HC Deb 05 July 1934 vol 291 cc2185-200

10.29 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 30 to 33, and to insert: (2) Where a person to whom a local authority have afforded out-door relief shows to the satisfaction of the Department that the authority, in affording such relief, have failed in any respect to comply with the provisions of the foregoing Sub-section then, notwithstanding anything in Section seventy-five of the principal Act, he shall be entitled to recover from the authority such sum as the Department may certify to be the difference in amount between the relief afforded to him and the relief which he would have received had the authority duly complied with the provisions of the said Sub-section. This Amendment is to secure that where a local authority has not paid attention to the provisions which affect disregards in granting relief, if the Department is satisfied, back payments can be recovered by ordinary process of law. That explains why we have to amend a Section in the original Act of 1845.

10.30 p.m.


I take it that this is a proposal, in the event of an individual whose case has been held back and who, therefore, has not received the relief to which he considers himself entitled for, say, a week or a fortnight, that, when it is discovered that he has been receiving inadequate relief, he can get it right back from the date when he made his original claim.


The actual Amendment was accepted in Committee, but it was necessary to alter the language of that Amendment. This is the altered language.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion (made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

10.31 p.m.


It has been in recent years a growing practice for the Third Reading of a Bill to be moved without a winding-up speech. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has undertaken to reply to any observations that may be made, and I will adopt that practice with regard to this Bill, saying only this, that the House will recollect that, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, I hinted that on a great many of the detailed provisions of the Bill we would be very glad to hear the views of the Committee. After the exhaustive and interesting discussions which we have had, although it cannot be said that there are not points of difference in the Bill, this can be said of the Bill in its present form, that it does represent to a very large extent a general fusion of the current views of Scottish Members of the kind of shape that the Scottish Poor Law should take. I do not include in that the more controversial sections that have been dealt with, but the net effect of the Committee has been that there has been, for the first time for 80 years, a very full discussion of the general lines upon which the Scottish Poor Law should proceed, and I think myself that a very interesting result has been obtained. I should not rise on this occasion without saying, as one who has been largely responsible for the conduct of the Bill, that I want to give my thanks to Members on all sides of the House for the suggestions which they have made in Committee. I think there is no side whose views are not introduced in the Bill as it stands, and I want to thank them all. If there are one or two who, in the course of the rough and tumble of the Committee, feel that I gave them rather short shrift, they have my apologies, and I hope they will believe that any shortness on my part was purely unintentional.

10.34 p.m.


The Bill has had rather a long Committee stage, almost without precedent in the Scottish Standing Committee, for several years at any rate. Quite a number of very interesting statements have been made, and I am certain that some of the Members, if not all of us, have received some extensions to our previous knowledge of what were the circumstances and conditions of Scottish Poor Law and its administration. Before coming to the controversial parts of the Bill I want to express on behalf of my colleagues—and I am certain that every Member of the Scottish Standing Committee will associate himself with me—our appreciation of the manner in which the Members of the Government representing the Scottish Office, namely, the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General, showed toleration of our points of view and took infinite pains to explain to us certain sections of the Bill and the reasons why they could not accept many of the Amendments proposed by us.

When the Bill originally came before the House of Commons it contained matters that were vehemently protested against and violently opposed in various districts in Scotland. The Bill was fought through 15 days in Committee, and Members of the Committee, with the exception of only one day, were always able to meet and conduct their business. That was different from other Committees, which seemed to have cultivated a very bad habit of having to adjourn because of the absence of a quorum. On the Scottish Standing Committee, not merely the Members of the Government, but the ordinary Members of the Committee, kept up a very high standard of attendance as though, while there was difference of opinion on separate representation for Scotland in a separate Parliament, they were determined to show that in Westminster the Scottish Standing Committee could keep up a full complement of attendance.

The Bill has been amended considerably, and for the concessions which have been given to different sections in the House we can express our thanks to the Under-Secretary and to the Secretary of State. Probably they could not have given more than they have given, but nevertheless we feel that we ought to have received more than has been given to us. Certain matters have yet to be given consideration with a view to insertion of Amendments in another place, and we shall see when they are put in the Bill how they will affect its administration. With regard to the regulations that have to be issued, a Bill of this nature is largely administered by the manner in which it is interpreted by the Secretary of State and the local authorities. I think, therefore, that the precedent which was suggested by the Under-Secretary during one of the Debates is a good one, and I hope it will last for some time after the Bill becomes an Act so that we can see exactly how it is likely to operate when it comes to be administered by the local authorities.

Finally, I would say that we are not satisfied with the Bill, in spite of the concessions which have been made. Three Clauses to which strong objection was taken have been wiped out in the main, but we feel the Bill could be made a Very much better Measure. The Secretary of State for Scotland has promised to bring forward, a Bill, which has long been looked forward to, for the purpose of consolidating all the Poor Law Measures for Scotland passed in previous years, so that people will know just exactly under which Act of Parliament the Poor Law is administered. We hope that before that consolidating Measure is introduced so much experience will have been gained through the administration of this Bill that the Secretary of State will at last realise that it will be necessary to accept the ideas which were put before him during the Committee stage for the greater humanising of the Poor Law of Scotland. I trust that he will not delay the introduction of the new consolidating Measure in the new Session of Parliament, so that this present Bill, which is merely of a temporary character, although it is supposed to make permanent certain previous temporary Measures, will in itself be only a temporary Measure. In my last words I have to say that although, as a result of the concessions, the Bill now shows an improvement on the Measure as it was when first brought before the House, the improvement is not sufficiently great to make it acceptable, and we shall have to divide against the Third Reading.

10.44 p.m.


When this Bill was originally presented to Parliament some of us on this side of the House who are supporters of the Government were critical of certain of its proposals, but now that it has emerged from Committee purged and purified I feel that it deserves the hearty support of all sections of the House. The Under-Secretary has explained that the Measure was absolutely necessary in order that Scotland should find a place within the scheme of the Unemployment Act. I think that one of the chief merits of the Bill in the shape in which we now see it is that it does nothing more than is necessary to achieve that end. Most of the Clauses around which controversy centred, the disciplinary proposals, have been dropped. There was a proposal to empower the local authority to detain the inmates of poor houses. A governor was to have power to sentence a man to solitary confinement. There was also the right of search. All those proposals have gone, and I hope they have gone for good; at any rate, they have been placed in cold storage to await the report and recommendations of the Departmental Committee.

One Clause of the Bill has survived, an orphan of the storm. It has not received the attention that it deserves, but we are all glad that it has survived, because it has great possibilities for good. I refer to Clause 8, which empowers the Department to provide separate accommodation for different classes of inmates. I am not sure that I am right in saying that all sections of the House are glad. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and to that of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and I formed the impression that they are not whole-hearted supporters of the Bill. They did not appear to receive it with boisterous cordiality. What can one expect? This morning in Committee Boom 14 I listened almost continuously from eleven o'clock until a quarter to two to the hon. Member for Bridgeton, and he made it very plain that in his judgment this is the worst Government of modern times.


You do not deny that?


I think that is a somewhat jaundiced view. The hon. Member for Bridgeton, the leader of the best Opposition of modern times, launched an impassioned denunciation of what he called "Bumbledom" and what he sometimes terms "institutionalism." He wants to abolish the poorhouse. Surely that is the view of all of us, and, unless I am greatly mistaken, that is the view of the Government. They want to be rid of the poorhouse and of the need for the poorhouse. It has been the laudable practice of the Scottish local authorities, whenever possible, to afford assistance by offering outdoor relief rather than to require the applicant to enter the poorhouse. The time is not yet for the abolition of the poorhouse because there are still problems to be solved. There is the problem of the casual poor and the tramp; some accommodation must be found for them. It will be the task of the Departmental Committee to decide how, when and where they are to be provided for. Then there is the case of the aged and infirm. On the Second Beading the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson) told us in an arresting passage how in his part of the country the old folk have no dread of the poorhouse. They regard is as a "very kindly" home. Clause 8 will go some way to help us to attain that ideal, and in future, by whatever name we call it, the refuge we provide for those old people will become a "very kindly" home. On behalf of the critics—I mean the more discriminating section of the Government's supporters—I thank the Government for having introduced this most necessary Measure and for having appointed the Departmental Committee; not least, I thank them for the very sympathetic and accommodating response they have given to our criticisms.

10.50 p.m.


After 15 days of somewhat stormy passage in Committee this Bill has emerged a better, less harsh and more humane Bill than when it was first presented to us. I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary on his careful and judicious handling in Committee of its very difficult problems, and to thank him for the concessions which he has made which have transformed the Bill. The Bill has been necessary to bring Scottish Poor Law into uniformity and to fit it in with the schemes for helping the unemployed, and to that end it authorises various courses for training and instruction. Were it not for the safeguard of the physical fitness of the applicant to perform that work, I should not have supported this provision, but on account of that safeguard I think it is a just and proper one. In this connection, however, I feel I must express here, as I did in Committee, my fears lest the powers conferred upon local authorities to provide and maintain work centres may lead to extravagance. I appreciate that this is neither the time nor the place to elaborate that point, and I shall content myself with expressing the hope that local authorities in the exercise of these powers will first have regard to existing accommodation within their area before embarking on elaborate schemes.

It is a matter for some satisfaction that we have now a decision in the long-vexed question of the law of settlement. The discussion that raged in the Committee stage and on the Report stage to-day in this connection was largely a matter of difference between the local authorities. If that difference should assume the proportions of a dispute, they will have resort to the Department. The main feature which still exists, however, is that the poor shall not suffer. I hope and believe that some of them may even be better off. They will at any rate have equality of treatment in their area of settlement for the time being, whether that settlement be one of residence or of birth. That is a particularly good point in this Bill. I also welcome the Clause which gives authority to disregard the first £1 of ex-service men's pensions. That again makes for uniformity, and this I am sure will be recognised by all ex-service men. All the provisions of the Bill seem to me to mark a distinct improvement in Poor Law reform.

In his admirably lucid and explanatory speech on the Second Reading, the Under-Secretary said that no less than 89 years have elapsed since Parliament passed a general Act. If we go farther back in the history of Scottish Poor Law, we find that in the year 1424 the able-bodied who did not work were punished by branding on the cheek and banishment from the country. We have travelled a long way since those good old days. I take this Bill as proving the truth of the saying that virtue is the mean between two extremes. On the one hand, we had the harsh extreme of the punishment of the poor or the leaving of them severely alone; on the other, we have the unwise and indiscriminate distribution of money which, instead of remedying the condition which it is meant to remedy, worsens it. I shall support the Third Reading because I believe that this Scottish Poor Law Bill strikes the golden mean between those two extremes.

10.55 p.m.


I should like to say one last word on behalf of myself and my friends before the Bill leaves this House. Although it is true that there is one considerable blot upon it from my point of view, I think, like many others, that it is a much better Bill than it was when it was first introduced, and that everyone will desire to congratulate the Under-Secretary, who has borne the brunt of the work, and will hope that he will live to see the fruits of the great labour that he has put in in connection with it. I feel certain that most people will agree that the Scottish Poor Law will be very much better if this Bill becomes an Act, and I can only join with others who have already expressed the hope that the codification of the law which I understand is promised will not be long delayed, that an inquiry into the law of settlement will be undertaken as soon as possible, and that in the not distant future we may be able to get rid of that mediaeval survival which, I think, everyone agrees ought not to lumber our Statute Book in the 20th century.

10.57 p.m.


I do not want to delay the House, because I realise that this Measure has arrived at a stage when controversy is out of the question. The House decided on the principle of the Bill, it has given by a majority vote, after prolonged discussions in Committee, its assent to the Measure as it now stands, and, therefore, while those who wish it well give it their blessing, we will give it a last parting kick by dividing in the Lobby against it. I do not pretend that the Bill is all that we would desire, nor do I claim that it is as harsh a Measure as it was when it first saw the light of day in the Committee upstairs. To my mind the proceedings in Committee and in the House to-day open up what might be a very useful procedure. If the same spirit of sweet reasonableness were apparent on the Government benches in every Committee and on every Bill, so that, while dividing on principle, we might seek to take off the harsh points from Bills, to me at any rate Parliamentary life would be more worth while.

I want to add my word of courteous congratulation to those who have piloted the Bill. The Under-Secretary has said that sometimes he may have been harsh, but I think that in many ways that term might be applied to some of us who have taken part in the discussions. From time to time we may have been crude, and to a certain extent obnoxious, in our language denunciatory of the Bill, but we were seeking to improve the well-being of the common people and to give them every opportunity, in their distressing and depressed circumstances, of receiving a fresh ray of sunshine into their lives. I think that the courteous conduct of the Bill deserves congratulations from all quarters of the House. The Under-Secretary has had a difficult job. He had his Government to defend, and he had his own point of view in piloting the Bill through the House. Some of the Clauses of the Bill with which we were not satisfied have been modified by the Under-Secretary, the Lord Advocate, and the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are not as bad, but there are still one or two points that are obnoxious to us. The hon. Gentleman certainly has eliminated certain powers. We can only hope that public opinion will be the guardian of any great powers that are given and the custodian of the rights of people to see that those powers are not used wrongly. Whilst we condemn the Bill, we want to add our congratulations to those who have piloted it for the courtesy, the consideration, and the spirit of compromise that they have shown.

11.1 p.m.


I shall certainly support the Third Beading. I agree that it is a better Bill than when it came to Committee, and we are very largely indebted for that to the courteous consideration and absence of any party feeling displayed by the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary. I wish that in regard to the need test something had been done for the reservist. There was a slight misunderstanding between me and some of the gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. I understood that on the re-committal of the Bill they were going to put down an Amendment dealing with the point. I was very disappointed that I was not able to be in the House last night, and I found that had not been done. However, I hope that may be put right by subsequent legislation. It is an important point. The people who risk their lives for us as reservists ought to be considered as much as people under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and so on. I was partly responsible for it by not being more urgent in seeing to the thing being put in. There was no trickery about it. It was an unfortunate misunderstanding. I want to make that protest against a minor omission from the Bill. I was very much struck with the unanimity and the friendly feeling between all sections of Scottish Members in getting the Bill through Committee.

11.3 p.m.


One thing that we are all agreed upon is that this is a bad Bill.




All who have spoken on the Third Reading have given expression to the view that on its introduction it was a bad Bill though they admit that it is a bit better now. We do not think it is good enough yet. We are, however, all agreed as to the courteous manner in which the official representatives of the Government have met the views of the Opposition. There have been a number of modifications made which will be to the advantage of the Bill. I do not know what the views of the public will be a year hence, but the vast majority of the people who were to be affected by it looked upon it as a bad one. It will all depend on what the regulations contain and how they are interpreted whether it will be as good as some of our friends imagine it to be.

With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford), I do not know anything about the question of the reservists. We put down certain Amendments dealing with disregards. We tried to get the 'Government to agree with us on the question of compensation in respect of men who were subject to accidents in the course of their employment. The man who is injured in the production of work is as important as the reservist, although I do not want to say anything disagreeable regarding that particular person. We did not get very much satisfaction from the Government. As long as these exceptions are still in the Bill we cannot look upon it as one which would entitle us to give it our support, and, consequently, as far as hon. Members on this side of the House are concerned, we propose to go into the Division Lobby against the Third Reading. We are safeguarding ourselves against the time when we hope to have an opportunity of introducing into this House a better Bill, and one which will have some regard to the well-being of the people affected by it.

I do not think that any of us know anything at all of what poorhouse life really is. I read somewhere recently an opinion expressed by one who had had some experience of the prisons of this country, and who said that certain judges ought to be in prison themselves. I hold the view that it would be an advantage and a very good thing if those who are called upon to legislate along these lines had some experience of what poverty really means, what it means to be an inmate of the poorhouse, and what treatment is given to those who are unfortunately compelled to depend upon the charity meted out to them by officials of local authorities in the different parts of the country. I am not satisfied with the Bill. I do not look upon it as satisfactory at all, and I do not think that it will prove to be such an advantage as some of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House expect. Time alone will tell. I shall be very pleased if it should happen that I am not a very accurate prophet in regard to the matter. The Under-Secretary will not only deserve all the credit which has been given to him for his work during the passage of the Bill, but considerable credit will reflect upon him if it works out as he anticipates. If this should be the case nobody will be more pleased than I shall be. I hope that I shall be a bad prophet, and if I am, it will be to the advantage of the people who will be affected by the Bill.

11.8 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Normand)

When this Bill was before the House on Second Reading I said two things. One was that the Government were anxious and willing to co-operate with every section of opinion in the Scottish Standing Committee, and the other was that with such co-operation I was certain that the Poor Law of Scotland would be both humane and efficient. The speeches which have been made on the Third Reading of the Bill show that the co-operation which was offered by the Government at that early stage was given in full measure by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at every stage of the Committee proceedings. A number of changes were introduced into the Bill, a number of concessions were made by the Government and a number of Amendments were accepted, and I think that it is true to say that there was a strong body of opinion represented on all sides of the House in favour of every change that was made. I am aware that there was one change, namely, that, made in the law of settlement affecting the able-bodied poor, which met with a certain amount of opposition. With that single exception every change was made with the almost unanimous approval of the Committee. I think that is a great tribute to the co-operation of the Committee in the difficult task of dealing with the somewhat antiquated Poor Law of Scotland. Great alterations have been made and all have been made for the purpose of furthering the interests of poor people, not for the benefit of those who administer the Poor Law nor for the benefit of the Department which stands at the centre of the Poor Law administration of Scotland.

Let me remind the House what those improvements arc. Further provision has been made for the relief of the able-bodied poor. The alteration in the law of settlement, although it may be deplored by one or two hon. Members who have a geographical difficulty in regard to that particular question, has secured this result, that it will no longer be possible for two people in exactly the same condition or circumstances in every respect, living next door to one another, and whose only difference is that one comes perhaps from some distant rural parish while the other was born in the street in which both are living, to receive completely different sums in relief of an equal need. I think that is a great improvement in our law. We have begun in this Bill the process of humanising our poor house. One hon. Member asked whether we were in any way endangering the great step forward that was made some years ago, when it was arranged that a poor husband and a poor wife should no longer be separated but be able to live out their joint lives together. So far from that being interfered with, the provision we have made is in anticipation of the kind of change which we all hope, under the regulations made by virtue of this Bill, to introduce into our poor houses. It is to make the poor house less inhuman, more humane and more satisfactory from the point of view of those who are unfortunately reduced to ending their lives in the poor house, than it is at present.

Another great improvement from the point of view of the poor is that we have now given statutory effect to what we have called in this Debate the "disregards" which in future a local authority will have to observe in assessing needs and fixing the amount of relief to be given. The hon. Baronet the Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) raised the question of reservists. I can assure him that that question has received careful consideration from the Government, and although my hon. Friend was unable to make the concession which the hon. Baronet desired, yet the arguments which he submitted to the Committee have been most carefully gone over, and it is with great regret that we had to refuse to make that particular concession. In almost every other respect we have been able to meet the desires of Scottish Members, and even where we have been compelled to refuse to make concessions which were asked of us, we have given fair and impartial consideration to each request that was made.

Above all, I should like to emphasise the improvements we have made in affording poor people who have had their claims refused a right of appeal. Under the old law there was a right of appeal but it was in some respects imperfect, and one imperfection was that a man who had been refused relief or had been given inadequate relief had no redress for any disadvantage he might have suffered in the interval between the time when his case was disposed of by the local authority and when it was disposed of by the court of appeal. That defect has been remedied, and provision has also been made for bringing to the notice of the applicant at the time of refusal a knowledge that he has a right of appeal and also of obtaining from the local authority a statement of the grounds upon which the relief was refused. He is now in a better position than ever he was of exercising his right of appeal. That is a great step forward and a great improvement upon the previous law. I think that the Bill as it stands deserves the approval of Parliament. It has been said that when it was introduced it was a bad Bill. I do not agree with that statement; and I think that hon. Members who considered that it was a bad Bill will agree that potentially it was a very good Bill, and that it has now become a very good Bill.

11.17 p.m.


I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) that it is not a good Bill, although we feel a sense of gratitude to the Government for the concessions they have made. As it was introduced it was, to some of us, the most repugnant Bill ever introduced, hut it has been improved beyond all recognition. Our sense of gratitude arises, not because it is now a good Bill, but because the Opposition, though small, has been able to show how the Bill could be improved—a Bill to which we were so bitterly hostile in the early stages. I wish most Bills could go before Committee. If you make good speeches in Committee you can convince your opponents; the question is often decided on its merits; but, good or bad as your speech may be in the House, Members just flock in and are told how to vote. In Committee it is worth while getting to know something about your case, because you can convince other hon. Members of its justice. We have made improvements to the Bill. We have abolished relief on loan, taken away the right of the local authority to take old people away from their homes and put them into institutions, given them a legal right to sums which they were entitled, and exempted ex-Service pensions and maternity benefit.

These are considerable improvements. The main blot on the Bill is the Clause dealing with task work. It is a great danger to the population of Scotland; it is a power that can be used very oppressively. I am not at all concerned with my past speeches or my future speeches, but I am concerned with the common good of the poorest section of the community. If the hon. Member for Hamilton and myself have been wrong and this Bill proves to be a good Bill no one will be better pleased than ourselves

Division No. 324.] AYES. [11.22 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Hales, Harold K. Petherick, M.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd) Procter, Major Henry Adam
Aske, Sir Robert William Hanley, Dennis A. Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Rickards, George William
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Horsbrugh, Florence Robinson, John Roland
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Howard, Tom Forrest Ropner, Colonel L.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Ross, Ronald D.
Bernays, Robert Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Ayliner Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Runge, Norah Cecil
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Jamieson, Douglas Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Broadbent, Colonel John Janner, Barnett Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Ker, J. Campbell Salmon, Sir Isldore
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Kerr, Hamilton W. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Buchan, John Kimball, Lawrence Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Leech, Dr. J. W. Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Burnett, John George Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Llewellin, Major John J. Skelton, Archibald Noel
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Loder, Captain J. de Vere Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Christie, James Archibald Loftus, Pierce C. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Clarry, Reginald George Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Mac Andrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick) Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Conant, R. J. E. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Spens, William Patrick
Cooke, Douglas McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Critchley, Brig.-General A. C. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Crooke, J. Smedley Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Strauss, Edward A.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Strickland, Captain W. F.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C (Gainsb'ro) Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cross, R. H. Milne, Charles Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Davies, Maj. Geo. P. (Somerset, Yeovil) Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) Tate, Mavis Constance
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties) Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Morrison, William Shephard Tree, Ronald
Dunglass, Lord Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Edmondson, Major Sir James Munro, Patrick Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Nunn, William White, Henry Graham
Foot, Dinole (Dundee) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Wise, Alfred R.
Ford, Sir Patrick J. Orr Ewing, I. L. Womersley, Sir Walter
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Palmer, Francis Noel Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Goff, Sir Park Patrick, Colin M.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Pearson, William G. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grimston, R. V. Peat, Charles U. Sir Frederick Thomson and
Gunston, Captain D. W. Penny, Sir George Commander Southby.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Percy, Lord Eustace
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Gardner, Benjamin Walter McGovern, John
Banfield, John William Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Batey, Joseph Jenkins, Sir William Mainwaring, William Henry
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) John, William Maxton, James
Buchanan, George Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cape, Thomas Kirkwood, David Tinker, John Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lawson, John James Wilmot, John
Cripps, Sir Stafford Leonard, William
Daggar, George Logan, David Gilbert TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Dobbie, William Lunn, William Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.
Edwards, Charles McEntee, Valentine L.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

that our prophecies have been wrong. But I view that one Clause of the Bill with great apprehension and I shall vote against the Third Reading mainly on that ground. I trust, however, that our work on the Bill has done something to make the lives of the very poor, who are as honourable as ourselves, more tolerable than they have been in the past.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 29.