§ 10.46 p.m.
§ Mr. Foot
I beg to move, in page 56, line 23, to leave out Sub-section (4).
This is the first opportunity which the House has had of discussing the principle underlying this Clause. It is provided that the Treasury may make a scheme for compensating persons who are injured in the course of being trained in respect of air-raid precautions or of other Defence functions in which local authorities are concerned. I am really interested in Subsection (4), to which my Amendment refers, where it is provided that:Where any injury to which this Section applies is sustained by any person, no compensation or damages shall be payable in respect of that injury, whether under any Act, or at common law, by the employer of the injured person or by any person who is training or exercising, or being trained or exercised together with, the injured person.The House ought to have some explanation why that Sub-section should be included. In the ordinary way, as the House is well aware, when somebody is injured in the course of any employment there are three possible remedies open to him. He can sue for damages either at common law or for breach of statutory duty if he can prove either negligence or breach on the part of his employer. Secondly, he may be able to proceed under the Employers Liability Act, and, thirdly, he can apply for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Under Clause 63 persons concerned are deprived of all those rights, so that they will not be able to sue for damages or to apply either under the Employers Liability Act or for workmen's compensation. They are left entirely at the mercy of some scheme which at some future time is to be framed by the Treasury. We have not the slightest idea what that scheme is to be. We do not know what the scale of compensation or damages is going to be.
I cannot see any reason at all why this Clause should be included. I should have 1252 thought that, if a person was injured in the course of training or exercise in respect of air-raid precautions, he might safely be left to the remedies which the law "now provides. I cannot see why you should step in and endeavour to deprive him of what is due to him under our existing law. This is the kind of Clause which is constantly being presented to us. We ought to have some explanation as to why it is sought to set aside all the ordinary machinery of the law and to substitute something about which we know nothing at all. Before the House allows a Clause of this kind to go through in its present form, we ought to have some explanation. We ought to be told what scale of compensation is envisaged under the Treasury scheme. It ought not to be left to the discretion of the Treasury at some future time to decide what the rights of these people shall be, and it is for these reasons that I move the Amendment.
§ 10.50 p.m.
§ Mr. Marshall
I would like to add a few words in support of the case which has been put by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). This Clause is altogether indefinite, and it is due to the Minister to clarify its meaning and to let the House know exactly what he understands the provisions of the Clause will do. As I read this Clause, once it becomes law the workman has no rights of compensation. As the House knows, A.R.P. activities are now vested in local authorities; they provide the machinery, and they appeal for men. But it so happens that many' workmen of the local authorities have enlisted for this work, and they are in considerable doubt and anxiety as to what their position is going to be. Accidents have already taken place among workmen in training and in preparation for A.R.P., and the local authorities have made ex gratia payments in respect of those accidents. I have here a letter from the town clerk of a very large local authority, in which he states that an accident occurred not long ago, and they made an ex gratia payment. It is very necessary that these men should know what position they are in, and that their interests should be adequately safeguarded.
Under this Clause we protect the trainer of the persons who are under training, it is sought to protect the local authority by 1253 an Amendment that is to be moved later, we protect the workman's ordinary employer, but we do not seem to have given any protection to the person who is really doing the work. I should also like to know from the Minister whether he proposes to make this scheme retrospective. We ought to know as early as possible what this scheme is, what it will do, whether under it the compensation paid will be less than the present rates, and generally what the scale is.
§ 10.53 P.m.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank)
The last thing we want to do is to deprive the House of any information that is wanted on this Clause. When the Bill was in Committee no hon. Members asked me anything about it, so I assumed that they had the necessary knowledge. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said we ought to have an explanation because under the Clause persons would be deprived of their existing rights and would be left at the mercy of some scheme of a completely unspecified nature made by the Treasury at some future time. It is not of an unspecified nature at all. If the hon. Member will look at the Official Report for 2nd March he will find that the Lord Privy Seal made a statement in very great detail as to what the general effect of the compensation is going to be, stating exactly how much was to be paid for this kind of compensation and that kind of compensation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would study that, and I think he would find the answer to his question there. What is more, in the very brief discussion we had on this Clause in Committee I gave the assurance that before the scheme was made definite it should be shown in its early stages to the local authorities, who would be able to make comments upon it, and, further than that, the Clause would be subject to the regulations as laid down in an earlier Part of the Bill. So that this is not a hole-and-corner scheme at all. Its general outline has been already exposed to the public gaze, there will be opportunity for further discussion, and the ultimate decision will lie with the House.
It is quite true that the Clause does take away what the hon. Gentleman called the distinct rights of compensation which exist to-day for injuries incurred by workmen. That, of course, is the case, and the reason why it is being done is because the scheme 1254 to which I have referred gives a uniform basis of compensation at Government expense. This is to be paid for out of the Vote and it is in substitution for a whole variety of schemes which exists to-day. To-day, in some cases, a claim for compensation may lie under the Workmen's Compensation Act; in other cases claims may lie, because local authorities have taken out some sort of policy to cover their employés who have gone up for this voluntary service; there may be cases in which there is a valid claim under some other enactment, and there may be cases in which there is no entitlement to any form of compensation.
Do I understand the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that this applies only to voluntary personnel, because a great many of the people doing this work are paid?
§ Captain Crookshank
Perhaps I was running on to my next note with regard to third party claims, and if so I apologise. I was saying that at present there might be claims under workmen's compensation law, or under a local authority's policy, or under some other enactment, or in some cases none at all. Instead of all this heterogeneous mass of possibilities of compensation, we propose that there should be a uniform code of compensation for all these volunteers. That has already been announced in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 2nd March. The purpose of this Subsection is to avoid double entitlement and it seems reasonable. The compensation, I may add, will in some instances be on a more generous scale and in no instance on a less generous scale than workmen's compensation allowances.
§ Mr. Mainwaring
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that in many cases it may be more generous than workmen's compensation allowances. Does that mean that an unemployed man who is injured will get the same rate of compensation as an employed man?
§ Captain Crookshank
The scale was laid down in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. It has, 1255 of course, no relation to workmen s compensation. I am merely saying that the actual amounts payable under this scheme will be as good as the scale which, in other circumstances, would be payable under workmen's compensation law, except in those cases in which they are better. I am making the point that this is an alternative which covers the whole field. It is to avoid the possibility of double entitlement and the rest of it, that this Sub-section is placed in the Clause. Instead of a variety of schemes there will be a general compensation scheme covering everybody in this category. I hope I have made it clear to hon. Members. [Hon. Members: "No."] This scheme, at Government expense, will take the place of the different schemes which exist to-day.
§ Mr. Foot
If you take the analogy of workmen's compensation law, the workman in that case has an alternative. He can sue for damages at common law or apply for workmen's compensation. Nobody suggests that there should be a duplication of compensation for damages, but you are providing here that a man may only apply under this scheme and you deprive him altogether of his rights at common law. I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether there is any precedent or any justification for that.
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Captain Crookshank
I think we must remember that the volunteers who are being trained are volunteering to do this work and are being trained for Civil Defence, and are to come within the scheme if they should be injured—one hopes they will not be, because when you come to the question of training, a great deal of care is likely to be taken, and always would be taken, to see that there is a minimum amount of risk for trainees while they are being trained. I think the House will be well advised not to accept this Amendment, on the ground that we are offering under our scheme good terms for the whole of the class which we are trying to cover, some of whom would have nothing to do with workmen's compensation or any other kind of liability for injury. The case depends on the circumstances of the case, and under the scheme which we have outlined the compensation depends on the physical injury and not on the basis of earning 1256 power. I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary, therefore, to press his Amendment.
§ Captain Crookshank
It will not be retrospective, but I think that in such cases as have occurred ex gratia payments have been made. It will not, of course, come into effect until after the legislation is passed.
§ 11.3 p.m.
§ Captain Crookshank
That is true. It is wide enough to cover a good number of what one might call border-line cases.
§ Mr. Ede
I do not know what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman means by border-line cases. It does cover the case of ordinary firemen who, in the course of their duty to the local authority, are engaged in training or exercising auxiliary firemen. What has not yet been decided —and this is one of the difficulties that confront those who have to administer the scheme—is the position of the regular fireman who takes some auxiliary fireman with him to an ordinary fire in the hope that, by getting practical experience, the latter may be improved in his training, and who in such circumstances suffers some injury. Is he at that time following his avocation as an ordinary fireman with the rights that he will get for injury following his avocation, or is he training or exercising volunteers who are being trained for the purposes of the Act? There are a number of employés of local authorities, regular employés, who will be brought into this scheme because they are training or exercising people in the course of the regular employés' ordinary regular employment and may find themselves taken out of the ordinary compensation law as the result of that. The House wants to be assured that the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal, and repeated to-night by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is in fact 1257 capable of application in the widest possible sense. Can we be assured that these people will get, as the result of this scheme, at least the compensation or damages which would have been awarded in the civil courts had they brought an action there?
The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) in the absence at this end of the bench of any of the Law Officers, is, I gather, endeavouring to assist me by assuring me that these people are not assured under this Clause of as much in certain cases as they could get under some other enactments. That, I am sure, is not the desire of the House nor of the local authorities. I am sure that the House and the local authorities are exceedingly desirous that no ordinary employé of a local authority should get less in the way of compensation or damages under this scheme than he would be entitled to if he proceeded in the civil courts. That is why I am anxious to find out how far the Amendment is justified in its endeavour to protect the rights of the ordinary employ of a local authority. I gather that the sums mentioned on 2nd March, by which a widow with dependent children can get £600 in the case of air-raid precaution service, other than auxiliary firemen, and £1,000 in the case of auxiliary firemen, do not represent the same sums as these people would get if they had other remedies open to them.
I think the feeling on this side certainly is that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not reassured the House on that point. I hope the feeling of the House is that none of these people who suffer injury because they are called up by the local authorities, whether as volunteers or in their ordinary capacity to train or to exercise others, will be deprived of any of the rights to which they would be entitled under other enactments because of the peculiar circumstances in which the injury may be inflicted upon them.
§ 11.9 p.m.
§ Mr. Silverman
I hope the hon. Gentleman will persist with the Amendment. I think the reply has made it abundantly clear that an injustice is being contemplated. I am putting forward that proposition with a full sense of responsibility and I believe it to be true. I grant, to start with, that there are a great many cases under these transactions in which it is extremely doubtful whether an in- 1258 jured person would have any claim of any kind either at common law or under the Employers' Liability Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act or any other enactment, and I quite recognize—I give the Government every credit for it—that under the Clause they have attempted to deal with those cases in which, owing to the peculiar nature of the matters with which we are dealing, there is no legal right at all.
I am perfectly prepared to accept the assurance that in those cases where, but for this Clause, there would be no legal right, they are contemplating a scheme which shall be not less favourable to the injured person than a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act would be. What I cannot understand is why the Government were not content to legislate only for that class of case in which the existing law afforded no remedy. Why was it necessary to take away from people who had a right under the existing law the right which they had in order to give other rights to other people who did not possess them? The right hon. Gentleman's speech made it plain that in an appropriate case the injured person or the dependants of a fatally injured person would lose the difference between what they were entitled to under the Workmen's Compensation Act and what they would be entitled to under common law, and it is plain that a serious injustice would be done. Anybody who has any experience of these matters knows that the amounts recovered under common law are far in excess of the hopelessly meagre and inadequate allowances which existing compensation law offers. What the Clause does is to take away from those people their rights and to substitute for them something which is less. When the Minister says it is not a hole-and-corner scheme I do not follow him. I know he says that in March last a Minister told us what was contemplated, but I find in Clause 63, Sub-section (3) it is stated:A scheme under Sub-section (2) of this Section may be revoked or varied by a subsequent scheme made there under.That means that the Government might at any time after they have adopted the scheme contemplated in the speech referred to, revoke that scheme and substitute for it something else over which this House will have no control. I suggest to the Government that their Clause would be infinitely 1259 better without Sub-section (4). There would then be this result, which I think would commend itself to the House, that anyone who had a claim under existing law could avail himself of that claim, and anyone who had not such a claim could avail himself of the scheme. I do not understand why the Government are not content with that. If they want anything more there must be the result that while on the one hand they will be legislating to fill a gap, at the same time they will be causing great injustice by taking away from people without any justification the rights they now enjoy.
§ 11.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Mainwaring
I do not think any trade union official who has had experience of law would be likely to rely over much on what legal gentlemen told them about the law. There is one point which is very ominous in these discussions. The Financial Secretary has referred to discussions which have taken place with interested parties on this point. He has suggested that the terms of this scheme are known outside this House. Why cannot hon. Members have this knowledge?
§ Mr. Mainwaring
Why cannot we discuss them? It has been the same in previous cases—discussions have taken place with people outside this House. When are hon. Members to be taken into the confidence of the Government? This scheme of compensation is necessary. I am not satisfied with the law as it stands at present. I cannot see an unemployed man on air-raid precautions having an employer to proceed against. There can be no claim for compensation, and therefore the scheme outlined by the Financial Secretary is necessary. Whether it is all that we desire is another matter. That is why I should like to know the details.
§ 11.18 p.m.
§ Mr. Quintin Hogg
I am reluctant to detain the House at this late hour but I feel that I should not be doing right if 1260 I did not express a certain amount of disquiet at the insistence of the Government in retaining the Clause in its present form. I cannot believe that the House has clearly before it the full description of the rights it is proposed to abrogate by Sub-section (4), which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) is proposing to leave out. Under the law which it is proposed to abrogate by Sub-section (4) a person who is injured as a result of his activities is entitled to take one of two courses. If he cannot lay the blame at the door of anybody else he is entitled to workmen's compensation, that is to compensation on a scale which will never adequately compensate him for the injury he has received.
Hon. Members opposite know that under the scale of workmen's compensation a man may sometimes get no more than, sometimes not as much as, half of the wages he was earning at the time of the accident. If, on the other hand, he can lay the blame on somebody else, if he can say that the accident was the fault of somebody else, through negligence or a breach of a statutory duty, he is entitled not to workmen's compensation but to damages, which gives him, as far as the law can give it at all, full compensation for all that he has suffered by his accident; compensation for his pain and suffering and a capital sum of money to compensate him for every penny of earnings he has lost, or likely to lose as the result of a permanent injury- He is not able, under the existing law, to pursue that remedy if he himself is to blame in any way, or in any manner has contributed to the accident, so that it is only if he can lay it at somebody' else's door, and lay it at somebody else's door without blame attaching to himself, that he is entitled to this full form of compensation.
The Clause as it is drafted at present proposes to abrogate that right, and I want to know why. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has explained to us that it is much more convenient to avoid this heterogeneous mass of different rights. He has told us and I agree with him, that it is possibly more convenient to substitute a special scheme for workmen's compensation which may be more generous; but what the House must know, and what is obvious at the present stage, is that the right to complete compensation is being abrogated by this Sub- 1261 section, and it is proposed to substitute for it a scale of remuneration which, although it may be slightly more' generous than workmen's compensation, does not in any case amount to complete indemnity.
The Financial Secretary has said that some importance is to be attached to the fact that part at any rate of those who are affected by this Sub-section are voluntary workers. I cannot see that that makes the slightest difference; if it did make any difference I should have thought that the House would be more generous to those who give their service voluntarily than to those who do it on a professional basis. Speaking for myself, I have not heard from the Financial Secretary any reason whatever why those who would be entitled to full indemnity in respect of the fault of others should lose that right simply because they are working for their country in respect of Civil Defence.
§ 11.23 P.m.
§ Mr. Greenwood
This Debate, I think, has put the Government in a very unfortunate and very unsatisfactory situation. I listened to the Financial Secretary's speech, but I am bound to say that he did not convince me. The more we discuss this Bill, the more unsatisfactory does this system of legislation become. There are hon. Members who have overlooked the fact that in the Official Report of 2nd March, column 1471, there is set out in great detail a scheme which is referred to very indirectly in Sub-section (2) of this Clause. This kind of legislation by accretion of things that have been said in the House seems to me to be thoroughly unsatisfactory. It may well be that, as the Financial Secretary said, certain people would be better off under the Government's scheme, which after all is at present only an answer to a question, and has no kind of statutory authority. It may be said that there are powers to amend or improve it, or to make it worse, but even this scheme has no authority whatever until it is put into operation by the Government.
Even if this scheme were adopted, and even if it were true, as the Financial Secretary said, that certain people would be better off under it, it seems to me to be a precedent. I think we ought to have a whole row of Law Officers of the Crown here on this matter. Are there any pre- 1262 cedents in any Act of Parliament whereby people who are giving service to their country have been denied their rights at Common Law? If it be true we should like to know the precedent, and if it be untrue that there is any precedent I suggest that the Government are now taking a step which is revolutionary in character. The situation is so unsatisfactory that I should like to move the Adjournment of the Debate in order to give the Government an opportunity of discussing the situation.
§ 11.26 p.m.
§ Captain Crookshank
With the leave of the House I will answer briefly the two or three points which have been made. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there was any kind of precedent for this. The answer, of course, is that we are dealing here for the first time with people training for Civil Defence, and in these cases the Government are going to frame the compensation scheme. It is really analogous to what happens in the fighting services. In the fighting services I understand that the common law rights to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers are not maintained. [Interruption.] This has nothing to do with the private employer. This is dealing with a man during the time of his training in peace time.
§ Mr. Greenwood
This applies to persons acting in a voluntary capacity, and that is different from the position in the fighting services.
§ Captain Crookshank
There are the Territorials and services of that kind which one can think of. This is different from what one might call an ordinary job in civil life. In this case we are concerned with an injury suffered by a man who is being trained for voluntary service and in that respect it is analogous to the position in the fighting services. I am glad that it is admitted that the scheme proposed is a generous scheme.[Hon. Members: "No."] Certainly I am surprised to hear that there is criticism of the scheme on that point, because it has never been raised before. The matter has been before the House on two occasions, and no one has made any comment from that point of view. As to the complaint that this is all being done without explanation, I must remind the House that my right hon. Friend made a long statement about it which is on record, and that when the Clause subsequently 1263 came up in the Committee stage no reference was made to the matter at all. After the legislation is passed the scheme will be in draft—and here I come to a point which is relevant to some of the issues which have been raised—and it will lay down the provisions for the persons who are described in the first Sub-section of the Clause as suffering personal injuriessustained in time of peace by such persons and in such circumstances as may be specified in a scheme made under Sub-section (2) of this Section.It may be that it will be possible to draw the scheme in such a way as to preserve some of the rights about which the hon. and learned Gentleman is so anxious.
§ Mr. Silverman
Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either the answer to the question to which he has referred contains the scheme or it does not, and there is not a single word in that answer to indicate that the scheme would be so drafted as to preserve those rights about whose abrogation we are complaining, because if the scheme did provide for that obviously the whole basis of the complaint made would have gone.
§ Mr. Foot
Under Sub-section (4) it is specifically provided that no compensation or damages shall be payable in respect of any injury, whether under any Act or at common law. How can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that any provisions made by a scheme can override that? Really, he should lave read the Clause before he attempted:o address the House upon it.
§ Captain Crookshank
The House is in complete control of this matter. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government can change the scheme at any time, but the scheme has to come before the House.
§ Captain Crookshank
If the House objects to it the scheme cannot get through. This is not in this Clause, but n the general Clause. The matter was raised, and the assurance was given that hat would be the case; the House is not losing control of this matter at all. When be legislation is passed there will then 1264 be a draft scheme, because consultation will take place, and it will then be before the House and the House will have control. If it is to be amended at some future date the House will likewise have control on that occasion. Really it is straining language very far to say that this is a matter of which the House will have no knowledge. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench that there are special cases which will have to be dealt with, and there is general agreement about that, and not only in the cases he mentioned. This is a complicated and technical matter to discuss, but a person who is an employé of the kind referred to certainly would have to have this right preserved in the circumstances outlined by the hon. Gentleman. There are other cases on the border line, and naturally they will receive consideration. The real point is that we thought it was right to ensure a uniform and comprehensive method of treating these cases, and that is the object of the Clause in the Bill.
§ Mr. Ede
Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman noted the point that the regular fireman who has been included in the scheme will not get the rate of benefit available for the auxiliary fireman? The regular fireman comes under the category of a member of an A.R.P. service other than an auxiliary fireman. It would be the height of ridiculousness in the case of injury for the auxiliary fireman to be compensated at one rate and the regular fireman who was giving him instruction and whose whole professional career might be stopped, to be compensated at the lower rate.
§ Mr. Pritt
The position:is extremely unsatisfactory, and on the question of principle I would like to adapt the arguments that were used by the hon. Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and to add one or two comments with which I have no doubt he will agree. Clauses which propose to take away, blindly and sweepingly., existing rights have always to be regarded with the utmost anxiety, and are detested alike by the legislature and the courts. The other point is that, if the excuse fordoing this is in order to avoid the complications of a heterogeneous mass of different rights, some of them adequate 1265 and some of them inadequate, the remedy is not to deprive men blindly of rights which happen to be fair and generous, but to get our law generally into something like proper shape. With regard to the speech of the Financial Secretary, the Government's perfectly abominable meanness in the treatment of people who deserve the utmost generosity in every conceivable way, who are going voluntarily into a position of great danger, quite out of their ordinary line of life, in order to back up the Government's foreign policy, is shown by the fact that, if they get killed, the Government's method is to deprive them of every legal right that they otherwise would have, in exchange for a scheme which does not yet exist, and which, according to the announcement which has been made with regard to it, will not mention at all one large class, namely the nursing service. The Government pretend that the House will still have control over the matter because at one o'clock some morning it will be laid on the Table to see whether the House wants to reject it, when a majority of the House will be forced into the Government Lobby by the Whips.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman proceeded to see whether he could find a precedent, and he finds one in the Fighting Services. One can only assume that he was told to make the best case he could, and it was an extremely bad case. People who enlist in the Fighting Services as their profession run risks as part of what they undertake. It may be a bad bargain for them, but it is the life they undertake, and if they get killed there is some more or less inadequate compensation for their dependants, of which in due course they will be cheated if possible by the Ministry of Pensions. These other people are now to be treated in much the same way as those who have been forced by patriotism or poverty to embark on a profession of this kind under
§ certain conditions as to compensation. It is said that some of these forms of compensation are more generous than workmen's compensation. If the right hon. Gentleman had his hand taken off in a machine, or anything of that sort, he could not be under any illusion that something that was more than workmen's compensation was therefore generous. I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) will press his Amendment to a Division, so that we may see how many hon. Members opposite who in their hearts know that this is an abominable injustice will advertise themselves to their constituents as thinking that this thing ought to remain in the Act.
§ 11.40 p.m.
§ Mr. Greenwood
May I ask the Patronage Secretary whether, in view of the very unsatisfactory statements that have been made from the Government Front Bench, and in view of the very great progress we have made, the Debate on this Amendment could now be adjourned?
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson)
I should have thought that after the discussion that has taken place it would be as well to bring the matter to a conclusion now. So far as I can understand the position, there is no alteration in the minds of hon. Members and therefore, I can see no advantage in adjourning the matter until to-morrow.
§ Mr. Greenwood
If the House wishes to remain in the muddle it is in, we shall have to accede to that, and we shall be prepared to go to a Division.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word ' or,' in line 27, stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 96.1267
|Division No. 171.]||AYES.||[11.42 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Bower, Comdr. R. T.||Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Boyce, H. Leslie||Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Bracken, B.||Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Braithwaite, J.Gurney (Holderness)||Colman, N. C. D.|
|Anderson, Sir A. Garret! (C. of Ldn.)||Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Conant, Captain R. J. E.|
|Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)||Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Cooper, Rl. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)|
|Assheton, R.||Brook*, H. (Lewisham, W.)||Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.|
|Baillie, Sir A. W. M.||Bull, B. B.||Cox, H. B. Trevor|
|Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.||Burghley, Lord||Crooks, Sir J. Smedley|
|Balniel, Lord||Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.||Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.|
|Barrie, Sir C. C.||Campbell, Sir E. T.||Cruddas, Col. B.|
|Bernays, R. H.||Cartland, J. R. H.||Culverwell, C. T.|
|Bossom, A.C.||Carver, Major W. H.||Dugdale, Captain T. L.|
|Boulton, W W.||Cary, R. A.||Duggan, H. J.|
|Duncan, J. A. L||Leech, Sir J. W.||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|Eastwood, J. F.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Salt, E. W.|
|Eckersley, P. T.||Liddall, W. S.||Samuel, M. R. A.|
|Edmondson, Major Sir J.||Lipson, D. L.||Sanderson, Sir F. B.|
|Ellis, Sir G.||Llewellin, Colonel J. J.||Selley, H. R.|
|Elliston, Capt. G. S.||Loftus, P. C.||Shepperson, Sir E. W.|
|Entwistle, Sir C. F.||Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Shute, Colonel Sir J, J.|
|Everard, Sir William Lindsay||McCorquodale, M. S.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Fleming, E. L.||Maedonald. Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)||Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald|
|Fremantle, Sir F. E.||McKie, J. H.||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Fyfe, D. P. M.||Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|Gledhill, G.||Magnay, T.||Spens. W. P|
|Greene, W. P. C.(Worcester)||Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest||Storey, S.|
|Gridley, Sir A. B.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.|
|Guinness, T. L. E. B.||Markham, S. F.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Hambro, A. V.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Hannah, 1. C.||Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Hannon, Sir P. J. H.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Harbord, Sir A.||Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Munro, P.||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.||Nail, Sir J.||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Nicolson. Hon. H. G.||Turton, R. H.|
|Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.||Wakefield, W. W.|
|Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)||O'Neill, Fit. Hon. Sir Hugh||Walker-Smith, Sir J.|
|Higgs. W. F.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|Holmes, J. S.||Palmer, G. E. H.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Peat, C. U.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Procter, Major H. A.||Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie|
|Hunter, T.||Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Hutchinson, G. C.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)||Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Jennings, R.||Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Jones, L. (Swansea W.)||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Kellett, Major E. 0.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)||Wragg, H.|
|Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)||Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.|
|Kimball, L.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Lancaster, Captain C. G.||Rowlands, G.||Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Grimston.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Guest. Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)||Parker, J.|
|Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)||Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Pearson, A.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Pethick Lawrence, Rt. Han. F. W.|
|Ammon, C. G.||Hayday, A.||Price, M. P.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Pritt, D. N.|
|Barr, J.||Hicks, E. G.||Richards, R. (Wrexham)|
|Beaumont, H. (Batley)||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Ritson, J.|
|Bellenger, F. J.||Isaacs, G. A.||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Benson, G.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Sexton, T. M.|
|Broad, F. A.||John, W.||Silverman, S. S.|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Burke, W. A.||Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Collindridge, F.||Kirby, B. V.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Daggar, G.||Lathan, G.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Dalton, H.||Lawson, J. J.||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Lee, F.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Davies, S. O.(Merthyr)||Logan, D. G.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Dobbie, W.||Lunn, W.||Viant, S. P.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Watson, W. McL.|
|Ede, J. C.||McEntee, V. La T.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||McGhee, H. G.||Westwood, J.|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||MacLaren, A.||White, H. Graham|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||Maclean, N.||Williams, E. J (Ogmore)|
|Foot, D. M.||Mainwaring, W. H.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Gardner, B. W.||Marshall, F.||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Mathers, G.||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Maxton, J.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Griffiths F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)|
|Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Oliver, G. H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Paling, W.||Sir Percy Harris and Mr. Ernest Evans.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Ordered, "That further Consideration of the Bill be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]1268
§ Bill, as amended (in the Committee and on re-committal), to be further considered To-morrow.