who come in under the Clause. I imagine that the work centres in connection with the public assistance authorities have other purposes as well. If these work centres are to be used in the main, or even in part, for the genuine educational purpose of reconditioning the individual, a purpose which I gather to be very near the Minister's heart, I myself cannot imagine anything worse than a mixture of the people attending these centres in order to be reconditioned, with a lot of other rather disgruntled people who have been sent there as some kind of punishment. I cannot imagine the centre profitably doing both kinds of work at the same time. What the Clause does is to create a special class for almost the submerged tenth of the unemployed who are to be dealt with in a special 849 way. If that be so, to bring these unfortunate people in and to mix them up at all with those who are being genuinely reconditioned, and who go with good will and with a desire to benefit by the service of the work centre, seems to me likely to produce the most unfortunate results. There will not be harmony, and those responsible for carrying on the work of the centres will have an extremely difficult job, and will have their real educational desires thwarted. Are these centres to do any reconditioning work at all?
§ 8.23 p.m.
§ Mr. BANFIELD
The matter we are discussing is of the utmost importance to this particular class of individual. What has been my own experience as a member of a board of guardians for many years? I am fully aware that you will always have a small and difficult class with which to deal. The trouble here is that you are going definitely to put this class under the Poor Law and you are going to say to the public assistance committee, "Here we have a man who for some reason or for many reasons it would be desirable to send away from his wife and family for training." I am afraid that when this matter is approached in a rather different spirit from that in which it has been approached in the past by Poor Law authorities, the results will be as they have nearly always been up to now, that the man has not benefited in any way, that he has been sent to these places raging under a distinct grievance, that he goes very unwillingly, that he learns nothing at all that fits him for work in the labour market, and that when sooner or later he returns to his home, the problem is precisely the same as it was before he went.
As a member of a board of guardians I know something of the position of men who were sent to the Belmont Colony and I can say out of my own experience that men were sent there not for training but as a punishment. It would be far better to take this question out of the hands of the Poor Law authority altogether. If the question of the training of these men is to be approached in the right way, if we are to spend money in an attempt to raise this class of men out of the gutter, then I am sure that 850 the old traditions and the old methods of the Poor Law authorities are not calculated to help us. It is very unlikely that those authorities would be able to approach the problem from a new angle. However far down a man may have fallen in the social scale I believe it is always possible to find in him the divine spark which will make for his ultimate benefit. But unless these men are dealt with outside the Poor Law they are not likely to get any benefit from the proposal in this Clause. The Unemployment Assistance Board which is to deal with matters generally under Part II of the Bill have very wide powers and ought to be able to evolve some scheme to deal with the position in a more satisfactory way.
Here we have one of the most difficult problems that arises in connection with unemployment. It seems to me that the Minister has not looked the problem in the face but has passed by on the other side, leaving it to the Poor Law authorities. He is apparently content to let it rest there. I would emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith). We are entitled to know more about what it is proposed to do with these men. I remember going to Belmont as a visiting guardian and seeing men engaged there in carrying earth in sacks from one place and depositing it in another place. That sort of thing is ridiculous. Apparently there is no idea of finding these men occupations calculated to raise their moral status. I should like to hear from the Minister whether there is any intention of making a real attempt to give them something like a fresh chance in life. But I repeat that if they are to be dealt with as they have been dealt with hitherto by the Poor Law authorities then there is no chance of anything practical or useful coming out of the scheme which is here proposed.
I do not know what the Minister has to say as to why this responsibility should be placed on the Poor Law authorities at all. Under this scheme he is supposed to take the whole of the able-bodied out of the Poor Law but as regards this small but very important section—important because of the problem which arises from the very fact that they are so far down in the social scale—he proposes apparently to put them back into the Poor Law. Although they are supposed to stand on 851 an equal footing, as it were, with the rest of the unemployed who come under Part II yet he brands them definitely as paupers. The Minister may have very good reasons for the step which he contemplates. The Committee will be anxious to hear those reasons and to leave what justification there is for the course which is here proposed.
I feel that there are possibilities in men of this class and that there is hope for them. Given the right sort of training under the right sort of men in the right atmosphere; given the kind of direction which will not treat them as criminals merely because they are unemployed; given a sympathy with their weaknesses, a capacity to see their point of view and a desire to raise them in the social scale, and I believe that many of these men could be turned into very good citizens. It must not be forgotten that many of them—treated now simply as people whom we are anxious to get rid of as soon as possible—are in that position not because they are particularly malignant, but because of the surroundings in which they live or differences which exist inside their own families. These things prey upon their minds and make them appear to be considerably worse than they really are in many cases. I know there is an undesirable minority prepared to take advantage of all kinds of persons and circumstances. You will always get one out of 100 of that type. I am pleading for the 99 who would "make good" if they got sympathetic consideration. Branding them as paupers will make them feel that their hands are against everybody, and that everybody's hands are against them; that there is no hope for them and that this Bill is going to be of no assistance to them. I appeal to the Minister to consider whether some other way of dealing with these special cases cannot be devised.
§ 8.34 p.m.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I have listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) and the hon. Member; for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). They are characteristic of the speeches which we hear from the benches opposite. They are also rather significant and to some extent amusing. The fact is that the Government are following in this Clause 852 in a very mild way the path laid out some years ago by the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, to which the Leader of the Opposition was one of the signatories. He has never disowned what he said then, and what he subscribed to then is applicable now with precisely the same truth as it was then. As happened, however, in another case, the moment action is taken of a kind that the Opposition themselves wanted before, they object to it. They are in fact false to their principles, and they evade the perfectly logical consequence of their own principles if put into action.
The reasoning of the Leader of the Opposition was quite clear and sound; it justified the proposals that he then made, and there is no change in the circumstances. His reasoning was this. If you start to organise society from the point of view of unemployment, you try to do three things: You try to prevent the causes of unemployment; you try, together with that, and almost inevitably, to sort out the different kinds of people who are unemployed; and then you recognise that there is a small substratum of those whom he called industrial malingerers, who are different from the far greater majority of unemployed, who are merely unfortunate, but who, because they exist, require special treatment and form special cases. That was his reasoning throughout, and it was that of Mrs. Web, who also signed the report. Whatever form of organisation the State may be undertaking, whether the more rigid form which Socialist Members may want or the more elastic form of regulation, I agree with it so far. You want, on the one hand, to prevent the causes. I think that by far the greater part of casual labour, which causes the worst cases we have, could be prevented. On the other hand, you want to have different treatment made possible for those who are the unfortunate victims of unemployment, and for those who may form the special cases.
This Clause provides something which at any rate is not half so drastic as was suggested in the report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law by Mrs. Webb and by the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I quote what they proposed: 853There will be men capable of earning a living but refusing to do so, whether professional vagrants or work-shy.They are a small minority, but they ought not to be in the same institution as the vast majority who are the victims of unemployment at the present time. They should be separately treated. The remedy of the right hon. Gentleman and of Mrs. Webb, however, is different from that proposed in the Bill, because they say:These will leave the free training establishments and will be judicially committed to a detention colony.I cannot see, in these circumstances, why hon. Members opposite should strain at the gnat and swallow the camel, and why they should object to what is but a mild proposal in comparison with that in the report.
§ 8.40 p.m.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
This is an Amendment of limited scope. The Mover of it desires to leave out the words:and may make arrangements with any public assistance authority for the attendance of applicants whose cases are so dealt with at any work centre or similar place provided and maintained by that authority.The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), if I may say so, showed a true appreciation of what was in my mind, at any rate, when I considered this part of the Bill. He said that a man might be a difficult case, but it might be that he had never had a chance, and there might be what he called "the divine spark" within him. It is exactly for that reason that we deliberately included within the scope of this Bill men who might well, if we had taken another view, have been left to the Poor Law. As I say, we did it deliberately and for the very reasons given by the hon. Member for Wednesbury. It would be possible to say that these people have nothing to do with the industrial community, but that they are proper subjects for the Poor Law. We took, I think, a better and, I am sure, a more humane view, however, when we adopted the line that if there was anything in these men which would enable us to make them again members of the industrial community, with the opportunity of getting jobs, it would be better for them than if we left them merely to the Poor Law.
854 Of course, these ends, if I may so describe them, of the people whom we have brought within the scope of this Bill have very different records. There are among them the work-shy and the professional vagrants. On the other hand, there may be men who have been disqualified for benefit because they have left their job involuntarily. In fact, these two classes of men may be of an entirely different character. This Clause is intended to deal with those who come within the category of people who have left their job involuntarily, but it also includes others who must be treated in a wholly different way.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury said that under this Clause we were placing them under the Poor Law, but we are deliberately not doing that, because these centres will not be under the Poor Law. The board will satisfy itself, before making any arrangements with the local authorities, that the curriculum of work and the instruction are in accordance with the requirements of the board's policy, and it is really nothing more than what I may call an agency arrangement for the purpose of convenience. The board is taking away from the Poor Law a body of persons who might otherwise have been left to it.
Some Poor Law authorities have the centers—one was referred to by the hon. Member for Wednesbury—and the people whom they will have to send to them will be very much diminished in numbers. Therefore, it did seem absurd, where there were actual centres still in existence, to put the board to unnecessary expense in setting up other centres to do the same sort of thing for small numbers of men. The board must be satisfied as to the curriculum and management of the centres. This Amendment, which is of a very limited scope, is one which I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to press, because this paragraph has really not the dangers that he anticipates, and I think it would be ridiculous to set up another centre side by side with an old one when the old one might be no longer needed at anything like its full capacity.
§ 8.46 p.m.
§ Mr. LAWSON
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) has faced what is meant in this Amendment. The right hon. Member for Tamworth rode off on what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and Mrs. Sidney Webb 25 years ago. Neither of them suggested that we should hand these people over to a non-representative body, particularly a body which is going to have such extraordinary powers that they even excite the Members supporting the Government. The Amendment deals with the essence of the Clause. It deals with applicants for allowances who have failed to avail themselves of opportunities of work or training. These are cases of special difficulty. I asked the right hon. Gentleman in a previous Debate what these cases of special difficulty are. He has made a statement as to his intentions. For instance, suppose this non-representative board offers these men employment through some agency of theirs below the current rates——
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Gentleman is getting outside the Amendment now. He is dealing with the operation of a later part of the Clause.
§ Mr. LAWSON
The people with whom we are dealing are those who are to be handed over to other authorities.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is justified in basing an argument for this Amendment on the question of the people whom it affects, but he is not entitled to go into the question of how that class is arrived at.
§ Mr. LAWSON
It is very difficult if I cannot argue as to how these people can be put into this class. My contention is that this class is likely under this Clause to be much wider than is contemplated by the Minister. The board itself is to be the deciding factor as to which are the cases of special difficulty, and the board is not responsible to the House. I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well to give the Committee a much more definite explanation as to what these cases of special difficulty are likely to be.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to do so. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to follow 856 exactly what is in paragraph (c). It is provided that where an officer or appeal tribunal is of opinion that an application ought to be dealt with as a case of special difficulty, they may make one of several determinations. Paragraph (c) is one of those determinations, and the Amendment before us only proposes to leave out the middle three or four lines of that paragraph.
§ Mr. LAWSON
In view of your Ruling, I do not propose to go any further except to repeat that the right hon. Gentleman has not faced the Amendment, which is the essence of the Clause. I think that, whether I am within the rules or not, there has been some mistake in not allowing a much wider Debate on this Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMAN
Perhaps I may be allowed, as a mere matter of courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, to make some reference to that. He is quite right in saying that in this discussion the Minister has not faced the question of the Clause. He must not do so. We are not discussing the Clause, and that is the whole point of the Ruling I have given.
§ 8.52 p.m.
§ Mr. CURRY
The Amendment is seeking to delete certain lines in which reference is made to work centres. May I ask how many work centres are to be set up? For the unemployed who are living in congested areas, the work centres are within easy reach of their homes, but in the case of rural and urban districts, where the public authority is the county council, they may set up one or two centres for a whole county. It may mean a married man being sent to a training centre away from the district in which he ordinarily resides. That would be going a great deal further than the Minister has outlined in his intentions.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid that the hon. Member is not in order. We can only discuss that question on the Clause.
§ The CHAIRMAN
Only part of them. There are two types of these centres—those provided by the board, and those for the use of which arrangements are made by the board, but which are provided by the public assistance authorities.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid the hon. Member is getting back to earlier words. There is no provision here, if I understand it aright, for the public assistance authorities to set up training centres. It is only a question of boards setting up centres, and of making arrangements with public assistance authorities where centres are already in existence.
§ 8.55 p.m.
§ Mr. K. GRIFFITH
On that point of Order. I do not think that is what the paragraph means. It is not clear from the words that no new centre is to be set up. It says:or, where arrangements in that behalf ave been made with a public assistance authority, that he attends at a work centre or similar place provided and maintained by that authority.That might mean at work centres already provided, or it might mean at work centres to be provided.
§ The CHAIRMAN
That is an arguable point, but, even if that be so, I do not thing. I could follow a discussion on a matter which really refers more to the first three lines of this paragraph than to the particular part which it is proposed to delete.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. T. SMITH
I beg to move in page 36, line 13, to leave out paragraph (d).
This paragraph deals with another determination that may be made in a case of special difficulty. It provides that allowance can be given only on condition that the applicant becomes an inmate of a workhouse. In using the word "workhouse" the Minister of Labour has hardly kept abreast of the times. Some years ago, when the Minister of Health tried to improve the position of Poor Law institutions, we were told by Circular that we must cease using the word "workhouse" and replace it by a nicer-sounding phrase, and now they are called "Poor Law institutions." I have handled thousands upon thousands of cases of the able-bodied poor in Sheffield, 858 especially since 1920, but I have never yet been guilty of sending a man into a workhouse as a condition of giving relief to his dependants. We have been told time and time again that Part II was intended to take the treatment of the able-bodied unemployed out of the hands of the Poor Law authorities. I have no intention of trying to do anything to save the face or the skin of a man who does something which warrants him being put into an institution, but I regard this as an unnecessary imposition.
The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), whom I do not see in his place, chided Members on this side when making reference to what took place in connection with the Royal Commission on the Poor Law some 30 years ago, and went on to say there was no difference between the position now and the position then. I contend that there is a tremendous difference, and the change has been for the better so far as the treatment of unemployed people is concerned. In those days there was no unemployment insurance, and, indeed, it was hardly possible for an unemployed man to get Poor Law relief. This House looked on the unemployed man with a very different eye. If the right hon. Gentleman looks up his political history he will find that in 1905 an Act was passed which, while it gave local authorities power to spend a halfpenny rate on the provision of utensils for cooking food for the unemployed, left the food itself to be obtained by private subscriptions. A provision refusing to give allowances except on the condition that a man becomes an inmate of a workhouse is one which ought not to be embodied in this Bill, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to accept the Amendment.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. HUDSON
I think there is a point of substance in what my hon. Friend has called attention to, namely, the use of the word "workhouse," and, if instead of moving his Amendment in its present form, he will submit a manuscript Amendment to line 17, to leave out the word "workhouse" and substitute "Poor Law Institution," we can accept it.
§ 9.1 p.m.
§ Mr. BANFIELD
This paragraph bears out in great measure what many of us have always said about Part II, namely, that it is the Poor Law under a different name. It seems to me that the Ministry are still swayed to a very great extent by the old traditions of the Ministry of Health, and have the same mentality and outlook and the same policy of deterrents as the old Local Government Board of 25 or 30 years ago. This arrangement whereby a man can be sent into a workhouse or, if we do not like that word, "public institution"—it is all the same for the man when he gets there, there is no difference then—is a continuation of the old policy. Unemployment now is a far different matter from what it was 25 or 30 years ago. Then an argument might be put forward to justify sending an able-bodied man to the workhouse, on the ground that men could get a job if only they would look for one. I have heard that argument put up at boards of guardians over and over again. Now, however, no one says that there are jobs for all the unemployed. We have all come to recognise that there are not enough jobs to go round. Still, in this paragraph we retain the old principle of deterrents.
When I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill I said that, bad as the Bill was from my point of view, I was really more afraid of the administration of Part II than of the actual provisions of Part II itself. If you have no sympathetic administration, and if men are to be sent to the workhouse without very serious consideration, not as human beings but simply as numbers upon a case paper, I am afraid that instead of doing something to take the able-bodied unemployed out of the Poor Law the Government will be continuing a vicious system which all men and women of good will very much regret. Here is a provision that the man shall be sent to the workhouse and that:the allowance be … payable only by way of payments to the authority in pursuance of the arrangements and payments to a member of his household while he is such an inmate.Some of us who speak upon these matters from the Opposition benches do so, not in a theoretical way, but because we have had actual experience of administration of the Poor Law. Some of us—and here I speak for myself—have 860 fought battles for nearly 19 years in London, in order to make it impossible that a man should be sent into an institution simply and solely because he was unemployed. The Minister will admit that if the men were not unemployed obviously he would have no control over them. It is because the men are unemployed that they can be dealt with under this arrangement. [An HON. MEMBER: "These are special cases!"] These special cases consist of men who have done certain things. It is a peculiar thing in the administration of the Poor Law, that some things depend upon the way in which a man strikes certain individuals at a certain time. Very often a man is judged to be a waster or a vagrant simply because of his attitude before a certain set of persons at a particular time. I feel very strongly that the Committee should hesitate before agreeing to this Clause.
I have never denied that the Minister of Labour has a sympathetic outlook and a very sympathetic heart. I have always felt that he is a good man struggling to do the right thing, but that he has unfortunately chosen the wrong way in which to do it. I hope that he will realise that I have been using these arguments, not out of a desire to oppose the Clause, but because of my own experience. I want us to do our best for a very unfortunate class of men. With all respect to the institutions—because I know we very often say that they are very fine places, very nicely managed and all the rest of it—no one knows better than I do, for I have visited them year after year, that they are very poor places indeed as a substitute for almost any kind of home. It is in some measure a punishment to send a man there, separating him from his wife and family and denying to his wife and family the means to live if the man refuses to go there. The punishment in the majority of cases is far greater than any crime the man could have committed. When it comes down to brass tacks, his only crime is that, being unemployed, he is awkward, or stupid, or obstinate, but society has, in the majority of cases, made the man what he is. He has been a helpless victim of circumstances. I recognise that there is this type of man, and he has to be dealt with. We had to deal with him under the old 861 boards of guardians, but I hope that some better method may be found of dealing with these special cases.
§ 9.11 p.m.
§ Mr. HOROBIN
I do not propose to do more in reference to the speech to which we have just listened than to draw the hon. Member's attention to lines in the Clause which have missed his attention; otherwise, he would have been deliberately misleading, and I cannot believe he intended to be that. It would be a gross misrepresentation to suggest that the effect of the paragraph which we are discussing is to send people to the workhouse just because—I think the hon. Member used the word "solely"—they are out of work. The reason is laid down in the Statute; it is when the applicant has failed to avail himself of the opportunities for employment. The question is, whether there is any necessity to protect the interests of the applicant or of persons depending upon him. It is entirely beside the point to go into the kind of consideration which we have just heard.
I would like to make a rather different point with the Minister, in order to draw an explanation from him or from the Parliamentary Secretary. I am not clear as to the object of the paragraph. A great number of people have been taken from the Poor Law and a small minority are pretty tough customers—"bad lads," if I may use a colloquial expression. It is no use disguising the fact that these men exist and I have no doubt that what the Minister has in mind is to have in reserve a certain number of weapons. That I entirely understand. What does he consider he is doing by sending one of these men to the "house"? The general intention of Part II of the Bill is to keep hold of as many of these persons as possible who are in the labour market, but a person who has gone to the "house" cannot possibly be considered as in the labour market. Is it intended that a difficult customer shall first be sent to the training school, where he will perhaps be too much of a nuisance and where they will say, "He is no use. He will not work and he will not be trained. He is a nuisance, and we can do nothing with him," and where the Minister will then say, "I will send him to the "house"?
862 Is that at the back of the Minister's mind? I am asking for information, because this appears to be a new use for the "house." Is it intended that this shall be a sharp lesson to such a man, and that he will come out after a time rather more amenable to going into the training centre, or into a job? That may be in the Minister's mind as a possibility, and I am not challenging it, but from one's knowledge of the "house" that does not seem to be a very likely effect. If he thinks that a short spell in the "house" will be followed by a short spell in the training centre, let us try it. But unless the Minister gets that point clearly into the minds of the master of the institution and the Poor Law committee I think he is going to be disappointed. I am not challenging that conception of the "house." Hon. Members who have been to the workhouse many times and—many hon. Members of the Opposition have, I believe, been there far more than I have. [Interruption.] I am not making that point in an offensive sense—know that the "house" is a very depressing institution.
If the Minister really thinks that, by a different conception of the uses of the "house," he can turn it into a sort of reformatory, no one will be more pleased than I, and I think every other Member of this Committee, but I would repeat that this is a new conception of the "house," and he will have to get it very clearly into the minds of the master and the public assistance committee. If that is not the Minister's conception, if he has merely put in this provision in a general way as a last weapon, might it not be better—I merely throw this out as a suggestion—to face the fact at once that these people are not appropriate people to be dealt with under Part II, and should be, so to speak, cut off once and for all and handed over to the public assistance committee? Is it not rather inappropriate that a board dealing with an unemployment problem should, oddly enough, have a number of people whom it is paying tucked away in public assistance institutions all over the country, with no clear idea as to whether they are ever coming out, or what it is going to do with them if they do come out, or how much better they are going to be for the period that they spend in the institution I do not want to labour the point any more; I only hope that we may 863 get perhaps a rather fuller explanation of what is in the Minister's mind on this very important matter.
§ 9.17 p.m.
§ Mr. CHARLES BROWN
Many curious points have emerged in the course of the discussions on this Bill, but the suggestion that the Minister intends to turn workhouses into reformatories is surely one of the most novel of all the points that have been raised. I do not know what answer, if any, the Minister is going to give to this Amendment, but probably it will be the same sort of answer as that which he gave on the previous Amendment, and I must say that that answer amazed me. The Minister wants all the credit for taking the unemployed entirely out of the ambit of the Poor Law; he wants to remove the Poor Law taint, but when his attention is called to certain provisions in this Clause which will again hand over a certain section of the unemployed to the Poor Law, he says, "Well, that is so, but it may be due to the fact that in certain areas there will be no other method of dealing with them. The public assistance authorities will have to provide the centres in which they are going to be dealt with, and in this case the public assistance authority will have to provide accommodation for them in the workhouse." That is a very strange argument to come from the Minister.
He says that in certain areas it would not be wise to duplicate machinery, that he would prefer to use the machinery which is already in existence; but he himself, in Part II of the Bill, is duplicating machinery on a nation-wide scale, and yet he tells us, when we call attention to the fact that he is not taking all the able-bodied unemployed out of the Poor Law, "Well, that is quite true, but in certain areas it may be necessary to use Poor Law institutions—to use the workhouse. It cannot be helped, because there is no other provision, and perhaps it is not wise to duplicate the machinery." If he wants the credit of taking the able-bodied unemployed entirely out of the Poor Law, let him do it. Why does he want to give power to this body to send individuals to the workhouse? If he wants the credit, let him do the job properly. I shall have great 864 pleasure in going into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
§ 9.20 p.m.
§ Mr. K. GRIFFITH
Really, it comes as a considerable shock in dealing with Part II of the Bill to find the workhouse embedded in it. It is not what we have been led to expect. We have been led to suppose that Part II was a scheme to which everybody would be delighted to belong, that industries which were not in it would be taking part in a scramble to try to get themselves included, and that for the first time industries were to be brought out of the old, miserable conditions into the paradise that Part II creates. There seem to be several circles in this paradise, and, as you go down from one to the other through these compulsory work centres, you eventually arrive at the workhouse. That is a most extraordinary conclusion to arrive at, considering that this Bill has been described, I believe, by some of its supporters as a charter for the unemployed. One of the privileges, part of the rare and refreshing fruit, is to be found in the workhouse itself. If the Minister does not want his Act to be altogether misunderstood, I suggest that he should accept this Amendment and remove the workhouse from the ambit of the Bill.
What is it there for? The Minister has already made provision for dealing with the recalcitrant classes; several different methods are set out in the previous paragraphs. I should have thought that his training centres, if they are to be of any use at all, would be able to do any work in a more skilful, more considerate, and more helpful way than could be done by anyone in a workhouse. Therefore, I suggest that the Minister is not doing justice to himself or his Bill in insisting on retaining within the ambit of the Bill a feature which goes contrary to every principle that he has set before himself, and simply drags the whole matter back again into what he would regard as the old, bad way. It seems so ridiculous to create this new palace, if I may so call it, and then make a sort of trapdoor through which people may unwarily fall back again into the mire of distress. I suggest that no harm would be done to the Bill, and it would remove a potent source of misunderstanding, if the Minister would accept this Amendment and remove the paragraph from the Clause.
§ 9.23 p.m.
Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE
I was pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that he would have no objection to substituting another word for the word "workhouse." Although I agree with the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) that, once a man gets there, it does not really matter very much what the name on the door is, still, if only for sentimental reasons, I should be glad to see that word disappear, because it always recalls to me Oliver Twist under Mr. and Mrs. Bumble, and, when we recall that that work by Charles Dickens was the cause of great reforms in the Poor Law of those days, I think it is relevant to the particular Measure which is now before us. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) was quite right when he said that the word "workhouse" is already some years out of date, and a more euphonious expression is now used; and it is also true that the methods of these institutions, although they are even now by no means ideal, have become more humane.
To come to the Amendment itself, as I read this paragraph (d) it is the authority's last line of defence in dealing with particularly difficult cases. We all know of them. We all know of men who are extremely difficult to handle. But I think that, when the hon. Member for Wednesbury was arguing that the fact that a man was unemployed was no reason for sending him to an institution of this kind, he was verging at times on what would amount to an argument in favour of the abolition of the police force on the ground that when unemployed men got into difficulties of one kind and another it would be impossible to deal with them through that organisation. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend, in putting in this paragraph, is anxious that it should be used very sparingly indeed. The hon. Member opposite described how in Sheffield, as I well know, he administered the Poor Law, and said that on no single occasion had he found it necessary to send any man to the workhouse. I certainly hope that that will be the case with these powers—that the officials who administer the Bill when it becomes an Act will use these powers very sparingly indeed. But I think that that is no reason why the powers should not exist, because they are not in any sense new powers—the powers 866 exist to-day under the present administration. All that is happening, as I understand it, is that the new authority will have transferred to it the same powers which at present exist in the case of the public assistance committees. This paragraph (d) when the Bill was first printed, caused the appearance in various journals—among them the "News-Chronicle"—of a picture of a workhouse door, and I hope this discussion will make it possible to remove from the minds of the Committee and the public any idea that this is a proposal to drive unemployed men in vast hordes into the workhouse, and to show that it is to be used very sparingly indeed and only for the most difficult cases.
§ 9.26 p.m.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
This is the first time I have ventured to address the Committee on this Bill, and I would not do so now but for a new point of principle that arises. I understand the right hon. Gentleman is trying to deal with a small residue of society who cannot be dealt with, he thinks, except in this way. If these persons are as difficult as he contemplates, I suggest that the method involved in paragraph (d) will not be very effective. But that was not the point I was proposing to address to the right hon. Gentleman. Every Government for the past few years has been trying to get the Poor Law Institution away from the idea of punishment. We have still a residue of society that has to go to these institutions on account of unfortunate circumstances. They are there because they have been unfortunate for one reason or another. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is fair to these people that, in addition, there should now be imposed upon them inside these institutions a new type of person who cannot be dealt with otherwise, or so the Minister thinks, but who are there largely, as he suggests, because of their own fault, and are to be put there for punitive purposes. Is it really fair to associate the Poor Law Institution with the idea of punishment as is clearly implied, and I think proposed, in this Sub-section? I admit that this kind of person is very difficult to deal with, but I do not think it is fair to the inmates of the public institutions who are already there on account of causes over which they have no control, some misfortune of one sort or another, that they should have to be 867 housed in future with persons who are put there for punitive purposes. For that reason, I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this Sub-section.
§ 9.29 p.m.
§ Mr. JAMES REID
One point occurs to me that cannot have been in the minds of some hon. Members opposite. If you take out paragraph (d) you will leave Clause 40 as the only method of dealing with a really recalcitrant man. If you leave Clause 40 as the only way, you put that man out of Part II of the Bill altogether, and, what is more important from some points of view, he becomes a direct charge on the local authorities. Under Clause 39, if he goes to the workhouse there is a right of relief against Part II. These recalcitrant people have to be dealt with in one way or another. If they are not allowed to be sent to the workhouse under paragraph (d), they will necessarily fall under Clause 40, because all other methods of trying to deal with them under Clause 39 will have been exhausted. Then they become a charge directly on the local authorities. If they go to the Poor Law, the Poor Law will probably have to send them, if they are recalcitrant people, to the workhouse, just the same as Clause 39 will send them to the workhouse. The net result will be that the man will end up exactly in the same way, but if the Committee has taken out paragraph (d) he will become a charge on the local authority, whereas if the paragraph is left in, he will be charged under the provisions of Part II of the Bill. To take out paragraph (d) unless you take out also Clause 40, is putting an entirely unnecessary burden on the local authority.
§ Mr. HOROBIN
On what ground does the hon. Member attempt to justify Part II being chargeable for the man? One of the over-riding conditions of a man being under Part II is that he is capable of and available for work. On what grounds does he or the Minister justify Part II being chargeable for a man who is in a workhouse?
§ Mr. REID
The reason is obvious. The 60 per cent. under Clause 44 is to include this man's maintenance. Unless that Clause is going to be amended, so as to enable local authorities to have a right of relief against the fund, you will have 868 the anomaly of the local authority paying the whole of the man's maintenance under Clause 40, and also 60 per cent. of his maintenance under Clause 44, so that they will pay far more than at present. The proposals in Clause 44 are to the effect, as I understand them, that 60 per cent. of the cost of maintaining those who are now on the Poor Law, but who are to be removed in the first instance to Part II of the Bill, is to be borne by the local authority. These men will be removed in the first instance from the Poor Law to Part II. Therefore, 60 per cent. of the charges will have to be borne by the local authority under Clause 44. If the man is thereafter sent back from Part II to public assistance, there is no provision in the Bill as it stands that the 60 per cent. in respect of that man is to be wiped out—unless there is a certain 5 per cent. for the country as a whole. There is no adequate provision under Clause 44 for the local authority to get relief in respect of people who come in the first instance under Part II, are found to be unsatisfactory there, and are sent back to public assistance. Therefore, if paragraph (d) is taken out, and greater use is made of Clause 40, the Poor Law authority will have to pay the whole cost, and also 60 per cent. over and above in respect of that same man to the exchequer.
§ Mr. C. BROWN
May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he cannot see the fundamental difference between us on these benches and his point of view on this matter? The whole of his argument is merely concerned with who should pay for the punishment of these people. We are concerned with the remedial effects or otherwise of the machinery that should deal with the man. We are not concerned as to who shall pay for his punishment; we are concerned whether the machinery proposed for dealing with him will have remedial effects or not.
§ Mr. REID
This is what I was trying to point out. You assume that a man is so unsatisfactory that none of the other methods are suitable to deal with him, and that that is proved not only to the satisfaction of the officer who deals with these cases in the first instance, but also of the appeal tribunal, one member of the tribunal being a person representing the workmen. Therefore, we may take it 869 as definitely proved that, before paragraph (d) comes into operation, this man will have been clearly shown to be a person in whose case the ordinary methods are of no use. If paragraph (d) is taken out of the Clause, the Minister will necessarily have to act under Clause 40. He will go to the appeal tribunal and say, "This man has persistently contravened the conditions under Clause 39," and he will be turned out of Part II and will go to the public assistance committee. The public assistance committee will have just as much difficulty in dealing with him as the appeal tribunal had. They will also find that he is a recalcitrant person. He will not have changed his habits merely because he has gone from one place to the other. What is the public assistance tribunal to do with him? In Scotland they not infrequently send them to the poor house, and I assume the same thing will be done here. Therefore, the net result of taking out paragraph (d) will in fact be that this man will be sent to the poor house but will be paid for by the local authority instead of by the board.
§ 9.37 p.m.
§ Miss RATHBONE
I should like to know whether one object of this paragraph is to provide a substitute for the methods by which some Poor Law authorities deal with recalcitrant cases by bringing them before the magistrates for neglect to maintain their families, and committing them to gaol. There have been several bad instances in Manchester lately. It seems to some of us an objectionable method. I wonder whether one of the ideas of the Bill is that the giving a man an allowance on condition that he goes into the workhouse is intended to do away with that objectionable method. Otherwise, I should hesitate to vote for a proposal which facilitated dealing with a man, merely because he had voluntarily left his employment, as having persistently refused to maintain his family, and on that account alone committing him to gaol.
There was a case last week which attracted some attention where, as far as one could judge, the man's sole offence was that he had taken a job and had thrown it up within a week on some rather flimsy excuse. When he applied to the public assistance authority they charged 870 him before the magistrates with neglecting to maintain his family. It looks as if the Poor Law authorities are using their powers under the Act to treat leaving work unnecessarily as itself a criminal offence, and that is a very dubious principle of law. If the Minister doubts the fact, I shall be glad to furnish him with particulars of cases which have occurred lately in Manchester where that very thing has happened. On the evidence that he had left his work voluntarily with insufficient reason the man was charged with neglecting to maintain his wife and family and was sent to gaol. If that is the way that Poor Law authorities are going to use their powers to transfer unemployed persons, some of us will hesitate before agreeing to transfer cases to the Poor Law.
§ 9.40 p.m.
§ Mr. CROSSLEY
The hon. Lady has used the expression "voluntarily leaving employment." I should like her to look at the first Sub-section of the Clause.having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and, in particular, to the question whether the applicant has failed to avail himself of opportunities of employment or training and to the question whether there is any necessity for protecting the interests of the applicant or of persons dependent upon him.I will give her a case which I think will demand her sympathy. It is the sort of case in which I imagine the board might require to exercise this provision. Under paragraph (a) an allowance may be granted to the wife, or to another member of the family, instead of to the applicant. Suppose a man makes a practice of thrashing his wife in order to obtain money—a perfectly conceivble case. What are the board to do? It is in the interests both of the family and of the man himself that he should go to an institution. That is the sort of case where I can conceive the board putting these powers into practice, but certainly not in a case where a man has voluntarily left his employment, though if he had frequently left his employment, that might be another matter.
§ 9.42 p.m.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
I thought it would be more convenient to reply on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." It is rather difficult 871 to keep within the Rules of Order when the Debate has really spread far beyond the Amendment. But, if the Committee desire it, I will answer one or two points that have been raised. Of course, there is no power in the board at all under the Bill to send people to gaol.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
With regard to this paragraph, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Reid) has put the real answer to the case that has been made. It is the last step that you apply to the most difficult recalcitrant cases. First of all, you have a case where you think part of the allowance should be paid to another member of the applicant's household. There are obviously cases where, perhaps, a man drinks and his wife is unable to get the money. There is another class of case where it is thought that the allowance should be issued otherwise than in cash; that is to ensure that there is coming into the household some food which might otherwise never get there at all. All these conditions are due to the fact which I stated on a previous Amendment that the board is taking over difficult cases which are at present difficult Poor Law cases, and they are taking them over because they think, and we think, that there may be some salvage, even among the worst of them.
§ Mr. DAVID GRENFELL
Is there any evidence to show that this case of special difficulty must be a case transferred to the public assistance under Part II? Could not it be the ordinary case of a man who comes under standard benefit?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think that the hon. Member is getting rather beyond the Amendment, and that this matter should really arise on the Question "That the Clause stand part." The Amendment solely deals with the case of the workhouse.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
That is what I was afraid was the case, and why I said what I did when I rose. I am not sure whether this will be in order, but I 872 would point out that the position of these people will be infinitely better than it is at present, for reasons which I will give when we come to discuss the Clause standing part. There is better protection for them, as I will show. The position of the men in this fourth category is exactly as my hon. and learned Friend stated, if he falls out of the scheme altogether and comes within the provision of Clause 40 and has:persistently refused or neglected to maintain himself or his family or has persistently contravened conditions.
§ 9.47 p.m.
§ Mr. BATEY
The Minister has not met the arguments which have been put from these benches. We are complaining under this Sub-section of the power of the Appeal Tribunal or an officer to take and sentence a man to the workhouse. That is the point in the Sub-section, and the Minister has not given reasons why they should have that power. An officer may not know very much about a man, and is he to be judge and jury and be able to sentence such a man to the workhouse?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I really think that this question would be much better raised if we could settle this point now, and come to a discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," which will follow almost immediately.
§ Mr. BATEY
We have been caught on the Question "That the Clause stand part" so often that we are a little wary about it. Am I not in order in discussing the sentencing of men to the workhouse under this Sub-section and under the present Amendment? Is an officer to have power to sentence a man to the workhouse for a definite period? How is a man to be kept in the workhouse unless the officer fixes a definite period? Will the Minister answer that point?
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
If he wanted to get out, he would simply walk out again the next day, with the consequential risk of coming under the provisions of Clause 40. That is all.
§ Mr. BATEY
So now we understand that a man can be sentenced to the workhouse, and the Minister says that he can walk out of the workhouse the next day. Where is he to go? How is he to live? 873 I submit that the Minister under this Sub-section is creating a big class; there will not be just a few cases. Experience teaches me that where you have 1,000,000 unemployed dealt with by the assistance board you are bound to have a good many difficult cases, and really the Minister will be creating a workhouse class. Already he is dividing the working class into three classes. Already we have the aristocracy of labour who will have work. There will be the second class who are to be dealt with under the assistance board, and now he is creating a third class, the workhouse class, which will not be a small class.
What is to be the offence of these men for which they can be sent to the workhouse? It will not be for leaving work, but simply because they do not avail themselves of the opportunity of employment. In our distress areas we have many coal mines which are not working, but the officer could say to a man that there were some workers wanted at a colliery three or four miles away, and he could ask, "Did you avail yourself of the opportunity of trying to get employment at that colliery?" The man could reply, "No, I considered that it would be of no use, as there would be plenty of men at the colliery to take up all the jobs there." It would be an offence if a man did not avail himself of such an opportunity, and he could be sentenced to the workhouse. That offence is not such as to warrant power being given to the appeal tribunal or to the officer to sentence a man to the workhouse. A man can be so sentenced if he does not agree to go to a training centre, or if, after being sent there, he leaves it. The Minister is taking far too great a power in this Sub-section in sending men to the workhouse, and I hope that we shall go into the Lobby against it.
§ 9.52 p.m.
§ Mr. LOGAN
Under paragraph (d) a certain man for a certain reason will be sent into the institution, and I take it that the amount which would be payable to him as an allowance would be payable to the institution. It says that:where arrangements in that behalf have been made with a public assistance authority, that the allowance be granted.Is that the allowance to the man or to the family? I am not clear about it. I 874 take it that an allowance is to be made to the man subject to his going into the institution. If it is not so, there is no power to make a payment to the public authority, because it says:that the applicant becomes an inmate of a workhouse and be payable only by way of payments to the authority in pursuance of the arrangements.I take it that it follows that there would be an allowance for the man, but that it would not be paid to the man, because it would be contingent upon his going into the institution. If the man, according to Sub-section 2(d), goes into the institution, a very important point arises, namely, the question of the keep of the man. I take it that this is a case which could be applicable to the board, and that the cost would have to be borne by the board by means of an arrangement that a particular part of the allowance should be payable into the institution. What arrangement are you going to make with the local authorities from the point of view of the rates? Under the Act you will be able to send a man into the institution, and the money for his allowance is to be paid over to the institution. If there is a loss incurred to the institution in maintaining that man, who is to make good what the ratepayers have lost? Will it come from the Unemployment Fund? Is there any such arrangement, or would it be a standard rate?
§ Mr. HUDSON
The amount that will be recovered from the board by the local authority owning the institution, under Part II, will not depend on the amount that would have been given to the man if he had not been sent into the institution. It will be a flat rate made by arrangement with the local authorities, and the local authorities will be free to enter into or not as they think fit.
§ 9.55 p.m.
§ Mr. A. BEVAN
Is it not correct that if a person has been sent to a workhouse under this Clause and he leaves the workhouse the public assistance authorities will be prohibited under the Seventh Schedule from giving him out-relief?
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
It is true that the public assistance authority would be prohibited from giving him ordinary outdoor relief under the Seventh Schedule while he remained under Part II. But what would happen would be that he 875 would fall out of the scheme under Clause 40. He would then cease to be within the purview of the Act.
§ Mr. BEVAN
The point that I am making is this. The right hon. Gentleman answered the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) by saying that all an unemployed man had to do was to walk out of the workhouse. The last thing that is done with him is to send him to the workhouse. He passes through a number of penalties because he has proved to be an incorrigible person, or because the unemployment officer decides that he must be sent to the workhouse as a last resort. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that he can walk out of the workhouse. If he walks out he walks to destitution, with no assistance of any sort and no one to help him, unless he walks into the workhouse again. Is it not correct to say that a man may be put into the workhouse even for the most frivolous offence? We have no control. He may be regarded as an undesirable person or a case of special difficulty. In fact, for reasons which the Committee has not considered he may be deprived of benefit and sent to the workhouse, and if he leaves the workhouse he dies, unless he walks back into it again. It is true that there is an appeal tribunal under which a man may appeal, but this man is helpless. He has no appeal to an elected person. He cannot raise a matter before any public tribunal, and as far as I know he cannot have any adequate means of defence. Therefore, you are sentencing the man to perpetual imprisonment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] How is he going to live?
§ Mr. RADFORD
The hon. Member says that he is a man who has persistently refused to accept suitable employment. Such a man is unworthy——
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
These questions had better be discussed on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. BEVAN
My point is that the right hon. Gentleman misled the Committee by the statement that the man could walk out of the workhouse. That led me to look at the Seventh Schedule to find out what are the powers of the public assistance authority, and I find out that they cannot relieve him outside the workhouse. Therefore, the man must go back into the workhouse. It may be said that by this Sub-section he is sentenced to perpetual imprisonment in the workhouse. Unless he mends his ways and does what the tribunal has said he shall do, or unless he avoids committing the offence which they have said is an offence, he cannot live except within the workhouse. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has admitted. If hon. Members face up to that, we do not mind. So long as there is no misunderstanding as to the implications contained in the Clause we do not mind, but it must be clearly understood that if the Committee pass this Sub-section they are withholding from that man means of subsistence except by perpetual incarceration or by his doing what the authorities say he must do. The only way that provision can be altered is by accepting the Amendment or by amending the Seventh Schedule.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 60.879
|Division No. 129.]||AYES.||[10.2 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)|
|Albery, Irving James||Blindell, James||Campbell, Vice-Admiran G. (Burnley)|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)||Borodale, Viscount||Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Boulton, W. W.||Caporn, Arthur Cecil|
|Applin, Sir Adrian W. M.||Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Brass, Captain Sir William||Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Broadbent, Colonel John||Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Balniel, Lord||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Clayton, Sir Christopher|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.|
|Barclay-Harvey. C. M.||Browne, Captain A. C.||Conant, R. J. E.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Cooke, Douglas|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Burghley, Lord||Crooke, J. Smedley|
|Beit, Sir Alfred L.||Burnett, John George||Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)|
|Bernays, Robert||Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Rankin, Robert|
|Cross, R. H.||Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)|
|Crossley, A. C.||Joel, Dudley J. Barnato||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)|
|Culverwell, Cyril Tom||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Reid, William Allan (Derby)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Remer, John R.|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||Ker, J. Campbell||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||Robinson, John Roland|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Latham, Sir Herbert Paul||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Law, Sir Alfred||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Donner, P. W.||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Dower, Captain A. V. G.||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)|
|Drewe, Cedric||Lees-Jones, John||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Duckworth, George A. V.||Liddall, Walter S.||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)|
|Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Salmon, Sir Isidore|
|Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Llewellin, Major John J.||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Elmley, Viscount||Lloyd. Geoffrey||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Savery, Samuel Servington|
|Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)||Loftus, Pierce C.||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)||Lyons, Abraham Montagu||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Shute, Colonel J. J.|
|Fleming, Edward Lascelles||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)|
|Ford, Sir Patrick J.||McCorquodale, M. S.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Fox, Sir Gifford||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Soper, Richard|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.|
|Fremantle, Sir Francis||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Fuller, Captain A. G.||McEwen, Captain J. H. F.||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||McKie, John Hamilton||Spens, William Patrick|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Gluckstein, Louis Halle||McLean. Major Sir Alan||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)|
|Goldie, Noel B.||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Stevenson, James|
|Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Macquisten, Frederick Alexander||Stones, James|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Magnay, Thomas||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Graves, Marjorie||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Greene, William P. C.||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Templeton, William P.|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Martin, Thomas B.||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Grimston, R. V.||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Guinness. Thomas L. E. B.||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Guy, J. C. Morrison||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Milne, Charles||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Hamilton. Sir George (Ilford)||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Train, John|
|Hanbury, Cecil||Moreing, Adrian C.||Tree, Ronald|
|Hanley, Dennis A.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry||Moss, Captain H. J.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Harbord, Arthur||Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)||Nall, Sir Joseph||Ward, Lt-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G|
|Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-|
|Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)||Patrick, Colin M.||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)||Peake, Captain Osbert||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Pearson, William G.||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Hornby, Frank||Peat, Charles U.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Horobin, Ian M.||Penny, Sir George||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Perkins, Walter R. D.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Petherick, M.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hume. Sir George Hopwood||Procter, Major Henry Adam||Womersley, Walter James|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)||Radford, E. A.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.|
|Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Captain Sir George Bowyer and Commander Southby.|
|Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Ramsbotham, Herwald|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Edwards, Charles||Holdsworth, Herbert|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Janner, Barnett|
|Banfield, John William||Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Batey, Joseph||Foot, Ding le (Dundee)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||Kirkwood, David|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Lawson, John James|
|Buchanan, George||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)||Lunn, William|
|Curry, A. C.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Daggar, George||Groves, Thomas E.||McEntee, Valentine L.|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Grundy, Thomas W.||McKeag, William|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Dobbie, William||Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd)||Mainwaring, William Henry|
|Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot||Parkinson, John Allen||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Pickering, Ernest H.||White, Henry Graham|
|Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)||Rathbone, Eleanor||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Maxton, James||Rea, Walter Russell||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Mliner, Major James||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Wilmot, John|
|Nathan, Major H. L.||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)|
|Owen, Major Goronwy||Smith, Tom (Normanton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Paling, Wilfred||Thorne, William James||Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.|
§ The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:
In page 36, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(3) There shall not be any obligation upon a public assistance authority to enter into arrangements under paragraphs (c) and (d) of Sub-section (2) of this Section.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
This Amendment appears to me to be unnecessary, but I do not like to give a decision until I have heard what the Minister of Labour may have to say upon it.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
I believe it is unnecessary because there is no obligation under this Clause for a local authority to enter into arrangements with the board with regard to the provision of work centres or workhouses. Whatever local authorities may do in these matters is to be left entirely to the discretion of the authorities.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
In that case, I shall exercise my discretion and shall not select the Amendment.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ 10.13 p.m.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
I would ask the Committee to reject this Clause for reasons which I will give. Many people in this country regard this Clause as a very dangerous provision. What it does, in fact, is to conscript labour. To put it quite bluntly, it is the first attempt in this country to conscript a certain type of labour, and in our view it raises a fundamental issue. What does the Clause actually do? The explanation given in the White Paper says that Sub-section (1) of this Clause:applies wholly to cases of special difficulty, such for example, as where an applicant neglects opportunities of employment or training, or misuses money paid to him in respect of persons dependent upon him.Let me call the attention of the Committee to two cases which have recently arisen in the City of Manchester. I have no doubt that the Minister of 880 labour is well aware of the facts. About three months ago a man with a family declared that the wages were too low for the job, that the work was not the type he could perform, and he left his job, as far as I remember the facts, of his own accord. He was, as a result, brought before the magistrates on a charge of neglecting his family because he left his job of his own accord, but the magistrates on that occasion declared that he was justified in all the circumstances of the case in leaving his job and did not punish him. About three weeks ago, a similar case came before the Manchester magistrates, but the personnel of the bench on that occasion was different, and although the facts of the two cases bore a great similarity, the second man was sent to goal and is in prison now. The question is, do the provisions of this Clause apply to cases of that kind? Where a man believes that a job is not suited to him, that he is not suited to the job, and that the wages are not good enough for him, and he leaves that job voluntarily, is he to be regarded as a case of difficulty under this Clause? We are told in the explanatory memorandum that it is also expressly provided that an application shall not be dealt with under this Clause merely because the applicant has not accepted an offer of employment. It seems to me that the first paragraph of the explanatory memorandum on this Clause is a little contradictory of the rest, and I hope we shall get some explanation on it from the Minister.
Let me turn now to what we regard as more serious still from our point of view. We are told in the last few words of this memorandum that under Sub-section (4) the board is given power to provide and maintain works centres and to make arrangements for the use of work centres, or similar places provided and maintained by a public assistance authority. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this is an innovation or whether there is anything in the history of the Poor Law system in this country upon 881 which to base this provision? Is it an innovation or an extension of the present provision of the Poor Law system of the country? I think hon. Gentlemen on all sides will pardon our apprehension and suspicion. We have had experiences like this: A man enters a workshop or factory or coal mine with an independent spirit, and determines for himself that he is not going to do the job offered him because it does not suit him and he does not suit the job. Very often such a man is imbued with the spirit which has made trade unionism possible in this country. Is the Minister asking, under this Clause, for power to regard that kind of man as a difficult case? I can assure him that if he is going to regard that type as a difficult case he could regard almost every Member of the Parliamentary Labour party as having fallen into that category, because we were all difficult cases to some people at one time.
We are sometimes too difficult for hon. Members in this House, and especially so in Committees upstairs. Is it not true that there are some workmen, honest, straightforward, independent-minded men, who are regarded both by the authorities and by employers as difficult persons? Happily in most cases they get on their feet by other means. I ask the Minister therefore to explain what is meant by difficult cases. Then, what does he intend to do to establish work centres? Where are the work centres to be? What work is to be done in them? I think we are also entitled to ask what wages, if any, will be paid to a man who is sent to one of these centres. Is such a man to be provided with food and lodging and maintained at the centre? I remember some of the experiences we had in connection with similar training centres established some years ago. Some young men from my own division were sent to the Blackpool centre. I thought some of the things done at the Blackpool centre were very creditable but objections were raised then not to the fact that young men were sent there but to the fact that when they were at the centres they did not learn anything. It was contended that the training which they received was of no avail to them later. The criticisms which I have 882 indicated require some explanation from the Minister. Finally I would ask whether this idea of compulsory labour is a new provision or whether there is any precedent for it in the law of this country. We ought to be told too what are the other conditions, apart from the conditions of work, which are to apply at these centres, and what wages if any are to be paid. Unless we get satisfactory answers to some of the main questions which I have raised, we shall have no alternative but to vote against the Clause.
§ 10.22 p.m.
§ Mr. CURRY
During the discussion on one of the Amendments I endeavoured to ask a question about these centres, and incurred the wroth of the Chair. It was indicated however that I might raise the point on the question "that the Clause stand part of the Bill" and I therefore take this opportunity of asking for some information on certain points concerning these centres. It is true to say that this Clause is regarded in the County of Durham at all events with a great deal of misgiving and anxiety because of the difficulty that we have of fixing in our minds just what is going to happen in connection with it. Where there is a training centre in a densely populated district it will be possible for a man sent to that centre to return to his home each night. But a very different situation arises in other areas where the county authority is the public assistance authority. There perhaps there will only be one or two centres for the whole county and it will be necessary to send men so far from their homes to the training centres that it will be impossible for them to return home each evening. In the case of a married man that means taking him away from his wife and family, sending him perhaps miles across the county and divorcing him from his friends. To a large number of people of whom I am one that savours of a penal measure, and it is a power which we ought not to give to a board such as it is proposed to set up here. We are not dealing here as a legislature directly with so many people. We are delegating the power and responsibility of dealing with those people to a board which is new in its character. Therefore it behoves us to ask for some definite assurance as to whether the number of centres will be sufficient to pro- 883 vide training for the people who require it, within easy distance of their own homes.
A second reason for anxiety with regard to these centres is doubt as to the nature of the work which is to be done in them. If we are to have training centres where life is to be made easier, where the problem of leisure is to be tackled, that is a prospect which some of us would regard with admiration, but the training centres which are being set up under this Bill may be of a very different character, where men and even women will be subject to some sort of disciplinary action which is foreign to the whole nature of these people.
I would like to know if the Minister can tell us what sort of work it is contemplated will be done in these centres. There is also this danger: Undoubtedly you will have difficult cases arising among this vast industrial population. In Lancashire and in the County of Durham the industrial population for a long number of years have been trained in a trade union atmosphere and have developed a very great loyalty to the trade unions of which they were formerly members, and if, when they get into these training centres, they are asked to do work which they regard as the legitimate work of trade unionists in other parts of the country, their sense of loyalty to the trade union movement may encourage them to be recalcitrant. If that should happen on a very large scale, I can see there a great deal of trouble coming from the administration of these centres, and I would ask the Minister to be as explicit as he can, because of the anxiety which I know prevails throughout certain parts of the country.
I should also like a little more information as to when and how the power to send people to workhouses is to be invoked. For some years now we have been moving away from the institutional treatment of poor persons, and this seems to me to be a reaction in our social outlook. I, therefore, think we are entitled to have some explicit assurance or explanation from the Minister upon that point. These dangers and fears, legitimate though they may be in an ordinary way, are emphasised and increased by the fact that there is no real opportunity of control over the board itself. We have been referred to Minority Reports of 884 Commissions and to what this person said and what the other person said, but it seems to me that our responsibilities as a Legislature are increased tremendously when we realise that we are handing these people over to a new board outside our own control, and therefore it behoves us all the more to press the Minister for very definite statements and explanations on this matter.
§ 10.29 p.m.
§ Mr. MARTIN
I should like to add a word in support of the plea that has been made to the Minister. It has been very difficult for some of us in the County of Durham, to which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry) referred, owing to the speeches which have been made for many months past by hon. Members above the Gangway and their supporters in that county. It has been very difficult for the people there to understand, because very vivid word pictures have been painted of concentration camps and so on, which it is essential that the Minister should take this opportunity of correcting very definitely and enabling those who believe that if such men as the present Commissioners in Durham are to administer the present law, humanely, there is no reason whatsoever for the people there to give any credence to the wild stories which have been circulated by Members of the Socialist party in that county.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
There is one point which has not been referred to and to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention. For the first time under unemployment insurance legislation, power is given to a body to give payment in kind. I regard that as a grave innovation. Hitherto the payment of money was the absolute legal right of every person receiving either standard benefit or transitional payment, and, if a person was not sufficiently worthy of these things the Poor Law authority claimed him as its victim. In this Bill, for the first time under a national scheme, the Government give a body power to take from a person his right to a money payment tnd to give payment in kind. It is assumed, I suppose rightly from the point of view of the Members concerned, that this Clause deals with the so-called bad people under unemployment insurance. In the last division a number of Members voted for the Amendment thinking that 885 there were so many bad people that something had to be done to deal with them. These payments in kind concern the so-called bad section. It seems to me that payment in kind is the worst possible way of dealing with them. They need money and when they get the kind, they will simply start a new trade or a new occupation—that of disposing of the goods that are paid to them in kind. They will then become victims of a set of exploiters who will to some extent live on them. Therefore, by payment in kind you will set up a most dangerous principle.
I attack this system from another angle. It hands over to a board the power to make payment in kind because a man is alleged to have refused certain work or training. In this House I have heard Russia attacked for conscript labour. I have never seen the elements of conscript labour so brazenly as in this Bill. A man is told that he must take a job and that if he does not his liberty will be withdrawn without any time limit being placed on his sentence. Note the difference between such a man and a criminal. If he were a criminal, a definite charge would be framed against him, and he would have to meet it, and if the charge were proved there would be a time limit to his sentence. That is not the case here. Without any definite charge being preferred against him, the board can decide that he shall receive only payment in kind for any length of time—go on for ever as long as he is unemployed. He is to be picked out from the rest of his fellows as being such a contemptible creature that the country cannot trust him to receive money. In the case of any other person they would have to meet him in court and prove the charge. Here everything is done in secret, at a little meeting, with no evidence produced.
Look at the difference between such a man and a man with insurance rights. Under the insurance scheme if a man does not go to a job he has a charge to meet, but it is submitted to him in writing and he has the opportunity of calling evidence. Here he has no such chance. He has no opportunity to meet the charge. He has no right to a public hearing. At this little meeting he is told that he has committed the offence of refusing a job. The conditions offered to him may have been appalling. I fear the effects of this on women more than on men—the effect 886 where women are asked to go to certain jobs of domestic work. In my division women are frequently asked to go to homes where they know they would be asked to do things against their religious views. They may hold strong religious views. In my division I have three large groups of people with different religious views—Catholics, Jews and Protestants. Feeling often rims high, and a woman might be asked to do something which she would not do if she were to be hanged for refusing, and yet this board would have a right to deprive her of her benefit simply because she upheld her strong views.
§ Mr. MARTIN
Does the hon. Member suggest that the board will be so inhuman that when that point is represented to them they will refuse to take any account of it?
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
But the board will not have a chance. Look at the facts. A girl of 19, 20 or 21 who appears before that board will be shaking from the very moment she goes in. I have seen what happens at courts of referees. Men are tongue-tied there. I have seen cases in which the chairman of the court of referees was anxious to award them benefit and yet they were tongue-tied and could not speak. [An HON. MEMBER: "What! A woman?"] Yes. I like my joke as well as anybody else, although I think this joke about women is a little hackneyed. Whether that interjection was sarcastic or not, the thing is true. I have seen it at courts of referees hundreds of times, even when the chairman was sympathetic. These people cannot express themselves. Here we are making it worse than in the court of referees.
In this case the people have no chance of knowing the position before the court opens. They have no chance of considering their defence, because they do not know what the charge is. To hand over power to place people into deterrent camps or to pay them in kind is to confer a power which no body should have vested in them. The House of Commons has always been vigilant, even in its defence of the criminal, and the worse the people are the more eager this Committee should be to see that every possible precaution is taken that they are properly and decently tried. To hand them over to a board of this kind is conferring immense power, and to treat human 887 beings in that way is a matter which the Committee ought not too lightly to allow to pass from them.
§ 10.36 p.m.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
We have had many misconceptions upon this Clause, and I now hope to have an opportunity of clearing up the points which have been raised. This Clause is necessary only because, as I said earlier in this discussion, the board are taking over persons who at present are subject to the Poor Law, and who do not come within the purview of insurance. We may be wrong in so widening our scope as to include these people, and that is a perfectly legitimate criticism though, I think, an ill-founded criticism. We took them over and included them within the scope of the Measure because, as the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) said, there are among them some who we think are capable of salvage, to whom we think we can give another start in life and who will benefit by being taken over by the board. It follows from that that if you take over people who are now subject to the Poor Law and to whom the Poor Law applies certain conditions—which are reproduced in this Clause—you must have similar powers of dealing with them as now exist. The State simply cannot stand——
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
The Government are taking more power. At the present time under the Poor Law, when anybody is dealt with like this, a member of the Poor Law authority has the right to challenge the decision in public at the Poor Law authority's meeting and debate it. That right is now taken from them, and the Minister is taking far greater power. In Scotland there is a right of appeal to the Sheriff.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
Under this Clause we have specially provided that there shall be an unrestricted right of appeal to an appeal tribunal set up under this Bill, in addition to any right which exists at present.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
In Scotland at the present time, every person who is refused able-bodied relief has a right of appeal to the Sheriff—a Judge—and the case is heard in public, and the charge has to be made and cross-examined in public. That right is taken from him now.
§ Mr. A. BEVAN
Might I point out to the Minister that he is taking very much wider powers than now exist? He is taking those powers with respect to the recipients of transitional payments, and not only to that limited category who are now liable to be kept by the public authority. He is taking the power in respect of the whole category of those who are in receipt of transitional payments—a million people—who will be without any recourse to any elected representatives.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
The very obvious answer to the point just put by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) is that a man is not entitled to transitional payments if he is unemployed by his own motion. He is not entitled to transitional payments unless he fulfils certain conditions, one of which is that he is not unemployed voluntarily. We are taking over under this Bill classes of persons who may be unemployed quite voluntarily, and who therefore are in an entirely separate category from those who, before, were entitled to transitional payments, after fulfilling certain conditions, one being that they are not unemployed voluntarily. The State cannot and should not be asked to put itself in the position of being simply bound to pay a man cash on demand; the State is bound to protect itself against a number of people—I believe it will be a small number—who would abuse the whole scheme. This is a very old story. That there is a certain limited number of such persons has been well known to every Member of this Committee, and to every committee or commission which has ever inquired into this subject. The words of the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission describe them as:Persons who are always ready to appropriate and pervert any provision made for the more deserving section.Those people come within the cases of special difficulty for which the Clause makes provision; but the cases of special difficulty may extend from the case of a man who may have been disqualified for six weeks, and who may have a good record, to the cases of men who may be quite indistinguishable from professional mendicants or beggars. Having made our scope so wide, we were bound to take powers to deal with these people lest the scheme might be abused. The hon. Mem- 889 ber for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says that this is the first time that an unemployment insurance scheme has dealt with people of this class, and that a Clause of this kind has been necessary. But that, if I may say so, is only partially true. We are not now dealing with an unemployment insurance scheme under Part II. The unemployment insurance scheme is in Part I. In Part II we are dealing with legislation to provide assistance, and when we are legislating to provide assistance to persons who come within so wide a scope as that which I have described, we really should not be fair, either to ourselves or to the State, unless we realised clearly that there will be a limited number of people with whom we have to deal in the way prescribed by the Clause. It is true that the way in which they will be dealt with varies; that is the intention of the Clause, because the cases vary. It will be for the appeal tribunal to decide which of these methods shall be applied to a particular case, because what is applicable to one case would not necessarily be applicable to another. The hon. Member for Gorbals referred to the fact that allowances in some cases might be issued otherwise than in cash. That provision, clearly, is included in order to deal with the case for example where a man might be an habitual drunkard, and where it is necessary to make sure that his family at any rate get something which otherwise they might not get.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
I hope it will be possible to deal with any case of that kind. Another provision is that the whole or any part of the allowance may be issued to another member of the applicant's household. There again the object is to deal with the case, of which there are unfortunately some, in which the head of the household is really not a fit person to have charge of anything, because, if he does, his wife and children will starve while he himself will get rid of anything that is given him. These are examples of the variety of cases with which the board will have to deal, and it is in order that they may deal with them satisfactorily that we have taken this added safeguard that a man who is aggrieved by the action of the board or the remedy the board proposes to apply, shall have an unrestricted appeal.
§ Mr. HOLDSWORTH
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question on a rather serious point with regard to the appeal tribunals. Is there any provision in the Bill to co-ordinate the decision of the different tribunals? When courts of referees under the present Acts give a decision, that decision tends to become the law, and is there anything in this Bill to co-ordinate the decision of the different appeal tribunals in a similar way?
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point with which I am glad to deal. The difference between these appeal tribunals and the courts of referees is that the courts of referees deal with questions of law, with an appeal to the umpire. The umpire's decisions form a body of case law which co-ordinates various points which have arisen in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. These appeal tribunals will not be dealing with law at all, but with the facts and the position of individual cases, and therefore you cannot have co-ordination in the sense that you can have it in connection with the courts of referees, because they will be dealing with questions of fact which really are not suitable subjects for co-ordination.
§ 10.53 p.m.
§ Mr. A. BEVAN
The answer of the Minister makes it quite clear what prospects may be opened up to unemployed men under these powers. If this tribunal had before it a specific Statute it might be entrusted with these powers, but the Minister has now made clear that this tribunal is to make the law as it goes along. We have been accused by hon. Members of having made statements in the country about slave camps. We are as much entitled to give the most sinister interpretation to these powers as the Minister is to give his mild interpretation. The difficulty about these powers is that they are so wide and ambiguous, and can be applied to any purpose. The Bill does not define what circumstances the unemployment assistance officer is to take into account. You are putting most frightful powers into the hands of a perfectly irresponsible local officer, powers of intimidation and tyranny that have rarely been exercised by a paid official in the history of this country. He may, merely because he dislikes a man or has 891 quarrelled with him for any reason whatever, characterise that man as a case of special difficulty. He has not to answer to anybody at all. The man then goes before the tribunal. We know what the right hon. Gentleman's answer is. He simply tells us what he means to do by the Clause. That is not the business of the House of Commons. It is not what he says that becomes the law of the country, but what the Statute says, and the Statute gives the widest powers to these people. You can first of all pay a man benefit in kind, then you may give the benefit to another member of the family. Then you can add the further penalty of giving him his benefit in the workhouse, and then you say he can leave the workhouse. But Schedule 7 definitely deprives the local authority of the power to give him out relief. You are for the first time depriving an Englishman of rights over his own body, because you say to him, "Either you go into these camps or training centres or you will live for ever in the workhouse." That is precisely the position. I will quote from the Seventh Schedule:Where a person to whom Part II applies has been granted an allowance subject to conditions attached under parayraph (c) or paragraph (d)…… the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18 of the Poor Law Act, 1930, be taken as only prohibiting the giving of outdoor relief to that person himself.In other words, you are withholding outdoor relief. That means that he can get no means of subsistence except in the workhouse itself. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that?
§ Mr. HUDSON
The position is that, if a man comes under the Clause, he may be required by the Appeal Tribunal, as a condition of receiving an allowance, to go into the workhouse for a stated period.
§ Mr. HUDSON
He can then discharge himself from the workhouse. Then the question arises, What is the man's position? The mere fact that he has discharged himself from the workhouse before the termination of the period automatically destroys his status under Part II, and he becomes a person under the ordinary public assistance committee. In order to be deprived of his rights under Part II, he does not have in this case to come under Clause 40. He automatically deprives himself of the right of coming under Part II and automatically becomes a subject of the public assistance committee and becomes, like any ordinary person, subject to be dealt with by them as they see fit.
§ It being after Eleven of the Clock, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th December, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 63.895
|Division No. 130.]||AYES.||[11.0 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald||Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Bracken, Brendan||Clayton, Sir Christopher|
|Albery, Irving James||Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)||Brass, Captain Sir William||Conant, R. J. E.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Broadbent, Colonel John||Cooke, Douglas|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Crooke, J. Smedley|
|Apsley, Lord||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)|
|Balille, Sir Adrian W. M.||Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Browne, Captain A. C.||Croom-Johnson, R. P.|
|Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)||Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Cross, R. H.|
|Balniel, Lord||Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Crossley, A. C.|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Burghley, Lord||Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Burnett, John George||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)|
|Beit, Sir Alfred L.||Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)||Dawson, Sir Philip|
|Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Donner, P. W.|
|Blindell, James||Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Drewe, Cedric|
|Borodale, Viscount||Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Duckworth, George A. V.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel|
|Duggan, Hubert John||Law, Sir Alfred||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Eastwood, John Francis||Leckie, J. A.||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)|
|Edge, Sir William||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Liddall, Walter S.||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)|
|Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)|
|Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Llewellin, Major John J.||Salmon, Sir Isidore|
|Elmley, Viscount||Lloyd, Geoffrey||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Savery, Samuel Servington|
|Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)||Lyons, Abraham Montagu||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||Mabane, William||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)||MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Shute, Colonel J. J.|
|Fleming, Edward Lascelies||McCorquodale, M. S.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Ford, Sir Patrick J.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Somervell, Sir Donald|
|Fox, Sir Gifford||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Somerveille, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Soper, Richard|
|Fremantle, Sir Francis||McEwen, Captain J. H. F.||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||McKie, John Hamilton||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||McLean, Major Sir Alan||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Gluckstein, Louis Halle||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Spens, William Patrick|
|Goff, Sir Park||Magnay, Thomas||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Goldie, Noel B.||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)|
|Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Stevenson, James|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)|
|Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Stones, James|
|Graves, Marjorie||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Storey, Samuel|
|Greene, William P. C.||Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Grimston, R. V.||Milne, Charles||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Moreing, Adrian C.||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Guy, J. C. Morrison||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Morrison, William Shepherd||Templeton, William P.|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Moss, Captain H. J.||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Hanbury, Cecil||Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Hanley, Dennis A.||Nall, Sir Joseph||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Harbord, Arthur||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)||Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid||Train, John|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G A.||Tree, Ronald|
|Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Patrick, Colin M.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Peaks, Captain Osbert||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Heligers, Captain F. F. A.||Pearson, William G.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Henderson, Sir Vivlan L. (Chelmsford)||Peat, Charles U.||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Penny, Sir George||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)||Perkins, Walter R. D.||Warrencer, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Hore-Relisha, Leslie||Petherick, M.||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-|
|Hornby, Frank||Peto, Sir Bas[...] E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Horobin, Ian M.||Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Procter, Major Henry Adam||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Radford, E. A.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)||Ramsbotham, Herwald||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Rankin, Robert||Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George|
|Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)||Womersley, Walter James|
|Joel, Dudley J. Barnato||Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Wragg, Herbert|
|Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Remer, John R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)||Captain Sir George Bowyer and Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.|
|Ker, J. Campbell||Robinson, John Roland|
|Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas|
|Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Latham, Sir Harbert Paul||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Curry, A. C.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Dagger, George||Grentell, David Rees (Glamorgan)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)|
|Banfield, John William||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Groves, Thomas E.|
|Batey, Joseph||Dobbie, William||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Bernays, Robert||Edwards, Charles||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Harris, Sir Percy|
|Buchanan, George.||Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Holdsworth, Herbert|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Janner, Barnett|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Mender, Geoffrey le M.||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)|
|Kirkwood, David||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Lawson, John James||Maxton, James||Thorne, William James|
|Leonard, William||Milner, Major James||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Nathan, Major H. L.||White, Henry Graham|
|Lunn, William||Owen, Major Goronwy||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|McEntee, Valentine L.||Paling, Wilfred||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|McGovern, John||Parkinson, John Allen||Wilmot, John|
|McKeag, William||Pickering, Ernest H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Rathbone, Eleanor||Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.|
|Mainwaring, William Henry||Rea, Walter Russell|
§ The Chairman, then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Eleven of the clock at this day's sitting.896
§ CLAUSE 40.—(Suspension front application of this Part of this Act.)
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 60.897
|Division No. 131.]||AYES.||[11.11 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Dawson, Sir Philip||Hornby, Frank|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Donner, P. W.||Horobin, Ian M.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Drewe, Cedric||Horsbrugh, Florence|
|Albery, Irving James||Duckworth, George A. V.||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col.,I. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)||Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Duggan, Hubert John||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Hume, Sir George Hopwood|
|Apsley, Lord||Eastwood, John Francis||Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Edge, Sir William||Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.|
|Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)||Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)|
|Balniel, Lord||Elliston, Captain George Sampson||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Elmley, Viscount||Jesson, Major Thomas E.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Joel, Dudley J. Barnato|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)|
|Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)|
|Beit, Sir Alfred L.||Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)||Ker, J. Campbell|
|Bernays, Robert||Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)|
|Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton|
|Blindell, James||Everard, W. Lindsay||Latham, Sir Herbert Paul|
|Borodale, Viscount||Fleming, Edward Lascelles||Law, Sir Alfred|
|Boulton, W. W.||Ford, Sir Patrick J.||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Fox, Sir Gifford||Leckie, J. A.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald||Fraser, Captain Ian||Leech, Dr. J. W.|
|Bracken, Brendan||Fremantle, Sir Francis||Liddall, Walter S.|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Lindsay, Noel Ker|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Llewellin, Major John J.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Lloyd, Geoffrey|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Goff, Sir Park||Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Goldie, Noel B.||Loder, Captain J. de Vere|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Gower, Sir Robert||Lyons, Abraham Montagu|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)||Mabane, William|
|Burghley, Lord||Graves, Marjorie||MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)|
|Burnett, John George||Greene, William P. C.||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||McCorquodale, M. S.|
|Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Grimston, R. V.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Gunston, Captain D. W.||McEwen, Captain J. H. F.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Guy, J. C. Morrison||McKie, John Hamilton|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton|
|Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)||McLean, Major, Sir Alan|
|Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)|
|Clayton, Sir Christopher||Hanbury, Cecil||Magnay, Thomas|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Hanley, Dennis A.||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.|
|Cooke, Douglas||Harbord, Arthur||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)||Marsden, Commander Arthur|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Martin, Thomas B.|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)|
|Cross, R. H.||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)|
|Crossley, A. C.||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsf'd)||Milne, Charles|
|Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)||Moreing, Adrian C.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Morrison, William Shepherd||Runge, Norah Cecil||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Moss, Captain H. J.||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Templeton, William P.|
|Nall, Sir Joseph||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Salmon, Sir Isidore||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Peake, Captain Osbert||Savery, Samuel Servington||Train, John|
|Pearson, William G.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Tree, Ronald|
|Peat, Charles U.||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Penny, Sir George||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Perkins, Walter R. D.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Shute, Colonel J. J.||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Petherick, M||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Somervell, Sir Donald||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllston)||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-|
|Procter, Major Henry Adam||Soper, Richard||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Radford, E. A.||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Spencer, Captain Richard A.||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Ramsbotham, Herwald||Spens, William Patrick||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Rankin, Robert||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-||Stevenson, James||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)||Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Stones, James||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Remer, John R.||Storey, Samuel||Womersley, Walter James|
|Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Strauss, Edward A.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Robinson, John Roland||Strickland, Captain W. F.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Rosbotham, Sir Thomas||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Captain Sir George Bowyer and Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.|
|Ross, Ronald D.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.|
|Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Groves, Thomas E.||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Grundy, Thomas W.||Maxton, James|
|Banfield, John William||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Milner, Major James|
|Batey, Joseph||Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)||Nathan, Major H. L.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Harris, Sir Percy||Owen, Major Goronwy|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Holdsworth, Herbert||Paling, Wilfred|
|Buchanan, George||Janner, Barnett||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Pickering, Ernest H.|
|Curry, A. C.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly).||Rea, Walter Russell|
|Daggar, George||Kirkwood, David||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Lawson, John James||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Leonard, William||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Dobble, William||Logan, David Gilbert||Thorne, William James|
|Edwards, Charles||Lunn, William||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||McEntee, Valentine L.||White, Henry Graham|
|Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||McGovern, John||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||McKeag, William||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Wilmot, John|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Mainwaring, William Henry|
|Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.|
§ CLAUSE 41.—(Issue of allowances.)
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."898
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 60.901
|Division No. 132.]||AYES.||[11.20 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Broadbent, Colonel John|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Brocklebank, C. E. R.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)|
|Albery, Irving James||Beit, Sir Alfred L.||Brown, Ernest (Leith)|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)||Bernays, Robert||Browne, Captain A. C.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Blindell, James||Bullock, Captain Malcolm|
|Apsley, Lord||Borodale, Viscount||Burghley, Lord|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Boulton, W. W.||Burnett, John George|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Cadogan, Hon. Edward|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)|
|Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.||Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald||Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)|
|Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)||Bracken, Brendan||Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm|
|Balniel, Lord||Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Caporn, Arthur Cecil|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Brass, Captain Sir William||Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.|
|Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)|
|Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Reid, William Allan (Derby)|
|Clayton, Sir Christopher||Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)||Remer, John R.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Robinson, John Roland|
|Cooke, Douglas||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)||Joel, Dudley J. Barnato||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Croon-Johnson, R. P.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Cross, R. H.||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)|
|Crossley, A. C.||Ker, J. Campbell||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Culverwell, Cyril Tom||Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||Latham, Sir Herbert Paul||Salmon, Sir Isidore|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Law, Sir Alfred||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Donner, P. W.||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Drewe, Cedric||Leckie, J. A.||Savery, Samuel Servington|
|Duckworth, George A. V.||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Liddall, Walter S.||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Duggan, Hubert John||Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.|
|Eastwood, John Francis||Llewellin, Major John J||Shute, Colonel J. J.|
|Edge, Sir William||Lioyd, Geoffrey||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)||Somervell, Sir Donald|
|Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Soper, Richard|
|Elmley, Viscount||Lyons, Abraham Montagu||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.|
|Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Mabane, William||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)||McCorquodale, M. S.||Spens, William Patrick|
|Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Stevenson, James|
|Fleming, Edward Lasceiles||McKie, John Hamilton||Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)|
|Ford, Sir Patrick J.||Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Stones, James|
|fox, Sir Gifford||McLean, Major Sir Alan||Storey, Samuel|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Fremantle, Sir Francis||Magnay, Thomas||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Gluckstein. Louis Halle||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Goff, Sir Park||Martin, Thomas B.||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Goldie, Noel B.||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Templeton, William P.|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)||Milne, Charles||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Graves, Marjorie||Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Greene, William P. C.||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Moreing, Adrian C.||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Grimston, R. V.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Train, John|
|Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||Morrison, William Shephard||Tree, Ronald|
|Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Moss, Captain H. J.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Guy, J. C. Morrison||Nall, Sir Joseph||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'Arey (Brecon)||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walisend)|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Hanbury, Cecil||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Hanley, Dennis A.||Peake, Captain Osbert||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Pearson, William G.||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Harbord, Arthur||Peat, Charles U.||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)||Penny, Sir George||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Perkins, Welter R. D.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Petherick, M.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)||Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Radford, E. A.||Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Womersley, Walter James|
|Hornby, Frank||Ramsbotham, Herwaid||Wragg, Herbert|
|Horobin, Ian M.||Rankin, Robert||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Rathbone, Eleanor||Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Major George Davies.|
|Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Batey, Joseph||Buchanan, George|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Cocks, Frederick Seymour|
|Banfield, John William||Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Curry, A. C.|
|Daggar, George||John, William||Nathan, Major H. L.|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Owen, Major Goronwy|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Paling, Wilfred|
|Dobbie, William||Kirkwood, David||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Edwards, Charles||Lawson, John James||Pickering, Ernest H.|
|Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Leonard, William||Rea, Walter Russell|
|Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Logan, David Gilbert||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Lunn, William||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||McEntee, Valentine L.||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||McGovern, John||Thorne, William James|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).||McKeag, William||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||White, Henry Graham|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Mainwaring, William Henry||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Wilmot, John|
|Harris, Sir Percy||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Holdsworth, Herbert||Maxton, James||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Janner, Barnett||Milner, Major James||Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.|
§ CLAUSE 42.—(Power to permit training to persons over eighteen who are not in need.)902
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 41.903
|Division No. 133.]||AYES.||[11.30 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cross, R. H.||Hanley, Dennis A.|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Crossley, A. C.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Culverwell, Cyril Tom||Harbord, Arthur|
|Albery, Irving James||Curry, A. C.||Harris, Sir Percy|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)||Dalkeith, Earl of||Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Apsley, Lord||Dawson, Sir Philip||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Donner, P. W.||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Drewe, Cedric||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Duckworth, George A. V.||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)|
|Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.||Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)||Duggan, Hubert John||Holdsworth, Herbert|
|Balniel, Lord||Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Eastwood, John Francis||Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Edge, Sir William||Hore-Belisha, Leslie|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hornby, Frank|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Horobin, Ian M.|
|Beit, Sir Alfred L.||Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Horsbrugh, Florence|
|Bernays, Robert||Elmley, Viscount||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.|
|Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Blindell, James||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)|
|Borodale, Viscount||Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)||Hume, Sir George Hopwood|
|Boulton, W. W.||Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)||Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald||Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)|
|Bracken, Brendan||Everard, W. Lindsay||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Fleming, Edward Lascelles||Jesson, Major Thomas E.|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Joel, Dudley J. Barnato|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Ford, Sir Patrick J.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Fox, Sir Gifford||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Fraser, Captain Ian||Ker, J. Campbell|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Fremantle, Sir Francis||Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Latham, Sir Herbert Paul|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Law, Sir Alfred|
|Burghley, Lord||Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)|
|Burnett, John George||Goff, Sir Park||Leckie, J. A.|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Goldie, Noel B.||Leech, Dr. J. W.|
|Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Liddall, Walter S.|
|Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)||Gower, Sir Robert||Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Klim'rnock)|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)||Lindsay, Noel Ker|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Graves, Marjorie||Llewellin, Major John J.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Greene, William P. C.||Lloyd, Geoffrey|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)|
|Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Grimston, R. V.||Loder, Captain J. de Vere|
|Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.|
|Clayton, Sir Christopher||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Lyons, Abraham Montagu|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Mabane, William|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Guy, J. C. Morrison||MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)|
|Cooke, Douglas||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)||McCorquodale, M. S.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Hanbury, Cecil||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)|
|McKeag, William||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Stones, James|
|McKie, John Hamilton||Ramsbotham, Herwald||Storey, Samuel|
|Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Rankin, Robert||Strauss, Edward A.|
|McLean, Major Sir Alan||Rathbone, Eleanor||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Rea, Walter Russell||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Magnay, Thomas||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Manningham-Buffer, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Remer, John R.||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Templeton, William P.|
|Marsden, Commander Arthur||Robinson, John Roland||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Martin, Thomas B.||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)||Ross, Ronald D.||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Runge, Norah Cecil||Train, John|
|Milne, Charles||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)||Tree, Ronald|
|Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Moreing, Adrian C.||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Salmon, Sir Isidore||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Morrison, William Shephard||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Moss, Captain H. J.||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Nall, Sir Joseph||Savery, Samuel Servington||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-|
|Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)||White, Henry Graham|
|Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|O'Donovan, Dr. William James||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Peake, Captain Osbert||Shute, Colonel J. J.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Pearson, William G.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Peat, Charles U.||Somervell, Sir Donald||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Penny, Sir George||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Perkins, Walter R. D.||Soper, Richard||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Petherick, M.||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Pickering, Ernest H.||Spencer, Captain Richard A.||Womersley, Walter James|
|Procter, Major Henry Adam||Spens, William Patrick||Wragg, Herbert|
|Radford, E. A.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Stevenson, James||Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Major George Davies.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Grundy, Thomas W.||Milner, Major James|
|Banfield, John William||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Nathan, Major H. L.|
|Batey, Joseph||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, silvertown)||Owen, Major Goronwy|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Paling, Wilfred|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Kirkwood, David||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Buchanan, George||Lawson, John James||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Leonard, William||Thorne, William James|
|Daggar, George||Logan, David Gilbert||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Lunn, William||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Dobbie, William||McEntee, Valentine L.||Wilmot, John|
|Edwards, Charles||McGovern, John|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Mainwaring, William Henry||Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Maxton, James|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ The CHAIRMAN then left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.