§ 6.40 p.m.
§ Mr. Leach
I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out:the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1939, and.I think that the purpose of my Amendment is quite clear. The Bill provides that women, on reaching the age of 60, must be excluded from the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. My purpose is to keep them in. The Bill says that at 60 the woman ceases to contribute, and is no longer eligible for unemployment benefit. I should like whoever replies for the Government to give one reason to justify this arbitrary change in the unemployment insurance rights of women. This is a pensions Bill. There is nothing in the Title that deals with unemployment insurance, or any other kind of insurance. I know that 2151 these insurances and old age pensions are bound up together, but I do not understand why a pensions Bill should be used as an opportunity to alter the unemployment insurance law. If my Amendment is carried, a woman worker will be called upon to pay her contributions until she is 65. Women workers are perfectly willing to do this, as far as I can ascertain from my constituents and from my correspondence with women's organisations. A woman knows that at 60 her 10s. a week pension will not be enough to keep her free from the necessity of going to work, and she knows that at 60 her hold on a job will have become precarious. She will have reached a time when unemployment benefit is more important to her than ever it was before. That is the time selected by the Government to deprive her of it.
There is another danger which especially menaces the widows and spinsters of 60 in industry. Under this Clause, the employer will automatically be advised of each case in which a woman in his employment reaches the age of 60. Rightly or wrongly, these women fear that that will often mean the loss of their jobs; that the conscience of the employer will not be hurt quite so much when he sacks women of 60 if he knows that, from that time, she will be in receipt of a pension of 10s. a week. Do not forget that there are hundreds of thousands of women involved in this matter, and that over 100,000 are unmarried women, who believe their livelihood is at stake. I hope that, in putting the case as briefly as I possibly could, I have convinced the Minister that there is some reason for accepting this Amendment.
§ 6.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Barr
I beg to support the Amendment. As I said the other day, it has been my lot to take a considerable part in this spinster agitation, and I know that they attach great importance to this particular Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) has said, the fact that at the point when they pass out of Unemployment Insurance, their age is proclaimed to their employers and others, may militate very much against the continuance of their employment. I am not so sure that they are always as successful in disguising their ages as they think. It comes out one way 2152 or another. On one occasion the judge in a law court asked a lady witness her age, and she said it was 25. He then said, "We know the value now of your evidence, for I find from the records that you were here five years ago, and you gave your age as 25 then," to which she replied, "I am not one of those people who say one thing at one time and another thing at another." An Irish jarvey, on receiving an exceptionally gratuitous and generous tip, thought he must pay some compliment to the lady who had given it to him, so he said to her—the highest compliment he could pay—"Madam, I do not know what your age is, but whatever it is you do not look it." I suppose that when it comes to the point with which we are dealing, and when a lady worker comes forward to declare her age, the employer may say, "I would not have thought it. You do not look like it." But after she has been paid that compliment, she will be entered on the list of those who are in peril of losing their situation, because they pass into a new position.
I was addressing a meeting of spinsters in St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow, and I received a letter, also anonymous, in which a working woman protested against the idea of giving pensions to spinsters at all on the ground that they would stand in danger of losing their occupation when they reached the age of 55 or 60, or whatever it might be. She said she could not sleep at all at nights because of the fear that, on the payment of the pension, she might lose her occupation. When I read the letter, I quoted a phrase which the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary will know. It was:Ay waukin, O,Waukin still and weary, O;Sleep, I can get nane,For thinkin' on my dearie, O!I did not add the words:For thinkin' on my dearie, O,as they are not quite applicable to the spinster. But it is a real peril. There are really two serious considerations which I wish to bring before the Committee. The first is that we cannot estimate the life expectancy or the power of work of a woman at 60, as compared with a man at 65, but there is a certain advantage in what we are considering. It might be found that many of these women at 60 were better able to go on 2153 working than a man at 65. At least we are lowering the age, and that raises the question.
The other serious consideration is one which I raise as one who has been closely connected with industry. For seven years and more as Member for Mother well, and for the last four years as Member for Coatbridge, I have been in purely industrial constituencies, and none could be more so. The lessons are very tragic of men who, on reaching the age of 65, find that, because they are entitled to an old age pension, they are dismissed their employment. There are a very large number of these men, and therefore it is not mere imagination on the part of those women. It is not something which comes only into their sleeping and waking dreams, as the letter suggests. It is a real peril, and it is on that ground that I gladly support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.
§ 6.52 p.m.
§ Mr. Dingle Foot
I want to support the second consideration which has been brought to the attention of the Committee by the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr). It may be that these fears which are being felt by women engaged in industry are not as serious as they imagine, but there can be no doubt that there is some apprehension about the effect of this Clause. I have here a letter which I received from a number of Dundee jute workers, and I would like to read one passage of it, because it reinforces what the hon. Member has just said. They refer to a reference that was made in the Debate last week as to "tired women at 60,"and they go on to say:You may say we do not know any of them. All the women in our establishment are very capable, alert women and willing to work. We understand that it will affect women in the jute industry if employers and those in authority get to know when we are on pension. The very name of 'old age pensioners at 60' would make you feel uncomfortable. They might have given it a better name. We hope something can be done to keep our employers from knowing.It may be that that is exaggerated, but I co not think it is without foundation in every case, and one can see the objection which might very well be made. I hope that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Ministers in charge of the Bill, and that even if they cannot accept this Amendment they will consider 2154 whether they cannot amend the Clause before the Bill leaves the House of Commons. I do not know whether, if they cannot accede to the Amendment, they will be prepared to concede the possibility of giving women working in industry an option as to whether they take the pension or continue in Health and Unemployment Insurance. That would be an improvement. It would not damage the structure of the scheme, but would enable women who had apprehensions on these grounds, on reaching the age of 60, to avoid the consequences that they envisage. I shall listen with great interest to hear what is said about these apprehensions which are felt by women in Dundee and other places where a large number of women workers are engaged in industry.
§ 6.55 p.m.
§ Mr. Messer
It is important that the Minister should consider the position of the women of 60 entitled to statutory benefit under the Insurance Acts. As the Bill is drawn, the woman of 60, instead of drawing statutory benefit, will be drawing 10s. a week pension. It may be said, if the 10s. is not enough, that the woman may be able to apply to the Assistance Board and obtain a supplementary pension. But she would, if she were allowed to continue under the Insurance Acts, continue drawing her full statutory medical benefit for at least 26 weeks. It seems strange to tell people at the age of 60, after they have been paying their full contribution into the National Health and Unemployment Insurance Schemes, that they can no longer draw 15s. Unemployment Benefit, but must draw 10s. a week old age pension. There is some substance in the point that has been made that, if this Bill is to benefit anybody at all, it should benefit them without injuring anybody.
§ 6.57 p.m.
§ Mr. Elliot
The points which have been raised on the Amendment have undoubtedly caused a great deal of interest and have been very carefully examined. They were in fact very carefully examined by the Le Quesne Committee, which was a body set up as a result of discussion in this House to go into the whole of these points. That Committee specifically examined both those points and came to very definite findings on each. In paragraph 128 it says: 2155On the whole, we are disposed to think that, if the pension were, granted to spinsters at 55"—mark you, a very much lower age than 60—they should cease, when they became recipients of the pension, to be insured, either in Health Insurance or Unemployment Insurance.They also say most definitely, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Leach), and referred to by the hon. Member for Coat-bridge (Mr. Barr), and repeated by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), as to the fear of dismissal:Our conclusion is that, whilst the fears that 'undercutting,' or a general depression of women's wages, or the dismissal of spinsters at 55, or the reduction of wages of spinsters of 55, will follow from the granting of a pension to spinsters at 55 cannot certainly be treated as groundless, yet these possible dangers should not be regarded as an obstacle to the granting of such a pension, if the granting of it should appear to be desirable on other grounds.This point had our very careful consideration, and more than that, it had the careful consideration of the expert committee sitting for some time considering this very problem, and I think that the result of their examination will be supported by Members of the Committee on the whole. It has been for a long time now the principle that people who come under the payment of these pensions are in general no longer within the industrial field. It is a point which is stressed rather emphatically by the Labour pension plan, the whole essence of which is that these pensions should not be granted to encourage people to remain in industry, but rather to encourage them to withdraw.
§ Mr. Elliot
The proposals in the Labour pension plan for dealing with the spinster are, of course, much more drastic than the proposals in this Bill.
§ Mr. Elliot
The hon. Member is slightly incorrect in his recollection of what I said. At that time we were arguing 2156 whether the compulsory work test should be applied or not; the desirability of persons not continuing in work when they were no longer capable was a matter upon which we were all agreed.
§ Mr. Silverman
What more stringent work test could there possibly be than a pension inadequate to support them?
§ Mr. Elliot
The hon. Member does not fully grasp the argument or the proposals of the Bill. The suggestion here is the dangers to insured women—first, the danger that a pension might mean that their wages are undercut; secondly, that they might actually be dismissed; and, thirdly, that it means the employer will know the age of the worker. In the case of health insurance it was suggested that there might be some form of "wangle" by which people might go on paying for pension while, in fact, enjoying the pension. That would be so flagrant a matter that I do not think anybody will suggest it should be continued. Then there is the question as to the disclosure of the age.
§ Mr. Elliot
It is suggested that there is a peril if the age be known at all, but we cannot in any case have persons continuing to pay for pensions which they are already enjoying whatever happens, and, therefore, at the age of 60 a new insurance card of some kind or other would need to be issued to these persons. The fact that the expert committee examined this matter and reported that in their view the dangers do not outweigh the advantages should weigh with the Committee. Secondly, the universal practice in pension schemes that on reaching the pensionable age the insurance terminates, also should weigh with the Committee. It has been our practice for a long time, and the anomalies which would arise from going away from it are much greater than the anomalies which would be created if it continued to be followed. We shall all agree that in future we must work towards the idea that at the age of 60 these women will receive this State payment, which taken week by week is of much greater advantage than the temporary advantage which they gain by unemployment benefit payable for only a certain time, and then coming to an end.
2157 There is some force in the suggestion that hardships may arise to some persons who have paid up their stamps when the Bill comes into force and find that they are not able at that time to draw unemployment benefit to an amount regarded as the condition of the contract entered into. Therefore, in a later Clause we have taken steps to deal with that matter and have inserted a provision by which a person who has been paying up to now, and who is looking forward to that as part of their right, will be fully safeguarded and will be able to draw the full benefit of the stamps on their book. I hope the Committee will agree with the Government that the practice that when the pension age is reached payment stops should be adhered to in this case.
§ 7.5 p.m.
§ Mr. Lawson
This is not a simple question at all, I agree. It is very complicated. The right hon. Gentleman has a good memory for certain portions of the Labour pension scheme, but a very bad memory for some of its other proposals. He has reminded us that it put the age at 55,but he did not say that the Labour proposals were for £1 a week pension, not 10s. Therefore, you are dealing with a very different proposition altogether. In dealing with a single woman, she may be in such a position as not to be able to receive any supplementary allowance, and the fact that she is 60 years of age may also penalise her for the future. I do not want to see anyone working who is in receipt of a pension, but I do not think this Committee should make it possible for a woman to have to depend on 10s. a week pension when she is employed and earning a passable wage. It seems to me that there is something in the Amendment and that we ought to be careful about applying the Unemployment Insurance Act and depriving these persons of certain benefits for which they have paid. I hope the Committee will not accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman as satisfactory.
§ 7.7 p.m.
§ Mr. Tomlinson
I cannot quite follow the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman in his opposition to the Amendment. On a previous Amendment he told us that the Government had to be concerned with the actuarial position of the Bill and that it determined their attitude towards 2158 it. Now, in dealing with spinsters' pensions, he has referred to a committee and provided an argument against the case by quoting it. As a matter of fact, this has no reference to spinsters at all. Spinsters are incidental, and it seems to me that everyone is leaving out of account the married woman worker who is insured. I cannot understand why the Minister should have taken the trouble to put down an Amendment to Clause 3 providing against the contingency against which we are arguing now in the case of women between 60 and 64 who do not qualify. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that it is unreasonable to expect that a woman should remain in unemployment insurance when she is receiving a pension, but the woman between 60 and 64 is worse off. If there is anything at all in the first argument as to the actuarial consequences, surely you could have brought in people between 60 and 64 and allow them to continue their contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I do not see that the drawing of a pension has anything to do with the question whether a person is in employment or not.
It was a surprise to me when I became a trade union secretary to find that in the industry this particular system applied and that the individual was cut out of unemployment insurance. I could keep the Committee for hours detailing individual cases of men of 65, and now it is going to be women at 60, who immediately they reach that age, because they have lost their position in unemployment insurance, will automatically lose their position in industry. I am not saying anything about the argument that women do not like to disclose their age. I know that young women do not like to do so, but I have still to find an individual who is nearing the pensionable age who does not come four months before in order to get her papers signed. That is an out-of-date argument. We have to consider the position of women at 60. In the cotton industry of Lancashire if they remain until they are 55 they very often go on until they are 65. The shrinkage is not after 60 but well before 60 as far as the cotton workers are concerned. What will be the position under unemployment insurance? It means that if the mill stops for a month a woman over 60 and between the ages of 60 and 65 under this scheme will not need to sign on at the 2159 Employment Exchange, but the person next to her who is under 60 will draw benefit for time she is stopped. The Minister has not put forward a single argument to justify taking these women out. Suppose the spinsters' demand had been met and that we had reduced the age to 55; is it assumed that they would have dropped out of industry at 55? Surely the need for unemployment benefit is just as great when the individual is receiving
§ 10s. as when 10s is not coming in; that is unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to argue that 10s. is sufficient for maintenance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think again before refusing to accept the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 145.2161
|Division No. 29.]||AYES.||[7.15 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Findlay, Sir E.||Mason, Lt.-Col. Han. G. K. M.|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)||Fremantle, Sir F. E.||Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd & Chisw'k)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.||Fyfe, D. P. M.||Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)|
|Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)|
|Balfour, G. (Hampstead)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Gledhill, G.||Nall, Sir J.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Gluckstein, L. H.||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Goldie, N. B.||Nicolson, Hon. H. G.|
|Beechman, N. A.||Cower, Sir R. V.||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.|
|Bennett, Sir E. N.||Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh|
|Bernays, R. H.||Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)||Orr-Ewing, I. L.|
|Blair, Sir R.||Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.||Palmer, G. E. H.|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.||Gridley, Sir A. B.||Peters, Dr. S. J.|
|Bottom, A. C.||Grigg, Sir E. W. M.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Grimston, R. V.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)||Procter, Major H. A.|
|Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.||Pym, L. R.|
|Brooklebank, Sir Edmund||Hambro, A. V.||Radford, E. A.|
|Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)||Hammersley, S. S.||Raikes, H. V. A. M.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.||Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Harbord, Sir A.||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Burton, Col. H. W.||Harland, H. P.||Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)|
|Butcher, H. W.||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)|
|Cary, R. A.||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Robertson, D.|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Higgs, W. F.||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)|
|Channon, H.||Hill, Dr. A. V. (Cambridge U.)||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Holmes, J. S.||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|Chorlton, A. E. L.||Horsbrugh, Florence||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.|
|Christie, J. A.||Howitt, Dr. A. B.||Russell, Sir Alexander|
|Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)|
|Colfox, Major Sir W. P.||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Samuel, M. R. A.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Sandeman, Sir N. S.|
|Colville, Rt. Hon. John||Jarvis, Sir J. J.||Sanderson, Sir F. B.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Jennings, R.||Schuster, Sir G. E.|
|Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)||Selley, H. R.|
|Craven-Ellis, W.||Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Shakespeare, G. H.|
|Crooke, Sir J. Smedley||Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)||Shepperson, Sir E. W.|
|Cruddas, Col. B.||Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.|
|Culverwell, C. T.||Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Lamb, Sir J. O.||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.|
|Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)||Leech, Sir J. W.||Smithers, Sir W.|
|De la Bère, R.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Levy, T.||Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)|
|Denville, Alfred||Lewis, O.||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Dodd, J. S.||Liddall, W. S.||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|Doland, G. F.||Lindsay, K. M.||Spens, W. P.|
|Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)||Lipton, D. L.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Dunglass, Lord||Loftus, P. C.||Storey, S.|
|Eckersley, P. T.||Lucas, Major Sir J. M.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Edmondson, Major Sir J.||Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Elliston, Capt. G. S.||McCorquodale, M. S.||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Emery, J. F.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Thomson, Sir J. D. W.|
|Entwistle, Sir C. F.||McKie, J. H.||Touche, G. C.|
|Erskine-Hill, A. G.||Magnay, T.||Train, Sir J.|
|Etherton, Ralph||Maitland, Sir Adam||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Everard, Sir William Lindsay||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Fildes, Sir H.||Markham, S. F.||Wakefield, W. W.|
|Walker-Smith, Sir J.||Wayland, Sir W. A.||Wragg, H.|
|Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)||Webbe, Sir W. Harold||Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.|
|Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)||Wells, Sir Sydney||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.||White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)|
|Warrender, Sir V.||Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Waterhouse, Captain C.||Williams, C. (Torquay)||Mr. James Stuart and Mr.|
|Acland, Sir R. T. D.||Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)||Parker, J.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Hardie, Agnes||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Harris, Sir P. A.||Pearson, A.|
|Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)||Harvey, T. E.||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Hayday, A.||Price, M. P.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Pritt, D. N.|
|Ammon, C. G.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Hicks, E. G.||Richards, R. (Wrexham)|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Ridley, G.|
|Banfield J. W.||Hollins, A. (Hanley)||Riley, B.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)||Ritson, J.|
|Barr, J.||Horabin, T. L.||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)|
|Batey, J.||Isaacs, G. A.||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Beaumont, H. (Batley)||Jackson, W. F.||Sexton, T. M.|
|Bevan, A.||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Shinwell, E.|
|Broad, F. A.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Silkin, L.|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Silverman, S. S.|
|Burke, W. A.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Sloan, A.|
|Cape, T.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Chater, D.||Lathan, G.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lawson, J. J.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Leach, W.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Collindridge, F.||Leonard, W.||Stephen, C.|
|Cove, W. G.||Leslie, J. R.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Daggar, G.||Lunn, W.||Stokes, R. R.|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||McEntee, V. La T.||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||McGhee, H. G.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Dobbie, W.||MacLaren, A.||Thorne, W.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Maclean, N.||Thurtle, E.|
|Ede, J. C.||Mander, G. le M.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Marshall, F.||Tomlinson, G.|
|Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Mathers, G.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||Maxton, J.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Foot, D. M.||Messer, F.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Frankel, D.||Milner, Major J.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.|
|Gardner, B. W.||Montague, F.||Welsh, J. C.|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)||Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)||White, H. Graham|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Wilkinson, Ellen|
|Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)||Mort, D. L.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Muff, G.||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Nathan, Colonel H. L.||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Naylor, T. E.||Woodburn, A.|
|Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Noel-Baker, P. J.||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Groves, T. E.||Oliver, G. H.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Owen, Major G|
|Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Paling, W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. Whiteley and Mr. John.|
§ 7.25 p.m.
§ Mr. Tomlinson
I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, after "sixty-five," to insert:except the reference in Section fifty of the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, and.The reference in the 1936 Insurance Act is to the right of an insured person to sickness and disablement benefit on attaining the age of 65. Ostensibly the purpose of the Bill is to confer a benefit upon an insured person. According to what the Minister said on the Second Reading, and during the discussion so far in Committee, spinsters and married women qualify for a pension in their own right at 60 because they are insured. What I cannot understand is why there 2162 should be a curtailment of a right which was previously held, because a change is taking place in the age at which the old age pension is to be granted. I would like to point out from practical experience—and I think it can be proved actuarially—that the last five years of a married woman's or spinster's insurance life, 60 to 65, is the period of greatest benefit. I have here some figures, the last I could obtain, which deal with 100 persons drawing sickness insurance benefit. These are the facts with regard to them. Between the ages of 45 and 50, there are 4 men, 8 spinsters and widows, and 11 married women; between 50 and 55, there are 5 2163 men, 9 spinsters and widows, and 14 married women; between 55 and 60, 8 men, 12 spinsters and widows, and 18 married women and between 60 and 65, 13 men, 17 spinsters and widows, and 25 married women.
That, in itself, is proof that between the ages of 60 and 65 the benefit which has been contracted for is of greater value to the individual who has entered the contract. I contend that not only is the incidence of sickness higher, but that they are entitled to reap the benefit for which they have paid. For a woman who enters insurance at the age of 16 and who may be insured under this Bill, who pays contributions for 44 years and is insured in her own right, this means that between the ages of 60 and 65, whether she is married or a spinster, she will, as the Bill now stands, be deprived of the benefits which should accrue to her during that time. This cannot be justified in the case of those particular insured persons because we have admitted, by the Bill itself, the right of the married woman who is not insured to receive a pension at 60. She receives it in the right of her husband's contribution and, therefore, if a married woman, who is also insured, and paying her full contribution along with those of her husband, is to cease receiving national health benefits at 60 then she is being deprived of five years' possible benefit, for which she has paid and contracted. That is the case as far as married women are concerned.
I want the Committee to consider the case of a widow who is receiving a widow's pension in the right of her late husband's contribution, and is in insurance and industry. The fact that she goes to work means that she must come under the National Health Insurance Act. From her wages week by week is deducted an amount of money which cannot under any circumstances cover her pension at 60, because being a widow she will continue to receive the widow's pension whether she is in industry or not and whether she is insured or not. Such a woman when she reaches the age of 60 and goes out of insurance loses the benefit of the insurance for which she has been paying over a period of years and receives nothing in return. I can illustrate the matter better by giving an actual case of a woman in my own trade union who is nearly 60 years of age.
2164 She is receiving at the present moment not only a pension of 10s. but a disablement benefit of 6s. When she reaches the age of 60 her 6s. a week will come to an end under this Bill. If I read the Bill aright that is what it means. She will be left with her 10s. and a problematical supplemental pension based upon a household means test. That, I consider, is an injustice. She is being deprived of benefit for which she has paid and that I suggest is contrary to the spirit of the Minister's statement on the Second Reading. It has been suggested that we should not go back to the Second Reading Debate but I do not see why Ministers should escape even at the risk of some repetition.
My contention is that when a woman is deprived of 10s. a week and receives nothing but a problematical supplemental pension, based on circumstances which cannot be visualised, she is losing something under this Bill. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry has been complimented many times on her efficiency during this Debate. I could have wished that the hon. Lady's efficiency was a little less pronounced and her humanity a little more marked. Be that as it may, she attempted to deal with the position of widows by suggesting that they had occupied for a long time a privileged position in insurance. That, in effect, was what she said. She said that she thought most people who had studied insurance matters would agree that the widow had been well treated throughout her insurance life, and she went on to say that the widow received the 10s. because of the death of her husband and that if she went into industry while keeping her pension and paid contributions she would receive for those contributions exactly the same benefits as others in industry.
As a matter of fact she does not receive the same benefits as others in industry, because being already in receipt of a widow's pension she cannot possibly get another pension. Therefore by the contributions she makes, by deductions from her wages, she is paying for something which she can never hope to enjoy. I suggest that the case for the Amendment is not only strong but unanswerable. The Minister is attempting to meet the position of the individual who goes into the scheme late in life by putting down an Amendment later. I suggest that 2165 unless he is prepared to meet the particular cases I have mentioned, and especially the case of the widow, there is no possible justification for attempting to do what is attempted by the later Amendment which has been suggested.
§ 7.35 p.m.
§ Mr. Mander
I should like to support what has been said by the hon. Member above the Gangway and I would ask the Minister to make quite clear what is to happen under the proposal in the Bill. I take it that a person would have to go to the public assistance committee to get sickness benefit. That I should have thought an extremely unsatisfactory arrangement, quite apart from the injustice of it. Having contributed for years to obtain sickness benefit, a person will be deprived of it at an age which is one of the most difficult for all persons and at a time when a person is most likely to need assistance of this sort. I hope we shall receive a sympathetic reply from the Minister.
§ 7.36 p.m.
§ Mr. Silverman
There is an aspect of this matter which has not yet been touched upon. It was said time after time during the Debates on the Second Reading and on the Financial Resolution that no one would be put under a means test by this Bill who was not already subject to one. That claim was made repeatedly, but I think the hon. Member who moved this Amendment has demonstrated to conviction that here we have a whole class of cases put under a means test or a needs test—it does not matter how you camouflage it—who were not under it before. I would like to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member below the Gangway and I would ask where these people are to go for sickness benefit. It is quite true they may ask for a supplemental pension, but a supplemental pension, I apprehend, would have nothing whatever to do with sickness benefit or with any disability or illness. A benefit for which they paid during many years is to be taken from them. The benefit of their contributions is to be taken by the Treasury. Where are they to get sickness benefit? I suggest that the only answer is that they will have to go to the Poor Law for it.
I thought that the whole merit of this Bill in the eyes of the Government was that it would take people in their old age 2166 away from the Poor Law and give them some other right outside the Poor Law, but here you have a class of people who are being deprived of the benefit for which they have paid and are being put upon the Poor Law for relief in case of sickness. The Poor Law is not to operate in relation to these supplemental pensions but medical needs are excepted, and medical relief has been defined in circular after circular from the Ministry of Health as going far beyond the mere provision of a doctor and medical attention. All sorts of things come under the heading of medical relief, such as care of the teeth and eyesight, and special food. The people with whom this Amendment is concerned have paid contributions during many years and one would have thought they had acquired a contractual right to benefits. Yet those benefits are being taken away and the only place to which they may go is the Poor Law. They must demonstrate, if they can, to a Poor Law authority that the effect of this Measure upon them has been to produce destitution. For my part I am, I will not say surprised, but horrified at the incredible meanness of it. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment.
§ 7.42 p.m.
§ Miss Horsbrugh
Much of the general argument in regard to this matter took place on the last Amendment and I do not wish to go over the same ground again although I must point out that the Committee's report did deal with this matter very carefully. The conclusion reached was that even if pensions were given at 55 the rights to benefit under National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance should cease.
§ Mr. Tomlinson
That report dealt specifically with spinsters. The two classes of cases we are concerned with now are married women who are insured and widows.
§ Miss Horsbrugh
I agree, but the report said that whatever happened, if you gave pensions at 55 you would have to come to that conclusion. I mention that in order to point out that this subject has been considered. It is a subject which, naturally, the Government went into very carefully when deciding to make a fresh reduction in the pensionable age from 65 to 60. The hon. Member for Nelson and 2167 Colne (Mr. Silverman) seemed to think that in this way we were going to drive people back to public assistance, and I think it was also suggested by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that that would be the result. That is a point I would like to examine. What will be the position of these people in future? The actuary's report says that the benefit they will receive will be 10 times that which is taken away, but putting aside the actuary's report and looking to the actual facts of the case, what will happen?
It is agreed that the medical benefit continues, and what we are talking about are the cash benefits—for a single woman, 12s. a week, and for a married woman 10s. a week, with 6s. and 5s. a week respectively for disablement. In future, the woman will draw 10s. a week as her pension. I think hon. Members will agree, if we set one case against the other, that she will get an improvement. If the woman is drawing a pension, she will receive £26 a year. If we take the extreme case of a woman who is sick for the whole of the year, she would draw 12s. a week for 26 weeks and 6s. a week for 26 weeks, and she would receive in all £23 8s., against the pension of £26. I think this proves that the woman will get a better bargain. That is an extreme case. In a great many cases she will get a considerably better bargain, because she will stay on in industry and draw the 10s. a week. Instead of not receiving any other benefit, she will get £26 a year.
§ Mr. Glenvill Hall
Has the hon. Lady forgotten that from July the woman will be paying contributions for the 10s. pension?
§ Miss Horsbrugh
If the hon. Member means whether I have forgotten that after July people in industry who are to get their pensions at a later stage will be paying contributions, I have not. The 3d. a week contribution is to make up the difference between getting the pension at65 and 60. If the hon. Member will study the report of the Government Actuary, he will see that, taking all things into account, the woman will receive 10 times the benefit she was getting before. I have been asked where the woman is to go if she wants further help. At the present time, she has to go to 2168 public assistance. There are many cases where a person is out of employment and drawing sickness pay at 12s., and because that is not enough, has to apply to the public assistance committee for more. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asked whether we are going to drive these women back to public assistance. I would put the question another way, and ask whether we are going to take them away from public assistance. To that question my answer is, "Yes." The woman is to draw an old age pension, and she has the right to supplementation. Under the Bill, if a woman is drawing a pension of 10s. a week and is sick, and because of her sickness is involved in extra expenses arising out of it, she will have the right to get a supplementation through the Assistance Board.
§ Mr. Buchanan
The Minister said that no person would be worse off under the Bill than under public assistance. In the case to which the hon. Lady is referring, the woman is being made very much worse off under this scheme than she would be under public assistance, because the first 7s. 6d. paid to her under the Health Insurance Scheme is exempt, whereas under this scheme it is not exempt, because the woman does not receive it. Consequently, she is very much worse off than she would be under public assistance. I would also point out to the hon. Lady that although she was quite right in her remarks about the 12s. sickness payment, it must be borne in mind that a large number of people receive extra benefits from societies.
§ Miss Horsbrugh
I agree with the hon. Member's last remark, but equally I am sure he will agree with me that there is nothing under the scheme which says that a woman who is getting a pension of 10s. is not to receive medical benefits from the societies.
§ Mr. Buchanan
The hon. Lady misunderstands me. The societies have surpluses from which they increase the 12s. to, say, 14s.
§ Miss Horsbrugh
The old age pensioner is to have his or her needs met by a supplementation. The hon. Member said that the woman will be worse off under this scheme than under public assistance, the reason being that if the woman who is receiving 12s. goes to the public assistance committee, it disregards 7s. 6d., and, 2169 therefore, she goes to the public assistance committee with an income of 4s. 6d., as it were.
§ Mr. Buchanan
Let me put the matter simply. If there are two persons, one drawing an old age pension of 10s. a week and the other drawing 10s. a week sickness benefit under the National Health Insurance, the old age pensioner goes to the public assistance committee with an income of 10s. and the other goes with an income of 2s. 6d.
§ Miss Horsbrugh
One person with an income of 2s. 6d. goes to the public assistance committee, which has to see that that person is not destitute. The other person has an income of 10s. and goes for a supplementation. In the case of the first person, the committee takes into account the help which that person could be given by her relatives. In the case of the second person, that need not be, and therefore, a larger amount of money could be paid to her than could be paid to the woman who went to the public assistance committee with an income of 2s. 6d., because in her case other people would have to keep her.
§ Mr. Silverman
If the hon. Lady is right in her contention that under this scheme no beneficiary will be worse off, will she explain to the Committee why she resists the Amendment?
§ Mr. Woodburn
My hon. Friend has put this point to the hon. Lady. The person who is receiving sickness benefit finishes up with 7s. 6d. sickness benefit in addition to her needs. That person has 7s. 6d. which is her own. Therefore, she has 7s. 6d. more than she would have under this scheme.
§ Miss Horsbrugh
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asked why we do not accept the Amendment. The answer is that from the time the woman becomes 60 she is to be relieved of all payments into the fund. If she were allowed to go on drawing benefit without paying contributions, the situation would become impossible. What we are saying is that from the time she becomes 60 years of age, she will be in exactly the same position as the people of 65. She will cease to pay contributions and she will cease to draw benefits. I am now dealing with the question of whether or not the woman 2170 will be better off during the actual period of sickness. I think hon. Members will agree that over the whole period she will be better off, and I have given my reasons for believing that she will be no worse off during the actual period of sickness. I think that if a woman were asked whether she thought she would be better off with a pension of 10s. for life from the age of 60, or with no pension, but with sickness and disablement benefits, there is no doubt that she would prefer the pension. I have asked them over and over again which they would prefer. [An Hon. Member: "Whom have you asked?"] I have asked plenty of people. I saw representatives of the Spinsters' Association in the Lobby last night, and I put the question to them, "Would you get better value by the pension, dropping the other, or not having the pension and keeping the other?" and with one exception they said they would rather have the pension.
Now I want to come to the second point. The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) not only talked in a general way but gave us an actual case that he knows. We all agree that in legislation in which an improvement is made you may have hard cases. We have tried to see how we could deal with hard cases. We have had a case of a person who is permanently disabled or sick. We have had these and other cases under consideration. The hon. Member gave the case of a widow of 60. She is disabled and is getting 6s. disablement payment. The hon. Member says, "If it had not been for this Bill, for the next five years between 60 and 65 she would draw her 10s. pension plus 6s. Now you are making the change at 60 and she is going to be worse treated."
§ Miss Horsbrugh
I think the hon. Member has not looked at Clause 3, because we have made particular provision for that person. I want to tell him that she and people like her are not going to suffer. Their condition is going to be improved. There is a transitional period of five years, because we realise the difficulty of people, as in this case, who have been paying into the fund and are suddenly stopped. In that period anyone who has not qualified for the pension can con- 2171 tinue qualifying for it, though she has ceased to pay her own contribution. Although she is not paying into the fund, if sick or disabled she will receive 10s. sickness payment. During that time, between 60 and 65, the widow that the hon. Member has mentioned will not only be receiving the pension of 10s. that she is receiving now, but, instead of the 6s. disablement benefit, she will receive 10s. sickness payment. She will go up 4s. We have tried to meet these very hard cases that hon. Members opposite also have realised. I think this is something on which the Government might be congratulated. We have had a lot of criticism, although the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) spoke in high praise of Clause 1. On this occasion I think he might agree that the Government, in bringing in this change, have tried to look into every detail of very hard cases and see whether we can deal with them. The hon. Member for Farnworth has brought one case to our notice which will not be a hard case, because she will receive better treatment than she is getting at present.
§ Mr. Tomlinson
I should like to find that in the Bill. I know there is a possibility of making regulations, but it would appear that the cases in which regulations are to be made relate to another class of insured persons altogether who have not qualified for benefit. Can we have a definite assurance that this particular case will be included in the regulations?
§ Miss Horsbrugh
I can assure the hon. Member that regulations can be made to deal with it. It could not be done without regulations covering the transitional period of five years.
§ Mr. Buchanan
I understand that the hon. Lady means that, if a widow or a single person before the commencement of the Act has a claim on national health insurance, for the next five years that claim will be maintained.
§ Miss Horsbrugh
An unmarried insured woman who has not qualified for a pension, if she is in insurance at 60, can qualify. If she is in employment, she carries on but does not pay contributions. Payment of 10s. is made when sick, during this transitional period of five years, till she draws the pension. The 2172 widow would have drawn national health sickness payment up to 65. What happens in the case of the widow of 60? During that transitional period she would receive sickness payment of 10s. It is perfectly clear. The Clause says the Minister may make regulations—it could not be done without regulations. As that particular difficulty has now been explained, perhaps the hon. Member will be satisfied.
§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
It seems to me quite correct with regard to women who are or may be on transitional benefit, assuming that the Act goes on for some years until a Labour Government come in and clear the whole mess up, but you will still want regulations to deal with this point which my hon. Friend has raised. I rise to ask whether we can get an assurance that this will be put into the regulations, especially as I understand it is not yet fully decided whether we are going to get regulations.
§ 8.10 p.m.
§ Mr. W. Whiteley
The hon. Lady has cleared up some misconceptions with regard to this matter, but I would like to know who is to be responsible for this extra 10s.? Are the approved societies to be responsible or is there to be some special arrangement whereby the Government, either through the people who pay the supplementary pension or through the approved societies, will hand this addition to the woman when she is entitled to it? The hon. Lady has dealt with the widow in receipt of sickness benefit. If we take the case of both the widow and the married woman in receipt of the pension and in employment, who do not require or have not been receiving sickness payment for a period of three years, do they, automatically, come into this benefit before they reach 65? It is well to be quite clear about this matter because it is important, particularly to approved societies. I can see that those who are actually in receipt of a pension and sickness benefit will be considered during this transition period, but I am anxious to know whether the same thing applies, for a period of five years, to those who may not be in receipt of sickness benefit but who may have to apply for it. Those people are now receiving the benefits in their own right without any question of a test of any kind. When the Bill comes 2173 into operation they will not receive such benefits in their own right as they receive them to-day, but will again have to undergo a test to see whether any additional pension is justified. Those are points on which we want to be clear before we leave this part of the Bill.
§ 8.13 p.m.
§ Mr. Buchanan
In her Second Reading speech the hon. Lady said there was no special case for a widow receiving sickness benefit, and therefore it would stop at 60, Now she says the widow is in some cases to get 4s. more. In Part II of the Bill, which has some bearing on the point, the Minister is to safeguard the right of the old age pensioner, at least during the transitional period, not to be worse off than he would be under Poor Law assistance. The single woman, and in many cases the married woman, who draws health insurance but still has to go to the Poor Law or to public assistance is worse off under the Bill than under the old position. The position now is that 7s. 6d. of Poor Law assistance is exempt, but it is not exempt in respect of the supplementation of which the hon. Lady spoke This part of the Bill is a contradiction of the other part, which gives the guarantee to the old people that they will not be worse off. Yet under this portion of the Bill this section of people will be worse off. I consider that the Minister should either accept the Amendment as proposed by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), or give a guarantee that in dealing with this class of people, the 7s. 6d. will be disregarded when it comes to calculating means. If that is done it will go some way to meet us; otherwise people will be worse off under this scheme than they are at present.
§ 8.16 p.m.
§ Mr. Woodburn
In regard to what the hon. Lady has said I would be grateful if she would clear up one point which seemed a little indistinct. I gathered that according to her statement during this period between 60 and 65 there was a possibility of a woman drawing her 10s. pension and in addition drawing this 10s. from the National Health Insurance. I gather from Clause 3 to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, that that is only 2174in respect of any periods in which they may before old age pensions begin to accrue to them be rendered incapable of work by some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement.When the old age pension begins to accrue that payment ceases according to Clause 3. Therefore there seems no possibility at all of the woman drawing the pension, in addition to the 10s. National Health Insurance. In regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) the situation is that during that period before she goes on to the pension, if she has to go to the public assistance committee they disregard the 10s., but immediately the pension of 10s. accrues, the same amount of 10s. is taken into account, which means that she is worse off than she was previously. That is the point we should like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with because it will bring hardship to these particular women.
§ 8.19 p.m.
§ Miss Horsbrugh
I will do my best to clear up the point which has been put to me. I think the hon. Member who spoke last looked only at Clause 3 (1, b) of the Bill. If he turns over the page and reads on he will see that there are certain difficulties about what I might call the gap in sickness—the case of the person who is drawing sickness benefit when the Act comes into force. When this ceases and the person becomes sick again within the five-year period, the sickness payment provided for in the Bill would still be payable. There are certain difficulties but, in general, they will be in the same position during these five years as if the Measure had not been brought into operation. I say "in general"—there are of course certain intricacies—they will be in the same position as if the Measure had not come into force. We want those five years to be a transitional period. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said that I was putting a different view from that which I expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill. On the Second Reading I was making a general point dealing with the general scheme in the future. In the future, all insured women cease to be in National Health and Unemployment Insurance at 60. In the future, after the transitional period of five years, it will be quite clear that they will cease to pay and cease to draw benefit.
2175 The10s. sickness payment is taken from that £3,500,000. The first charge on this sum is the 10s. sickness payment and it is for Parliament to decide what is to be done with the surplus.
§ Mr. Silverman
May we take it that it is agreed between us and that there is no longer any doubt that, if the people concerned retained their present rights, the 7s. 6d. of the 10s. would not be subject to any means test and that under the regulations it is proposed to make, whatever payment is made will be taken into account in assessing any supplemental pension? If that is agreed would it not also be agreed that the people are worse off to the extent of 7s. 6d. a week?
§ Miss Horsbrugh
Of course, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is for him under Part II of the Bill to argue the point again and whether he will convert me or whether I shall be able to convert him to my point of view, I do not know.
§ Mr. Tomlinson
I cannot withdraw the Amendment because under these regulations and under the promise given not
§ only is the individual not safeguarded but the rights of a whole section of people are in danger. I will quote what the Parliamentary Secretary said on the Second Reading:
§ "The age at which all insured women received old age pensions and ceased to receive benefits under those schemes was 65. The age now is to be 60. Surely, nothing would be fairer than that a widow who enters industry, and has 10s. a week pension as a widow, should come under the same scheme of insurance as the other women, spinsters or married women, as the case may be. A special class cannot be made for widows. Therefore, the age at which they cease to draw the benefits is 60. I do not think it would be right to say that the widows should continue to draw the benefits longer than other insured women."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1940; col. 1419, Vol. 357.]
§ From what she has said to-night, they are, by regulation, not only to draw benefits, but are to have additional benefits. I want to express thanks for the probable four shillings increase but I would rather see the Amendment accepted as a guarantee of the benefits.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 179.2177
|Division No. 30.]||AYES.||[8.25 p.m.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Maxton, J.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Messer, F.|
|Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)||Groves, T. E.||Montague, F.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)|
|Ammon, C. G.||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Hardie, Agnes||Mort, D. L.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Harris, Sir P. A.||Muff, G.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Harvey, T. E.||Naylor, T. E.|
|Barr, J.||Hayday, A.||Oliver, G. H.|
|Batey, J.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Owen, Major G.|
|Beaumont, H. (Batley)||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Paling, W.|
|Bevan, A.||Hicks, E. G.||Parker, J.|
|Buchanan, G.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Burke, W. A.||Hollins, A. (Hanley)||Pearson, A.|
|Cape, T.||Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Horabin, T. L.||Price, M. P.|
|Chater, D.||Isaacs, G. A.||Pritt, D. N.|
|Cluss, W. S.||Jackson, W. F.||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Richards, R. (Wrexham)|
|Collindridge, F.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Ridley, G.|
|Cove, W. G.||John, W.||Riley, B.|
|Daggar, G.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Ritson, J.|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Sexton, T. M.|
|Dobbie, W.||Lathan, G.||Shinwell, E.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Lawson, J. J.||Silkin, L.|
|Ede, J. C.||Leach, W.||Silverman, S. S.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Leonard, W.||Sloan, A.|
|Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Leslie, J. R.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Foot, D. M.||Lunn, W.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Frankel, D.||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)|
|Gardner, B. W.||McEntee, V. La T.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)||McGhee, H. G.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)||Maclean, N.||Stephen, C.|
|Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Mander, G. le M.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)||Marshall, F.||Stokes, R. R.|
|Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Mathers, G.||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Thorne, W.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Thurtle, E.||Welsh, J. C.||Woodburn, A.|
|Tinker, J. J.||White, H. Graham||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Tomlinson, Q.||Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Viant, S. P.||Wilkinson, Ellen|
|Walkden, A. G.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Watkins, F. C.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)||Mr. Adamson and Mr. R. J.|
|Watson, W. McL.||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)||Taylor.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Entwistle, Sir C. F.||Peters, Dr. S. J.|
|Albetry, Sir Irving||Erskine-Hill, A. G.||Piokthorn, K. W. M.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)||Everard, Sir William Lindsay||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.|
|Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)||Fremantle, Sir F. E.||Procter, Major H. A.|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Fyfe, D. P. M.||Pym, L. R.|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Radford, E. A.|
|Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.||Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)||Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.|
|Balfour, G. (Hampstead)||Gledhill, G.||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Gower, Sir R. V.||Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)||Raid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Grigg, Sir E. W. M||Robertson, D.|
|Beechaman, N. A.||Grimston, R. V.||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)|
|Bennett, Sir E. N.||Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Bernays, R. H.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|Blair, Sir R.||Hambro, A. V.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.||Hammersley, S. S.||Russell, Sir Alexander|
|Bossom, A. C.||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.||Samuel, M. R. A.|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Harbord. Sir A.||Sandeman, Sir N. S.|
|Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Harland, H. P.||Sanderson. Sir F. B.|
|Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Schuster, Sir G. E.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Higgs, W. F.||Selley, H. R.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Holmes, J. S.||Shakespeare, G. H|
|Bull, B. B.||Horsbrugh, Florence||Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)|
|Burghley, Lord||Howitt, Dr. A. B.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Shepperson, Sir E. W.|
|Burton, Col. H. W.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)|
|Butcher, H. W.||Jarvis, Sir J. J.||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.|
|Campbell, Sir E. T.||Jennings, R.||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)||Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald|
|Cary, R. A.||Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)|
|Channon, H.||Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Christie, J. A.||Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.||Storey, S.|
|Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Colfox, Major Sir W. P.||Leech, Sir J. W.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Lees-Jones, J.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Colville, Rt. Hon. John||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Levy, T.||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Liddall, W. S.||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.||Lindsay, K. M.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)|
|Craven-Ellis, W.||Lipson, D. L.||Thomas, J. P. L.|
|Crooke, Sir J. Smedley||Llewellin, Colonel J. J.||Thomson, Sir J. D. W.|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Lloyd, G. W.||Touche, G. C.|
|Cruddas, Col. B.||Loftus, P. C.||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Culverwell, C. T.||Lucas, Major Sir J. M.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Davidson, Viscountess||MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.||Walker-Smith, Sir J.|
|Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)||McCorquodale, M. S.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|De la Bère, R.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Magnay, T.||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Denville, Alfred||Maitland, Sir Adam||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Dodd, J. S.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Wayland, Sir W. A|
|Doland, G. F.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Webbe, Sir W. Harold|
|Drewe, C.||Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd & Chisw'k)||White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)|
|Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)||Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)||Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.|
|Duncan, J. A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Dunglass, Lord||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Wragg, H.|
|Edmondson, Major Sir J.||Munro, P.||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Neven-Spance, Major B. H. H.|
|Elliston, Capt. G. S.||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Emery, J. F.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and Mr.|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Palmer, G. E. H.||Boulton.|
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.