Sitting of 15 July 1925

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Hartlepool Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered:
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
King's Consent signified; Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Southern Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, rotating to the London and North Eastern Railway," presented by Sir JOHN GILMOUR; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  MONTENEGRO.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Minority Clauses of the Peace Treaty are applied to Montenegro; and whether the League of Nations is supervising the conditions of affairs in that country?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): The terms of the Treaty signed on the 10th September, 1919,
  1254
  between the principal Allied and Associated Powers and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State apply to all the inhabitants of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom without distinction. In so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no appeal has been made to the League of Nations by the inhabitants of Montenegro.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer more specifically the last part of the question? I am aware that no appeal has been made, but are the League of Nations watching events in that country in order to see that the Minority Clauses are carried out?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Though I speak subject to correction, I think the practice of the League is only to act on a petition of the minority in question.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: What Power was responsible for taking away their independence from Montenegro?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member wants historic information, I shall be glad if he will give me notice.

  CHINA.

    CUSTOMS CONFERENCE.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British representatives or commissioners have yet been appointed to the Chinese Customs Conference; if so, what are the names of the commissioners and the nature of the instructions given them; and if he could give an approximate date on which the Conference is likely to commence its sittings at Shanghai?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I cannot as yet say when or at what place the Conference is likely to take place. It is, however, provided in the Washington Treaty that it shall meet in China within three months of the deposit of ratifications of the Treaty, on a day and at a place to be designated by the Chinese Government.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the American Government have already appointed their Commissioners to the Customs Conference?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not arise out of the question, nor affect my answer to it.

    SHANGHAI DISTURBANCES.
    Sir ROBERT GOWERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Commission representing the Powers which has investigated the disorders at Shanghai has issued its Report; if so, what the recommendations contained in such Report are; and whether he has any statement to make concerning the matter?
    Mr. FORRESTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the findings of the mixed Commission inquiring into the shooting at Shanghai, together with the personnel of that body, and the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards such findings?
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the diplomatic Commission appointed from Pekin has yet reported on the Shanghai disturbances; and, if so, how soon the Report will be made public?
    Mr. DALTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the strictures contained in the Report of the diplomatic Committee of Inquiry into recent events at Shanghai upon the conduct of Mr. MacEwan, the British Chief of Police; and whether the British representative on the Committee concurred in the findings of his colleagues?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The composition of the diplomatic Commission was stated in the replies given to the hon. Members for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) and Tottenham North (Mr. R. Morrison) on the 1st and 6th of July. That Commission has returned to Peking, and the action to be taken on their Report, the terms of which I am not prepared to make public at present, is under consideration.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it desirable to have the terms of the Report as soon as possible, in view of the fact that the Press of various countries contains very large and, apparently, circumstantial reports of what has taken place, and is it desirable that there should be any doubt remaining?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that there are limits to the extent to which Governments can be called upon to produce information because enterprising journalists surmise what the information would be if it were given.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it not possible that other Governments may publish this Report, as it has been communicated to other Governments?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that if there is publication of any evidence, it will be publication in all countries simultaneously.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain portions of the evidence have already been published, and might it not be to the public advantage that the whole of the evidence should be laid on the table, so that there should be no conflict between us as to what evidence was actually given?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member is not referring to the inquiry to which the questions refer, but to the inquiry that was held in open court.
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence taken before the Mixed Court at Shanghai regarding the shootings on 30th May and 1st June; whether he is aware that Inspector Everson, who ordered the shooting, and other policemen, admitted in their evidence that the inspector warned the crowd in front of the police station by calling out "Stop, stop!" in Chinese and English, and holding up his pistol; that only a few of the crowd of 2,000 students, workers and spectators could have heard his words or seen his gesture; that the shootings began 10 seconds after the warning was given; and that no blank cartridges were used and no attempt was made to shoot in the legs; whether he has also seen the evidence to the effect that no violence was being offered by the crowd, who were endeavouring to disperse, and medical evidence that some of the dead and injured were shot from behind; and whether, in view of the situation which has arisen as a result of these happenings, he will forthwith publish the Report of the Mixed Commission, which has also investigated the shooting, in order that its recommendations may be acted on?
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now aware of the evidence in the Mixed Court proceedings at Shanghai that the demonstrators gathered before the police station on 30tE May were entirely unarmed; that the police officer who gave the order to fire admitted that the students were six feet away when the police started shooting; that he gave the order in English; that the shooting began 10 seconds after the warning had been given, and that more than 40 bullets were fired, the firing lasting for several minutes; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The full Report of the evidence taken before the Mixed Court has not yet reached me. The Diplomatic Commission reported to the representatives of the Treaty Powers at Peking, and the action to be taken on the Report is under consideration. The Report itself has not yet reached me.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chinese translation issued in this country shows that the inspector admitted in his evidence that he had no knowledge that warning must be given before shooting; and I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman as to when he will be able to give us this Report for the consideration of the House?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Report to which the hon. Gentleman refers appeared in the Chinese Press, and is a report of the commencement of the inquiry and as to the people killed. The mail which brought the commencement of that Report has not brought the end. I think I ought to see the whole of the evidence before I say anything more. A Report was made by the diplomatic representatives to the diplomatic body at Shanghai; whether it was made in writing or verbally, I do not know. But in any case, that Report has not reached me.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Have not the proceedings of this Mixed Court already been completed, and, if so, why should not we have the benefit of them?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The proceedings have been completed. But the mail which will bring the Report of the conclusion of the proceedings has not yet reached this country.
    Colonel GRETTON: May we have an assurance that His Majesty's Government will not countenance any repetition of the Dyer case?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a question which I must respectfully decline to answer.
    Mr. BECKETT: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to have the Report? Will it be laid before the House; and what power has the right hon. Gentleman to take disciplinary action, if necessary, on it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman had better put that question down.
    Mr. ADAMSONalso asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that members of the Shanghai Municipal Council police force stated before the mixed tribunal, at the trial of the students arrested in connection with the shootings of 30th May and 1st June, that they occupied and searched Shanghai University at the order of Colonel Gordon, the commandant of the Settlement Volunteer Corps; whether Colonel Gordon is the military commander at Shanghai; whether he is a regular British Army officer; whether he is responsible to the Shanghai Municipal Council or acts on his own responsibility; and what authority he has to issue instructions to the Settlement police?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Colonel W. F. L. Gordon is an officer of the British Army seconded for service as Commandant of the Shanghai Volunteer Corps. He is responsible to the Municipal Council of the International Settlement at Shanghai. As already explained, the complete Report of the evidence given at the trial before the Mixed Court has not yet reached this country, and I am, therefore, unable to reply to the further points raised in this question.
    Mr. BECKETT: May I inquire if it is competent for a military officer, on his own authority, to occupy private buildings without the mandate of the civil power?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member's question is based on the assumption of a fact which I neither confirm nor deny.
    Mr. MACKINDER: In view of the very great interest that has been taken in the

    1259
    House and the country, can the right hon. Gentleman promise to lay papers relating to all these matters?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly desire to give the House as full information of the matter as I can. I hope, however, the House will not ask me to answer questions when the information has not reached me or is in my possession, nor to express any opinion on matters on which I am not fully informed. I trust hon. Members will remember that this is not a matter arising in a British Colony, but in an international settlement, and that I have to act—and it is important I should act—in agreement with other Powers.

    SHANGHAI ELECTRICAL WORKS.
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many, if any, employés in the electrical works controlled by the Shanghai Municipal Council are on strike; what percentage is this of the total staff; and what effect it has upon output?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No Sir; I have not this information.

    DIPLOMATIC COMMISSION (FRENCH MINISTER'S WITHDRAWAL).
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the reasons for the withdrawal of the French Minister in China from the commission of three appointed by the diplomatic body in Peking?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The French Minister has informed the Senior Minister that his withdrawal is due to a divergence of views which arose in recent discussions between the Diplomatic Representatives, but I do not know the exact nature of the divergence.

    GERMAN AND RUSSIAN MILITARY ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. FOOT MITCHELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to the effect that the Chinese militarists have introduced German chemists for the purpose of manufacturing poison gas and are also employing Russian experts to assist them in their military plans?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Are some of these Russians members of Koltchak's army?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not aware of that.

    SHANGHAI VOLUNTEER FORCE.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any fixed establishment for the strength of the Shanghai volunteer corps; and whether any arms, munitions or equipment have been supplied by His Majesty's War Office?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Shanghai volunteer corps is not under the control of the War Office, being an international force raised and financed by the Shanghai Municipal Council. I understand that it has an establishment of 77 officers and 1,926 other ranks. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, the issues being made on repayment.

    INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.
    Mr. FORRESTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States Government has conveyed any invitation to His Majesty's Government to take part in an international conference affecting China; and, if so, whether he can state its nature and the attitude thereto of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I stated in reply to similar questions on the 1st July, His Majesty's Government are consulting with the other Governments concerned as to the reply to be returned to the Chinese Government's request for such a conference. In the course of these consultations, suggestions as to the policy to be adopted have been received from the United States Government and other Governments, and are now under consideration. Meanwhile, I cannot add to the statements already made in regard to the attitude of His Majesty's Government.
    Major CRAWFURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement alleged to have been made by M. Vandervelde on this subject, which was referred to in an article in the "Times" of a few days ago?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. At the moment I do not identify that statement.

    GERMAN PALATINATE (COLOURED TROOPS).
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Report has been received with regard to complaints about the misconduct of coloured troops in the Palatinate; and whether any representations have been made by His Majesty's Government on this subject?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are no British troops in the Palatinate, which is occupied by the. French exclusively, and any indiscipline that may occur among the occupying troops, whether coloured or white, is a matter for the French authorities, and, according to my information, is dealt with by them adequately and even rigorously when proved. I may, however, add that allegations of misconduct by coloured French troops in occupied Germany have been a not uncommon form of German propaganda in the past, but that reports received from the British High Commissioner suggest that they have often been made on the flimsiest basis, and on investigation have proved to be unsupported by evidence. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen some of the recent reports of outrages on German women by coloured troops?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have read quite recently a report, upon which my answer to the hon. Gentleman is based.

    EGYPT (VISIT OF SIWAR PASHA).
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian Prime Minister is visiting this country officially; and, if so, whether one of the subjects to be discussed with him by His Majesty's Government is the postponement of the elections in Egypt?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to both parts of the question is in the negative.

    IRAQ (BOUNDARY COMMISSION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reason for the delay in the drawing up of the Report of the Mission sent to the Iraq-Turkish borders by the League of Nations; whether the preparation of this Report is proceeding; and when it is expected that the Report will be published?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question, I am not prepared to admit that there has been delay on the part of the Commissioners. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the purpose of the Council of the League in appointing the Commission was to obtain the advice of an entirely independent body which should be master of its own procedure. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. Nothing has yet been decided in regard to the publication of the report.

  TANGIER.

    BRITISH REPLY TO FRANCE AND SPAIN.
    Sir R. GOWERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has formerly replied to the requests made by the Spanish Government for British approval and collaboration in emergency measures in the Tangier zone; and whether he has any statement to make upon the matter?
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposals have been made to His Majesty's Government for the rectification of the frontier of the international zone in Tangier, for the establishment of a cordon of Spanish troops inside the Tangier zone, for the disarmament of natives therein, and for the repatriation of natives of the Spanish zone resident in the Tangier zone?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The French and Spanish Governments have proposed that British naval forces should co-operate in the surveillance of contraband traffic in arms in the territorial waters of Tangier and also within a six-mile limit of the shores of the French and Spanish zones in Morocco; that contingents of British, French and Spanish troops should

    1263
    be despatched to the Tangier zone to prevent supplies of all kinds from reaching the rebels and if necessary to protect the town itself; that the Sultan's representative at Tangier, the Mendoub, should be instructed to hand over to the Spanish authorities any natives of the Spanish zone who may escape into the international zone; and finally that the inhabitants of the international zone outside the town of Tangier, and in the district of Fahs, should be disarmed.
    His Majesty's Government have replied that whilst they are ready to carry out the obligation imposed by the Tangier Convention to co-operate in the suppression of contraband in Tangier territorial waters, they prefer not to participate in any action outside these waters, nor can they acquiesce in the implication that territorial waters extend beyond a three-mile limit. His Majesty's Government are opposed to the proposed despatch of contingents to Tangier. Such a step, far from averting might probably provoke an attack on the town by the Riff tribes. Provided that the sphere of military operations is not extended to the Tangier zone, there would seem, according to the information received by His Majesty's Government, no substantial ground for believing that the tribesmen will attack it.
    As regards the proposal to hand over all natives of the Spanish zone to the Spanish authorities and to disarm the Fahs, His Majesty's Government feel that apart from the practical impossibility of executing these measures, they would be useless as a means of bringing the rebellion to an end, and likely to cause additional unrest and trouble. His Majesty's Government agree that the Tangier zone should not be allowed to become a centre of rebel intrigue. Power to prevent this is entrusted by the Tangier Convention to the Administration and His Majesty's Consul-General at Tangier will support his colleagues in setting the necessary machinery in force in cases where the offence is proved.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very grateful for the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to put a hostile supplementary question at all, but is he aware that the violation of the Tangier zone commenced with the other side, by the Spanish side, and is His Majesty's Government making repre-
    1264
    sentations on that aspect of the case, which might have the effect of involving us, through our Tangier interests, in the fighting?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I answered a question on that subject some weeks ago.

    HONG-KONG.
    Mr. BECKETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received reports of a speech delivered recently to the Hong-Kong Legislative Council with regard to preparations for dealing with any possible disaffection: and whether he can make a statement on the matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. BECKETT: Could the right hon. Gentleman get a report of the speech?
    Mr. AMERY: If the hon. Gentleman will inform me by whom the speech was made, I will endeavour to ascertain, if I can.

    RUSSIA (ITALIAN NAVAL VISIT).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the arrival of the Italian. warships "Panther," "Lion," and "Tiger," at Leningrad, and the banquets, concerts, and other festivities given in their honour by the population; if he is aware that these Italian warships are a modern type; and whether he will consider the advisability of sending representative British warships to show the flag in Russian waters at an early date?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I am aware of the visit of the Italian warships, which are flotilla leaders of modern type. As regards the latter part of the question, it is not at present proposed to send British warships to Russian waters.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not one of the important functions of the British Navy to show the flag, and

    1265
    in view of the long period of years that have elapsed since a visit to this port, may the matter be considered?
    Commander FANSHAWE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Navy has not yet forgotten the foul murder of Captain Cromie in Petrograd?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    OSLO (SUBVERSIVE MANIFESTO).
    Sir R. GOWERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a manifesto has been circulated amongst British sailors and marines now visiting Oslo urging them to refuse to obey the orders of their officers in the event of conflict between England and China; whether he has ascertained who is responsible for such manifesto and its circulation; and what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, in the matter?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Admiralty has received no official report of the alleged occurrence.

    SINGAPORE BASE.
    Mr. HARRISasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state, for the years 1925–26 and 1926–27, the expenditure on the Singapore base?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The estimated expenditure on the work GO far sanctioned at Singapore is for

    1925–26

    …

    …

    …

    £204,000

    1926–27

    …

    …

    …

    £306,000

    These figures do not include the cost of the supervising staff employed.

    INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (INSTRUCTIONS).
    Mr. MONTAGUEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether instructions relative to the remuneration of naval personnel employed on or standing by for industrial work in connection with a strike of a general nature, or of strikes of a local nature, or industrial emergency due to threatened strikes, have been promulgated for guidance; will he state the nature of these instructions; and whether arrangements are made in such cases for repayment by the firms or undertakings concerned in such service rendered?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answers to the first and third parts of the question are
    1266
    in the affirmative. The Order consists of details as to the allowances which may be granted under various conditions and the manner in which accounts are to be rendered.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: May I ask whether we are to understand that it is considered a national emergency to provide for paying blacklegs for private firms?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir. That would be a very erroneous view to take. This is an Order which has been in existence since 1919. It has been slightly revised since to meet the conditions in foreign ports, so to enable His Majesty's Government to carry out their duty of protecting British life as far as possible, and supplying the necessary food to the people.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Is it not a fact that that Order, which is dated the third of this month, is to deal with the local strike and national strikes in this country?. Does it not also lay down the conditions under which private firms reimburse the Admiralty for services rendered?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir, certainly, it is part of our duty to look after the necessaries of life for the public if there is a strike.
    Mr. BATEY: Will the Minister lay a copy of the instructions in the Library so that we may see them?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will think about that, I do not in the least object to the facts that I have stated being known. They were, I thought, a matter of common knowledge.
    Mr. BATEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the laying of the Order on the Table of the Library so that we can see it and know exactly what it is?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot promise that. I will consider it.
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is now the considered policy of the Government to employ men of the Services for strikebreaking purposes?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member is trying very hard to put a false construction upon this. The Government are

    1267
    only doing what previous Governments have done, which is to enable them, where there is danger to life or danger of the supply of the necessaries of life being cut off, to do what they can to assist the general public.
    Mr. BATEY: Did the Minister not issue this Order for the purpose of manning the pumps at the collieries?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This arose first in 1919.

    SHIPS (EFFECTIVE LIST).
    Mr. SKELTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total number of ships on the effective list of the Royal Navy on 31st March, 1914, and 31st March, 1925, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): The total number of ships on the effective list of the Royal Navy on the dates specified were 545 and 499 respectively. I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate further particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the reduction not due to the Washington Conference?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise immediately here.
    The details are as follow:

    Class of ship.

    31st March, 1914.

    31st March, 1925.

    Battleships

    …

    59

    18

    Battle-cruisers

    …

    8

    4

    Aircraft carriers

    …

    Nil

    4

    Small seaplane carriers

    …

    Nil

    2

    Cruisers

    …

    96

    47

    Monitors

    …

    —

    9

    Minelayers

    …

    Nil

    1

    Flotilla leaders

    …

    10*

    17

    Destroyers

    …

    187

    189

    Torpedo boats

    …

    75

    Nil

    Depot ships

    …

    20

    16

    Repair ships

    …

    2

    2

    Minesweepers

    …

    4

    61

    Submarines

    …

    60

    61

    Sloops, gunboats, etc

    …

    24

    68

    Total

    …

    545

    499

    * Cruisers employed as flotilla leaders.

    RATINGS AND CIVILIAN EMPLOYÉS.
    Mr. SKELTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the total number of men serving in the Navy and the total number of civilians employed in the Admiralty upon 31st March, 1914, and 31st March, 1925, respectively?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on the 27th May and the 8th April to the hon. Members for Grimsby and Darwen respectively, copies of which I am sending him.

    WARSHIP CONSTRUCTION (WAGES COST).
    Sir A. SHIRLEY BENNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the percentage of the cost of a cruiser which is expended on wages; and which are the important trades which benefit by the building of ships?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: 80 per cent. of the cost of warship construction is spent on wages in this country. The principal trades benefited are as follow:

    Draughtsmen,

    Shipwrights, carpenters and ship joiners.

    Ship platers, drillers, riveters and caulkers.

    Ship, engine, electrical and other fitters.

    Boilermakers.

    Coppersmiths.

    Patternmakers.

    Electrical wiremen.

    Foundrymen.

    Smiths.

    Machinists.

    Workers of various designations in armour and steel works and in electrical wire and cable factories.

    Painters.

    Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Member doing all he can to hasten on the announcement of the shipbuilding programme?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: It is not in my hands.

    SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any statement is to be given cut in advance of the discussion on Thursday in regard to the Supplementary Estimate for shipbuilding?
    Sir A. S. BENNasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to inform the House how many cruisers the Government propose building; and how soon they will be laid down?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether he can now give any information with regard to the findings of the committee on naval shipbuilding; whether a Supplementary Estimate will be required to carry out these findings; and when such Estimate will be presented to Parliament?
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister if the Report of the Cabinet Committee on the naval shipbuilding requirements of the country has been considered; and if he can make any statement on the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I shall answer these questions together. I cannot at present add anything to what I have already said in reply to questions on this subject.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether any statement will be made to-morrow?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. The Opposition, who asked for the Vote, were advised on Monday that it would be impossible to make any statement on Thursday.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not open to the Opposition to have the Vote put down upon what day they like, and was it not very desirable to get a decision on this matter as soon as possible?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I was not criticising the Opposition. They are perfectly within their rights. I am merely calling the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to a statement of fact, because he wondered why no statement had been presented and he was not aware of what had taken place. Had the Debate been able to take place next week, the information desired would have been obtained.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that an undertaking was given that the Estimate should be introduced before the House rose? Is that an undertaking which it is impossible to carry out?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly I undertook that a statement should be made, and the Estimate, if one was found necessary, taken before the House rose for the Recess.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Would the right hon. Gentleman say if his first answer means that the Government have not reached any decision?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I answered that question last week, when I stated that a decision was to be arrived at shortly, and it will be arrived at, I hope, by the beginning of next week.
    Commander BELLAIRS: In view of the fact that we will not have the shipbuilding programme before us, can my right hon. Friend, through the usual channels, ask the Liberal party not to indulge in a ridiculous waste of time?
    Commander FANSHAWEasked the Prime Minister whether, before a decision is reached to postpone the approved cruiser programme, spread over some years, consideration will be given to the fact that if this is done we shall be building cruisers at the same time as replacement battleships under the Washington Agreement, thereby imposing a heavy financial burden on the country?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I draw your attention to this question, Sir? On my reading of it, it is hypothetical, and therefore out of Order. It contains a statement with reference to a programme of which nothing whatever is known. I submit that the question is quite out of Order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question is certainly not hypothetical. It deals with a question of postponing a decision until some other facts have been gone into, and it is in Order.
    The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that in the consideration of this question all relevant facts are being taken into account.

    OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Government intend to spend the money voted by the House of Commons for marriage allowance for naval officers on the purpose for which it was voted.
    Mr. BRIDGEMEN: No, Sir, not yet.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TEMPORARY AGRICULTURAL WORK.
    Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the Minister of Labour whether he will have notices posted outside the Employment Exchanges to the effect that those accepting temporary agricultural work will not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit, but that on the contrary acceptance of such work for a short period will be regarded as a definite indication that a man is genuinely seeking work, and thereby remove any misunderstanding on this matter?
    Brigadier-General WARNERasked the Minister of Labour if, with a view to removing a widespread misunderstanding that exists in agricultural districts, he will cause an early notice to be circulated through the Press, particularly the Sunday newspapers, to the effect that men who are receiving unemployment benefit, should they engage in temporary work on the land, will not be disqualified from receiving it at the termination of work of this character?
    Mr. FOOT MITCHELLasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give instructions to Employment Exchanges to the effect that workers insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act who take up temporary agricultural work shall retain, when they cease to be so employed, full benefits as normally insured workers?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I will, if I may, answer these questions together. A notice on this subject, of which I am circulating a copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT, was issued to the Press on 4th July, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture at my suggestion. A similar notice has been sent to various organisations representing farmers. Arrangements are being made to post up the notice at Employment Exchanges, to have it published as far as may be practicable in the local Press in various parts of the country, and in addition it has been brought to the knowledge of farmers individually, e.g., by the distribution of a leaflet at the Royal Agricultural Society's show which was held at Chester last week.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: if a local committee, in ignorance or in defiance of those instructions, refuse a man benefit and the facts are brought before my right hon. Friend, will he undertake to review the case?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certainly, I will review any case, as I think the hon. Member knows.
    Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman himself look at the notice, to see if it would not be possible to frame it in simpler language, so that it would be better understood?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will confer with me afterwards I will see if it is possible to put it more simply, but I must remind Members that it is impossible to be accurate on a very technical subject and at the same time always to be as simple as one could wish.
    Mr. BECKETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the notice will cover the cases of those who are employed on relief work by local authorities in parks and places of that sort?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think notice ought to be given of that question.
    Following is the notice mentioned:
    "EMPLOYMENT IN FARM WORK.
    Farmers requiring additional temporary labour for any type of work for which no great skill or experience is required are urged to apply to the nearest Employment Exchange in cases where no local men are available. It frequently happens that men on the register of an Employment Exchange though not skilled agricultural labourers have at one time or another had some agricultural experience and should be quite able to do unskilled work on a farm.
    It is essential that full particulars of the labour required should be given and that the wages and conditions of work and the accommodation available should be stated. As long notice as possible should be given to the Exchange.
    It is sometimes thought that temporary employment on farm work makes a man ineligible for benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act when the work comes to an end, but this is not the case. Indeed the acceptance of work on a farm for a short period is a definite indication that a man is genuinely seeking work, and would be regarded as such by the Ministry of Labour when next he makes a claim to benefit.
    Ministry of Agriculture and
    Fisheries,
    10, Whitehall Place, S.W.I.
    4th July, 1925."

    DOCKYARD AND NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Labour whether he will state what is the procedure adopted at the Employment Exchange, Devonport, in respect to the entry of men in His Majesty's dockyards and naval establishments; whether he will explain why it is that men who have recently signed on are selected and placed in employment in preference to those who have been on the books of the Exchange for years; whether he is aware that in some cases men have been taken from civil employment and have been placed in His Majesty's dockyard; and whether he will take steps to see that in the selection of men for His Majesty's dockyard those men who have been longest unemployed and the most distressing cases should receive due consideration?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I have been asked to reply. Entries in His Majesty's Dockyards are made with due regard to the efficiency of the service. The best available men for the vacancies are entered, and, other things being equal, preference is given to men who have previously rendered satisfactory service under the Admiralty. I regret I am unable to agree with the hon. and gallant Member that the considerations advanced in the last part of the question should determine the selection of men for entry.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that conflicting instructions are thought to exist, owing to the fact that the Admiralty and the Ministry of Labour have to deal with this question; and will he inquire into it, because there is a great feeling of grievance?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Oh, certainly, if there is anything we can do we will do it.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Samuel Payton, 1, Old Cross Street, Tipton, has had his unemployment benefit disallowed in accordance with paragraph 3, U I, 503 A; that Payton was employed for a period in 1924 at Stratford-on-Avon and also in 1925; and that he has constantly looked for work and also applied for relief work; and will he cause inquiry to be made with a view to his benefit being restored?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having inquiries made in this case, and will let the hon. Member know the result in due course.

    JUVENILES (MAINTENANCE GRANTS).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that it would be much cheaper to extend the school age to 15 years and pay maintenance grants for each child than to pay unemployment pay to married men with or without families, he will consider the advisability of taking steps in this direction with a view to solving the unemployment problem on sound economic lines?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I am afraid that I can accept neither the hon. Member's premises nor the conclusions which he asks me to draw from them.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the permanent element in the unemployment problem as referred to by the Prime Minister and other Ministers, and does he not think that this would help towards a real solution?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid that this would not be a material solution of the problem at all.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Prime Minister stated that even before the War we had an unemployed army of 500,000, and would not what I have suggested take a number of people away from the streets—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot argue this question.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will this question come within the scope of the inquiry of the Committee which the noble Lord is setting up?
    Lord E. PERCY: Certainly.

    LAND DRAINAGE SCHEMES, MONMOUTH.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has seen the resolution passed by the county council of Monmouthshire on the 8th July, 1925; and will he make grants on the same basis as applies to the present drainage relief schemes namely, 66⅔ per cent. of the net

    1275
    cost, for the following works which are of importance to agriculture: under draining by means of pipes and the piping and filling-up of ditches intersecting arable enclosures of small acreage?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): I have seen the resolution to which the hon. Member refers. The question of continuing for another season grants in aid of schemes of land drainage for the alleviation of unemployment during the winter months is still under consideration, and I am not yet able to make any announcement on the subject.

    BENEFIT (YOUNG PERSONS).
    Captain ARTHUR EVANSasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons under 18 years of age who are living with their parents, one of whom is employed, and who are drawing the benefit; and what is the monthly cost to the Fund during the last six months?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that this information is not available.

    BRITISH AND FRENCH AIR FORCES.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the total number of officers, men and machines on the strength of the British and French Air Forces, respectively?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): The strength of the Royal Air Force on the 1st July last was 3,321 officers, 109 cadets and 29,561 airmen; as regards machines, there were (including the equivalent of about nine squadrons for the Fleet air arm) 55 squadrons of an average establishment of 12 machines each. The strength of the French Air Service, according to the latest information available, is approximately 140 squadrons of an average of nine machines each; it is not possible to give the figures for personnel, for the reasons explained in my answer to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) on the 23rd February last.
    Colonel GRETTON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the
    1276
    machines which he mentioned in his answer are efficient machines, ready for flying at once?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I would like notice of that question.
    Mr. PALING: Are all the men and boys counted in those figures?
    Sir P. SASSOON: They are included.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    FATAL ACCIDENTS.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Air how many fatal accidents occurred during the past year in the Royal Air Force; m how many cases were these due to defects in engines or machines; and whether he can give similar information with regard to the French air force?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, the total number of fatal accidents in the Royal Air Force during the period 9th July, 1924, to 8th July, 1925, was 44. As regards the second part, two were attributed to defects in engines and none to defects in machines. As regards the last part, I regret that no information can be given.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can my hon. and gallant Friend assure the House that in the opinion of the Air Ministry the machines used by the Royal Air Force are in every way equal to the machines used by the French air force in air-capacity and air-worthiness?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As far as I am aware, they are.

    UNDERGROUND HANGARS.
    Sir GERALD STRICKLANDasked the Secretary of State for Air whether ho has received information that certain Powers in the Mediterranean have already largely adopted hangars that are underground and bomb-proof; and whether he is prepared to obtain estimates for similar hangars in parts of the Empire where local conditions make such constructions possible or economical?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the desirability of constructing underground hangars where local conditions are favourable has

    1277
    already received careful consideration, but, generally, the cost of such constructions, as compared with that of the normal design of hangar, would render such a scheme prohibitive.
    Sir G. STRICKLAND: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the inadequacy of the air defences of the key bases along our main lines of communication in the Mediterranean for imports and exports is causing considerable alarm?

    FINANCE ACT (FOREIGN GOODS IMPORTED).
    Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider prolonging the present Session to allow of legislation being introduced enabling the import duties on foreign motor cars to be imposed retrospectively as from 6th May, thereby effecting a saving of approximately £1,000,000 in the Estimates?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Quite apart from considerations of Parliamentary time, many serious questions are raised by retrospective legislation.
    Sir F. NELSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has not been drawn to a statement made in this House on the 6th May by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that he would not hesitate to come to this House for sanction to impose these duties retrospectively if he found his estimate of national revenue was being prejudiced by over-importation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I had that statement in mind in the latter part of the answer I have just given to the House.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS UPHOLSTERY (FOREIGN LEATHER).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, seeing that Nigeria and South Africa produce goat skins equal, if not superior, to any foreign goat skins, he
    1278
    can say why Nigerian and South African skins were refused and foreign skins preferred when the tenders were accepted for covering the seats in the House of Commons?
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONThe successful tenderer for the work of recovering the seats in this House used European skins, as being most satisfactory for the grade of work required, having regard to the wear and tear to which the seats in the House are subjected and to the comfort of Members during the long sittings. The First Commissioner realises, however, the desirability of encouraging Empire produce, and is making exhaustive inquiries into the whole question with a view to using Empire skins as far as possible.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative Office, at the present moment, is issuing a circular asking that we should buy British goods? May I also ask the hon. Member if he is aware that in my house I have purchased Empire skins, and I have sat upon them for 20 years, and they are still as good as they were then?
    Colonel DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman say if it is a fact that foreign skins are purchased because they are much cheaper?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No. On the occasion these foreign skins were purchased, the expert opinion was that they were more durable for the purpose.
    Mr. RILE.Y: Is it not a fact that Nigerian skins are not only cheaper but they are more durable?
    Major CRAWFURD: Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard of Welsh goats?

    COLLIERIES (TRADE FACILITIES GUARANTEES).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give the names of the collieries that have been granted trade facilities; to what particular section of the industry these apply; and whether for new plant?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    Name of Company.

    Amount of Loan Guaranteed.

    Purpose of Scheme.

    £

    Stafford Coal & Iron Co., Ltd., Stoke on-Trent.

    131,000

    Sinking and equipment of new shaft at Ham Heath.

    Stanton Ironworks, Ltd., Nr. Nottingham.

    1,000,000

    Sinking and equipment of new shafts and construction of cottages.

    Londonderry Collieries, Ltd., Seaham Harbour.

    25,000

    Improvement and extension of Dock at Seaham Harbour.

    Broomhill Collieries, Ltd., Newcastle-on-Tyne.

    4,000

    Construction of Dredger.

    Broomhill Collieries, Ltd., Newcastle-on-Tyne.

    33,000

    Construction of Collier.

    Upton Collieries, Ltd., Cortonwood, Nr. Barnsley.

    14,000

    Purchase of Brickmaking plant.

    Colliery Housing Companies.

    Butterley Housing Co.

    13,125

    Erection of cottages.

    Butterley Co., Colliery Offices, Ironville, Nottingham).

    90,000

    Llantrisant & Rhymney Valley Housing Co.

    100,000

    Erection of cottages.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    YEOMANRY REGIMENTS (BATTLE HONOURS).
    Major RUGGLES-BRISEasked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the granting of additional battle honours to the Leicestershire, North Somerset, Bedfordshire and Essex Regiments of Yeomanry?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, Sir, I am glad to say that it has now been decided that, as all three squadrons of each of these Yeomanry regiments were contained in the same Cavalry Brigade while they were incorporated as rein forcements in the Cavalry Corps during 1918, each regiment may be regarded as eligible for the battle honours earned as a whole by the particular Cavalry Brigade to which it was allocated. An announcement of the honours awarded on this basis will be made in due course.
    Major RUGGLES-BRISE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great gratification it would cause to all ranks, past and present, and to the County Territorial Associations, and also the impetus that would be given to recruiting for the Territorial Army, if such an announcement could be made?
    The answer is as follows:
    Guarantees to loans have been arranged for under the Trade Facilities Act in the case of the following colliery companies:

    ORDNANCE FACTORY EMPLOYÉS (PENSIONS).
    Colonel APPLINasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the distressed position of men of long service who have been discharged from the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock without pension; if he is aware that pensions were withdrawn from these Government servants in 1870 by a Treasury Minute; and whether, in view of the hardship caused to these skilled workers, he will consider introducing some scheme of contributory pensions early next year?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for East Woolwich on the 12th May last, the possibility of establishing a pension scheme for ordnance factory employés who are at present only eligible for gratuities on discharge has already been under consideration, and is to be further discussed during the coming autumn. As the hon. Member will of course appreciate, the Contributory Pensions Bill now before the House has a considerable bearing on the matter.

    CUSTARD AND EGG POWDERS.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a copy of the Report on custard and egg powders which has been presented to the Mon-mouthshire County Council by the president of the National Analysts' Association; and whether, in view of the fact that these powders are in the main dyed starch and that six eggs to the ton is sufficient to comply with the law, he proposes to take any action?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has received a copy of the Report. He has no power to lay down any rules as to the composition of custard and egg powders so long as they are not injurious to health.

    HOUSING, BARNBOROUGH.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health of he is aware of an agreement between a large landowner and the local colliery company which prevents any houses being erected in the Parish of Barnborough, near Doncaster; and if he will take steps to have this agreement broken and sufficient houses erected to meet the local demand?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any such agreement as that to which the hon. Member refers. If the local authority consider it necessary to acquire land for housing purposes in this parish, and they are unable to do so by agreement, it is open to them to make an Order for compulsory purchase.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are fewer houses fit for human habitation in this locality now than there were in 1914, and is he aware that this is due to the agreement I have referred to, and will he not suggest to the local authority that they have a duty to perform to the men who work at the local colliery by providing houses?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of the effect of this agreement, but if there is any question of acquiring land the local authority have full power to do so.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is he aware that the local authority will not carry out their
    1282
    powers, and will his Department suggest to them that they have a duty to perform in this respect?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; I am net aware of it.

    HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).
    Mr. PENNYasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the damage caused to roads by heavy vehicles, he can give an assurance that this factor will receive the fullest consideration in re-organising the basis of taxation for motor vehicles; and if he will stipulate the maximum width of vehicles which will be permitted to use second-class roads?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The factor to which my hon. Friend refers will certainly be taken into account in any revision of the incidence of taxation of motor vehicles. As regards the second part of the question I am afraid it would be quite impracticable to prescribe a different width for vehicles when using Class II roads to that which would be allowed when they were using Class I roads.
    Mr. PENNY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is an absolute disgrace to allow these juggernauts to go along second-class roads endangering the lives of pedestrians who often have to scoot away like rabbits?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to be giving his personal experience.

    PAPER (IMPORTS).
    Colonel APPLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the value of paper, other than that for the printing trades, imported into this country for the first six months of 1924 and 1925, respectively, and the number of paper-manufacturing plants that have been closed in this country during those years?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I am sorry that it has not been possible to extract the figures desired by my hon. and gallant Friend in the first part of his question, in time for

    1283
    the answer to-day. I will send them to him as soon as they have been compiled from the official records. As regards the second part of the question, I am informed by the Paper Makers' Association that about 22 paper mills have been closed during 1924 and 1925.
    Colonel APPLIN: Will the Parliamentary Secretary inform me what the loss of wages to the workers of this country is represented by this closing?
    Mr. P. HARRIS: Are not these mills closed largely because the paper is made in Newfoundland, which is part of the British Empire?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I am sorry that I cannot answer that question.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in connection with the inquiry now proceeding in connection with the heavy steel industry, evidence will be heard from the steel rollers, who use this steel as raw material for their industry?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given by the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) on 7th July, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Is it the fact that the representatives of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation made a statement yesterday, and why should not the re-rollers be heard?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I do not know of any such statement to the Cabinet Committee as is indicated by the hon. Member, and if I did I could not say anything about it.
    Major CRAWFURDasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Home Secretary at Dudley on 8th July, in which he advocated a protective duty upon iron and steel, represents the considered view of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen a report of my right hon. Friend's speech, and cannot accept the interpretation of
    1284
    the hon. and gallant Member, move especially as the Home Secretary specifically stated in the course of his speech that he must not be taken as indicating that the Conservative Government was going to put a protective tariff on iron and steel or anything else that comes into this country.

    BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (WAITERS).
    Mr. PENNYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that some of the waiters who attend the telephones in the catering department of the British Empire Exhibition cannot speak the English language; and whether he can arrange for the engagement of people of British nationality who are at present drawing unemployment benefit in substitution of aliens in this connection?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I have been asked to reply. I am aware that a certain number of waiters employed by the caterers at the British Empire Exhibition are foreign, but I am informed by the exhibition authorities that they do not exceed 4 per cent. of the total staff engaged in waiting. I understand that arrangements are being made to ensure that foreign waiters shall not answer the telephone.
    Mr. PENNY: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me that reply, and also ask him if he will try and establish Esperanto there?

    ALIEN MUSICIANS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Heinrich Such, musical director, at the West End Cinema, Birmingham; whether he is aware that, despite the number of English musicians out of employment, this gentleman from Hamburg received permission in May last to remain in England for a further six months; and whether he will exclude aliens seeking employment in this country during the depression in industry and the large volume of unemployment?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The provision in the Aliens Order that an alien shall

    1285
    not come to this country to take employment without a permit from the Ministry of Labour is especially designed to meet the point referred to in the last part of the hon. Member's question, and such permits are only issued by the Ministry after careful examination of each individual case. In the case of Heinrich Such, an employment permit was granted by the Ministry of Labour in August last, and renewed recently for a further period of six months. In view of this extension, the Home Office extended for a corresponding period the time of his stay in this country.
    Colonel DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider, before these permits are renewed, the fact that they are keeping our own people out of work, and not renew them, so that our own men may have an opportunity of getting employment?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Before settling this matter, the Ministry of Labour very carefully considered the question, and issued the permit.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is now a general desire on the part of the public to hear this musician?

    MRS. A. GIBBONS (REMISSION OF SENTENCE).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. A. Gibbons, of Brixton, who is at present serving a sentence of two months' imprisonment in Holloway Gaol for the offence of secreting her adult son; and if he will consider the various extenuating circumstances in connection with the case with a view to recommending the remission of the remainder of the sentence?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir, and, having made inquiry, the Home Secretary has felt justified in advising the remission of the remainder of the sentence passed upon Mrs. Gibbons.

    LEO BURKE (MENTAL EXAMINATION).
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Home Secretary whether, in the case
    1286
    of Leo Burke, a boy of 16, who was recently committed to Borstal for three years by the London Sessions for stealing handbags from churches, a mental specialist was asked to examine the boy before conviction; and whether, in view of the fact that the boy has already been in a lunatic asylum, has had five previous convictions, has served two terms in a reformatory, and is stated to have a passion for this form of theft, he will order an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether he is a fitting subject for treatment in a mental institution?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This boy was carefully examined, before conviction, by the medical officers of the Wandsworth Boys' Prison, who are mental specialists. The boy was not found to be certifiable either under the Mental Deficiency Act or the Lunacy Acts, and could not be sent to a mental institution. At the Borstal Institution his mental and physical state will be kept under observation.

    REPARATION PAYMENTS (RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE).
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the costs of the Armies of Occupation account, and the expenses of the office for reparation payments, and of the Inter-Allied Commissions from January to 30th June, respectively?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The answer contains a number of figures, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir F. WISE: Could my right hon. Friend state the percentage of the expenses to the amount received?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I should prefer to have notice of that question.
    Following is the answer:
    According to the Statements of Receipts and Expenditure issued by the Agent-General for Reparation Payments, the payments made by him from 1st January, 1925, to 30th June, 1925, in respect of the

    1287
    costs and expenses referred to in the question were as follows:

    Armies of Occupation.

    Gold marks

    Reichsmarks supplied

    22,178,138.20

    Requisitions and furnishings under Articles 6 and 8 to 12 of the Rhineland Agreement (provisional figures)

    56,081,185.63

    These payments represent only the costs met in Reichsmarks. The balance, in so far as such cost is a charge on the Dawes Annuities under the Agreement of 14th January, 1925, falls to be met out of the receipts of the Occupying Powers from deliveries in kind (including Reparation Recovery Acts). It may be roughly estimated at about 60,000,000 gold marks.

    Expenses of:

    Office for Reparation Payments in Berlin

    2,214,450.15

    Reparation Commission

    2,267,505.83

    Rhineland Commission

    2,442,027.52

    Military Commission of Control

    3,263,333,33

    NATIONAL DEBT (COLWYN COMMITTEE).
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Colwyn Committee on the National Debt will make its Report?
    Mr. GUINNESS: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the hon. Member on the 5th March last, I do not anticipate that the Committee will be able to complete their labour before the end of this year.

    GOLD STANDARD.
    Mr. PENNYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the partial reversion to the gold standard at the date specified has discouraged or prevented Dominion or foreign loans being floated in London, he will consider the possibility of delaying the date of the complete reintroduction of the gold standard?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. PENNY: Is there any likelihood of the prestige of London as the financial centre of the world being damaged by the resumption of the gold standard?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No, Sir, I do not think it really has any direct effect. If the hon. Member will look at the Report of the Currency Committee, he will find that they refer to the danger of overloading on foreign account, but that the resumption of the gold standard is expressly recommended because it would automatically check that danger in a far surer way than disturbance of the exchange.

    CIVIL SERVICE (WOMEN'S PAY).
    Major CLIFTON BROWNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in what manner the review on women's pay in the Civil Services was carried out; whether a definite committee was formed; whether there was an agenda; and if there are any written minutes, evidence, or findings which can be published?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The question of the remuneration of women in the Civil Service as compared with men was fully reviewed by the present Government, and their decision was announced in the reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. and gallant Member on the 5th March last. No committee was considered necessary.
    Major BROWN: Was it quite an informal review, since no committee was considered necessary?
    Mr. GUINNESS: There was no statement as to whether it would be formal or informal. The matter has been fully reviewed by the Government and, for the same financial reasons that obtained when the House decided against it, it has been found necessary to decide against it again.

    SUDANESE BOY (PUNISHMENT).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information regarding the case of a Sudanese boy who was, on 18th March of this year, in a town in the Southern Sudan, lashed until he fell senseless and left lying in this state for the rest of the day for the alleged offence of being in unlawful possession of three packets of cigarettes; and what action, if any, he proposes to take In the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would direct the hon. Member's attention to the fact that questions regarding the Sudan

    1289
    should be addressed to the Foreign Secretary, and not to the Colonial Secretary. I would refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Varley), which appears in column 878 of the OFFICIAL REPORT under the date of 13th July.

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the decision come to by the State Government of New South Wales to discontinue assisting adult immigrant settlers; that it is anticipated that the other State Governments will take a similar course; and, if this is done, can he say whether it will be possible to carry through the arrangements made between the Imperial Government and the Commonwealth Government of Australia?
    Mr. AMERY: I have received no official intimation of the decision referred to, but it seems clear from the Press reports that the decision to discontinue adult migration does not apply to persons going out under the nomination system, which was described by the Oversea Settlement Committee Delegation (Cmd 2132) as the main channel of migration to Australia. Of the 6,351 assisted migrants to New South Wales in 1924, 4,680 were nominated settlers. My hon. Friend will observe from the Press telegram that no decision has been come to by the New South Wales Government as to their attitude towards the new agreement with the Commonwealth Government, and there is no reason for thinking that the attitude of that Government will prevent the conclusion of schemes under that agreement.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the agreement between the Imperial Government and the Commonwealth Government of Australia, anything is said about nomination?
    Mr. AMERY: I am not certain, but it provides for every possible kind of scheme for the development of settlement in Australia.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the word "nomination" included?
    Mr. AMERY: I have pointed out that the nomination system is the chief system on which we are working.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: That may be the case, but is it mentioned in these agreements?
    Mr. AMERY: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. LUNN: Is it advisable to allow a form of question such as the second part of this question, anticipating what Governments may do who may not even have considered the question yet?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: They have considered it.
    Mr. AMERY: The hon. Gentleman will notice that I did not enter into that anticipation.

    COMMUNISTS.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has submitted proposals on behalf of the Government to the Government of Franco for common action against Communists; and, if so, whether he will place the proposals before the House?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government have not initiated nor been invited to participate in any common action against Communists.
    Mr. RILEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any correspondence with the French Government with regard to this?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I have not. I really do not know what gave rise to these rumours. I think I know what gave rise to the question, but what gave rise to the rumours I do not know.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not possible that it was some of the statements of speakers of the Conservative party in the Forest of Dean?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have even seen inaccuracies in the Labour Press.

    ELECTRICITY PROPOSALS.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Prime Minister whether any statement will be made upon the Government's electricity proposals before the House rises?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.
    Mr. MORRISON: Is any statement likely to be made before the House rises?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I could not answer that to-day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Widows, Orphans, and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 108.

Division No. 283.]

AYES.

[3.44 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

England, Colonel A.

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Macintyre, Ian

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Fielden, E. B.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Fleming, D. P.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Balniel, Lord

Forrest, W.

Malone, Major P. B.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Margesson, Captain D.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Meyer, Sir Frank

Bennett, A. J.

Gates, Percy

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Berry, Sir George

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Bethell, A.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Betterton, Henry b.

Glyn, Major R. C. C.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Goff, Sir Park

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Blundell, F. N.

Gower Sir Robert

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Boothby, R. J. G.

Grace, John

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E.)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Brass, Captain W.

Gretton, Colonel John

Murchison, C. K.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

Oakley, T.

Bullock, Captain M.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Burman, J. B.

Hammersley, S. S.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Pennelather, Sir John

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Harrison, G. J. C.

Penny, Frederick George

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hartington, Marquess of

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Haslam, Henry C.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hawke, John Anthony

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Philipson, Mabel

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

Pielou, D. P.

Chapman, Sir S.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Plicher, G.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Pliditch, Sir Philip

Clarry, Reginald George

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Clayton, G. C.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Raine, W.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Howard, Captain Hon Donald

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Hume, Sir G. H.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Ropner, Major L.

Cooper, A. Duff

Huntingfield, Lord

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Cope, Major William

Hurd, Percy A.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Couper, J. B.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Salmon, Major J.

Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Hutchison, G. A. C.(Midl'n & Peebles)

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Jacob, A. E.

Sandon, Lord

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Jephcott, A. R.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Savery, S. S.

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

King, Capt. Henry Douglas

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Kinloch-Cooke Sir Clement

Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfast)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Lamb, J. Q.

Skelton, A. N.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Drewe, C.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Smithers, Waldron

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Lumley, L. R.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Elliot, Captain Walter E.

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Waddington, R.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Wells, S. R.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Wiggins, William Martin

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Tinne, J. A.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Major Sir Harry Barnston and

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Major Hennessy

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland)

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Hayday, Arthur

Rose, Frank H.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Hayes, John Henry

Scrymgeour, E.

Ammon, Charles George

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Baker, Walter

Hirst, G. H.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Barr, J.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Batey, Joseph

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Snell, Harry

Buchanan, G.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Charleton, H. C.

Kelly, W. T.

Stamford, T. W.

Clowes, S.

Kennedy, T.

Stephen, Campbell

Cluse, W. S.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kirkwood, D.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Compton, Joseph

Lahsbury, George

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Connolly, M.

Lawson, John James

Thurtle, E.

Cove, W. G.

Lee, F.

Tinker, John Joseph

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lowth, T.

Viant, S. P.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lunn, William

Warne, G. H.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Day, Colonel Harry

Mackinder, W.

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Dennison, R.

MacLaren, Andrew

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Dunnlco, H.

March, S.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Glbbins, Joseph

Maxton, James

Westwood, J.

Gillett, George M.

Montague, Frederick

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Gosling, Harry

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Whiteley, W.

Greenall, T.

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Oliver, George Harold

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Paling, W.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Grundy T. W.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

Potts, John S.

Wright, W.

Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Riley, Ben

Hardie, George D.

Ritson, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Harris, Percy A.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Captain Charles Craig and Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  BILLS REPORTED.
  Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A), Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Clydebank Burgh Extension, etc., Bill,
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,
  Bolton Corporation Bill,
  Oakengates Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to—
  Rochdale Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to establish a National Library in Scotland on the foundation of the library gifted for that purpose by the Faculty of Advocates; and for purposes connected therewith." [National Library of Scotland Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the Judicature Acts, 1873 to 1910, and other enactments relating to the Supreme Court of Judicature in England and the administration of justice therein." [Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Bill [Lords.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
  Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill further considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  CLAUSE 25.—(Provisions where both additional allowance or orphans' pension and compensation wider the Workmen's Compensation Act are payable.)
  Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move, in page 23, line 21, to leave out the word "whether."
  I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I discussed at the same time the second Amendment standing in my name, in line 21, to leave out the words "or after." The effect would be that the Minister would have the right to refuse a widows' or orphans' pension only in cases where a fatal accident had occurred between the beginning of January, 1924, and the beginning of the operation of the Bill in 1926. The object of such limitation is to meet what we consider to be the very unjust provision made by this Clause, under which the State refuses to honour an obligation entered into as between the State and the contributor, whereby the benefits for which he has paid shall accrue to his widow or orphans in the event of a catastrophe overtaking him. It appears to us that this Bill ceases to be an insurance Bill in the fullest and truest sense by the introduction of the provision of which we complain. Last night we discussed an Amendment taking into consideration existing pensions. This Clause gives the Minister the right to take into consideration any sums that accrue to the family by way of damages for the loss of the husband and father as a result of a fatal accident occurring during his employment. There is another proposal which proposes to take away the right of unemployed persons.
  Whilst this Bill is called a Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill, it does not incorporate the real principles that ought to be embodied in a National Insurance Act. Assuming that one of the great insurance societies in this country
  1314
  were to say to those who pay premiums, "You may meet with a fatal accident in the street through being knocked down by a motor car or a motor omnibus, or you may meet with a fatal injury whilst following your employment. Notwithstanding the fact that we undertook to accept from you a premium and in return to guarantee certain moneys at your death, we reserve to ourselves the right to refuse such death allowance if your family secure from a Court of Law damages for a fatal accident to the head of the family." What should he think of such a society? Instead of being a Bill to assist in the promotion of thrift, it appears to me, in consequence of a provision of the sort to which I am drawing attention, that this Bill militates against thrift, because it makes an unfair distinction as against the family of the man who meets with his death whilst following his ordinary employment and the family of the man who meets his death in the street or from some other cause occurring outside the course of his employment, and for which damages rightly and justly accrue to his family.
  4.0 P.M.
  You say to the workman, "Although you must pay your premiums under this Insurance Act, if you should be killed at work your widow and orphans can expect nothing from the fund, but if you meet your death in the streets through being knocked down, or as a result of some other accident happening outside the operations of the Workmen's Compensation Acts from 1906 and onwards, that is all right; we will meet to the full the obligations of the Act." Can there be any semblance of justice in that? Surely, if the insured person cares to make provision which may accrue to the benefit of his family at his death and you take that into account, you might just as well say that as the employer has to pay for ensuring the safety of the workman while he employs him you also intend to take that into account as regards the fund under this Bill. Otherwise, what are the reasons for singling out this one type of case? Can it be that you desire to lighten the possible calls on the fund and that you argue that as the employer is bound by law to meet the damages for possible injuries sustained to any of his workmen, the workman shall be penalised because of his contributions to the fund? The workman pays his share equally with

  1315
  the employer for the insurance under this scheme. I cannot therefore understand why we should have such a Clause introduced. Most of the general public assume this to be a widows and orphans' insurance scheme, but it is only so in parts. The exclusion on the need pensions side, this provision with regard to damages in the form of compensation to the family for a workman killed in an accident, and the unemployment donation when a man reaches the age of 65—by all these eliminations, you will find that many of the insured population are excluded from benefits under the Bill. If contributions are called for, response should be made. Surely you are not going to say, where damages accrue in the form of compensation, to which the employers separately insure-they do not undertake the risk themselves: they insure with insurance companies-through a Court of Law, or, when the amount is registered, through the County Court, any more than you dare say in the case of those who have sufficient credit, that because there is a certain income coining into the home it is unwise that it should be augmented from the widows' and orphans' insurance fund, notwithstanding the fact that a premium has been taken out by the employés.
  I want the Minister to take the human side. It is not that the widows and orphans look at the sum total of the weekly amount they receive as damages for the death of the husband or father. They would rather have the husband and father with them. Consequently, it cannot be from fear, if compensation comes into the home amounting to 30s. or 35s. a week, in accordance with the number of the family, that you should withhold from them something for which they have contributed and to which in augmentation of their income they have a right. I say that the mere fact of it being an insurance establishes the first elementary principle of right. If I took out an insurance hoping that my family would benefit, I should feel very uneasy in my mind if I were told: "If you die under certain circumstances, they can have the benefit; but, if you die under other circumstances, they cannot have it." In that case, you have no right to
  1316
  take the premium. I could understand you asking for this power if it were a non-contributory scheme, but, if you are only going to make this fund solvent by the exclusion from benefit of those who have undeniable, moral rights, whatever their legal rights may be under this Bill when it becomes an Act, then it seems to me that it is incomplete and is patchwork social legislation. It is not even a real, decent attempt at general social insurance. Indeed, I believe it will lead to great litigation on behalf of those who will assume that they have rights under this Bill but who will find that under certain Clauses powers not exactly clearly or well defined are given to the Minister. I know that by an Amendment in the Minister's name he proposes to make up any difference, but that is totally inadequate. There should be no question of varying the benefits. A common payment is made, and a common benefit should accrue; and, if the head of the household be taken away by accident, the benefits of the Act ought to be applied with greater pleasure, so as to remove permanently from that family any fear or dread in addition to having lost the husband and father.
  Mr. HARRIS: This Clause, in my opinion, strikes at the very root principle of the Bill. It has been the great pride of the Government that this is a contributory scheme. The very justification for the contributions is that you get the benefit not from the State as a favour but as a right. Now we understand, according to this Clause, that that is not to be the spirit of the Bill at all, and that beneficiaries are not to get amounts as the result of their contributions as a right, but that their incomes are to be made up out of a fund under this Bill according to where they get their money under other Acts of Parliament and in other directions. That, in my opinion, strikes at the whole foundation of a contributory scheme. The Minister want to ride two horses at the same lime. He wants to have the advantages of a non-contributory scheme, under which, of course, the benefit given out of the beneficence of the community as a whole, and at the same time to have the advantages of a contributory scheme, the contributors finding the funds. If the Minister really insists on keeping this Clause, the whole justification of the

  1317
  contributory scheme—and I personally support it—seems to me to go. I have always felt that the great advantage of the contributory scheme is that the insured persons would feel, just as when they pay to industrial insurance companies they can come and claim their pensions as a right in a court of law, so under such a scheme they would have the same status and the same rights. Apparently, under this Clause, if the breadwinner dies from an accident, the widow has to come cap in hand to the Minister and ask that some of this fund, to which the family have subscribed by their contributions, should be handed over, not as if it were paid by an industrial company, but out of the beneficence of the State. That strikes at the whole justification of the contributory scheme, and I hope; therefore that the Minister will withdraw the Clause.
  Sir HENRY SLESSER: I think the Minister, when he gives careful consideration to this Clause, will come to the conclusion that there really are very cogent reasons why it should be withdrawn. Let us consider what really we are dealing with. It is provided in this Clause that compensation on death, which accrues either by agreement or award under the Workmen's Compensation Act, either in whole, or, as I understand the Amendment which the Government are about to move, in part, shall be taken into consideration in dealing with the question of the amount payable under this Bill. What is compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act? It is entirely a private matter of damages to which the employer who at the time of death, which is not the time when the pension necessarily becomes due, becomes liable because he is employing that particular workman.
  At the risk of being a little technical, I would ask the Committee to consider how near is the case of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the right to damages under the Employers' Liability Act or at Common Law. The position is this. If a workman is killed while in an employment and if proceedings are brought under the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, as they still can be, or under Lord Campbell's Act, the Fatal Accidents Act, or at Common Law, then the damages which result from that action do not
  1318
  in any way deprive the workman's widow or whoever may be entitled to their full rights under this Bill. It is only where it so happens, as it were, by accident, that they decide, because there was not a defect in the machinery, that their prospects under the Employers' Liability Act are bad and they proceed under the Workmen's Compensation Act —and really it is purely a matter of legal procedure whether you proceed under one Act or the other—that this Clause is to operate and prejudice the rights of the dependants under this Bill. If damages are obtained under the Fatal Accidents Act or under the Employers Liability Act the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary must admit that this Clause, as drawn, has no application, though the facts may be identical.
  I repeat this, because the Parliamentary Secretary, who has great knowledge of the law, shakes his head in dissent from something that I have said, though I am not sure what. The facts may be exactly the same. A man may be killed at his work. A piece of machinery may give way, and he may be killed. His dependants may bring an action at Common Law or under the Employers' Liability Act and the money which is thus obtained does not diminish the pension rights in the least. If, however, the widow proceeds to get her compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which is merely a technical distinction and not a distinction in fact at all, then this Clause is to operate. I can understand the Minister saying—I do not say he is right—that where a person is deriving State assistance from one source he shall not get it from another source; I can understand such an argument as was put yesterday as regards the ex-service men, though I do not agree with it. I can understand to a certain extent the argument that the State shall not provide a pension twice over. But what I am concerned to point out is this: These damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act are no more a State contribution than damages given in a breach of promise action or damages for libel, or damages for breach of contract. They are purely a personal matter. If damages are awarded because a man is killed in any way are you going to deprive the widow of her pension?

  1319
  I do think that we want some explanation why a private obligation of a private person should be allowed to come into this matter. I can imagine an answer which may be given, and I am going to deal with it in advance. It may be said that the employer has to contribute under this scheme, and that as he is contributing to this scheme and bearing a liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, or, conceivably, bearing & liability through an insurance company, it is unfair that he should be burdened twice over. The first answer to that is this. There is no particular reason to suppose that the employer or the insurance company who becomes liable at the time when a man is killed by an accident-is going to the same person, or in any way connected with the group of persons, who come in as a general rule to meet their contributions under this Bill. You might as well say that because a man carrying on business is liable to damages for breach of contract, therefore that should be taken into consideration, as to say that if a man dies, and his widow, who would get a pension, recovers money, that should be taken off. The two things have no relation at all. The liability of an employer for an accident to an employé has nothing to do with it.
  This is the Post Office contributory system that the pension should be the property of the person receiving it. There mere accident that somebody else has a private obligation to pay damages at Common Law or under the Status should not be weighed up or set up against the liability of the State. It is a wrong principle, I am sure that the. Minister in considering the matter will admit that, although he is naturally anxious to save any liability which he can yet he does not want to do anything inequitable as this would be. That the Minister has doubts about it himself is shown by the fact that he has put down an. Amendment which says, as I understand it, that where the weekly value of the pension is less than the amount of the allowance or pension under the award the person shall not suffer. That is not enough. We want the whole question of workmen's compensation and damages treated in just the same way as you treat liability to damages under the Employers' Liability Act. I would say that unless you are prepared to go forward-we will chance
  1320
  your not doing that-and say that the Employers' Liability Act ought to go in here too, there is no logic or force in saying that the one particular reservation shall be the Workmen's Compensation Act. There is an equitable case made out here without any obstruction for a reconsideration of what we believe to be an injustice.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The ex-Solicitor-General has put his case very forcibly and I hope that he will forgive me if I dissent from his main contention by endeavouring to draw a distinction between the Acts of Parliament which he has cited, and to give some reasons for the differentiation that is being made. In reference to his remark as to obstruction there has been no question of obstruction during the last few days. In the first place, may I refer to the exact provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act as amended by the Act of 1923. If hon. Members will look at Clause 2 they will see a very different provision altogether from the provision in the Employers' Liability Act and the other Acts of Parliament to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. In this particular Act an endeavour is made not so much to give damages to the children of the man who has been killed as to provide for an automatic increase of a certain percentage to the children by way of allowance and of provision to them for their maintenance, and in support of that view I will ask the Committee to bear with me while I read paragraph (a) in Clause 2 which says:
  "If both the widow or other member of the workman's family and such child or children as aforesaid were all wholly dependent on the workman's earnings there shall in respect of each such child be added to and dealt with as part of the compensation payable under paragraph (1) (a) of the First Schedule to the principal Act a sum equal to 15 per cent. of the amount arrived at by multiplying the average weekly earnings of the workman or where such earnings are less than £1 then In multiplying £1 or where such earnings exceed £2 then by multiplying £2 by the number of weeks in the period between the death of the workman and the date when the child will attain the age of 15 fractions being disregarded."
  It is an automatic increase given to the children on the same principle and much in the same way as the provisions of this Bill. There is no question of the jury

  1321
  assessing the amount or deciding in a jury box what the amount is to be. Automatically under the provisions of this Bill the children of deceased workmen receive such allowance as is mentioned in the Section.
  Sir H. SLESSER: Will the hon. Member add that in assessing damages by the jury all these points are taken into consideration?
  Sir K. WOOD: My experience of juries in dealing with these questions leads me often to wonder how they do arrive at the result. Very often they are liable to have their decision upset, but here you have a definite allowance for children. This has nothing to do with widows' pensions, and in such circumstances we say, though hon. Members may disagree, that as the allowance is being received the benefits under this Bill shall not be paid, but it is fair to say-and I hope that hon. Members will not object to the Amendment which has been put down in the name of my right hon. Friend-that where there is a difference which will adversely affect the recipient of the been fit that difference should be made up That is the simple, though it may be deemed by hon. Members opposite an inadequate, reason which has animated the Government in coining to the conclusion to which they have come. It is not an unfair arrangement, and I am reminded that in connection with Health Insurance Workmen's Compensation, as all hon. Members know, is taken into account when one comes to assess the benefit received. In other words, if you are insured compulsorily under the National Health Insurance the man pays, the employer pays, and the State pays contributions, and if a man receives compensation as the result of an injury the proper amount is deducted.
  Mr. HAYOAY: In that case if there are £2 or £3 coming in from other friendly societies, that does not count against the obligation of the National Health Insurance?
  Sir K. WOOD: Certainly not, but I disagree respectfully with the hon. Member as to the materiality of that observation. What I am pointing out is that Parliament has already decided in connection with the scheme which I suppose is more akin to this scheme than
  1322
  any other-the National Health Insurance scheme-that where a man meets with an accident, though he is compulsorily insured for sickness benefit, a deduction is made on account of the compensation which he receives as a result of his injury.
  Sir H. SLESSER: The distinction there is between ill-health and injury caused by an accident.
  Sir K. WOOD: I do say that there is a considerable analogy between those two oases, and we are simply following the precedent of the National Health Insurance Act itself. That is the explanation of the Government so far as this particular matter is concerned, but I want the Committee to realise that in this Clause we are not touching widows' pensions. So far as the actual Amendment is concerned, I do not think that anyone will care to press it or vote for it, because the result is this. Under the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite, children of a man who was killed between the 1st January, 1924, and the 4th January, 1926, will be denied allowance or pensions, while children of a man living in similar circumstances after the 4th January, 1926, are unaffected. Whatever views we may have as regards this Clause no one would desire to make that distinction.
  Mr. HAYDAY: Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises the difference between dealing with cases where no contribution has been made and cases where contribution has been made. There will be no contributions between 1924 and 1926, and therefore there is not this established contributory right, but after 1926 there is a contributory right.
  Sir K. WOOD: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's explanation, but I must confess that I myself do not care to make the distinction and I hardly think that he is justified in making it.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The explanation of the hon. Gentleman reminds me of the story of the Turkish commander who, when asked for reasons why he did not fire the salute, said that there were fifty reasons. The first was that he had no gunpowder. The hon. Gentleman has given us no reasons at all except the first one, namely, that this proposal is enshrined in the National Health Insurance Act, and therefore the

  1323
  Government intend to carry on the same principle here. The usual objection to Amendments on this side is the question of cash. I would ask whether the Government have any figures or statistics showing what the cost of carrying out this suggestion would be. My impression is that there are not very many cases, and that the amount would not be very great, in view of the Government Amendment to be discussed later. The right hon. Gentleman has met us part of the way. He is prepared to bring the weekly payment up to pension level; he has recognised that there is some justice in the Amendment. I do not know whether he has figures as to what the Government Amendment would cost, or what would be the cost of the proposal in the Amendment we are discussing. I venture to say that in any case the amount is not very great.
  I cannot understand why the Government do not propose to touch the widow's pension at all, but propose to make a cut in the child's allowance. What is the logic of that? A widow in good health can earn money. The child cannot, and is the most helpless beneficiary under the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to what was done under the National Health Insurance Act. But we have gone forward since then. This Bill is part of the tribute that is being paid in order to keep the people contented with the present system. The people are asking for more, and you cannot hide from that fact. What was considered just in 1911 would not be considered just now. Fourteen years have passed, and there has been a War during that time. If the people were told of this proposal to dock the children's allowances, they would give an enormous majority against the Government, even if they had to pay a little more in taxes. The Government know that, and they could well justify carrying concession a little further by not touching the children's allowances at all.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I venture to address myself to the argument that the Parliamentary Secretary has just brought forward in defence of the attitude of the Government on this Clause. Generally, what is the position? The Government in one or two points have already selected incomes which are
  1324
  secured to people who normally and who, were they not excepted specifically under this Bill, would be beneficiaries under the Pensions Act. Last night they excepted ex-service men and dependants of a certain category who, but for the Clause, would come within the scope of the Bill. This Clause affects another lot of people, the children on whose behalf payments are made under the amended Workmen's Compensation Act. If this were a Bill which plainly stated, "We are going to impose an income limit test," that would be a perfectly understandable position, because the income would be there, and the income being there, the charges under the Bill would be reduced. But why is this particular thing selected? Children, orphans, receive many increments to their income, small increments, no doubt, but still increments. If these increments are being given, not specified in this Bill, children receive them and their benefits under this Bill. There is neither rhyme nor reason for the Government's proposal. It is unfair, and especially unfair to select something which has been granted to children on the merits of the case.
  That is a general argument. Let us take the specific argument. The Parliamentary Secretary goes on to reflect upon the fact that this special benefit is given to the children under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and, having been given, the Government decide that the State has done its duty to the children, and only in so far as what has already been done comes short of what would be done here, are they to receive any benefit under this Bill. What does that mean? I found myself, the first time I addressed the House in Committee on this Bill, denying that it was an Insurance Bill. That is quite sound, if you use the word "insurance" with any accuracy. When the Government wants to say that this is an Insurance Bill, it says so. It says that you must pay a contribution, accept your share of risk and your share of the benefits. When, however, it wants to say that this is a charity organisation, it says, "It is not insurance at all." Let us look at the argument. Who pays for the Workmen's Compensation benefit? Not the State, not at all. I will take the legal aspect, not the economic aspect. Who pays for the Workmen's Compensa-

  1325
  tion benefit to the children? The employer. It is his responsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If I expatiated at length on that subject, I could go on for an hour. Let us try a short way home. Who pays for this benefit? It is the employer. The employer also insures the child under this Bill.
  Therefore, if the employer, because he is responsible under the Workmen's Compensation Act, finds that his contribution in respect of the children under this Bill is of no use, is not the Government going to relieve the employer of his contribution in respect of these children? Obviously it must. The Government cannot go away and say that it will differentiate in the way that it is proposed. That is not insurance; it is sheer tomfoolery. If there is anything sound and real and substantial in the Parliamentary Secretary's argument, he must assure the Committee that all this was considered, that in deducting these benefits because the employers have provided equivalents in other ways, the employers' contribution has been assessed accordingly. Otherwise he is proceeding on no insurance basis at all when he is assessing the employers' liability. I have been dealing with the narrower point about workmen's compensation. If the workmen's compensation obligation is to be excused the burdens under this Bill, then those who provide for that compensation ought to be excused for the payment.
  Here is another aspect. The Parliamentary Secretary said that in dealing with health, when the National Health Insurance Bill was before the House, it was specifically provided that the two benefits should not run side by side— workmen's compensation and national health insurance. Why did he not give us a little more information as to this? He was scanty in his information. The National Health Insurance Act, 1924, Section 16, not only refers to workmen's compensation, but also refers to employers' liability. It also refers to decisions given at Common Law. The reason is obvious. It has nothing to do with the point that the Parliamentary Secretary tried to make to-day. I remember the Debate on the Health Insurance Bill. What was the argument? It was a perfectly sound argument. The National Health Insurance Act was an insurance against ill-health. If a man has his hand chopped off by using a machine in the
  1326
  course of his work, ho is not suffering from ill-health; he has been injured. His case comes under workmen's compensation and employers' liability. Therefore, the insurance was based on the statistics of the experience, not of workmen's compensation cases plus ill-health, but of ill-health cases. The whole thing was kept out of the insurance; the contingency was never contemplated.
  If a man sues under the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Employers' Liability Act, or any of the accident Acts, and gets his case, then he is not suffering from ill-health, and his premium payment under this Bill does not cover his case. Suppose, however, that he is suffering from a disease under one of the industrial compensation Acts. Suppose that he has consumption, and it has been decided that he has not contracted consumption under conditions which would enable him to be a beneficiary under any industrial Act. Then he is insured under the Health Insurance Act, and he gets his benefit. That is the statement of a layman, and not of a legal expert. The experience of the National Health Insurance Act has absolutely nothing to do with the provisions made in Clause 25 of this Bill, and it cannot be cited as a justification for the decision of the Government.
  Take another point. Is this insurance or not? I come back to that. If it is insurance, the realisation of the risk that has been insured against is private property. You cannot get over that. The Government has no business to say that when a child becomes an orphan, and ordinarily is a beneficiary under this Bill, still, before it enjoys its income, we have to decide how it is to be disposed of. In the most stupid and nonsensical form of Socialism as described by hon. Members, opposite so often, that might have a justification. That is justified only by those whose acquaintance with the constructive theory of Socialism is confined to a two-page leaflet issued by the National Conservative Association. Everybody who has given hours or months or years to the study of the theory knows that that pamphlet is sheer rot, but there it is. What is the case here? There is an insurance against risk. The risk eventuates; the property at once becomes effective, but the Government say "No," not unless we desire it to be so. After we have compelled you to be insured,

  1327
  after we have forced your father to contribute and your father's employers to contribute—even then we are going to decide that we will not give you this benefit. It really will not do, and this Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, who has probably more experience than any hundred Members of this Committee of these industrial questions, should be accepted by the Government and by the Committee.
  Sir BEDDOE REES: I have listened to the Debate with a perfectly open mind and I think the case put up for this Amendment is unanswerable on the basis of equity, on the basis of fair play, and certainly on the basis of honour. We have had no answer from the Parliamentary Secretary which would justify the rejection of the Amendment. I do not intend to go into the legal aspect of the question, but the main point to me appears to be that the man when he is in employment is insured against accident. Take the case of the coal industry for example. There the owner pays a certain percentage to cover accident, and should there be a fatal accident the law provides that a certain portion of that compensation shall go to the children. There has been payment for it, and the payment has been made, technically, by the employer, but everybody knows that in one form or another the men contribute their share to the payment for that provision. I should think that it may be about fifty-fifty as between the owner and the men. At least, the men pay a very large proportion of the cost of securing that insurance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Seventy-five per cent."] Whatever it is, there is the payment, and they are entitled to full benefit for that payment. Now we have this scheme of insurance, and here again the man and the owner and, in a certain proportion, the State contribute to certain benefit. I think it unfair and unreasonable to expect that these dependants should be deprived of the full value of the payments made towards that insurance. I fail to see why the Amendment cannot be accepted, and I hope it will be pressed, because there is a vital issue at stake. This is very similar to the Debate of last night. We took up the same attitude on the question of ex-service men, and I think in this case the
  1328
  Minister ought to agree to our proposal. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked what the cost would be, and I think it would help us very much if we had that information. But whatever it is, I do not think the children ought to be made to suffer, and on that ground, if on no other, I hope the Minister will agree to the Amendment, or agree to the deletion of the Clause entirely.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The Debate upon this Amendment is one more illustration of the dangers to which my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) called our attention the other night. The moment you begin to listen to the dictates of your heart, rather than to strict logic, you involve yourself in charges of the grossest injustice and hardheartedness towards other people to whom you have not been so lenient. The speeches which have been made on this Amendment would have had much more force if this were an entirely new proposal which had never been heard of before, but this scheme is adapted from the scheme of the National Health Insurance Act for which the Leader of the hon. Member who last spoke was mainly responsible. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition distinguished between the National Health Insurance Act which he says is true insurance, and this Bill which he describes as "tomfoolery." The right hon. Gentleman knows very well what is in the National Health Insurance Act and he quoted the relevant section himself. But he gave a most astounding account of what the purpose of the National Health Insurance Act was. He said it dealt solely with disease. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ill-health!"] At all events, accident he ruled out as being something quite outside it. Do hon. Members agree?
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Yes, I quite agree.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Let me read the relevant section of part of the Section in that Act. Section 10 says:
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act the benefits conferred upon insured persons are .… periodical payments whilst rendered incapable of work by some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement."

  1329
  It does not include only ill-health. It is incapacity for work which is the test.
  HON. MEMBERS: "No!"
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: If it be an accident, the Statute law says—
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to finish making my point. I have read the words from the Act. It confers benefits on those incapable of work, whether the incapacity is caused by disease or general ill-health or bodily or mental disablement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, that is what the Act itself says. I turn to Section 15 of that Act, which, as the Committee will see, is the prototype of the Clause which we are now discussing. It says:
  "Where an insured person has received … . whether from his employer or any other person any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 .… or under the Employers Liability Act or at common law in respect of any injury or disease the following provisions shall apply."
  The provisions are that no sickness benefits or disablement benefits are to be paid, unless the compensation he has received from workmen's compensation, etc., is less than the amount which he would receive otherwise under the Insurance Act. If this insurance has nothing whatever to do with the provisions of the National Insurance Act, how is it, when the compensation is not equal to the compensation given by the Health Insurance Act, that Act comes in and gives them the difference? If we had been absolutely logical and had based ourselves entirely upon this Clause we should not only have made the provision which we have made in the Clause under discussion, but we should have taken out also widows' pensions, and we should have included not only the Workmen's Compensation Act but the Employers' Liability Act and Common Law as well. Because we have been rather soft-hearted in this matter, because we have relaxed to some extent, because we have made a change in this Bill which is closely linked with the Insurance Act and improved it from the contributor's standpoint in comparison with the National Insurance Act, we are denounced for not having gone further. It is not an encouragement to make concessions if each one is simply to be made the ground for further demands.
  Sir H. SLESSER: If the point is seriously to be maintained that the distinction between disablement by accident and disablement by disease is not made in the National Health Insurance Act, I must ask the indulgence, of the Committee to read what is said by Section 10 which my right hon. Friend has just quoted. In defining sickness benefit it says:
  "Periodical payments whilst rendered incapable of work by some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement."
  That does not include accident. [HON. MEMBERS; "Disablement!"] Hon. Members will pardon me, but there are a few matters on which I know what I am talking about, and this happens to be one of them. I come now to paragraph c under that Section of the Act, and what do I find?
  "In the case of the disease or disablement continuing after the termination of the period during which sickness benefit may continue."
  So that disablement benefit is simply a continuation after the period of sickness benefit. When you turn to Section 16 you find it provides that where you are getting disablement benefit through incapacity for work that shall not include disablement which is caused by accident within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, the Leader of the Opposition was perfectly right when he said that the two are complementary. The Workmen's Compensation Act deals with disablement caused by accident and the National Health Insurance Act deals with disablement caused by sickness or with causes of incapacity other than accident.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: How is the difference made up?
  Sir H. SLESSER: In this way. If in fact you are getting disablement benefit, then you cannot get the benefit which you would get from the employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That is absolutely clear and distinct. I have only risen to make this point quite clear, that the Section of the National Insurance Act which defines disablement benefit deals with it as continuing disease or disablement—that being disablement other than accident disablement —after the termination of the period during which the sickness benefit operates.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Both are included in Section 16
  Sir H. SLESSER: I quite agree. They are included in contrast—the compensation which you get under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the other. You are not to get both, because there are two kinds of disablement, one arising from sickness and one from accident, and if you get the one you cannot get the other. But to say that you are not to get benefits under this scheme because you are getting compensation, is an entirely different proposition, and the Government in the drafting of this Clause, show that they appreciate that the two things are entirely different. It may be due to what the right hon. Gentleman himself has described, as the softness of his heart, but whether the reason be a financial reason or not, you cannot excuse the deprivation of persons of their clear insurable rights by saying that the employer under an entirely different liability has paid them workmen's compensation.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman said you can either get compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, or you can get sickness or disablement benefit, but not both. I say that under paragraph (a) of Section 16 you can get both.
  Sir H. SLESSER: It says,
  "No sickness benefit or disablement benefit shall be paid to the insured person in respect of that injury or disease in any case where any weekly sum or the weekly value of any lump sum paid or payable by way of compensation."
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It goes on to say,
  "and where any such weekly sum or the weekly value of any lump sum is less than the benefit in question, such part only of the benefit shall be paid."
  In that case they get both.
  The CHAIRMAN: I notice the tendency on both sides to be rather intolerant of legal arguments. I hope hon. Members will endeavour to follow them.
  Mr. TINKER: I want to get away from the legal point, and to speak as a layman I think this particular Clause was very ill-drawn. I worked out the figures, and I found a person would be worse off by accepting the position under the widows and orphans' pension. Later on I found
  1332
  that those in charge of the Bill had discovered it also, with the result that they had put down an Amendment to meet the particular point. They made a mistake at first in drawing up the Clause. First of all, as has been stated by the Leader of the Opposition, we pay for workmen's compensation. If you follow the miners' agreement, it comes in the item "Other costs," and I find that we pay something over 3d. a ton; so that we are paying under that head for workmen's compensation, and if this is a Bill on a con tributary basis, at least we are entitled to benefit from both sources for which we pay. That is our claim, and, there should be no objection on the part of the Government to our getting both benefits for which we have paid. It may be said, on the other hand, "Surely you do not want to put a child who has lost his father through an accident in a better position than a child who has lost his father through illness?" That is a sound reason, and if the benefits under this Bill were large enough to put a child in security, I would agree with that, but no one can pretend that 3s. a week insufficient to sustain a child. The hon. Member said 15 per cent., which, on a sovereign, is 3s. a week. In present circumstances, we have many men who are not earning £1 a week, owing to short time and other difficulties. Adding the two amounts together, it would be only 6s. a week, and, on grounds of equity no one can pretend that the child is getting more than sufficient to sustain life. I am still under the belief that the Clause has never been gone into thoroughly by the Government. I do hope, in the face of the opposition, and in the face of the arguments we are putting forward, they will take it back and consider it, and if they cannot go the whole way, they ought to provide, at least, that the child shall not be driven down to 3s. a week. Make it something more than 3s. a week, and I should see some reason for the Clause being put in, but, as it stands, the Minister would be well-advised to withdraw it, and let us deal with the matter in some other way.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: I have listened very carefully to the replies from the other side, and I have never listened to such weak and lame explanations in all my life. I want to lead the Committee back to the position of 1897, where the widow

  1333
  was allowed £300, or an average of three years' wages. I am familiar with hundreds of these cases. The £300 or the three years' wages could be paid over to the widow, and, as a result, some insurance agents approached some widows, and frightened them by saying they would not get the full £300, or the three years' wages, and some of these widows, whose husbands belonged to no trade union, used to settle for £50 or £60. Mr. John Hodge, the late Member for Gorton, in an amending Compensation Bill introduced into this House, gave similar illustrations, and in the Bill it was decided that the £300, or the three years' wages, in future should be paid into Court, and that the Judge, instead of banding over all the money to the widow, should apportion it to the widow and also to the children each week. We said this £300 was not sufficient for women and children, and the Holman-Gregory Committee decided that workmen's widows and children were entitled to £800. We succeeded, in Committee upstairs, in getting £600, and this money is apportioned to the children in increased benefits. The Government's proposal now is to deprive them of the benefits we gave them in Committee. It is wholesale robbery, and I want to warn the Ministers that the Budget and this Bill have been the chief plank in the Forest of Dean. They have had their reply to-day.
  The CHAIRMAN: This is not relevant to the argument.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: One has to pack in sometimes. What we want to know now is whether this is insurance, or whether this is a Bill whereby you rob Peter to pay Paul and rob Paul to pay Peter? That is the position so far as we are concerned, and I hope that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members on the other side who are, I think, in favour of our Amendment, will go into the Lobby with us, defeat the Government and make them go to the country on this question.
  Major HORE-BELISHA: We have just listened to a very brilliant election speech. This Amendment has followed a very peculiar course. It is noticeable that the Attorney-General has, so far, not taken part in this particular legal discussion, and I do hope he will straighten the matter out. I am sorry he did not hear the argument of the Leader of the Opposi-
  1334
  tion, because it seemed to be very damning. The position is that this Clause seeks to deprive the children of a man who has paid benefits from the benefits for which he has contributed, and it does so on this ground. It says if he is killed under another set of circumstances, against which he has also covered himself, the same kind of benefit cannot be given twice. The grounds upon which that extraordinary position are justified by the Minister are, that the National Health Insurance Act contains a provision which prevents a man from getting compensation for an accident. It is said that that is a logical position, because a man cannot be both in ill-health and suffering from an accident at the same time, whereas the Leader of the Opposition says that the National Health Insurance Act does cover accidents, but only accidents of a particular kind. The Workmen's Compensation Act covers accidents which arise out of a man's employment. If you are riding upon a bicycle and sustain an accident, it is perfectly true it is an accident, but, for the purpose of the National Health Insurance Act, it is considered as being ill-health. Therefore, the National Health Insurance Act is more generous than this Bill, because, although the man is not in the medical sense suffering from ill-health because he has sustained an accident, the Insurance Act says: "We will consider you are a person in ill-health, because, if we do not, you have absolutely no claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and, therefore, will not get a farthing."
  Therefore, if my reading of the two Acts be correct—and I have neither of them before me—the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Government falls absolutely to the ground, and he will have to argue it upon some entirely different basis, namely, finance. But, after all, it is not his finance which is at stake in the Workmen's Compensation Act. Last night he refused to give pensions under this Bill to persons who are drawing disablement pensions, and the reason he gave to justify that anomaly was that you cannot pay State money twice over. He has not got that argument here. This money is not taxpayers' money, but is in both instances money for which the man and his employer have contributed week by week, and the right

  1335
  hon. Gentleman is benefiting by a scheme over which he has no control. The Workmen's Compensation Act is not financed by the Government, and yet the right hon. Gentleman wishes thereby to save money under this Bill. I would not object to it so strongly if it were the case of an old age pensioner at the age of 65, because a man could wait for five years and then get something; but. in this particular Amendment the children are at stake, and why should you penalise the children who have been bereft of their parents in circumstances of great sorrow, and who have a double struggle with which to put up, and, therefore, should have a double benefit, if anything at all? To both schemes contributions have been paid.
  We have been given no figures by the Minister, but, whatever it might cost, it would make all the difference to these children and would give them a fairly comfortable position, which would recompense them, if anything; could recompense them, for the loss of a father, and would put them on the road of some sort of future; whereas this Bill seems to assume that 10s. is a princely fortune which is the largest sum of money a child can expect to receive. I do hope the Attorney-General will deal with the legal aspect of this matter, and say whether or not it is the ease that the National Health Insurance Act does not give benefit to those who fall within the Workmen's Compensation Act, because it draws a distinction between an accident which arises out of an employment and an accident or illness which arises from some entirely different cause.
  Mr. LEE: As a member of the mining industry, I have a question which I wish to raise. The men in the mining industry are peculiarly susceptible to accidents, and they pay not only under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but they pay premiums to other friendly societies, and in some parts of the country they pay premiums to what is known as the Fatal Accidents Society That society pays out benefits in the same way as under the Workmen's Compensation Act, namely, a certain amount per week to the widow and a certain amount to each child. If you are going to take account of one who is drawing under the Workmen's Compensation
  1336
  Act and utterly disregard similar payments received from other societies, you are going to make a distinction between families in the same neighbourhood who may be in these different societies. The Parliamentary Secretary read a Section out of the amended Workmen's Compensation Act, but he was very careful not to say how much the children would draw under that Section. I question whether he knows. He would have to make a mathematical calculation, and he would have to use his pencil pretty freely before he got at the figure, but £300 of the £600, which is the maximum that can be paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act, is put aside for the child, which does not mean that the child would draw the full £300. The most the child can draw is 6s. per week. There is certainly no connection between that and this fund. That was arranged before this was ever thought of at all, and why you should endeavour to alter the payments under this fund or that fund, whichever you intend to touch, because we have got some decent allowance, although not a proper allowance, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, is rather puzzling to my mind
  I suggest that the payments that the miner makes under this Bill are more than he receives back in benefits. I know that just now the whole thing is in the melting pot, but we have a peculiar arrangement in the mining industry as to contributions of this character. An hon. Member below the Gangway suggested that payments to this fund were 50–50 as between employers and workmen, but I think he would find that it was nearer 80–20, so that the workmen are not getting anything gratuitously from the Workmen's Compensation Act. They are paying for it, and in addition they pay for whatever benefits they may get under this scheme, and why you should interfere with what is no part of State pay and not interfere with something which may be a part of State pay, I cannot understand. It appears to me that the suggestion made by a previous speaker that this is an attack upon the workmen's compensation, payable to children has some foundation. There seem to be running right through this Bill glaring anomalies whereby you keep back from certain people, who otherwise would be entitled to benefit, certain payments, and this is one of them.
  Question put, "That the word 'whether' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 141.

  Division No. 284.]

  AYES.

  [5.21p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Albery, Irving James

  Fielden, E. B.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Finburgh, S.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Fleming, D. P.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.).

  Astor, Viscountess

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Oakley, T.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Balniel, Lord

  Goff, Sir Park

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Grace, John

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E.)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Perring, William George

  Berry, Sir George

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Bethell, A.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Plicher, G.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Hammersley S. S.

  Pliditch, Sir Philip

  Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Harland, A.

  Raine, W.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Brass, Captain W.

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Reid, Capt, A. S. C.(Warrington)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

  Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Burman, J. B.

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Hoare, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Hopkins J. W. W.

  Sandon, Lord

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfast)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hurst, Gerald b.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Jacob, A.E.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Cope, Major William

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nalan)

  Couper, J. B.

  Loder J. de V.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Lougher, L.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Templeton, W. P.

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Macintyre, Ian

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  MacMillan, Captain H.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Waddington, R.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Manningham-Bulfer, Sir Mervyn

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Drewe, C.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Meller, R. J.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Wells, S. R.

  Everard W Lindsay

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Margesson.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Hardie, George D.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stratford)

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Harney, E. A.

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Harris, Percy A.

  Rote, Frank H.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Baker, Walter

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barr, J.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Bromley, J.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Buchanan, G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snell, Harry

  Charleton, H. C.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Clowes, S.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Compton, Joseph

  Kelly, W. T.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Connolly, M.

  Kennedy, T.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Cove, W. G.

  Kenworthy, Lt. Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Thurtle, E.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lansbury, George

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Lawson, John James

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lee, F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lowth, T.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dennison, R.

  Lunn, William

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dunnico, H.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Watts-Morgan, Rt. Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  England, Colonel A.

  Mackinder, W.

  Westwood, J.

  Fenby, T. D.

  March, S.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Maxton, James

  Whiteley, W.

  Forrest, W.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Montague, Frederick

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gillett, George M.

  Morris, R. H.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Gosling, Harry

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Greenall, T.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Owen, Major G.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Paling, W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Griffiths, T (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Windsor, Walter

  Groves, T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wright, W.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Potts, John S.

  Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Riley, Ben

  TELLERS FOS THE NOES.—

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ritson, J.

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.

  Mr. CHARLETON: I beg to move, in page 23, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words "or an orphan's pension."
  I move this Amendment in order to bring the orphan children of workmen who meet with fatal accidents into the operation of this Bill. We on this side feel that this Bill is penalising workmen who engage in dangerous occupations, such as miners, railway men, and others, and it really means that in the case of a lad joining one of these occupations at the age of 16, who may lose his wife at about the age of 35, leaving all the children, and who may himself meet with a fatal accident afterwards, he will Have paid, perhaps, for 20 years into the Fund and not receive any benefit. If I have
  1340
  read aright the actuary's report, and as I understood it, this scheme will ultimately be self-supporting. I cannot quite understand that matter, for when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his Bill some time ago he laid emphasis on the fact that the widows and orphans would be amply provided for. It does seem to me that those who most require it will get the least benefit. For this, and the various reasons that have been given, I beg to move the Amendment, and I do not propose to delay the House any longer.
  Sir K. WOOD: This Amendment proposes to limit the Clause of the Bill relating to children's allowances. I quite appreciate what has been said by the hon.

  1341
  Member, but I would respectfully suggest that he will not regard it as discourteous if I reply by saying that I shall rely upon the arguments of my right hon. Friend and myself on a previous Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 143.

  Division No. 285.]

  AYES.

  [5.54 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Albery, Irving James

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Meller, R. J.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Finburgh, S.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Astor, Viscountess

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Balniel, Lord

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Murchison, C. K.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Grace, John

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

  Bennett, A. J.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E.)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Bethell, A.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Oakley, T.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Blundell, F. N.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Harland, A.

  Perring, William George

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Philipson, Mabel

  Brocklabank, C. E. R.

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Plicher, G.

  Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Raine, W.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Burman, J. B.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Herbert, S.(York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. A.(Ladywood)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Sanderson Sir Frank

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Sheffield Sir Berkeley

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Jacob, A. E.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine C.)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Cope, Major William

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Couper, J. B.

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stanley Lord (Fylde)

  Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Crook, C. W.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Loder, J. de V.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lougher, L.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Templeton, W. P.

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

  Macintyre, Ian

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Drewe, C.

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Waddington, R.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Wheler, Major Granville O. H.

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

  Wells, S. R.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

  Margesson.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Hardle, George D.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Harney, E. A.

  Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Harris, Percy A.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Baker, Walter

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barr, J.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Bromley, J.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Buchanan, G.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snell, Harry

  Charleton, H. C.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Clowes, S.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Compton, Joseph

  Kelly, W. T.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Connolly, M.

  Kennedy, T.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Cove, W. G.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Thurtle, E.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lansbury, George

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Lawson, John James

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lee, F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lowth, T.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Dennison, R.

  Lunn, William

  Watson, W. M. (Duntermline)

  Dunnico, H.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Mackinder, W.

  Westwood, J.

  England, Colonel A.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Fenby, T. D.

  March, S.

  Whiteley, W.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Maxton, James

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Forrest, W.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Montague, Frederick

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Gillett, George M.

  Morris, R. H.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Gosling, Harry

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Williams, Dr. J. H (Llanelly)

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenall, T.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Owen, Major G.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Paling, W.

  Windsor, Walter

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wright, W.

  Groves, T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Potts, John S.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Riley, Ben

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ritson, J.

  Mr. DENNISON: I beg to move in page 23, line "31, to leave out the words
  "or such earlier date as may be proscribed."
  I do not propose, in moving this Amendment, in any way to cover the general ethics of the case, for the case has been fairly well covered. The Clause lays it down that the pension is to cease at a date when the Minister receives notice of the award or agreement. If these words that we desire to delete stand part of the Clause it will be permissible for the Minister, not only to stop the pension when the Workmen's Compensation award reaches him, but he may make it retro-
  1344
  spective. It was never, I think, intended that that should be the case, because, after all, the weekly payments have been made under the Workmen's Compensation Act, though the children were not included in the Compensation Act weekly payments. We put forward this Amendment in the hope that the Minister may think it desirable to delete it, and I beg to move.
  Sir K. WOOD: The object of the words to which the hon. Member takes objection—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—is to enable the Department to take advantage of the earliest intimation of the

  1345
  award or agreement. That is all that is meant by the words, and I think my hon. Friend will agree with that. If we did not keep these words in we should have to wait unnecessarily.
  Mr. MARCH: This is another case where the Government are trying to do their best to see they get all they can out of this Bill, which is supposed to be for the benefit of widows and orphans. In every Clause we come to there are anomalies, and those anomalies are not for the benefit either of the widows or the children. Now the Government want to take power to get an earlier date than that at which the award is given, or—
  Sir K. WOOD: No, it is not the date of the award, but the date on which the notice of the award reaches us.
  Mr. MARCH: Then it is going to be retrospective when you deal with the orphans?
  Sir K. WOOD: No.
  Mr. MARCH: Well, that is how it appears to me. We are dealing with what happens when the award becomes operative, and we do not usually find that they do become operative until after the decision of the Court is come to. Usually it is the decision of the Court which arranges what the amount is to be, and, surely, that date ought to give the Ministry sufficient time to conduct their business. It is bad enough when they take action after they know what the orphans have been awarded by the Court, but, presumably, they want to take action immediately they hear that the man is dead, even before the case comes into Court. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is the point of the statement made just now. They want to know immediately the man is killed. Very often months go by before the award is settled. What is going to happen in the meantime. The woman is a widow as soon as she loses her husband, and if her husband has been paying for this benefit, surely, she is entitled to it. It seems to me that all along the line the Government are trying to do their best to prevent either the widow or the children getting the just dues for which the husband has paid. We on this side are entirely against these words, and entirely against the whole Clause.
  Mr. TINKER: Suppose a man gets killed and leaves orphans, and the compensation is not settled, and the case has to be fought. Will the children get a pension until the case is settled?
  Sir K. WOOD: Yes. As the hon. Member knows, in a large number of cases, the amount is settled by agreement. This Amendment, of course, would not in any way interfere with what was done until a settlement had been arrived at. Whether the widow is entitled to compensation or not, she is not going to be left suspended in the air, as it were. I am afraid I have been at fault in not spending a little more time in explaining the matter. This is only a matter of machinery to get an earlier notification of the award.
  Mr. TINKER: I suppose if they paid this money, they would not ask for it to be refunded?
  Sir K. WOOD: I think I must make an observation on that case. I notice that the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has not been with us very much in these Debates, is with us, and it is a question which is exciting his interest. Obviously, we must have some power to make adjustments, but we do not want to leave the widow without money.
  Mr. J. JONES: In the event of a case coming into the County Court and compensation being awarded to a widow with children, is that widow's benefit to be stopped in view of her benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  Sir K. WOOD: As I explained earlier in the day, when I do not think the hon. Member was with us, this particular matter does not affect the widow's pension at all. This Clause deals simply with children's allowances.
  Mr. LEE: May I point out a rather serious hardship? As the hon. Gentleman knows quite well, legal processes are very slow, and we have had cases where a widow—or someone acting on her behalf—has had to take her case first to the County Court, then to the Court of Appeal, and after that to the House of Lords; and years may go by before the case is finally settled. I have one case in my mind now. Is she to be asked to pay back all she has drawn?
  Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member must not think that everyone on this side is inhuman, and that we do not intend to work this scheme as sympathetically as we can. In my experience a Court very often orders compensation to be paid pending the decision of the House of Lords. In that event, of course, adjustments will be made. How far one can go back in a case of that kind I should hesitate to say, but certainly we shall not press unduly on the widow in cases of that kind.
  Mr. LEE: Would you cover the point by a Regulation?
  Sir K. WOOD: We will consider that.
  Mr. JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman say what will happen in a case like this? A man loses his life and leaves a widow and children. What is to be the position of the widow and children until the case is finally settled? Our own union has had to take a case to the House of Lords. What is to be the position of the family of the man who has been killed while the case is under consideration in the Courts? It may take months before there is a final settlement.
  Sir K. WOOD: In such an event, if compensation is paid pending the final decision, then an adjustment would be made, but there would be no withdrawal or subtraction from the widow's money under this Clause until the amount is actually paid into Court under the award of the Court. That is quite clear.
  Mr. JONES: I am asking this question because we have had so much experience of this matter. Supposing when the case goes to the House of Lords the woman loses? What is going to happen then?
  Sir K. WOOD: It depends, for instance, on whether the widow has been receiving compensation in the interval. If the House of Lords decide that she is not entitled to the money, the question of whether she has got to pay back the Workmen's Compensation Act money will be a case for the respondents in the appeal.
  Mr. LEE: But does not the hon. Gentleman know that they never pay in the interval?
  Sir K. WOOD: No, I do not agree with the hon. Member. I have known many cases where the County Court judge ordered payment to be made notwithstanding the fact that the employers were taking the case to appeal.
  Mr. LEE: I have never known one, and I have dealt with hundreds of cases.
  Sir K. WOOD: I have known many cases. Of course, if the woman is proved not to be entitled to Workmen's Compensation, the widows and orphans will be entitled to their allowances under this Bill.
  Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what happens in a case like this? A fatal accident happens in the first week of January. Proceedings take place on behalf of the widow and children. At the end of February an agreement is arrived at, but that agreement is not registered in Court until the end of March. If there is no meaning in these words, and if they are not intended to be acted upon, what is the use of putting them in at all—if it. does not give the Department power to go back to January for any payments that have been made in the intervening time to go back from January until the end of March when the agreement was registered in Court?
  Sir K. WOOD: No money will be stopped from the widow on account of this Clause until the money has been actually paid into Court. When that has been done, obviously adjustments will have to be made, and I do not think anyone will say that is unfair.
  Mr. JONES: Yes, we do.
  Sir K. WOOD: Well, I do not want to go back upon the main subject which we have been arguing about all the afternoon. I am endeavouring to deal with the one specific matter raised in this Amendment, which is clearly a matter of machinery.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: If these words remain in the Clause, does it not mean that the Department will have the power of taking the whole of the amount that may have been paid in the interval between the first week in January and the last week in March? You say, "Make adjustments." I think I am putting a very plain question.

  1349
  Does it not give you the power to take the whole of the money that has been paid by way of advances from the first week in January until the last week in March?
  Sir K. WOOD: Not these words which hon. Members are endeavouring to delete. These are mere machinery words, in order to get early notification of the agreement. As regards the question which the hon. Gentleman has put to me, that is a matter concerned with the Clause itself, but the words which the hon. Member is seeking to have deleted are a question of machinery and nothing else.
  Mr. JONES: May I ask if this really means that the Workmen's Compensation Act is going to be a subsidiary part of this pensions scheme? Are the payments which people are going to receive under this scheme to be used as an argument for taking their benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act? That is what we want to know.
  The CHAIRMAN: That clearly does not arise on these words.
  Mr. DENNISON: I would like an assurance from the hon. Member that these words are for administrative purposes only, and, further, that in a case where an agreement has been come to, and where, prior to that, a widow has been in receipt of pension for herself and her children, nothing of the amount which she has received in the shape of compensation will be deducted from her in the adjustments that may take place after the award. I want to be quite clear upon that.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I understand the hon. Member's two questions, the answer is in the affirmative to both of them. It will not deprive the widow of anything. It simply deals with a case where the Ministry has knowledge of an agreement and that the money has been
  paid over, but have not had official notification.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: May I ask the Minister of Health the same question that I asked the Parliamentary Secretary? The Clause speaks about the allowance ceasing to be payable
  "As from the date on which the Minister receives notice of the award or agreement, or such earlier date as may be prescribed by him."
  That gives him the right to go back to the first week in January to deduct any payments that have been made.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN Mr. CHAMBERLAIN indicated dissent.
  Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Oh, absolutely it does.
  Mr. LEE: In the case I have mentioned, where months, and even years, may intervene before a final settlement, and the widow makes a claim under this Bill, and gets her weekly allowance for the children, are we to be. assured that until that award is made she is entitled to that allowance?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: In page 23, line 38, at the end, add the words
  "Provided that where the weekly value calculated in the prescribed manner of the sum awarded or agreed as aforesaid in respect of a child in respect of whom an additional allowance or orphan's pension, would but for this Section have been payable is less than the amount of that allowance or pension, a sum equal to the deficiency shall be payable as from the date aforesaid by way of additional allowance or orphan's pension, as the case may be."— [Sir K. Wood.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 141.

  Division No. 286.]

  AYES.

  [6.0 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Albery, Irving James

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Bethell, A.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Balniel, Lord

  Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Perring, William George

  Burman, J. B.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Phillpson, Mabel

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Pilcher, G.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Raine, W.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Chllcott, Sir Warden

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hudson, Capt. A. O. M.(Hackney, N.)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n& P'bl's)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Cope, Major William

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Couper, J. B.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Crook, C. W.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Skelton, A. N.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Lougher, L.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Lumley, L. R.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Drewe, C.

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  England, Colonel A.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Finburgh, S.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

  Forrest, W.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Foster Sir Harry S.

  Meller, R. J.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Wells, S. R.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Murchison, C. K.

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Grace, John

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Mewman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Grotrian, H. B.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Oakley, T.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Harland, A.

  Owen, Major G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Colonel Gibbs and Mr. F. C.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Thomson.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Barnes, A.

  Clowes, S.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Barr, J.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Batey, Joseph

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Compton, Joseph

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Connolly, M.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Bromley, J.

  Cove, W. G.

  Baker, Walter

  Buchanan, G.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  1352

  1353

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Kennedy, T.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Dennison, R.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Dunnico, H.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lansbury, George

  Snell, Harry

  Fenby, T. D.

  Lawson, John James

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Lee, F.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Lowth, T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Lunn, William

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Gillett, George M.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Gosling, Harry

  Mackinder, W.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Greenall, T.

  March, S.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Greenwood, A. (Neison and Colne)

  Maxton, James

  Thurtle, E.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Groves, T.

  Morris, R. H.

  Viant, S. P.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Hall, F. (York, W, R., Normanton)

  Paling, W.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pethick Lawrence, F. W.

  Westwood, J.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Hardie, George D.

  Potts, John S.

  Whiteley, W.

  Harney, E. A.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Harris, Percy A.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Riley, Ben

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Ritson, J.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

  Williams, T, (York, Don Valley)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Windsor, Walter

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Wright, W.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Sexton, James

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Mr. Warns and Mr. Hayes.

  CLAUSE 26.—(Provision where pension granted to person in receipt of outdoor relief.)
  Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, in page 24, line 17, to leave out Subsection (2).
  I think I had better read this Clause to the Committee. It provides as follows:
  "(1) In any case in which a Poor Law authority has granted outdoor relief to any person, being a person not in receipt of a pension, and either—

  (a) such relief would not have been granted if the person had then been in receipt of a pension; or

  (b) such relief is in excess of the amount which would have been granted to that person if he had been in receipt of a pension;

  the Minister may, if a claim by that person, for a pension in respect of any part of the period during which relief has been so granted is subsequently allowed, treat the pension so allowed as reduced for the purposes of this Act by an amount not exceeding such an amount as the authority certify to have been so paid or so paid in excess, as the case may be, in respect of the period for which the pension, was allowed, and the Minister may pay to that authority the amount by which the pension is treated as having been reduced as aforesaid, so, however, that the total amount to
  1354
  be so paid by the Minister shall not exceed the amount of the pension in respect of the period aforesaid.

  (2) This Section shall extend to the case of a child in respect of whom an additional allowance or orphan's pension is not being paid in like manner as to the case of a person not in receipt of a pension, and shall apply in such a case subject to the necessary modifications."
  I have read this Clause to the Committee because when I first saw it I plead guilty to not having been able exactly to understand what it meant, and yet poor people are expected to know that there is such a Clause, and they will be expected to see to their outgoings, so that when the pension time arrives they will know that a large portion of it has to be paid back. The effect of this Clause is that if a person whose husband dies goes to the parish to get poor law relief when the pension does come through in three weeks or a month after the amount she has received up to 10s. a week, or supposing she has been getting 10s. a week, it will be paid to the authority that has to pay the amount. It does not become payable to the person entitled until the money which the authority has paid has been paid back. Surely that is the meaning of this Clause. One of the sub-sections applies

  1355
  to children, and I want to say, first of all, that the ordinary man and woman paying into this fund will not know that there is any such provision; and secondly, that when a woman goes to a board of guardians to get relief, she will take it and spend it, and will be banking on getting her pension when the time comes for the money to be paid. It seems to me rather mean to want to take this back. I have always thought that was so in regard to widows' pensions connected with the Army and Navy, because those pensions are dealt with in exactly the same manner. I know it will be said that the woman ought not to get double assistance, but we are always very careful to see that the poor should not get too much.
  Just think that, whatever the woman may get from the State ultimately, there is no hon. Member sitting opposite who would say that any widow will be able to bring up her children and herself on the money provided by this Bill. Anybody who gives a minute's thought to these things knows that that will be impossible. The Minister thinks that because of this Bill people will be more thrifty, and will make provision for themselves and add it to the pension, but there will be multitudes who will not be able to make any addition to the pension, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, and every Poor Law authority will tell him, that this sum of 5s. for the first child and 3s. for the next is absolutely inadequate for maintaining the children, whether they are young or whether they are children of 10 to 14 years of age. We ought to recognise that a few weeks will elapse before the woman can draw the pension, even if the Poor Law authorities do give her a few shillings relief, and the few pounds, say £5, £6 or £7 that would come to her when her claim has gone through should be a little nest-egg left to help her to carry on. It is not as though the State were paying this money, or as though it came out of the Exchequer in any way. It will come from the boards of guardians, and I believe—I am speaking in the presence of many members of boards of guardians—that the average board of guardians would be quite willing that this money should not be paid over. I think that this provision is on all fours with the one that the Committee has just carried. It is attempting to prevent
  1356
  the poor from getting too much, to prevent them from having a little extra. At the risk of being considered an extravagant person, I always feel that, when a poor person does get a small advantage, such as a widow would occasionally get under the terms of this Bill by getting a lump sum in pension at the end of, say, a fortnight or a month, that is money that we might very well leave to her and allow her to enjoy it. Therefore, I hope this Amendment will be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Before I sit down, there is just one other question that I should like to ask. I did not want to detain the Committee on the main Amendment to the last Clause, but perhaps I may be permitted to ask the right hon. Gentleman now whether he can tell us, if this Amendment or any of these Amendments were carried, what would be the cost to the Exchequer? In this case he will not save anything at all, I admit, because if I understand the Clause rightly, he is only going to see to it that the local authority gets the money. It seems to me that it might be left to the local authorities, who, I am perfectly certain, would not want to penalise women in this way. If it is not out of order, I should very much like to know what the proposal we made on the last Clause would have cost the Exchequer had it been carried?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that nearly the whole of the hon. Member's observations were rather wide of the Amendment which he has moved, because they appeared to me to be directed rather to what he supposed the Clause as a whole would do than to the particular exception to the working of the Clause which he desires to make, and I confess I do not understand why it is desired to make that exception, or why the hon. Member did not confine himself merely to arguing against the provisions of the Clause. May I just point out what the effect of this Clause really is? Where a woman is in receipt of a pension under this Bill, and then applies to the guardians for relief, the guardians will take into account the fact that she is in receipt of that pension in considering what relief they will give to her. The next case is the case of a woman who is entitled to a pension but has not actually begun to receive it. Why should that woman be put in a better position than the first woman, who has

  1357
  actually begun to receive her pension? That is exactly what the hon. Member has been arguing. I say that, as between woman and woman, that would not be fair, and, indeed, it would be an inducement to a woman to withhold her claim to a pension as long as possible, in order that she might get, not only the pension, but also a full amount of relief from the guardians. That does not seem to me to be fair either to the guardians on the one hand or to the other woman on the other hand, and I cannot think the hon. Member has quite appreciated what the effect would be if this Clause were not passed.
  Mr. LANSBURY: As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, no board of guardians would give assistance without inquiring whether the woman applying for it was a widow or not, and why she was applying.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question would be whether she was in receipt of income from pension or not, and she might not have applied for the pension.
  Mr. LANSBURY: The guardians will see that she does.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In that case this will not do any harm. It cannot possibly have any effect whatever, because the case will not arise. What the hon. Member would really be doing by his Amendment would be to say that the principle which is provided in this Clause shall
  apply in the case where a widow is herself in receipt of a pension, but that it shall not apply in the case where allowances are payable either in respect of children of a widow or in respect of orphans, in which latter case, of course, the allowance will be paid to some other person than the parent. Why the distinction should be made I do not see at all, but, in any case, exactly the game observations apply to the case where allowances are paid to orphans or children as in the case of a pension.
  Mr. HARNEY: I hope the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) will not persist in his Amendment. It seems to me that nobody in reason could object to this Clause. All that the Clause says is that, where a pension is accruing but not paid, and in the meanwhile the guardians have given assistance, the guardians are to be recouped what they have paid out of the pension when it is eventually paid.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I should not have moved my Amendment had we been permitted to move the next Amendment, to leave out the Clause, but, of course, that would have destroyed the Clause altogether.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 124.

  Division No. 287.]

  AYES

  [6.21 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Brown, Maj. D. C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Crook, C. W.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Albery, Irving James

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Burman, J. B.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Davidson, J. (Hertl'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yaovil)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Balniel, Lord

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)

  Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Drewe, C.

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Bethell, A.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  England, Colonel A.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Clayton, G. C.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Falls, Sir Bertram G.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Cope, Major William

  Fielden, E. B.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Finburgh, S.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Forrest, W.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Laugher, L.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  MacDonald, R. (Cathcart)

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Goff, Sir Park

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Macintyre, Ian

  Skelton, A. N.

  Grace, John

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Stanley, Hon O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Hammersley, S S.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Storry Deans, R.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Meller, R. J.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Harland, A.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Harney, E. A.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Neville, R. J.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Oakley, T.

  Waddington, R.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Owen, Major G.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Perring, William George

  Wells, S. R.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Plicher, G.

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Jacob, A. E.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Raine, W.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Joynson-Hicks. Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York. W.R., Ripon)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Kindersley, Major Guy M.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

  Major Sir Harry Barnston and

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Captain Donglas Hacking.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughten)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Ammon, Charles George

  Dennison, R.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Duncan, C.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bliston)

  Dunnico, H.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Baker, Walter

  Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Barnes, A.

  Gillett, George M.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Barr, J.

  Gosling, Harry

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Batey, Joseph

  Greenall, T.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Grenfell, D. R, (Glamorgan)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Broad, F. A.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Bromley, J.

  Groves, T.

  Kennedy, T.

  Buchanan, G.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Charleton. H. C.

  Guest, J. (York, W.H., Hemsworth

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Clowes, S.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R.. Normanton)

  Lansbury, George

  Compton, Joseph

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lawson, John James

  Connolly, M.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Lee, F.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hardle, George D.

  Lowth, T.

  1360

  1361

  Lunn, William

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Viant, S. P.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Sexton, James

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Mackinder, W.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Warne, G. H.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  March, S.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Maxton, James

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Westwood, J.

  Morrison, R, C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Snell, Harry

  Whiteley, W.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Paling, W.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Williams, Or. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Potts, John S.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Riley, Ben

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Windsor, Walter

  Ritson, J.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Wright, W.

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Thurtle, E.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. MacLaren and Mr. Hayes.

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Before we part with the Clause I think there is at least one observation that ought to be made upon it. We on these benches have declared from the commencement that the pensions and allowances under the Bill are wholly inadequate and that many people, if not most of those who will be in receipt of these pensions and allowances, will have to have recourse to the Poor Law. In fact, the Clause supports to the hilt the point of view we have put forward, because it states quite clearly, and in fact the Government itself in inserting it has admitted the whole of the claim we have made that these pensions are totally inadequate and will relieve in part only the expenses of the local authority. We should not be true to ourselves if we allowed it to pass without making the comment that the pensions are shown by the Clause itself to be totally inadequate.
  Mr. J. BAKER: It has been said that no one objects to the Clause. I strongly object to it in its present form. It seems to me that the Minister of Health had a generous impulse and then regretted it and has devised all the means he can imagine to minimise the benefits which in his generous mood he wanted to provide. We have had other Acts of Parliament quoted as a reason for minimising the benefits under this Bill wherever they could be used as a reason for minimising them. I have attended as often as I could, but I have not heard a single Act quoted by that side of the House to increase the benefits under the Bill. In this Clause there is a provision for a, pension
  1362
  if the person entitled applies for it within a given time. The Department realises that it will work slowly and it wants time to pay that pension. It realises that it is dealing with poverty-stricken people who may have to apply to a board of guardians, and probably will in most cases. But the Minister of Health is nominating himself into the office of a super-relieving officer and is going to make all the inquisitorial inquiries which we have been objecting to to find out exactly the income of all these people and he says, "That is over 10s. a week; we shall have to have some of this back." I am not an expert on the Old Age Pensions Act, but I understand that under that Act if an old age pensioner went into an infirmary or a workhouse the guardians themselves could not take that pension until the pauper had been in that institution for at least three months. The Minister is going one better than the worst board of guardians in this country and says, "I am going to claim the right to take that pension from the moment that you have that other relief." If a woman has to apply for relief after she has got the pension the guardians will ask for her income and reduce the allowance accordingly. He makes a difference between the woman who gets the pension first and the woman who is so poor, so distressed and so destitute that she had to apply before he could pay the pension. He is making provision in the next Clause to cover that up because if the woman does not got her claim in, though the pension may be accruing, within one month or, at the latest, two, that claim can only be paid from the date on which it was granted. He is therefore safeguarding his interests. Now we have the picture of a woman

  1363
  who has lost her husband and has been under extra expense; She is in great trouble. She may not think of applying for the pension unless she has some friend who is not so troubled, who is interested in her welfare. The two months expire. She is only entitled to a pension then from the date of the application. But the Minister wants to come on, if I read this aright, and say, "You have received so much: that matter must be adjusted." I protest against these restrictive Clauses. I thought for one we were going to get a Parliament with a generous mood towards the poorest of the poor, the defenceless widow and orphan, that was going to treat them decently. The Minister cannot withdraw this Clause altogether, but I hope he will undertake to give us something better than we have here. If he had given some suggestion of an adjustment to help that woman in her great time of trouble we might have had more sympathy with it. I protest against the Clause, and if it goes to a Division I shall vote against it
  CLAUSE 27.—(Date of commencement and end of, and mode of paying pensions.)
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): The first Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Ernest Evans), in page 24, line 23, at beginning, to insert new Sub-section:
  "(1) The administrative machinery for the collection of contributions and the payment of benefits under this Act, shall, subject to the provisions of this Section and in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be that of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, and the Minister shall have power to make regulations modifying and extending the administrative provisions of that Act in such directions as may be required."
  is covered by Clause 10. The next four Amendments all deal with very much the same question. If we take a debate on the first it must not be repeated on the next three.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 24, line 25, to leave out the words "one month" and to insert instead thereof the words "two months."
  1364
  The first Sub-section is a fine, healthy specimen of an unnecessary effusion of words. At any rate I find myself in the position that I have to read it three or four times before I can understand what it means. If I understand it aright, it means that a pension shall be payable if the claim is made before the expiration of one month from the date upon which the claimant became entitled to the pension. If the claim is made within one month from the date, the pension accrues from that date, but if more than a month should elapse before the unfortunate claimant is able to make her claim the pension is not payable from the date of entitlement but only becomes payable from the date upon which the claim is made. I cannot for the life of me understand why the right hon. Gentleman should put this Clause into his Bill at all. No decent, self-respecting insurance company, certainly no friendly society, would attempt a thing like this. I can imagine 20 or 30 sets of circumstances in which it is literally impossible for a claimant to make her claim within a month from the date upon which she becomes a widow. Take the case of a casual worker who goes away on tramp to look for a job. He moves about from place to place. He is accidentally killed, perhaps on the railway. His death is not discovered until more than a month, perhaps two or three months afterwards, yet the Government says this poor woman shall not be entitled to draw her pension except from the date upon which her claim is made. It may be proved that the man died earlier. "No matter," says the Government. "We will not pay the pension from the date of death, but only from the date on which this poor unfortunate woman was in a position to make her claim." I should have thought the experience of the Ministry of Pensions would have taught the Government a lesson. Every one of us is aware of cases where the claim was not made within 12 months of the date upon which death took place; and whilst it may be said those cases occurred during the War, when it was frequently difficult for the widow to obtain proof, or even knowledge of the death, in ordinary civil life hundreds, if not thousands, of similar cases arise. Take a marine engineer. In numbers of cases men are lost at sea. Men are lost when they go away to jobs in a foreign land. The widow may not

  1365
  know until more than a month has elapsed. The Ministry goes out of its way and takes special pains to do what no insurance company or friendly society in the land would attempt to do, that is to refuse payment from the date of entitlement and only grant it from the date on which the widow was able to make a claim. I trust the Minister will see his way—it will cost a mere bagatelle—to wipe this small but unnecessary and irritating blot from his Bill.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has ransacked his imagination to discover cases in which this Clause would bring hardship upon poor unfortunate people, and he wishes us to understand that this hardship will be removed if we alter the period from one month to two months.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Not all, but some of the hardships.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not desirable that we should allow a claim to be made at an indefinite period after the widow becomes entitled to a pension. The longer the time that elapses since the death of her husband, the more difficult it is to investigate a claim and find out what is the real entitlement of the applicant. If you are to talk about people who have died in remote parts of the Empire, that case will be still more difficult to investigate than one which happens close at home. The only point at issue is as to whether the time that we have provided in the Clause is reasonable or not. Has the hon. Member looked up the precedent of the old age pensions scheme? In that case, the pension only becomes payable from the date when the claim is made, and in no case does it go back to the date on which the applicant was entitled, unless the applicant has made the claim on that date. Therefore, we have gone one better than the Old Age Pensions Act. I suggest that to put in one month is reasonable. From the date of the beginning of this Act, before its provisions are widely known and people understand that they have only to go to the Post Office to make their claim, we thought that a little longer time might be permitted, and we have put in a period of two months from the date of the beginning of the Act. After that date, everybody really has a chance of finding out what is their position.
  Mr. HARNEY: I am inclined to agree, with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, although I do not see much difference between one month and two months. It might be justifiable under the Old Age Pensions Act, which relates to a direct grant from the State, to say that the pension shall begin when the applicant applies for it, because the Government are masters of the situation; they are giving away something for nothing, but here we are dealing with a contractual obligation. Persons pay money in order to buy benefits, and whether they apply within a month or six months, the fact remains that they have bought the benefit. In ordinary insurance, unless the period fixed by some statutory regulation has elapsed, they are absolutely entitled, whether they apply early or late. I can well understand that stale applications always involve more clerical work and put the Ministry to some expense, but why the amount of that extra expense should be measured by the amount that should be payable between the time when it was due and the time when the application was made is a matter which I am wholly at a loss to understand.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is not merely a question of expense. We want to stimulate people to put in their claims as early as possible.
  Mr. HARNEY: I agree. First of all, a stale application involves greater expense. Consequently, the Minister wants to urge people to make their applications early, by placing a penalty upon belated applications. It seems to me that the penalty is wholly disproportionate to the crime. The crime is a very slight one, and the amount of the penalty is in many cases greater than the crime. If people neglect for, say, six weeks, to make application, although they might have put it in earlier, they are penalised to a small extent, but if people are very old and distracted and there is everything to excuse them, and they are six months late in putting in their application, they are very heavily penalised. There is no justification for that, and my submission would be that we should allow the pension to be payable, as it is legally due, from the date when it arises. A provision might be put in the Bill saying that persons who, in the opinion of the

  1367
  Minister, have been unreasonable in regard to sending in their applications might have to pay some small sum as a penalty. As the Clause stands, it is unfair and hits hardest the people who probably least deserve it.
  Mr. BECKETT: I am astonished at the reception that the Amendment has had from the right hon. Gentleman. I thought it was time that he gave another concession on this Bill and that this email matter, in terms of finance, afforded such an opportunity when he might have celebrated his long abstention from concession by giving us something. Instead of that, he has treated us probably to the most ingenious of all the very ingenious arguments which he and the Parliamentary Secretary have competed with each other to give to us on this Bill. He told us that he cannot accept our Amendment, because it is only slightly less wicked than his original proposal. He says that his proposal may be bad, but that our Amendment will not help very much. That is an extraordinary reason for rejecting an Amendment.
  There are many cases of people who will be very unfairly treated by the inclusion of this period of a month. If we allow them two months, it would make a considerable amount of difference. A widow may lose her husband suddenly and she may be distraught and, like women often do, she may have depended entirely on her husband to attend to her affairs. A month may pass before she realises that she has a right to make an application for a pension. There is no one in this House who works on a technical plea of this sort to put a woman in a very unhappy condition which might deprive her of her pension for a month or six weeks or two months. There are cases, such as the Mover of the Amendment suggested, where the death is not known in time to make a claim within a month. There are cases of casual workers and men whose occupation takes them from place to place, and abroad. You may have cases of parents dying suddenly and leaving children in a strange town. The relatives or friends will have to fetch the children, and they may not know what the man's employment was, where he was employed, and whether he
  1368
  was an insured man, and before they can pick up the whole chain of circumstances the time may have passed and the children will be penalised. The Minister justifies that by the very extraordinary statement that he wishes to encourage the widow or the orphan to put in their claim promptly.
  This provision will be equally hard in regard to old people. There is probably no Member of any party who is not constantly receiving letters from old people in his constituency saying, "I only found out a little while ago that I am 71. I thought I was 69," and asking what one can do for them. Hon. Members know the extreme difficulty that very often arises in finding out the age of these old people, and establishing their claim to a pension. If an insured man who has contributed all his life gets to 65 and is obscure about his age, and thinks he is 63 and then it takes him a month or more to find out his age, he is to be penalised. The Minister appears to think that we can only point to one or two isolated cases, but, if it were not that one did not wish to keep the Committee at great length, one could go on quoting case after case of people to whom this provision will mean a very hard condition. There are people who have reached an old age and are slow to do things for themselves, there are children who, obviously, cannot look after these things themselves, and there are widows who are affected at a time when they are least capable of dealing with their affairs, and unless within a month of the death of the breadwinner they make their application they are to be penalised. I hope the Minister will see whether he cannot in some way meet this serious objection.
  Sir PATRICK HASTINGS: It may be that I have missed the provision, if provision there be in the Bill, but so far as I know there is nothing in the Bill which prevents this Clause from being obligatory. Supposing a claim is not made before the expiration of a month, then the Minister is in difficulty in regard to allowing payment to be made. In other Acts, for instance, the Workmen's Compensation Act, there is nearly always a provision which says that, provided the Minister is satisfied that the failure to put in a claim is due to some legitimate and unavoidable circumstance, he has the power to relax the stringency of the rule.

  1369
  There is a good deal to be said for the Minister's contention that the mere variation from one month to two months does not affect the matter very much, but he might consider whether he could see his way to meet the gravamen of the Amendment by moving to insert some provision such as I have suggested. Of course, the onus of proof might be put upon the applicant to show that there was reasonable cause for delay in the making of the application. Supposing a widow was proved to have been ill at the time of her husband's death, and it was physically impossible for her to put in a claim. Why should it not be possible in such a case to bring into operation a proviso such as is common in other Acts that where the Minister is satisfied that the failure to make the claim was due to some reasonable cause he should have power to relax the stringency of the rule?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that is an unreasonable request, and I promise to give it very favourable consideration and see what I can do on Report to meet the point.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 25, to leave out from the word "when" in line 30 to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words
  " but for the provisions of this Section it would have included such additional allowance."
  7.0 P.M.
  I need not to say more than just a few words about this Amendment. It meets the case of the pre-Act widow, the widow who may be entitled to a pension for herself and allowances for her children, if she has children, who are under the age of 14. It is provided in Sub-section (3) of this Clause that
  "where the date on which a pension would begin to accrue under this Act is a day in the week other than that prescribed as the day in the week on which the weekly payments on account of pensions of that class are to be made, the pension shall not begin to accrue until such prescribed day."
  You might have the case of a widow who has one child under 14, and that child dies before the prescribed day on which the allowance would be payable. In that
  1370
  case, not only would the allowance in respect of the child be lost, but the widow's allowance also would be lost. The words which I propose to insert here are to protect the widow in that case, and give her the allowance for six months after the death of the child.
  Amendment agreed to.
  CLAUSE 28.—(Claims and appeals.)
  Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move, in page 25, line 40, after the word "referees," to insert the words, "of whom at least one shall be a woman."
  I do not want to spring a bombshell upon the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will find it possible to accept this Amendment. He will realise that these referees will often have to decide very difficult and delicate questions relating to the claims that will come before them, and that the women that they will have to consider will be women who have just passed through a very terrible period in their lives. I am sure the Minister will agree that it will be much better if, when these women come before the referees, there is at least one woman who would be able to deal with them and take up their case. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is becoming part of our general practice where women's cases are to be dealt with. I want to ask the right, hon. Gentleman whether he can see his way to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not know the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) was going to move this Amendment. I think the point is already met, because under the Regulations providing for the procedure before the court of referees it is also provided that wherever a woman is concerned in an application to the referees there shall be joined with the referees a woman assessor, and that woman assessor will be a woman who has special competence for dealing with insurance cases. That practice is in force now.
  Miss WILKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman says that the woman would be an assessor. Well, the difficulty, of course, with assessors is that their advice

  1371
  may or may not be taken by the referees, and I was anxious to put this Amendment in this particular way to include women among the referees so that she would not merely be a lady whose advice may or may not be taken, but that she should have equal status with whatever men were there judging the case. It is an important matter of principle.
  Mr. R. DAVIES: I am not going to challenge the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, but I am not quite clear that under the Regulations which are referred to in this Clause 3 woman will be brought in in every case. If it is found later on that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member is necessary to meet the point that she has made, will he be good enough to remember that point when we are on the Report stage of the Bill?
  Mr. HARNEY: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when we were dealing with Sub-section (2) of Clause 21, something was said, rather indefinitely, about provision being made for seeing that woman who became disqualified or liable to become disqualified would have an opportunity of having an appeal. This is the appropriate Clause to deal with that, and I see that an Amendment I had on the Paper—in page 25, line 37. after the word "award" to insert words "or decision" —is struck out. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman in some way or other is going to make provision that a woman shall not be disqualified without having an opportunity of being heard.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not quite understand why the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not moved. If it had been I should have accepted it. I shall see that it is put in on Report. In regard to the other point, the body of referees is a body of legal gentlemen, barristers, and there might be some difficulty if we were to insist that one of them should always be a woman.
  Miss WILKINSON: There are several women barristers.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would not mind taking this point a bit further, and I promise to do so, but, while the assessor must in every case be a woman where a woman is concerned in the application,
  1372
  there might be some difficulty in insisting that one of the referees should be a woman, who would in every case have a controlling voice in the decisions of the Court.
  Miss WILKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman has put that point, but I do want to point out that in so many cases it is assumed, when you are speaking of legal bodies, that they must always be gentlemen. We have now bodies of legal ladies, and this is the kind of work which is emphatically their sort of job. If the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind, I shall be willing be withdraw this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move, in page 26, to leave out lines 1 to 8 inclusive.
  This Amendment is on a slightly different matter, and it is one on which I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain what he meant by the statement which he made previous to the time when I withdrew my Amendment on Clause 21 with regard to cohabitation. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that what I was asking for would be covered on Clause 23, and I thought that was so, but I did not notice that after the word "conclusive" in page 25, line 44, there was not a full stop but a colon, and that over the page there were provisoes. There are three provisoes in regard to the award. People will not be able to make an appeal first if it is on a matter on which the Minister's decision is final under the Act; secondly, on any matter which by this Act is a matter within the discretion of the Minister: and thirdly what is obvious and what is already happening under Section 89 of the Insurance Act.
  Mr. HARNEY: That is only keeping the door open.
  Miss WILKINSON: I want to be quite sure, and I moved this Amendment in order to have an explanation from the Minister that these provisoes do nothing to militate against the right of a woman to appeal on this cohabitation Clause, or on any other matter in the Bill. We do not want to find, when this Bill is passed and when some of us wish to take up cases where we feel that very real hardship has been done, that the appeal is

  1373
  barred because it is stated to be a matter within the discretion of the Minister. This seems to me to be a very dangerous Clause, and I would like to have an explanation from the Minister as to whether he could see his way to give us some absolute guarantee that on these matters the woman shall not be debarred from making her appeal.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The words that the hon. Member uses seem to carry us still further, so far as the limiting point in Clause 21 is concerned, and I must protect myself. In Clause 18 there is a provision that the decision of the Minister is to be binding and final. We have already passed that Clause, and it is quite impossible, she will see, that an appeal should lie against a final and conclusive decision. Again, this proviso says that matters which are left in the discretion of a Minister are not to be subject to an appeal. That, of course, is Clause 6, where the Minister has to decide certain cases where children's allowances are to be diverted. But so far as Clause 21 is concerned I am advised that nothing in this proviso will in any way prevent the woman under Clause 21, Sub-section (2), from making an appeal to the Court of Referees where proceedings under Clause 33 have not been made, and where her pension has been stopped by reason of alleged cohabitation. I am not quite certain whether the words of Sub-section (2) in Clause 21 are as clear as might be, and I have already given an undertaking to the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) to look into that.
  Mr. HARNEY: Sub-section (2) of this Clause is really quite in order. It neither takes away nor gives anything, so it is all right.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very glad to hear that it is all right.
  Miss WILKINSON: This hon. Member is not so easily satisfied, by this concurrence of opinion among the gentlemen. What I am concerned about is somehow to see that these women are not going to be done out of their rights, because of scandalmongering among their neighbours. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have been moving Amendments consistently throughout this Bill to protect these women. I am very glad to have
  1374
  his assurance that he is going to safeguard the women so far as Clause 21 is concerned, but with regard to Clause 6 there is this difficulty again, that it is this type of case that may come before the Minister, and I gather that you may have a woman's pension taken off for presumably immoral conduct, and she may find herself without an appeal. I do not want to press this Amendment as it stands, but I do want to say that it does seem to me urgent that we should have this appeal safeguarded at every point. If we do not, we shall find ourselves when this Bill has gone through with all sorts of people left out and the appeal absolutely impossible for them. We had a similar sort of case under the Ministry of Pensions. There are very bad cases. We are most anxious to have no Statute-barred cases under this Bill. I would ask the Minister whether he would not be prepared to take this Clause back and re-draft it so that it might come up again on the Report stage.
  Sir P. HASTINGS: I am sorry that I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) who said that this Clause was all right. I take a very serious view of this Clause. There are three different cases to which this proviso applies. The first is the decision of the Minister where the Act makes it final and conclusive. I do not profess to have every word of the Act in mind, but there is no Clause in this Bill which expressly gives a discretion to the Minister in any matter whatever. The only way in which any discretion arises is by the use of the word "may." If the Minister looks at Clause 21, on which I think he intends to give the right of appeal, he will find the words that if the woman is convicted the Minister may cancel the pension.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Member perhaps is not aware of the, fact that that Sub-section has gone out.
  Sir P. HASTINGS: I am much obliged. I have read the wrong portion of it, because there are many Clauses—I have marked a great many of them, 6, 17, 23, quite a number—in which there would appear to be a discretion given to the Minister. Take 6 first. There the only words are that a representation has been made, the Minister may direct. That is

  1375
  in line 10. Lower down in Subsection (3) and again in Sub-section (4), he may direct. They are all on different points. I think that it ought to be made quite clear. Is it intended, where the Act says the Minister may do something, that that is to be a matter within his discretion? If so, that applies to practically every one of these Clauses. The difficulty I feel is, that where discretion is given by a Clause as in Clause 21, or in Clause 23, under which there may be orders prescribing what may be the effect of a woman being resident in different parts of the country, a discretion is given to the Minister, and it would relate to a pension, it would be an award or decision in respect of a pension from which there would be no appeal. Therefore, it seems to me that there would be no appeal given by Clause 28.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is the hon. and learned Member referring to Clause 21, Sub-section (2), or is he suggesting that this liars an appeal under it?
  Sir P. HASTINGS: We have passed Clause 21.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I thought that that was the point which the hon. and learned Member was discussing.
  Sir P. HASTINGS: No, as I understand, the point which we are discussing is this, in what places there are appeals, and I think that the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) is anxious to know in which cases of decisions by the Minister there is an appeal. So far as I understand it, there is to be no appeal in any case where a Minister may make an order. They are all, I understand, to he discretionary, within the meaning of this proviso. If that be so, it would appear to cut out cases in which the Minister may make Regulations dealing with various matters. For instance, under Clauses 17 or 23, and in many other oases, apparently, there is to be no appeal from any of them. If that be so, I think that a great many people were under the impression, as I certainly was, that this Clause was not intended to apply to cases where the Act expressly stated that the matter was within the discretion of the Minister. For that reason I have been looking through the Bill to see if there are any cases in which dis-
  1376
  cretion is given to the Minister, otherwise than I have stated, and I can find none. The Minister will find the proviso curiously worded in that portion which uses the words "final and conclusive." The words are
  "any matter as to which the decision of the Minister is by this Act made final and conclusive."
  It continues
  "or any matter which by this Act is a matter within the discretion of the Minister."
  There is an enormous number of Acts of Parliament in which discretion is expressly given—such and such a matter shall be left to the discretion of the Minister—and I understand, reading this Clause, and the proviso that it was limited to cases in which there was an express discretion given to the Minister by the Act. Now that he says that it is intended to cover every case where you have the word "may" it makes it very much wider. A great many hon. Members did not quite appreciate it. I certainly was under the impression that it simply affected matters in which something was loft to the discretion of the Minister.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that there is only one case in which express discretion is given to the Minister, and that is under Clause 6, but we have amended Clause 6 and made provision for hearing any person who is concerned. So far as the regulations or orders are concerned, there is no appeal against them. They have to be laid on the Table of the House.
  Sir P. HASTINGS: I was referring to things which the Minister might have to decide under the order. For instance, under Clause 27, the discretion turns upon the right of the Minister to make regulations as to residence out of the country.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This proviso says
  "or any matter winch by this Act is a matter within the discretion of the Minister."
  Therefore we are not applying the matter of discretion of the Minister by regulation.
  Mr. HARNEY: The proviso neither gives nor takes away anything.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: So far as Subsection (2) of Clause 21 is concerned, that modifies the discretion of the Minister. There is no discretion there at all.
  Miss WILKINSON: I wish to make the matter clear. It seems to me that you may have two cases like this. You may have the case of a woman who is cohabiting with a man, and, as the Minister says, her pension stops. But suppose you have a case under Clause 6, where the local authority claim that the woman is not fit to bring up her children, because she is engaging in immoral conduct, and is cohabiting with several men—you may put it like that—in one case you have an appeal, and in the other you have not. It seems to me that the two cases are on all fours. What we are trying to secure is that we shall not have a woman's pension taken away from her without her having the right of appeal. In one case does the Minister mean to say, because somebody may appeal before him on the woman's behalf, that that is sufficient to do away with the woman's right of appeal, because if so would it not be the case that you have two different sets of authorities under the Bill? The Minister judging one case, and an almost exactly similar case being sent before the Court of Referees.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether we are in order in discussing again Clause 6, but the hon. Member is incorrect in saying that the two classes of case to which she refers are identical or even similar. In one case the pension is going to be taken away, in the other case under Clause 6, there is no question of taking away the pension. The question is whether the pension is to be paid to the woman, or to some other person in the interests of the children. What we have provided is that the woman shall have an opportunity of stating her case to the local authority, and if the local authority have not given her the opportunity of stating her case personally, then the Minister shall give her that opportunity. In that way the mother's interests are protected.
  Mr. HARNEY: I wish to clear up what I think is a misapprehension. All I said was that this proviso does not affect the case where the Minister has discretion, and it is unnecessary to say so. If the Minister has discretion there is no appeal
  1378
  from his discretion, but of course I accept the assurance which the Minister has given.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 29.—(Regulations.)
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 26, line 22, after the word "Treasury," to insert the words
  "so far as relates to matters with respect to which the Treasury so direct."
  This Amendment is intended to meet a number of matters on which Regulations are being made.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in page 26, line 37, to leave out the word "four," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirteen."
  Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) authorises the Minister to make payments before a pension is authorised between the time the claim comes in and the date of final adjudication, for a period not exceeding four weeks. A month is not a sufficiently long time to provide for the negotiations that may take place, and this Amendment suggests a period of 13 weeks. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot increase the period of 13 weeks, perhaps he will increase the very limited period of four weeks. All of us who have experience in connection with claims made for unemployment insurance or pensions know that often a considerable time elapses between the original making of the claim and its final settlement. Four weeks is a very limited time, and as the matter is entirely within the discretion of the Minister, he will not be giving anything away by agreeing to an extension of time.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Four weeks is considered to be sufficient for the purpose, but if the hon. Member likes to make his Amendment "six" instead of "thirteen," I will accept it.
  Mr. THOMSON: I would suggest eight weeks, but I will take the six.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In page 26, line 37, leave out the word "four," and insert instead thereof the word "six."—[Mr. T. Thomson.]
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 26, line 41, at the end, to insert the words
  "(d) for providing for the apportionment as between the appropriate national health insurance fund and the pensions account of sums received on account of contributions; and."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to make an apportionment between the different funds in the case where there are stamps of the same denomination used for different purposes.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 26, line 43, and in page 27, line 1, leave out the word "contributors," and insert instead thereof the word "persons."— [Mr. N. Chamberlain.]
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 27, line 13, at the end, to insert the words
  " (f) for applying with the necessary modifications to deposit contributors the provisions of the National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Act, 1921."
  Mr. R. DAVIES: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has brought in this Amendment. He will probably remember that we raised the issue of the deposit contributor during recent Debates. The money available under the prolongation of Insurance Act of 1921 for the ordinary member of an approved society comes from a given source. I am wondering whether the money for the purpose here will come from the same source, and whether the deposit contributor in this case will fare quite as well as the member of an approved society. Will there be any differentiation in making up the amounts which will retain this person in benefit? I would like to see the deposit contributor in the same position as the member of an approved society.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: There is one other point which is still rather in doubt. This Prolongation of Insurance Act has become a Statute upon which vast issues will depend, on which in fact the whole of the rights of hundreds of thousands of persons will depend. Yet that Act is merely an annual Statute, which was originally timed to come to an end in 1922, but has been renewed each year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. I have already heard suggestions from some societies
  1380
  that they wish the Prolongation of Insurance Act to be brought to an end before very long.
  Sir K. WOOD: Which societies?
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: They were informal suggestions. Is it intended that this Act shall be continued from year to year merely as an annual Statute? I would like to know whether the Government has any intentions on that matter, and in case of the disposal of the Prolongation of Insurance Act, how they would deal with the situation that arises.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), there is no money required for this purpose. In reply to the other question, it is the intention that the Prolongation of Insurance Act should be kept in existence for the present.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 30 (Regulations by Registrar-General) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 3I.—(Co-ordinating power of National Health Insurance Joint Committee.)
  Amendment made: In page 28, line 21, at the end, add the words
  " Unless reciprocal arrangements are made with Northern Ireland under this Act. and are for the time being in force."— [Mr. N. Chamberlain]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 32 (Pensions under Act to be inalienable) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 33.—(Penalty for false statements and repayment of sums overpaid.)
  Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move, in page 29, line 29, to leave out Subsection (5).
  We have had, right through this Bill. statements from the Minister as to new crimes that he is proposing to add—crimes for which people, and particularly women, can be punished. Under this Clause the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to take away a right that a husband and wife

  1381
  have in common-that they shall not be called as witnesses against each other. I am aware that there is a very limited number of cases in which a woman may be called to give evidence against her husband or a husband called to give evidence against his wife. This right under common law has been so jealously guarded that, the Minister ought not, without very grave reasons indeed, to add to the number of cases in which the right may be forfeited. Before this right is done away with, we should have a very good reason assigned by the right hon. Gentleman. I think he would be well advised to withdraw this Sub-section. I speak as a very new Member, but one really gets horrified as one sits in this House day after day and learns the number of new things for which we are constantly asked to punish people. Here we are continuing to do that; we are proposing to take away common law rights that have existed for generation after generation.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I confess that I am not altogether surprised that
  the hon. Member has moved this Amendment. I fully expected that it would be moved from some quarter of the House in any case, because, at first sight, it does seem a very strong order that a husband or wife may be called as a witness, the one to give evidence against the other. The real explanation is that you have to try to protect your insurance scheme against fraud, and that in many cases the wife or husband is practically the only person who can give evidence which will enable you to clear up a case. This fact has been recognised already. Possibly the hon. Member is not aware that in the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1922, in Section 11, there is a precisely similar provision. Therefore, we are not creating a new precedent, but following an old one.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word ' be ' in line 30, stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 128.

  Division No. 288.]

  AYES.

  [7.42 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Albery, Irving James

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Grace, John

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Cope, Major William

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Bethell, A.

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Harland, A.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Handarton, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Drewe, C.

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Herbert. S. (York. N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  England, Colonel A.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Brings, J. Harold

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Fielden, E. B.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Finburgh, S.

  Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Fleming, D. P.

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Burman, J. B.

  Forrest, W.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Kurd, Percy A.

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midl'n & Peebles)

  Cassels, J. D.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Jacob, A. E.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Storry Deans, R.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Oakley, T.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.

  Lamb, J. O.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Templeton, W. p.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Perring, William George

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Loder, J. de V.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Lougher, L.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Pilcher, G.

  Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Waddington, R.

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

  MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Macintyre, Ian

  Rentoul. G. S.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Wells, S. R.

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Maitland, Sir Arthur O. Steel-

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Ruggles Brise, Major E. A.

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Mailer, R. J.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Merriman, F. B.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E.(York, W. R., Ripon)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon B. M.

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Wragg, Herbert

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n& Kinc'dine, C.)

  Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Neville, R. J.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Captain Douglas Hacking and

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

  Major Hennessy.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Groves, T.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Paling, W.

  Amman, Charles George

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hardie, George D.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Potts. John S.

  Baker, Walter

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Riley, Ben

  Barnes, A.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Ritson, J.

  Barr, J.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Robinson. W. C (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sexton, James

  Broad, F. A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Bromley, J.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Charleton, H. C.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Clowes, S.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

  Compton, Joseph

  Kelly, W. T.

  Snell, Harry

  Connolly, M.

  Kennedy, T.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Cove, W. G.

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Stamford. T. W.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Stephen, Campbell

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lansbury, George

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, John James

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lee, F.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Dennison, R.

  Lowth, T.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Duncan, C.

  Lunn, William

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Dunnico, H.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Thurtle, E.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Mackinder, W.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Gibbins, Joseph

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Viant, S. P.

  Gillett, George M.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Gosling, Harry

  March, S.

  Warne, G. H.

  Greenall, T.

  Maxton, James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Montague, Frederick

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Westwood, J.

  1384

  1385

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Whiteley, W.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Wilson, H. J. (Jarrow)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Windsor, Walter

  Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. B.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Wright, W.

  Smith.

  Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: I beg to move, in page 29, line 30, after the word "may," to insert the words "with his or her consent."
  Possibly I am championing a hopeless cause in this Amendment after the Division which we have just had, but move it in the hope that between now and the Report stage, what I say may have some influence upon the Minister in charge of the Bill. Nor do I like to run away from an Amendment which I have put on the Paper. I feel strongly against this part of the Bill. Here we have an offence which may possibly be committed either by a husband or a wife and without his or her consent, husband or wife, as the case may be, can be called upon to give evidence against the accused partner. I disagree with the argument of the Minister, and with every respect, he only seemed to strengthen my opinion against the Clause as its stands. He said he desired to have this provision retained in the Bill because it is the only way of convicting a husband or wife in these cases. I think that is a very serious matter to have on the Statute Book a Clause which is admitted by the responsible Minister to be the only possible way of convicting a husband or wife, and which does so by putting the other partner into the witness box. We do not wish to encourage perjury in our courts of law. I only speak as a bachelor, but I put it to any married man in this House that if he were called upon against his will to give evidence against his wife, it would only be human nature to tell a lie if he thought it would get her off. I should not think very much of the husband if he did not, and yet if he did, he might make himself liable to a charge of perjury. I go further and I put this proposition to any legal Member of the House. If either husband or wife were charged with perjury and found guilty and if the perjury had been committed in a case of this kind in which either husband or wife had given evidence unwillingly, I do not believe there is a Judge on the Bench who would send that person to prison. My Amendment does not go as far as that of the hon.
  1386
  Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson). It will be possible under my Amendment to call a husband or wife for the prosecution; and all I seek to provide is that they should not be called one against the other without consenting to give evidence.
  Mr. STORRY-DEANS: I support the appeal of the Mover of the Amendment, and I hope the Government will see their way to reconsider this matter before the Report stage. Anyone who has practised in the courts of law knows that there are two alternatives in this matter. If the husband and wife are a happy and united couple, then husband or wife will lie up to the hilt in order to get the other party off in court, and I agree with my hon. Friend that any husband or wife who would not do it would be a most despicable person. On the other hand, if the husband and wife do not agree, and are leading a life of disunion, and if one wants to get rid of the other—as occasion ally happens—then this Clause lends itself to a sort of matrimonial blackmail. That is the dilemma in which you are placed in cases of this sort, and it should cause the Government to reconsider their position. This Clause is not vital to the Bill. If it were I would not support the Amendment, but I think it expresses what I would call the departmental view, which is that you should obtain convictions. That is not my view. My view is that there are many things more important than punishing people for technical offences, and I appeal to the Government to reconsider the Clause.
  Sir K. WOOD: Naturally I attach great weight to the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken, and whose wide experience in legal matters we all know, but I would point out that this Amendment—to which I noticed the hon. and learned Member did not address himself—proposes to insert the words, "with his or her consent," which would make this provision useless, and I would remind the Committee that the provision is for the protection of the fund. Although I belong to what is called the lower branch of the legal profession— so-called I think because the fees are

  1387
  lower—I think the hon. and learned Member will agree with me that this Amendment, if carried, would be practically a reversal of the decision which the Committee has just made. Therefore, I must ask the Committee on the same grounds on which they rejected the last Amendment to reject this Amendment also. I would point out that it is only when it has been shown to the satisfaction of the court that there has been an offence, whatever the evidence may be, that any conviction follows. If, as the hon. and learned Member has suggested, wife or husband in every case is going to stand by the accused partner, then no consequences can follow. It is only when an offence has been committed that conviction will take place.
  Miss WILKINSON: Surely the hon. Gentleman admits that perjury is a serious consequence.
  Sir K. WOOD: I am referring to what has been said. It is said that the husband or wife will stand by the accused partner in every case, and I point out that if that was so no convictions would follow.
  Miss WILKINSON: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that a lie does not matter if it is not found out?
  Sir K. WOOD: No. The hon. Member must certainly not put that upon me. I have not made the statement that if husbands or wives are called in respect of their own domestic difficulties and troubles, they are going to commit perjury. That was the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. All I am saying is that if they are going to take up the attitude suggested, no evil consequences under this Bill so far as they are concerned will follow.
  Sir R. NEWMAN: With all due respect, I do not agree with that statement at all. A husband or wife may commit perjury and in the hands of a clever King's Counsel may be broken down on cross-examination and a perjury charge may follow.
  Sir K. WOOD: I must say that if that sort of thing happens I am one of those who believe that where perjury has been committed consequences must follow. I think the Committee ought to have in mind also the protection of this fund. It
  1388
  is very easy to say that a husband or a wife ought to be protected, but it is only when an offence has been committed that they are liable to any consequences and it is a matter of equal importance to endeavour to protect this fund as far as we can.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. HURST: With great respect, I submit that my hon. Friend is wrong. This Amendment would not render the Clause nugatory, because it would still enable the wife to be a, competent witness. This Amendment, while allowing the husband or wife to be a competent witness, would not compel them to give evidence against one another. I believe in going back to Conservative principles. One of the old fundamental principles of our common law, which has been incorporated in Statutes repeatedly, and has been hardly impinged upon by any legislation in modern times, is that husband and wife cannot be compelled to give evidence against one another. It is deeply rooted in English law, and is based, not upon caprice, but upon a great principle dear to Members on this side, namely, the sanctity of the home. What will be the effect on any English home if a husband or wife is forced to give evidence against his or her spouse? It is bound to lead to disturbance in the home, bad blood and ill-feeling, and will rankle, and I say, before you impinge upon one of the elementary principles of English law, you want a far stronger case than my hon. Friend has made out. The number of cases in which the Sub-section could be applied is exceedingly small, and it seems altogether an insufficient reason for interfering with what has been one of the historic principles of English law, which is based, not on mere caprice or legal technicalities, but on long experience as to what effect husband and wife giving evidence against each other would have upon them and the home. For that reason, I doubt whether any lawyer in the House, or, indeed, any Conservative would vote against the Amendment.
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I only want to add my plea to the Minister to accept this Amendment. I endorse most thoroughly every word which has just been said by my hon. and learned Friend that this is a most unusual thing, and it offends against, I will not say the Conservative principle, but against that great

  1389
  principle of civilised human nature, that husband and wife are one, and to make it compulsory for one to give evidence against the other, particularly in cases of this kind dealing with pensions, on which the family have to rely, is, to my mind, almost beyond comprehension, and I cannot really imagine how my hon. Friend has ventured to defend this Clause, as he has done, and I hope He will reconsider it. Unfortunately, when these comparatively small points, but still points of great importance, arise in the Committee stage of a Bill, it is impossible to get any very considerable number of Members present who know really what is going on, and who vote otherwise in accordance with the Whip's directions; but this is a matter of principle, and I very much regret to say that I shall be obliged—it is the first time it has happened in this Parliament —to vote against the Government if they do not give in on this point. Even if we do not succeed, I hope the Conservative Members who have heard this discussion will take the same course. I would, however, make a further appeal to the Minister in charge to see if he cannot accept a slight Amendment to which we attach enormous importance, and which could make no difference whatever to the successful working of the Clause as a whole.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must say I think my hon. and learned Friend has put his case very forcibly, and it is one to which I am personally quite prepared to give further consideration. I will undertake to pay attention to the arguments which have been used, and to reconsider this matter between now and Report, but I do deprecate the introduction of this particular Amendment in the Clause. It does not seem to make sense, and we have just defeated an Amendment to leave out the Sub-section altogether, which was the point to which my hon. Friend addressed himself.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: I want people to be competent to give evidence, but not to be compelled to give evidence.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That shows I have not fully understood the point before us, and I should like to give further consideration to the matter.
  Sir R. NEWMAN: In these circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 34.—(Power to remove difficulties.)
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in page 29, line 44, at the end, to insert the words
  "Provided that all orders made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it, praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
  This Clause is one to which we on these benches take the greatest objection, and is one to which, I think, we shall find objection is taken from the opposite benches, and one on which, I hope, the feeling of the Committee will have some effect upon the mind of the Minister. It is a Clause which gives the Minister power to make certain Orders, and the Amendment is of a very simple character, laying it down that, before these Orders become finally operative, they shall be laid upon the Table of the House for 21 days, and that if a Resolution be passed against them, then the Minister may annul them. If the Committee will read this Clause, they will see how extraordinary the nature of it is. It is, in fact, what we have called the, Mussolini Clause, and by it the Minister of Health is obtaining wider powers than Mussolini is claiming at this moment in Italy. That is not an exaggeration. In order to explain what I mean by that, may I read the Clause to the Committee?
  "If in any respect any difficulty arises in bringing into operation this Act, the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, may by order do anything which appears to be necessary or expedient for bringing this Act into operation, and any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect: "
  And then, at the end, the Minister has these powers conferred for about 18 months, which means that the Minister

  1391
  may do anything in connection with this Bill as soon as it becomes an Act. He may raise the contributions if he wishes. He may diminish the benefits if he wishes. He can wipe out any Amendment we have carried. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, he can do anything that is "necessary or expedient."
  Captain A. EVANS: This Clause only allows the Minister to do anything necessary to bring the Act into operation. Once it is brought into operation, he has no right to interfere with any Amendment carried.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I understand that, but the Minister proposes to take 18 months before that.
  Captain EVANS: Not after the Act is brought into operation.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: Until the Act is brought into operation the Minister may do anything. It means that, presumably, for about 18 months the Minister will have greater powers than this House itself possesses. I think I can predict the reply that the Minister is going to make. He is going to point out that the provision occurred originally in the National Health Insurance Act, and that it has been lifted from that Act into this Bill, and that the National Health Insurance Act period was longer. But the National Health Insurance Act was carried by a Minister who ought not to be quoted as a precedent at all. I think he was a Minister who would go as far as the House would allow in a direction of this sort.
  Sir K. WOOD: He was supported by the Labour Opposition.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I happen to have looked up the Debates of 1911 referring to this, and the hon. Member's statement is absolutely inaccurate. It is evident he has not read the Debate or recollected what happened. I may say, broadly, what happened was, that this Clause was carried in 1911, not under the Guillotine but in the early afternoon, without a single Member raising the point at all.
  Sir K. WOOD: You were in Opposition.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: My hon. Friend still does not understand the position. He says we were the Gentlemen oppo-
  1392
  site. Does he not realise that his party were the Gentlemen opposite in 1911? This Act of 1911 was carried by the Liberals. The Conservative party was the Opposition, and, in allowing a proposal of this sort to pass without a word of debate, the Conservative Opposition gravely neglected its duty. Fortunately, the Opposition now is reasonable and efficient, and we cannot ourselves adopt the slip-shod methods which were good enough for the party to which the hon. Member belongs. The fact is, that there was a great deal more reason for incorporating this provision in the Insurance Act of 1911 than there is for putting it in this Bill, and the reason, as I have no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary knows, is that the Act of 1911 left this House in a state of chaos. I believe it was so stuffed with Amendments that it was doubled in size in passing through this House, and it was only by scouring the Civil Service of all its most able officials that it was brought into operation at all.
  Under those circumstances, there might have been some reason for these extraordinary powers, but that is not the case here. This is a much simpler and shorter and more concise Measure, and while we have opposed it, I do not think it has been rendered unsymmetrical or damaged by the Amendments which have been carried. As was said in the last Debate, we are at a strategic disadvantage. We cannot get any general sense of the Committee at this stage of the Debate or at this time of the evening, but we have put down a very modest Amendment, simply asking that these Orders should be laid on the Table of the House for 21 days and, if a Resolution is passed in either House asking that an Order should be annulled, the Minister, if he thinks it politic, should accept the opinion of the House on the matter.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member, with a slipshod practice which I am surprised to find in him, has attempted to attach to a Clause that is narrowly limited a general proviso that refers to all Orders that may be made under this Bill. Probably he had not looked to see what Orders might be made under the Bill.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: Yes, I had. There is Clause 29.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is an earlier Clause, and if he had looked he would have found that in Clause 17 the Minister has power to make Orders, and in that case the Orders go through the procedure which he has advocated for all Orders. It is, therefore, not necessary to alter anything in respect of Orders made under Clause 17. Clause 29, which he mentioned, is not a Clause which gives the Minister power to make Orders.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: Regulations.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Regulations are not Orders, if he will allow me to direct attention to his own Amendment, which deals, not with Regulations, but with Orders. There are only two places in the Bill where Orders can be made. One is in Clause 17, where already the procedure which the hon. Member desires to adopt is laid down, and the other is in this Clause, which we are now discussing, and there is also an Amendment which I have put down to Clause 40, in which again the Minister may make an Order, and although these provisions are not therein inserted, I am quite prepared to put them in in that case. Now let us take this particular Clause with which we are dealing. The hon. Member says that this power was first put into the National Insurance Act, 1911, and ho does not want to take that as a precedent, because the Minister who introduced it was, I understood him to mean, capable of driving a coach and four through anything. But the hon. Member has not gone far enough back in his researches. This Clause started, not in 1911, but in 1888, and it is not only in the Local Government Act, 1888, and the National Insurance Act, 1911, but it is also in the Unemployment Insurance Acts.
  Is it really anything to which any hon. Member need take exception? It is obvious that, in bringing into operation a scheme of this vast magnitude, which requires the setting up of new machinery, there may be difficulties which cannot be foreseen, and all that this Clause does is to allow the Minister to make modifications in the machinery and in the statutory requirements and matters of that kind to enable him to get the Act to start. I may point out that, as it is an emergency provision, the hon. Member's proposal would stultify the whole
  1394
  purpose of the Clause, and would make it impossible to do the very thing which it purports to do. Therefore, I hope I have convinced him that really we have taken, or are prepared to take all the measures that are necessary to see that Orders of a general character which are made by the Minister shall go through the full procedure that he has in mind, except this particular one, because if that procedure were adopted in this case, it would make it impossible to carry out the purpose for which this Clause is designed.
  Major TASKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the difficulties mentioned in the wording of this Clause 34 showed optimism, and I think he will find that they are more like barbed wire entanglements than anything else. I would appeal to him to give consideration, between now and the Report stage, to the question whether, instead of acting, as is provided in lines 39 and 40, "with the consent of the Treasury," the Minister should consider the desirability of using voluntary agencies such as exist under the Old Age Pensions Act. It appears to me to be entirely unnecessary to give power to the Minister, who in turn is governed by the Treasury. There seems to be the closest analogy between this Bill and the Old Age Pensions Act, and after 15 years' experience I am bound to say that I am only voicing the sentiments of my colleagues when I say that we have not unbounded faith in the Treasury. We do not regard them as custodians of the public purse. In London, we expended money in accordance with their ruling, and we had run into debt, but the Treasury did nothing to help us, and let us get out of our own trouble. To show that they do not exercise control, the London Old Age Pensions Committee did reorganise their re-establishment, and they wiped out a debt of £1,200, saving the country £3,000 in the case of a full year.
  If this scheme is to be administered by the Minister "with the consent of the Treasury," I confess I have not very much faith in it. How do the Treasury appoint their officials? They issue secret instructions. We do not know what those instructions are, we cannot ascertain them, and, as far as we know, every officer is appointed under the Interpretation Act of 1871. I apprehend the same difficulty here. If you want to know how

  1395
  and why a certain decision is reached, you will be told it is the secret instructions of the Treasury. I submit that there ought to be nothing secret. People are contributing to this Fund, and—
  The CHAIRMAN: The words referring to the Treasury are already passed, and the only question now is whether Orders, made with or without the consent of the Treasury, shall be laid before Parliament.
  Major TASKER: Yes; it is because personally I object to the Minister having to get the consent of the Treasury. I am attempting to show that the Treasury—
  The CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into that point at the moment, as to whether or not the consent of the Treasury should or should not be required. The question now before the Committee is to whether the Orders should or should not be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
  Major TASKER: Then I shall take the opportunity of referring to the matter on the Third Reading.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Just one word in addition to what has been said. The Minister told us that if this proviso were carried it would prevent him making any use of the Clause on the ground that the time that was taken up would be so long that he would fail to get the emergency measures that he proposed. That is not my reading of the Amendment. The Amendment especially provides in the last line
  "but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
  Therefore, as I read the Amendment, the Order made by the Minister prevails until it is annulled. The contention, therefore, that this would be a delaying
  proposal seems to me to be quite devoid of foundation. I myself cannot see any difficulty in the way of the Minister accepting a proviso to this effect, because it does enable him to make these Orders and to enforce them. It only provides that these Orders shall be laid before the Houses of Parliament and that such operation as has already taken place shall not be rendered invalid in consequence. The number of cases in which there is a likelihood of the Order of the Minister being annulled is exceedingly small. This just preserves to Parliament what seems to me to be the rights of Parliament.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: There is a point that my right hon. Friend might be prepared to consider. I recognise that in administering a matter of this kind there is a difference between the various kinds of Orders and Regulations which are required for that administration. There are usually two kinds of sections inserted dealing with the making of Orders and Regulations. I myself think that the form in which my hon. Friend has moved his Amendment is a practical form in view of the wide powers that it is proposed to take, but would the right hon. Gentleman not consider in view of what he said, and especially in view of what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for East Islington (Major Tasker). that it is advisable that in any Acts of Parliament there should be some such provision? If he is not prepared to accept the Amendment, will he be prepared to accept an Amendment which shall provide that the Order shall be laid before Parliament as from the date of the Bill becoming operative?
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes. 125; Noes, 216.

  Division No. 289.]

  AYES.

  [8.31 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife. West)

  Clowes, S.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Ammon, Charles George

  Compton, Joseph

  Gillett, George M.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Connolly, M.

  Gosling, Harry

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Cove, W. G.

  Greenall, T.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillary)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Barnes, A.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Barr, J.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Griffiths. T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Batey, Joseph

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Groves, T.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Broad, F. A.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Bromley, J.

  Dennison, R.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Buchanan, G.

  Duncan, C.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Dunnico, H.

  Hardle, George D.

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, M.)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Naylor, T. E.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Oliver, George Harold

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Owen, Major G.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Paling, W.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Potts, John S.

  Viant, S. P.

  John. William (Rhondda, West)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Riley, Ben

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Ritson, J.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Kelly, W. T.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Westwood, J.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Lansbury, George

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Whiteley, W.

  Lawson, John James

  Serymgeour, E.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Lee, F.

  Sexton, James

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Livingstone, A. M

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Lowth, T.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Lunn, William

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Siteh, Charles H.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Mackinder, W.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Windsor, Walter

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Wright, W.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  March, S.

  Snell, Harry

  Maxton, James

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Montague, Frederick

  Stamford, T. W.

  Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Warne.

  Morris, R. H.

  Stephen, Campbell

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Albery, Irving James

  Drews, C.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Duckworth, John

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., H.)

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (WELSH Univer.)

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'ni & p'bl's)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Fanshawe Commander G. D.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Fleiden, E. B.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Bethell, A.

  Finburgh. S.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Fleming, D. P.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Fraser Captain Ian

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Blundell, F. N.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Boothby R. J. G.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Goff, Sir Park

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Grace, John

  Loder, J. de V.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E.)

  Lougher, L.

  Brockleband, C. E. R.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Macintyre, Ian

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Grotrian, H. B.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Burman, J. B.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hall. Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D/ Steel-

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Meller, R. J.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Harland, A.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Harney, E. A.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Cobb. Sir Cyril

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Collox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Neville, R. J.

  Cope, Major William

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Oakley, T.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  1398

  1399

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Waddington, R.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Perring, William George

  Skelton, A. N.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Wells, S. R.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Williams, c. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Rawlinson Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Storry Deans, R.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Womersley, W. J.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Ropner, Major L.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Lord Stanley and Captain Viscount

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Curzon.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: May I put a question to the Minister of Health with reference to his speech, which I did not quite follow? He referred to some other Clause in which, I understood, there is no such provision as that which I propose, but in which he suggested he would insert such a provision. It was difficult for me to follow what he said. Would he say what the other Clause was, and whether the provision is there already, or whether he is going to insert it?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am referring to Clause 40. I have on the Paper an Amendment to insert a new Sub-section (5), which has reference to the expenses incurred by a local education committee or a maternity and child welfare committee, and I have provided there that in the ease of a county council, if the Minister by order so direct, the expense may be an expense for special county purposes. That is the matter I am referring to. It is not in the Bill as printed.
  CLAUSE 35.—(Exemption of certain widows from health and unemployment insurance.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. R. DAVIES: I desire to oppose this Clause, for the following reasons. It is a Clause exempting widows both from health and unemployment insurance. I have read it very care-
  1400
  fully, and, as far as I gather, there are two classes of widows who will be entirely thus excluded-the widows of persons who die after the commencement of the operation of the Bill, and widows now in receipt of Service pensions in respect of the late War. I am not clear whether women who are in receipt of Service pensions include women whose husbands are disabled, or whether this is confined to widows only. Even if those two types only are included in this Clause, I think we ran make out a very strong case for its deletion. I will reduce a case to the concrete, so that the Committee may see how it works. Take the case, first, of a woman who is childless, and who loses her husband after the commencement of this Act. She will receive 10s. per week for life by way of pension under this Measure. That woman will obviously go into industry, but in spite of the fact that all the other workpeople around her are compulsorily insured for National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance purposes, she is not entitled to insure under either of those two schemes. It seems to me that there must be something wrong in such a provision. The fact that she is entitled to receive 10s. a week ought not to deprive her of other benefits, if she cares to pay for them. I also fail to understand why a widow is ruled out of the Health Insurance scheme, because that will prevent her obtaining sickness benefits, disablement benefit, or, maternity benefit-I do not know whether that case would arise-or any additional benefits provided by approved societies. There is still a bigger factor. Although she gets 10s. a week as a widow's pension

  1401
  in respect of the insurance contributions paid by her dead husband, she is deprived for life of any medical benefit at all under the panel system of the Health Insurance scheme.
  This Clause contains a very much more important provision than I apprehended when I read it first. Can the hon. Gentleman give us an idea—I have not found it in the actuary's report—as to how many women there are in the first category, say—those who become widows after the commencement of the operation of this Act? If he cannot tell us the number of women of the type who would fall into this category for the first year, I am sure he is totally unable to say how many there will be in the second or third year, because this is a growing number. There are thousands, I should say scores of thousands, of women who, if they were not in receipt of this 10s. a week widow's pension would automatically and compulsorily be insured for National Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance purposes. To deprive these women of the benefits of those two schemes merely because they are in receipt of that 10s. a week is a monstrous thing to do, and, in my view, this Clause ought not to be added to the Bill.
  Let me pass to the other part of the case, which refers to women with children under 14 years of age who become widows after the commencement of this Act. If at all possible, those women ought to remain at home to mother their children. The idea of a widows' pension scheme that I always had was one that would give a pension sufficient to allow a woman who became a widow to mother her children in her own home. The pensions given under this scheme are totally insufficient to provide for the case I have mentioned. Take the ease of the widow with children under 14. That woman would be compelled to do something; and so far as Lancashire is concerned, she will enter industry in the mill or the factory after the death of her husband.
  The case was made out at the commencement of the Debate that the childless widow would be a competing factor in the labour market. Surely if the argument was good enough that this typo of widow would compete in the labour market as cheap labour, she
  1402
  would be a much more attractive factor in the workshop if the employer is not called upon to pay any insurance payments in respect of her. We ought not to deprive these women of benefits in the way the Clause intends. I apprehend that this Government is guilty of one idea that ought to be dispelled for good —the idea that a large number of our people are becoming over insured. There is a deadly fear in this Government that the working people will receive too much money from the several schemes. I do not myself dismiss the idea of over insurance, but there is not a single one of our working people insured under any scheme yet provided who has reached the stage of being over insured, and I do not think 10s. a week ought to stand in the way of these widows being included for health and unemployment insurance.
  I turn now to the second category where the wife of the ex-service man is included in this Clause, or where it is the case of a widow of the service man. I cannot understand in this case too why that type of widow should be excluded from health and unemployment insurance, because surely they also will enter industry. I ask the Minister in charge to give us an explanation of why these thousands of women are to be excluded. I know full well that all widows who fall into these two categories will not enter into industry, but scores of thousands of them will be excluded entering these two schemes who ought to be included by virtue of the fact that they will require the benefit probably more than any of the type of women who are included.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The hon. Member who has just sat down expressed some difficulty in understanding why the Government include this Clause in the Bill. I think I can explain it to him, and I hope at the same time I may be able to relieve some of his anxiety. The reason why the Government include this provision is because we feel that, where women are by virtue of this Bill already in receipt of a widow's pension, then it is not necessary to ask of them that they should contribute for further sickness or employment benefit when they have already got the widow's pension provided; for them under the Bill. The hon.

  1403
  Member said they would be deprived of medical benefit, but he is mistaken about that, because, being exempt persons, they are still entitled to medical benefit.
  Mr. R. DAVIES: Will a person not connected with National Health Insurance at all be entitled to medical benefit?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not quite sure on that point, but I will make inquiries. The hon. Member said that there would be an undue preference shown for these women in the labour market because the employers would have to pay less insurance, and that there would be a tendency to employ cheap labour. The answer to that question is that the employer does pay and the widow is exempt. The employer is still liable to pay the whole contribution just the same as he does in the case of a widow of an insured person. The widow gets off her share, but the employer pays just the same, and so that danger has been safeguarded against. The hon. Member asked whether it applied to the wives of ex-service men and my reply is "no." I think those are all the points put to me. With regard to the first case put by the hon. Member, here you have a person provided with a pension not as large as one would like it to be, but it is 10s., and we do not think that it is unreasonable in all the circumstances to make them contribute a weekly sum to ensure a further pension in the case of the double event of getting sick and unemployed. She would still benefit and draw her widow's pension, but we exclude her from that class. We do not relieve the employer from any liability and we do not remove her from the category of medical benefit. I think I have answered all the questions put to me except the one which I reserved and here is the answer. If employed within the meaning of the Insurance Act, being an exempt person, he will be entitled to medical benefit.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Take the position of a widow who has not been employed. She has no chance of getting medical benefit unless she becomes employed. Surely that is an inducement to women who may manage to squeeze a little extra earning by washing or doing light work to become an employed person in order to receive medical benefit. On the other
  1404
  hand, the widow who stays at home who makes a little money by cleaning here and there has no possibility of getting medical benefit.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The right hon. Gentleman has not given us the information we asked for with regard to the numbers. I regard it as being of some importance that we should have the estimated numbers in respect of these two categories to whom this Clause will apply. Then I think the Attorney-General, in his reply with regard to exempt persons, said that of course the argument used by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) was already met by the fact that the employer was not exempt from contribution. I think the Attorney-General has failed to realise two points. First, that the employer will be compelled to pay in respect of persons who are otherwise exempt, and you will be placing a charge upon industry for which no benefits will accrue in respect of those in his employ. The right hon. Gentleman has not met the point which was made by the Member for Westhoughton with regard to this effect upon employment. Those who have experience in wage negotiations know that even the smallest additional charge per week by way of insurance affects such negotiations. Supposing that, in this case, widows, because of the very meagre amount of the pension given under this Bill, go back into industry. This class of widow is to be exempt from contributions, both to Unemployment Insurance and to Health Insurance, it may be to the extent of 6d. or rather more per week, and it will follow that very often they will be prepared to work for a slightly lower figure than those other classes of women who will be compelled under the law to pay these contributions, and we may be—I know it is only slight, but we have to keep our eye on these things—we may be in such a position that we are tending to bear down the general level of wages in industry. In fact, my hon. Friends again and again, during the Debates on this Bill, have pointed out that the pension is so meagre that widows will probably be driven into industry in greater numbers than has yet been realised, and, because they are getting some pension, they will probably be prepared to work at a lower figure, in many cases, than women who

  1405
  are not in receipt of any pension at all. I shall be glad, before we come to a decision on this, if the Attorney-General or the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to these points.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that I omitted to give him the figures. The figures are in the actuary's report in column 4 of Table III on page 14. The widows who are contributory pensioners-those are the people who come in-are 10,000 in the first year, and the number goes on increasing, of course, until in 1965 it reaches a, very large number, namely, 1,305,000, which is the biggest figure that appears in the Table. The figure would obviously increase year by year. It is only, as the hon. Member will realise, the contributory cases that we have to take here, because the non-contributory ones are exempted by the proviso in the Clause. Then the hon. Gentleman put it to me that there was really an objection to the payment of contributions, first of all because it was a charge on industry. He will forgive me for saying that that is a little changing the ground. The hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. R. Davies) attacked me on the ground that we were not charging those contributions. He said that that was very wrong, because the effect would be to tempt employers to employ these people. I answered him by saying that that was a mistake, because we were charging contributions, and the next hon. Member gets up and says that that is very wrong because a charge is being imposed
  on industry for no benefit. That, of course, is not quite accurate, because, although it is true that the employer pays the contribution, he pays exactly the same contribution in respect of these people as in respect of every other employé, and the money goes not into the coffers of the State, but into the Pension Fund, and, therefore, it does go towards providing pensions and other benefits. At any rate, it is a little difficult to satisfy both hon. Members.
  The other suggestion was that the widow will be driven into industry by the provisions of this Bill, and will work for less than she otherwise would. The hon. Member will forgive me if I remind him that the widow here is getting 10s. a week more than if there were no Bill, and, therefore, that would hardly drive her into industry. So far as it goes, we hope that in some cases it may enable her to come out of industry. Another question that was put to me was as to widows who do not get employed, but who are carrying on-taking in washing, or something of that kind, was, I think, suggested. They would not be employed persons, and, therefore, could not come into health insurance or any other insurance, and with regard to them the answer is that which I gave earlier. I cannot hope to have satisfied the hon. Members, but I hope I have tried fairly to answer the questions which have been put to me.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 252: Noes, 125.

  Division No. 290.]

  AYES.

  [9.0 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Albery, Irving James

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Burgeyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Burman, J. B.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Drewe, C.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Duckworth, John

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Cassels, J. D.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Bethell, A.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer. J

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Clayton, G. C.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Fielden, E. B.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Finburgh, S.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Fleming, D. P.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Cope, Major William

  Forrest, W.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Lougher, L.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Grace, John

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Macintyre, Ian

  Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Hall, Vice-Admlral Sir R.Eastbourne)

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n s Kinc'dine, C.)

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Wlll'sden, E.)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Harland, A.

  Meller, R. J.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Storry Deans, R.

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir w. Mitchell-

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Neville, R. J.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Waddington, R.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

  Oakley, T.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Perring, William George

  Wells, S. R.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Pielou, D. P.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Pilcher, G.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Hawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Jacob, A. E.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Womersley, W. J.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Wragg, Herbert

  Kennedy A. H. (Preston)

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Roberts, Samual (Hereford, Hereford)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord

  Stanley.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Fenby, T. D.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Lansbury, George

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Gillett, George M.

  Lawson, John James

  Ammon, Charles George

  Gosling, Harry

  Lee, F.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Greenall, T.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Lowth, T.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lunn, William

  Barnes, A.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Ab'ravon)

  Barr, J.

  Groves, T.

  Mackinder, W.

  Batey, Joseph

  Grundy, T. W.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Broad, F. A.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R, Normanton)

  March, S.

  Bromley, J.

  Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Maxton, James

  Buchanan, G.

  Hardie, George D.

  Montague, Frederick

  Charleton, H. C.

  Harney, E. A.

  Morris, R. H.

  Clowes, S.

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, North)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Naylor, T. E.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Compton, Joseph

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Paling, W.

  Connolly, M.

  Hirst. G. H.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Potts, John S.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Riley, Ben

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Ritson, J.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Dennison, R.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Duncan, C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Dunnico, H.

  Kennedy, T.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Scrymgeour, E.

  1408

  1409

  Sexton, James

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Thurtle, E.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Smith, Ben (Sermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Wilton, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Viant, S. P.

  Windsor, Walter

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Wright, W.

  Snell, Harry

  Watson. W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Stephen, Campbell

  Westwood, J.

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Whiteley, W.

  CLAUSE 36. —(Exemption of certain widows from health and unemployment insurance.)
  Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move, on page 30, line 21, to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "shall" in line 22
  This Amendment proposes to deal with such part of the Clause as denies the right of unemployment benefit to an insured person having reached the age of 65. I suggest that this is a very serious step for the Government to take under such circumstances as I shall demonstrate. Here it is possible for an employed person to have been paying unemployment contributions for 12 or 13 years without ever having drawn any benefit, by reason of having had continuous employment, or having claimed a refund of such contributions, thereby still having, when bordering on the age of 65, a considerable amount of credit standing to his account under the unemployment insurance part of the Health Insurance Act. This Clause proposes that should such an insured person fall out of employment near the age of 65 after the commencement of this Bill, whatever credit may have accrued to his account, must be entirely lost and the insured person refused the benefit of such contributions. Having reached the age of 65 he must then come on the old age pension part of the Bill. Let me point out what that means in money values. Having contributed for a number of years he would have been entitled, as an unemployed person seeking full time employment being available for such employment and willing and able to perform it, to 18s. a week so long as he remained unemployed and was available for such employment. At once his 18s. under the Unemployment Act becomes 10s. under the Pensions Act. The injustice of this is rendered more serious owing to the fact that such an insured person cannot
  1410
  now apply for a refund of contributions standing to his credit. He must give up the whole of those contributions. He may, indeed, be one of those youthful middle-aged men available and readily re-absorbed into industry as soon as the opportunity presents itself. He will again be reabsorbed into industry possibly, but in each successive period of unemployment is not looked upon as an unemployed person within the meaning of the Unemployed Insurance Act but as an old age pensioner under this present proposal, so that you can quite see the difficulties that such an insured member is confronted with.
  I suggest that it is cruel and unkind in the extreme, because at 65, if married, and with a wife less than 65, there would be an additional 5s. unemployment benefit for the wife. That would make 23s. per week, for which he has paid the higher contributions that came along and were imposed upon him when the fund showed a deficiency. I have not made the calculation, but I suggest it is possible for many pounds to stand to the credit of such an insured person in the Unemployment Fund and because, forsooth, he is 65 when this Bill becomes an Act, and operates as from the early part of next year, the income to the home is to be 10s., his old age pension, as against the possible 23s. for which he has made provision compulsorily under the Act. One can well see the serious hardship imposed in the Bill, because now oven were he to say "I must now appeal to the Guardians," if he goes there there, is another Clause which says the guardians must take the whole of these things into consideration, and they may not grant such relief as they would otherwise have done were it not for this money accruing, so that there is an handicap. There is a suggestion that the standard of living must be much lower than the one even established by the unemployment benefits under the Bill. I

  1411
  suppose we shall be told this is really a simplification Bill and is intended to draw in the rough fringes where there is a possible overlapping under Health, Unemployment and the present Bill. But in taking off those trimmings every time you attempt to prevent an overlap you are instituting to a much harsher degree the handicap and confusion prevailing at present in the minds of those who ought to be accepted to benefit under those respective Acts, and particularly the Unemployment Act, without any question. Is this Bill a reward for service? I could understand to some extent, but not entirely, if it were a case of an unemployed person having exhausted benefit for which ho had established a stamp right under the Unemployment Insurance Act. But this is not a question of extended benefit in cases over 65 years of age. I could understand the suggestion, although I do not entirely agree with it, but it would be fairer than the present proposals, if you said, "You have exhausted your right, and instead of conceding extended benefit, for which there is no established stamp right, we propose to pay you an old age pension at the age of 65 under this Bill." But so long as the person has an established stamp right, you have no right to introduce a Clause in this Bill, under a proposal for pensions for widows, orphans and old persons, to wipe out years of self-sacrificing contributions made by an insured person, and thereby to reduce the liability on the Unemployment Fund.
  Is that the reason why you are proposing to reduce the contributions in regard to unemployment insurance in order to soften the handicap of the employers' contributions towards this particular pension? Has there been any agreement between the Government and the interests represented from the employers' side, and no consultations with the workers' side of the contributing element to the fund? You say to the employers, "We will reduce your liability." I have heard it said from the benches opposite that the employers need have no fear of the increased burden of contribution towards this fund, because it was the intention of the Government to lighten their burden in regard to the Unemployment Fund. You are lightening their burden there, but you did not say that you were going to lighten the responsi-
  1412
  bility of the fund, under this Bill, to meet its obligations. If that is the only way you have for bringing the Unemployment Fund to a state of stability and wiping out its deficiency, I am sorry for your human outlook in dealing with those who have contributed faithfully, on the expectation that they would have rendered to them at least the value of the contributions which they had made to the insurance scheme.
  In 1911 you entered into a bargain for contributions to the Unemployment Fund, and you extended it in 1920. You said, "So long as you pay your contributions and conform to the conditions, we shall conform to our responsibilities and obligations and we shall see that the fund is used for that purpose." Now, you come along and you lead the people to believe they are going to have old age pensions at the age of 65, and that you are going to wipe out the, inquisitorial inquiries into the means limit. At the same time, you subtly introduce into a Bill of this kind a cruel intention, and instead of giving them 18s. a week when they are 65 you cut them down to 10s. You ease the Unemployment Fund of a liability and you ease the Old Age Pension Fund of a liability. I ask the Minister to take serious account of this matter. There are several unfair proposals in regard to need pensions and orphans who are dependants of persons killed through fatal accidents, and now you are imposing a hardship upon an unemployed person who reaches the age of 65.
  Do not be so unfair in your dealings with these people. These people have been the stand-by of the nation in industry. You have cut enough of them out of unemployment pay by reason of their having turned the age of 60 and not likely to be re-absorbed. You have done enough damage to those people. Do not increase the damage by cutting down their allowance, whilst they have a stamp right, established by contributions, from 18s. to 10s. Where there is a wife in the house under 65, instead of the amount being 23s., for which contributions have been paid, they are only to receive 10s. It is hard, cruel and harsh. It is not a method of which any British Government ought to boast, or ought to

  1413
  be proud of introducing into a measure of social amelioration. It is misleading people into the idea that they are being protected and defended in the days of their decline and hardship. You cannot expect a working man at the age of 65 to have accumulated sufficient to invest, and from the interest of which he can make up the difference between 10s. and 18s., or possibly 23s., for himself and wife. As a thrifty man he has done his best, but under this Bill he is to be treated in a cruel manner, and the sooner people outside know of the cruelty, the better. The very least thing that the Government should do is to establish a right to claim a refund, with interest, of the amount standing to his credit before he is cut entirely adrift from the only resources open to him. Instead of giving these poor people a stable boat to carry thorn through the rough weather you are giving them a shaky old boat with a bucket or a pail, which may cause them to loosen their hold and sink into oblivion.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We have had some very hard things said about ourselves and about this Clause by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hay-day). He has spoken of our hard, cruel, harsh, unkind conduct. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members may say "Hear, hear," but one wonders whether the real object of the speech was conveyed in the concluding remarks, when he said that he wanted the people outside to know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Why not? Why should not they know the facts and not the misrepresentations which we sometimes hear from Socialist orators? There is, possibly, a more charitable view, and one which I would prefer to take, and it lies in the belief that the hon. Member has misunderstood the whole scheme of unemployment insurance. That is not an uncommon misconception. He spoke repeatedly of people who had paid for unemployment insurance for a long time without becoming unemployed. He spoke of the men who had paid in and had certain amounts standing to their credit. He said that everyone should get at least the value, plus interest, of their contributions to the Unemployment Fund. Of course, if you run an insurance company or an insurance scheme on the basis that everybody who pays in must get out at least what he paid in,
  1414
  it would follow that no one could get out more than he paid in, and what would happen to unemployment insurance?
  Mr. HAYDAY: That is if he has occasion, having fulfilled his part, to claim on account of unemployment.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member will forgive me if I grossly misunderstood him. I think he finished up by saying that the very least we could do was to refund to these people the full amount they paid in. That was the least we could do. How much more we could do I am not clear. What I want to point out to the Committee is that no insurance scheme in the world was ever run on that basis. It is the essence of insurance that people are insured on an uncertain risk which will fall in varying degrees of intensity upon different persons who enter into the scheme. Some will get more out than they put in and some will put more in than they get out. Take an extreme case. Supposing one insures against accidents and sickness all one's life and then lives to a healthy old age and then dies. You have been paying in every week for it, may be, for many years to cover a risk which never happens, and the result is that you get nothing for all the money you have paid in. But it is a complete fallacy to suppose that you do not get the value of your contributions. The value is that you are covered against that particular risk. So it is when people pay in to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. This Clause merely provides that when people reach the age of 65 and become by virtue of this Bill entitled to a pension of 10s. a week, they shall from that date cease to have to pay any contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and cease, of course, equally to have any right to claim unemployment benefit. In my submission there is nothing unfair or harsh or unkind or unreasonable in that proposal.
  It is, of course, an essential part of the financial scheme of the Bill, because although the employé cease at 65 to pay in any contributions to the unemployment fund and although it is true that the employer's contribution ceases to be paid to the unemployment insurance fund, the employer continues to pay the equivalent, the same amount as he did before, only that the amount goes to the credit of the widows' and orphans' pensions fund and

  1415
  so enables that fund to be kept up. With equal logic the hon. Member might have protested against the proposal that, after 65 sickness and disablement benefit should cease, and, indeed, there was an Amendment which has not been moved which proposed to continue both. That was worked out actuarially, and I am told by the Actuary that the pension benefits which are given to these people between 65 and 70 are worth 3½ times as much as both sickness and unemployment benefit put together, so that the Committee can see how unkind and harsh we are in conferring this benefit. I am told, further, that if the full proposal had been made that this Clause be omitted and sickness and unemployment benefits were to go on just as before, in addition to old age pensions, it would involve an additional increase in contribution of 2d. a week for every man, and 1d. a week for every woman. I do not suppose anybody seriously proposes that that additional burden should be laid on the scheme. I hope that explanation will satisfy those who are really anxious to be satisfied, that this proposal is neither unjust, unreasonable, nor unfair.
  Mr. SEXTON: I only want to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, not a legal point, but simply an ordinary common-sense point. Reading this Clause it appears to me that it would be compulsory for a man at 65 to retire from industry. I want the right hon. Gentleman to help me. He is anxious that the public should know the facts. So am I. Does it follow from the right hon. and learned Member's speech that if a man is willing to work after 65 the employer is bound to pay in the full contribution to the State1? If so, is that not compelling the man to retire because the employer will have to pay bigger contributions for him?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, Sir. There is no question of compelling anybody to retire and there is no question of increasing contributions. I was proceeding to explain that the employer will continue after the man is 65 to pay the same contributions as he did before, [An HON. MEMBER: "If he continues to employ him and not otherwise?"] Of course, if he continues to employ him and not otherwise, he will continue to pay the same payments as he did before.
  1416
  but there will be this difference, that the destination of the payment that will be given not to the unemployment insurance fund, because there will be no more insurance against unemployment, but it will go into the pensions fund, but the payments will be exactly the same as before.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman gives us a very ingenious defence of the Clause with regard to the ethics of insurance. He said, the essence of insurance was varying risks. Might I suggest to him that another essential part of insurance is sanctity of contracts? Is it not a fact that when these various people took out their insurance policies under the 1910 and 1911 Act it was then understood that if they continued their contributions they would receive unemployment benefit up to the age of 70? Therefore, I submit that they entered into their contract with the State, and that contract provided in effect that they should have unemployment insurance benefit up to 70, if not afterwards. There was no limit then that they should have to stop at 65, and because you subsequently bring in another Measure that may be perfectly right, and no doubt is. for policies taken out after that date, surely it does not invalidate policies taken out prior to that date. In the ordinary insurance world, if such a. proposal were brought forward it would meet with condemnation from all business men. Here is a contract entered into for the payment of certain premiums and for certain benefits to be paid. If it so happens that up to the age of 65 the worker has the misfortune not to draw anything—I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he has no cause of complaint against the insurance, because he has the good luck not to require it—but if after the age of 65 he happens to have a misfortune and to fall out of work, surely he has the right to claim the full measure of unemployment benefit when that happens? I cannot see how any private insurance company could possibly justify the breaking of a bargain which has been entered into previously by saying we will give you some other policy which we think is as good for you, but which was not in the bargain. It may be desirable for everybody to retire at 65. [An HON. MEMBER: "Even the Attorney-General!"] That is not the question we

  1417
  have to consider, but surely it is a great interference with the rights of individual liberty for this or any Government to say in effect: "You must retire at 65!" That is the sum and substance of this particular Sub-section.
  I do appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider the position and, having regard to the fact that, if my assumption is correct, a contract was entered into with all insured persons that they should have unemployed benefit so far as they fulfilled their part of the bargain, you have no right to say that, because you introduce a pensions Bill which will give them a pension at 65, they must be denied the rights which otherwise would accrue to them. It does seem to me a case unanswerable in justice and in equity.
  Mr. BROMLEY: The Attorney-General said he hoped that we on these benches would be satisfied. I am afraid that that shows the standard of intelligence for which we are generally given credit by the opposite side. Surely hon. Members opposite must realise that large numbers of us who have had the administration of trade union funds are not caught quite so easily. The very form of the words which we are discussing proves clearly that the whole thing is a three card trick. It is the old dodge of political people to profess to be giving something to the working classes in this country, and then to take it away. The more this Measure is examined, the more the people of the country, whether we on these benches tell them or not, will realise by their own intelligence that they are being duped. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest in his argument, not so much the mutuality which he claims for all insurance schemes, but that everyone was going to live to 65 to be in this position. May I remind him that a large number who have paid upon a mutual understanding will never receive the benefit for which they have paid, people who are sufficiently fortunate not to be in this great pool of unemployment. There are others who pass away happily from the toils of this great Christian land of ours before they reach that age, and their payments will go to the benefit of these people.
  This is not only offering with one hand and taking away with the other, but it means forcing these men who have had no
  1418
  opportunity of preparing for old age into unemployment, when they may be fit for employment, on a very miserable amount of money indeed. It is taking away from them a proportion of that which they have paid, and scrapping them with an unlivable wage. This Measure would receive commendation from these benches if it were compelling the wage earner of 65 to go into comfortable retirement with a living retiring allowance. But it is not that. But it is to save these few paltry pounds, while they have given away within the last few weeks, millions to people who do not want it, to the detriment of these other people. It is something which the much abused trade unions would not do. We have benefits for which the men pay in addition to superannuation, men who can continue at work beyond our superannuation limit, and are entitled to sickness benefit and other benefits which are greater. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) has said, we are not so cruel—I know the right hon. Gentleman objected to the word—as to say that we can save a few shekles from a man by forcing him to receive an old age pension on which he cannot live, and that the other benefits which he should receive we are going to take from him. We would not stoop to that.
  I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and those on the Front Bench to consider this and see if they are not rather riding for a fall. They suggest that we may tell the country. The country will know. Working people are not quite as ignorant or foolish as they used to be a few years ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The applause from the Government Benches may suggest that we can be caught napping sometimes, but while you may fool all the people some of the time, and some people all of the time, you cannot fool all the people all the time. In these circumstances, apart from the retribution that is coming, here is a contract entered into. Working people have paid on a mutual understanding of benefit, and here you profess to give a benefit by taking away a greater benefit. It is not in accordance with what we hear about British sense of fair play. I do not know whether the attendants keep it out of this Chamber, but it does not percolate here as much as I

  1419
  would like to see it. If it had not been for the benefits, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and old age benefit, paid by the trade unions of this country, you would have had the whole thing about you years ago. As we have stood in the breach so long, and now the State itself is attempting in a very stinted manner to do something, do not let it be said that the most powerful Government for years has sunk to this position of giving wealth to the wealthy, and a few weeks later, when professing to give something to the class which we have the honour to represent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—it is true: we do represent them—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to be founding a large argument on a very restricted Amendment.
  Mr. BROMLEY: I agree that it is a restricted Amendment. Possibly, within the procedure of this House, it does not mean a great deal, but we see what it means to our people outside. We appeal for people who are robbed of their rights under an honourable agreement for which they have paid, and which they will not receive, and this is as cruel as my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has stated. I appeal to the Government to do justice to people who are very short of justice.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I am wondering what the country will think of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose memory goes back to last year, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to give to people over 70, who were earning wages, any further consideration with regard to old age pensions. I remember the howl of indignation which came from hon. Members opposite, and how they claimed that old men of 70 could work and that they ought to have something at the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enable them to go on. Probably, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has said, the Government are doing this by agreement with the employers without ever consulting the ordinary workers. Let it be remembered that in everything which the trade union does, the old people have the first consideration, even without paying any contributions, so that they may have
  1420
  enough to have a reasonably comfortable existence at the end of their lives.
  This Clause means that 90 per cent. of the workers of this country will be pauperised at the age of 55. What can a man or a woman of Go do with 10s. a week? It will not pay for a shelter above their heads. They will be left to the mercy, and, in many instances, more than the mercy, of their own fellows, who have always looked after these people. Common justice demands that these people, having made a contract with the State, should have a right to existence and should have that for which they have paid. But you are taking it away. The country has told you in the Forest of Dean that you are on the wrong lines as far as the workers are concerned. We are out to do our best to make it possible that every man and every woman, when he or she can toil no longer, will have a subsistence that will keep him or her in common decency. I will certainly do my best to tell the country exactly what this Government has done in this Bill.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON: There is one point that has been overlooked. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said it was very unfair that people at the age of 65, who had credit standing to their names under the Unemployment Insurance Act, should not be allowed to get any refund. That was the effect of what he said. He certainly referred to a refund, and asked the Government to consider the possibility of allowing these people to get a refund. I would remind him that the right to future refunds under the Unemployment Insurance Act was abolished by the Labour Government last year, and, therefore, if he has any complaint on that score, it certainly does not lie against the present Government.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I do not think the Government ought to make the position of any person worse, by the passing of this Bill, than it was previously. That should be an accepted principle. Let me show what may happen. When this Bill is passed you may find people either drawing unemployment benefit at 65, or on the verge of drawing it. As has been said, a man and his wife may be drawing 23s. a week, for which they have paid. Immediately on the passing of this Bill you are going to cut that down from 23s. to 10s.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. and gallant Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson) usually tries to be smart. In this case he has failed. He blamed the Labour Government for abolishing the refund. The Labour Government at any rate did not stop the insurance and stop the refund also. That is what this Government is doing.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON: This Government cannot stop something that was stopped last year.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The learned Attorney-General, who speaks for the Government, said "This is an insurance fund." Let me remind him that when a man or woman pays a contribution and enters into this fund, there is a contract on both sides. The contract with the Government is under the Unemployment Insurance Fund, which provides that if a man complies with certain regulations and conditions he shall, if unemployed, receive in return certain benefits for certain contributions paid. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act there is no time limit in regard to age in any part of the Act. The only question to be answered is, "Are you looking for work genuinely or not? If you are doing that and are eligible for work, you are entitled to receive unemployment benefit." But under the guise of this widows' pension scheme the Government is introducing an alteration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, with which we are not dealing to-night. The Government come along and say: "The contract into which you entered to pay under the Unemployment Insurance Act is broken, not by an amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act, but by a new Act dealing with widows' pensions and old age pensions." The hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley) has stated what is the trade union method. The union with which I am connected pays 18s. unemployment benefit and 12s. superannuation benefit over the age of 60. A man if he wants to work and is looking for work, but is unemployed, can draw the 18s. a week if he desires to do so. It is his prerogative to choose which benefit he will draw, because he has paid for both. I cannot understand an insurance scheme which provides that, when a man has paid for benefits, he should be denied those benefits when he needs them. If a man had no intention of working again I could
  1422
  understand it, but if he is unemployed merely for the time being the Government is acting wrongly in taking the benefit from him. This Bill is taking money from people under false pretensions, and then at the age of 65 denying them benefits. The hon. Member for Barrow compared this with the three card trick. People who play the three card trick generally go to gaol if they are caught. Those in Governments who rob the people usually get sent to the Lords. They talk about peace and indulge in sentiment about working people, but they are bigger hypocrites than the three card tricksters, and they deserve a worse fate.
  Mr. CECIL WILSON: Let me put one question. A man and his wife get 23s. per week under the Unemployment Insurance Act. If a man reaches the age of 65 and under this Act gets only 10s. per week, where is he to get the rest of the money to meet the cost of living for himself and his wife? They cannot live on 10s. a week.
  Mr. DUNCAN: I listened carefully to the speech of the learned Attorney-General and I must confess that I was amazed by it. It would be very interesting indeed if the learned Attorney-General were compelled to face a man of 65 who was forced from the unemployment benefit scheme and whose 23s. a week was reduced to 10s. It would, indeed, be a very interesting spectacle to see the Attorney-General set about explaining to that man in what way the difference was brought about. There is always one thing to be remembered in connection with insurance schemes brought into operation by the Government. They are not mutual schemes at all; they are compulsory schemes. If these schemes were made voluntary schemes I question whether 500 people in this country would pay a single cent towards them. Let us examine the position into which the Government have put themselves. They are passing an Act of Parliament which compels, from which there is no escape except by death or emigration. That seems an utterly brutal method to adopt. When people have been compelled by Act of Parliament to pay their contributions, when certain benefits have been dangled before their noses, benefits to which they were to be entitled at the age of

  1423
  65, and then when, without any consultation with them-they are not to be listened to for a moment-when behind their backs, by another Act of Parliament, 13s. is taken away from the man who is entitled to 23s., without any explanation, the policy of the Government is incomprehensible. The man has paid for these benefits, but at the last moment, when he reaches the age of 65, 13s. is to be taken from him. When I was a youngster I was taught to honour my father and my mother so that my days might be long in the land. It seems to me that this is a scheme for swindling fathers and mothers. I am amazed.
  The speech of the learned Attorney-General to-night might have been made by the director of an insurance company. May I remind the Attorney-General that this is not insurance on the basis of an accepted or voluntary arrangement. It is a compulsory insurance system from which there is no escape. There is no question of invitation or agreement to pay: you compel people to pay and when they reach the age of 65, you tell them, "Instead of paying you 23s. we are going to pay you 10s." I cannot understand the Attorney-General seeking to persuade the Committee that this arrangement has anything of fairness, reason, common sense or justice in it. If he were the unfortunate person who had reached 65 and was met with this situation, he would put up the best speech he ever made in his life against that kind of thing being put across him. I do not know if there is even sense in appealing to those in charge of the Bill, but here is an obvious injustice. Take the case of the man who reaches 65 years of age and is receiving unemployment benefit for himself and his wife. How is it possible to explain to this man that
  he is to come under this pension scheme and that he is to be reduced from 23s. to 10s. How is he to live on 10s.? I ask the Committee to note that it is done without any consultation at all. Even according to the Attorney-General himself the employers' contribution is to be diverted from the unemployment scheme and is to go to this pension scheme, and the man is not to be consulted at all. I have seen men over 70 working in the workshops of this country and doing some of the hardest jobs a man can do. I have known a man working a 50-ton steam hammer in a blacksmith's shop at the age of 72, and yet these are the people on whom the Government seek to impose this Clause. This scheme is unjustifiable, and, if I may say so, with all respect to the Attorney-General's skill, he made about the most foolish case in its favour I have ever heard put up in this House.
  Mr. CECIL WILSON: May I have an answer to my question?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Will the hon. Member kindly repeat his question?
  Mr. WILSON: If a man is getting 23s.-18s. for himself and 5s. for his wife-when ho conies to the age of 65, where is he to get the other 13s. when this 23s. is reduced to 10s., or, otherwise, how is he to live?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If he has got 23s. unemployment benefit he will draw it for a limited time, and thereafter get nothing, whereas under this Bill he gets 10s. a week for life, and when his wife reaches 65 she gets another 10s. a week.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 131.

  Division No. 291.]

  AYES.

  [9.59 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Albery, Irving James

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Barman, J. B.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Ballour, George (Hampstead)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Barclay-Harvey C. M.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. H. (Ladywood)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Chilcott Sir warden

  Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Brooke, Brigadler-General C. R. I.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Bethell, A.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)

  Pielou, D. P.

  Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Plicher. G.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Climb., N.)

  Rawllnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Reid, Captain A, S. C. (Warrington)

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Robert!, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl')

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Jacob, A. E.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Joynson-Hicks. Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth

  Kennedy, A. R. (Pneston)

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lamb, J. O.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Finburgh, S.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Fleming, D. P.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Stanley. Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Lougher, L.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Foxcroft Captain C. T.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Storry Deans, R.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Lumley, L. R.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Macintyre, Ian

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Glyn Major R. G. C.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Goff, Sir Park

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Grace, John

  Merriman, F. B.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Waddington, R.

  Grotrian H. Brent

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. -Walter E.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. Eastbourne)

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Watson. Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Hanbury, C.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Murchison, C. K.

  Wells, S. R.

  Harland, A.

  Neville, H. J.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Hawke John Anthony

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Womersley, W. J.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henley)

  Oakley, T.

  Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wragg, Herbert

  Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Herbert, S. (York. N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Perring, William George

  Major Cope and Captain Margesson.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Clowes, S.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Gillett, George M.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Compton, Joseph

  Gosling, Harry

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Connolly, M.

  Greenall, T.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bliston)

  Cove, W. G.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Barnes, A.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Barr, J.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Groves. T.

  Batey, Joseph

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Dennison, R.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Broad, F. A.

  Duncan, C.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Bromley, J.

  Dunnico, H.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Buchanan, G.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Charieton, H. C.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Hardie, George D.

  1426

  1427

  Harney, E. A.

  Morris, S. H.

  Stewart, J. (St, Rollox)

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Naylor, T. E.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Oliver, George Harold

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Paling, W.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Potts, John S.

  Viant, S. P.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Richardson, R. (Ho'ghton-le-Spring)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Riley, Ben

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Ritson, J.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Westwood, J.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Whiteley, W.

  Kennedy, T.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Lansbury, George

  Sexton, James

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Lawson, John James

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

  Lee, F.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Lowth, T.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Wilton, B. J. (Jarrow)

  Lunn, William

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Windsor, Walter

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Ab'ravon)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Mackinder, W.

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Wright, W.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Snell, Harry

  March, S.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Maxton, James

  Stamford, T. W.

  Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Warne.

  Montague, Frederick

  Stephen, Campbell

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. WALLHEAD: This Bill contains many bad points, and in the course of the discussion the Committee have passed certain things that are not a credit either to this House or to the legislation of the country as a whole. But in all the long discussion that has taken place on this Bill, there has been nothing quite so shameful passed by this Committee as this Clause which is now being put. The case against the Clause has been fairly stated by the various Members who have taken part in proposing the Amendment. I should say there are few gentlemen sitting on the Government side who have relatives who will fall under the lash of this particular Clause, but on this side there are plenty who will be affected by the operation of the Clause we are passing now, and if any excuse were needed for the fight we propose to put up over this Clause it is to be found in the statement I have just made. That we should pass a law under which men are to be deprived of benefit for which they have been made to pay is an incomprehensible act. in the opposing of which, I think, fair-minded men ought to participate. This Clause is the most indefensible of the whole Bill, and there are many indefensible Clauses in the Bill. It is one that takes money from men. I regard the Bill to a large extent as one for the organisation of poverty. It is
  1428
  to make men poorer at one end so that they may be bettor off at the other, but it is a nine to one chance whether the man ever gets to that point at all, and, when he arrives at the point, he hag one-ninth chance that he will not be deprived of the benefits for which he has paid. I consider the Committee are doing a shameful, a cruel thing, in thus depriving men of the benefits for which they have paid, and, so as far as we on these benches are concerned, we shall fight this with all the power we have at our disposal-and we have a little-before the people as a whole in the country and explain what exactly this means. The Home Secretary smiles at a statement of that character, but may I point out to him that we have been rather effective in the Forest of Dean, where, certainly, the Government banked on winning, because everything was supposed to run in their favour, but I think this Bill to a large extent has gone against them. We have explained what this moans, and people are not calling for it quite as much as the Government expected. The cumulative effect of the whole will be to bring the Tory party into ruin.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the particular Clause.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not in order for an hon. Member to deduce the ill-effects this will have on the fortunes of the Government?
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I am addressing no appeal to the Government. I think appeals are wasted. The one way to get over the difficulty of the unemployment question, they think, is to shift people off one fund on to another. It is all a piece of financial juggling. The people do not escape. You are adding other burdens to local authorities.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is a Second Beading speech on the Bill.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Surely a Member is entitled to argue that this will put a, burden on local authorities? If a Member can prove that at a particular date a man who is unemployed becomes 65 on that day, he will only receive 10s. in place of 23s., thereby causing the local authority to add to the amount, surely it is in order to argue that that will add to the cost of Poor Law administration?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Certainly that would be in order, but that is not what the hon. Member is doing.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I was trying to meet the argument of the Attorney-General, that when you take men off a fund, giving them 23s. a week, and, instead, give them 10s., the Government are conferring a benefit. He said: "That man would pass out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and here we have the Government, in the goodness of their heart, providing him with a fund of 10s. upon which to live." They cannot live on it, and they must go to the Poor Law authorities, and to that extent the burden on the already overtaxed local authorities is being increased. The whole thing is a shameful procedure. It is a crying shame that a House of rich men, which has given millions to rich men, should now deprive helpless poor men and women, at the end of their lives, with one foot in the grave, of the possibility of living in comfort and decency. I oppose the Clause with all the power I have at my command.
  Mr. T. THOMSON: I cannot think the Committee fully appreciates what it is doing in passing this Clause, because it seems entirely contrary to all sense of fair-play and of the sanctity of contracts to which we are accustomed in our public life. Here we have a workman paying in, for 10 or 15 years, to an Unemployment Insurance Fund, who may have
  1430
  drawn no benefit whatever, and when he reaches the age of 65 and happens to fall out of work, possibly for the first time, then he is deprived of any benefit whatever. I submit that when these men entered into these original payments, it was on the understanding that they would get whatever unemployment benefit was due when they fell out of work, and because you have since passed another Act to give them old age pensions at 60, that does not relieve you from moral and financial responsibility towards them. If any breach of contract such as this took place in a private insurance company, we should have hon. Members opposite up in arms protesting against it.
  Then you have the case of a man, say, of 64, who may be out of work, and drawing 18s. for himself, 5s. for his wife, and 2s. or 4s. for his children, say, 27s. a week. If he has not drawn any benefit up to the age of 65, then, in the ordinary course of things, he will get at least two years' standard benefit from the period when he first began to draw the benefit. The Attorney-General suggested that these men ought to be very grateful to the Government for giving them 10s. instead of 18s., which would expire directly. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman spoke without his usual thought and caution, because if such a person has not hitherto drawn any benefit, I submit that his standard benefit would run for nearly two years, at the rate of 27s. a week, if he had two children. To tell such a man he is going to be deprived of that benefit, and offered instead a paltry 10s., is not playing fair with those who are insured under the scheme, and is not in keeping with the. ordinary sense of British justice. It is a most unfair thing, and I hope the Government, before the Report stage, will reconsider the matter.
  Mr. NAYLOR: I have not troubled the Committee much by taking up time on this Bill, but I feel so strongly in regard to this Clause that I hope the Committee will forgive me for offering one or two observations, especially as I have behind me some experience of the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would like to remind the Minister that he is making a most important and drastic change in the conditions governing the unemployment benefit, and as regards the national health insurance benefit, but I

  1431
  want to refer particularly to unemployment insurance as administered under the present Act. Is the Committee aware that under the present Act the man who has reached the pensionable age of 70 can still go on drawing State unemployment benefit. Has it not been the assumption that when a men reaches the pensionable age of 70 or 65 that he is no longer able to work? If the pension awarded to the man at 65 or 70 was anything in the nature of enabling him to live upon what he received as a pension there would, of course, be no necessity for him either to go on working or to be on unemployment insurance. Here, however, you are introducing what you call an improvement by reducing the age at which an insured person can receive a pension, but at the same time you are taking away from that class of men between the ages of 65 and upwards! Men of 70 are still able to take State unemployment benefit, but you are taking away more than you are giving.
  What is the position in regard to the man of 65 when he is thrown out of work? We all know that an employer on occasion looks round to see how many men in his establishment are of a pensionable age, who are getting old, and, therefore, unable to produce to the same extent as they were able to do in their younger days. And a number of men from 50 to 65 are usually selected to discharge in the slack period. Once these men are out they may never hope to get back again into regular employment. There is, however, a prospect of their getting work of some kind. If we were in the position that a man thrown out at 65 was not likely to get employment there might be some justice in telling him that he could not take, or that it would not be right for him to take, any further State insurance benefit: but then these men are the surplus of the labour market. It is possible for a man of 65 and beyond, up to 70, to get casual employment. He gets it and desires to continue to earn that additional income week by week, and that is more than the benefit he now receives under the Unemployment Act, and it would represent considerably more than he would get if this Clause is part of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the injustice will be remedied to a large number of men who
  1432
  are thrown upon their beam ends late in life, but are still in the possession of sufficient health and strength to enable them to carry on as casual workers. I trust they shall be allowed to do so; otherwise it means that you are throwing these men entirely on their trade union funds, and without any assistance from State funds towards which they have contributed the whole of their lives.
  Most men when industry is normal expect to be in employment, and insure against the time when they may be unemployed. But the time comes, in the declining years of their lives, when they are unemployed. It is at that time that the Minister will step in and say: "You cannot draw any more unemployment benefit because you have reached an age when you are privileged to take an old age pension of 10s. a week." There is no other name but robbery to be given to that proceeding. It means more, possibly, than the Minister ever imagined when he had the Clause drafted. It is quite likely, in my opinion, that the Government overlooked the fact that under the present Act an unemployed man can continue to draw benefit even after he is 70 years of age. While the Minister cannot agree, of course, to the elimination of this Clause, I hope that when the Bill comes before the House on Report stage he will make some modification of the Clause, so as to prevent a great injustice being done to deserving men who have the right, in my opinion, to claim this benefit irrespective of their age.
  Mr. WESTW00D: This Clause is the culminating point of a series of robberies for which no "cat burglar" would take credit. The "cat burglars" we have been reading about have only been robbing the rich, but this is the culminating one of a series of Clauses in which the Government are deliberately seeking to rob the poor. I want to enter my protest against this Clause. It is all very well for hon. Members on the other side to smile when we suggest that this is robbery. I am prepared to make the assertion that not 2 per cent. of hon. Members on the other side have any relatives who will lose through this particular Clause being passed, but I have one, and that is the reason I am going to make a fight in connection with this Clause, and I want to appeal to my friends to join me. It may be all right

  1433
  to take away any Poor Law relief that may have been given to some of those who may be unfortunate enough to call upon this particular scheme for benefit; it may be all right to reduce benefits in connection with ex-service men and their dependants, which we have done, because none of those things were paid for, they were given by the State; but this is something for which contributors have paid.
  My father is still working practically every day. He has paid for health insurance till 70 years of age. He has drawn not more than 30 weeks' sickness benefit since the National Health Insurance Act came into operation. He paid his contributions because the Government who passed the National Health Insurance Act guaranteed him health insurance benefit until he was 70 years of age. Now the Government of the day are deliberately seeking to rob my old parent of those things for which he has paid. He has also paid for unemployment benefit, not only until he is 70 years but for as long as he is able to work. To the best of my knowledge, he has not drawn one week's unemployment benefit, although he has paid unemployment insurance contributions since the system
  applied to the miners in 1920. I know if I were to call hon. Members opposite robbers individually I should be called upon to withdraw it, and so I cannot 3o that according to the Rules of the House, but collectively they are responsible for this robbery by passing this Clause. The Government of the day will go down to history as one of the greatest set of tricksters this country has ever known, deliberately robbing the poor to try to make their balance-sheet balance so far as this particular scheme is concerned. I enter my protest and I want to make an appeal to our Front Bench, and to every Member of the Labour party, to put up a fight and compel the Government to move the Closure so far as this particular Clause is concerned, so that the country shall understand the way in which the Government are robbing those who have paid for health insurance, are robbing the unemployed, and are placing increased charges upon boards of guardians and parish councils throughout the country.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 131.

  Division No. 292.

  AYES.

  [10.29 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Finburgh, S.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Fleming, D. P.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Campbell, E. T.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Albery, Irving James

  Cassels, J. D.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Chadwick. Sir Robert Burton

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Astoury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Ballour, George (Hampstead)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Banks, Reginald Mitchell

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Goff, Sir Park

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Couper, J. B.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Grace, John

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Bethell, A.

  Crook, C. W.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Crookshank. Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. Eastbourne)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Hanbury, C.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon, William Clive

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Harland, A.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Haslam. Henry C.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxt'd, Henley)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Burman, J. B.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Hennlker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Neville, R. J.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Storry Deans, R.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Stuart. Crichton-, Lord C.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Oakley, T.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Jacob, A. E.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Perring, William George

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Waddington, R.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Pielou, D. P.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Lamb, J. O.

  Plicher, G.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Radford, E. A.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Raine, W.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Rawilnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk, Peel

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Wells, S. R.

  Lougher, L.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Wheler. Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Ropner, Major L.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Macintyre, Ian

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Rye, F. G.

  Wood. Rt. Hon E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Salmon, Major I.

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Wood, Sir s. Kill- (High Peak)

  Margesson, Capt. D.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

  Merriman, F. B.

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Shepperson, E. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Major Cope and Mr. F. C.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)

  Thomson.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Greenall, T.

  Mackinder, W.

  Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Groves, T.

  March, S.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Grundy, T. W.

  Maxton, James

  Baker. J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Montague, Frederick

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Morris. R. H.

  Barnes, A.

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Barr, J.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hardie, George D.

  Paling, W.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Harney, E. A.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Broad. F. A.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Bromley, J.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Potts, John S.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hastings, Sir Patrick

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Riley, Ben

  Clowes, S.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Ritson, J.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Compton, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Connolly, M.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Cove, W. G.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Sexton, James

  Dalton, Hugh

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Dennison, R.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Duncan, C.

  Kennedy. T.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Dunnico, H.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lansbury, George

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Fenby, T. D.

  Lawson, John James

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Lee, F.

  Snell, Harry

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Lowth, T.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Gillett, George M.

  Lunn, William

  Stamford, T. W.

  Gosling, Harry

  Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Ab'ravon)

  Stephen, Campbell

  1436

  1437

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Warne, G. H.

  Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Windsor, Walter

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton), E.)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Wright, W.

  Thorne, W. (West Han, Plalstow)

  Whiteley, W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Thurtle, E.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Williams. David (Swansea, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Mr. Wallhead and Mr. Westwood.

  Viant, S. P.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 37.—(Consequential Amendments of Insurance Act.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The point I wish to put deals with the agents who are working with the approved societies, and I wish to ask if it is not possible for the Government to secure the operation of something like a Fair Wages Clause dealing with the conditions under which these men work. A large number of these men are employed by the approved societies and they receive certain payments out of the contribution the State makes to them. Is it not possible for the Government to insert some kind of Clause which would secure for these people at least decent conditions? It may be said it cannot be done in this Bill. Assuming that is so, would not the payment of the grant for administrative expenses afford an opportunity for securing that every agent shall at least be paid a decent wage?
  Mr. MARCH: I should like to put another question with regard to Sub-section (8), where it states:
  "Any certificate of exemption granted under the National Health Insurance Act, 1919, shall, as from the commencement of this Act cease to have effect, and the word 'and any certificate of exemption granted under the National Health Insurance Act, 1919, may be renewed as if that Act had not been repealed.'"
  Does that mean that where corporations and firms have already had an exemption certificate, that certificate ceases, and they have to apply for a new exemption, including National Health Insurance benefit and also this widows' and orphans' benefit? It does not seem to me to be quite clear as to what those societies would have to do.
  Sir K. WOOD: With regard to the remuneration of agents, I am afraid the hon. Member's assumption is correct, that it does not arise in connection with this Bill. This is a Bill grafted on to the
  1438
  National Insurance Act and any question of the remuneration of agents arises on that Measure. So far as the exact duties are concerned which will be imposed on the societies in connection with this Measure, they only relate to the giving of certificates as to the status of the particular individual to see whether they comply with the conditions of the Bill. Again, in that matter the question of the employment of agents does not arise. So far as Sub-section (8) is concerned, reference is made there to Section 133 of the Insurance Act, and probably the hon. Member was not aware of the provisions of that Measure. Section 133 is to the following effect:
  "Nothing in this repeal "—
  This Clause may be repealed as far as the Schedule 16 concerned,
  "shall affect any order, rule, regulation of scheme made, certificate issued, … or approval given under any enactment repealed by this Act, and every such order … . shall continue in force, and, shall, so far as it could have been made, …. under this Act, have effect as if made, … . under the corresponding enactment of this Act, and any certificate of exemption granted under the National Health Insurance Act, 1919, may be renewed as if that Act had not been repealed."
  I will examine the matter again. It is a very technical matter, but the hon. Member need have none of the apprehensoins he has mentioned. I will look into the matter and confer with him.
  Mr. R. DAVIES: This Clause deals with the cancellation and variation of the reserve values. Does it either accelerate or postpone the redemption of the reserve values under the National Insurance Act?
  Mr. STEPHEN: I am not content with the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary. Would it not be possible to include after the words "subject to the consent of the Treasury" a proviso, "subject to the Fair Wages Clause in connection with the employés of an approved society"? Possibly the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to inform me of the reason why that cannot be included. We are grafting this scheme of

  1439
  contributory insurance on to the National Health Insurance scheme, and there are many things in connection with this scheme. I cannot see why it should be impossible for a gifted individual like the Parliamentary Secretary to be able to put in some proviso which will be a protection to these employés. If the Government has the will, they will be able to bring forward some modification on the Report stage to provide for the protection of the employés.
  Sir K. WOOD: In regard to the question of reserve values raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) I am informed that the Clause has no material effect. In reply to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) I can add nothing to the reply I have given.
  Mr. MACKINDER: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that where Government grants are made there is a qualification that standard rates must be paid to the people employed?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. MAXTON: I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary is treating this matter with seriousness. He tells us that the approved societies have no additional duties imposed upon them.
  Sir K. WOOD: The agents.
  Mr. MAXTON: Who is doing the work? The approved societies do not operate through Divine agencies. Everything they do has to be done by paid employés, and we know from experience that these poor fellows in many societies, and in some insurance companies in which the hon. Member is keenly interested, and for whom he has fought very strongly in this House, are doing the work for miserably low and scandalous wages. The Government is bringing forward a Measure which is attempting to stop one sore of the social system, or to apply some slight ointment to the sore. Why, then, should they create another sore? This will mean that men who are already overworked and underpaid in insurance work will have extra duties east upon them, without extra remuneration. The interests of the society are safeguarded; it is to receive additional payment from the Treasury for any additional work that it
  1440
  may have to do. But the fellow who is doing the work, already very grudgingly and very much overwrought, is to receive no consideration at all; and the ingenuity of the Minister and his Under-Secretary fail to see any way to safeguard the rights of these men.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is there no reply or anything?
  CLAUSE 38.—(Consequential Amendments of Unemployment Insurance Acts.)
  Amendment made: In page 32, line 23, leave out Sub-section (1).—[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 33, line 8, at the end to add the words:
  "In the case of persons to whom a special scheme made or approved under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1924, applies, the provisions of this Act relating to unemployment insurance shall have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say, references to liability to be insured and contributions under the said Acts, to unemployment benefit, and to the unemployment fund shall be respectively construed as references to liability to be insured, and to contributions and benefit under the special scheme, and to the fund constituted thereunder."
  This Amendment is only to make it clear that the provisions of Clauses 35, 36 and 38 apply also to certain schemes which do not come under the Act. There are. two schemes: one is in the banking industry and the other in the insurance industry.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 39—(Amendment of Old Age Pensions Act in relation to persons in receipt of pensions.)
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is not moving the two Amendments down in his name, but is moving an alternative Amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 33, line 12, after the word "Act" to insert the words
  "or would have been so entitled but for the provisions of this Act relating to service dependants' pensions."

  1441
  If the Committee will look at Subsection (2) of this Clause they will see that it deals with the case of Service dependants' pensions. As the Bill was drafted, these Service dependants' pensions were to be taken into account considering whether the person in respect of such pension was or was not entitled to an old age pension under the Old Age Pension Act on arriving at the age of 70. Under the two Amendments which are on the Paper we had proposed to improve upon that arrangement so far as Service dependants' pensions were concerned, and where those pensions have been increased by virtue of this Act in the Clause we discussed last, we are now going to guarantee them, at any rate, that they should have as much under the Old Age Pensions Act as they would have by virtue of that increase. Last night we were discussing the service dependants' pension, and I was pressed very closely by various hon. Members in all parts of the Committee to do something to meet the difficulties which they saw under that Clause, and I had to explain that, to my regret, it was impossible for me to accept the Amendment then before the Committee, because it would have wrecked the Bill. But we have sought on looking again through this Clause for an opportunity of doing for the service dependants who are in receipt of pensions something of a smaller character than was asked of me yesterday, which would not put an undue strain on the resources of the Exchequer. The point to my mind is this. The view of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee was that where old age pensions are given they should, wherever possible, be free from inquiries as to means and from disability as to means. The course pressed on us was to make a very great concession, and to say that these service dependants' pensions should not have any connection with the old age pension. That is to say we were asked to relieve the old age pensions of any liability in respect of these service pensions. As the Clause would not affect the finances of this Bill, but would affect the expenditure under the Old Age Pension Act, I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, and I am happy to be able to inform the Committee that I have his concurrence with this Amendment, which
  1442
  is designed to bring about a great concession in connection with service dependants' pensions.
  Mr. R. MORRISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the cost of this concession?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the time at my disposal I have not been able to ascertain the exact cost, but I am told that it will not be excessive.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: The Committee is interested to know that the pressure brought to bear on the right hon. Gentleman and the Government last night has compelled them to devote some of their time since then to considering the claims of the people whose case was advanced so well from this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect us to express any definite settled opinion on the proposal which he now submits. We have had no opportunity of seeing the wording, much less considering it. We shall have that opportunity between now and the Report Stage, and we shall then be in a position to estimate how far this Amendment meets the claims which we have brought forward on behalf of these pensioners.
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. B. PETO: I cannot agree with what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). I do not for a moment believe that this Amendment is brought forward because of pressure from any quarter of the Committee, but we believe that it is proposed merely on account of the genuine expression of opinion with regard to what most of us thought was a weakness in this Bill. I am sure that we are extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for this gratuitous concession. I do not think that any quarter of the Committee could possibly have expected in the early hours of this morning that he could possibly have found a solution of the matter. In contrast with the right hon. Member for Shettleston, I do not desire to look into this concession, to see whether it is satisfactory. I am satisfied to take the word of the right hon. Gentleman that he is carrying out what we requested last night, and I wish to express to him my gratitude and that of those who acted with me on that occasion.
  Major HORE-BELISHA: Does this concession, which everyone will welcome, apply to old age pensions at the age of 70 or at the age of 65?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It applies to old age pensions under the Pensions Act at 70. There is no means test with regard to the pension at 65 years.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 33, line 20, leave out Sub-section (2).—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 40.—(Local authorities.)
  Captain GARRO-JONES: I beg to move, in page 33, line 32, after the word "borough," to insert the words "and of a Metropolitan borough."
  It has been said of successive Clauses of the Bill that each is the worst Clause in the Bill. That remark, I should say, applies to Clause 36. If I refrain from such a description of Clause 40, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be any less inclined to make some concession on the Amendment which I am moving. The Amendment will have the effect of making the Metropolitan boroughs the local authorities for the administration of this Bill. I am aware that there are further Amendments on the Paper calculated to have the same effect. I would not be averse from the inclusion in my Amendment of the Common Council of the City of London, because the same considerations which apply to the Metropolitan borough councils apply with equal force to the Common Council. I move this Amendment because the Metropolitan borough councils already have at work the machinery for the administration of this Bill. In the Maternity and Child Welfare Committees set up under the Act of 1918 there is the machinery. If those committees are employed the effect would be to reduce the complexity of local administration and to reduce the number of irritating and vexatious inquiries that tend to be made by officials in local government areas.
  It is very irritating when different people, strangers, are empowered to make calls for various objects on the occupants of private houses. It is one argument in
  1444
  favour of the Amendment that it would have the effect of reducing the number of these calls. I know the Minister is going to say that while the London County Council is the proper authority to administer this Measure, they will be able to delegate their powers. I submit the practice of delegating the powers of the London County Council to the Metropolitan borough councils can go too far. The Metropolitan borough councils art-bodies of the highest importance, and administer large sums of public money, and they have shown themselves fully qualified to carry out the duties assigned to them. I draw attention to a recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Government of Greater London which sat in 1923. In page 76, paragraph 20 of that Commission's Report dealing with suggestions made by the representatives of the London County Council, the following passage will be found:
  "The principles governing the London County Council proposals were that the local authorities—(the metropolitan borough councils)—should be entrusted with the most important powers possible and they should not be asked merely to exercise delegated powers conferred upon them by the Central Authority but should, so far as possible, be independent of that authority."
  I think that is a full answer in advance to the Minister's reply that the London County Council will be able to delegate its powers. A Local Government Act, passed in 1899 on the joint representation of the Metropolitan borough councils and the London County Council, provided that certain powers should be transferred to the borough councils, but that Act is practically a dead letter, and I believe in no single case have the authorities come together.
  Mr. WILLIAM GREENWOOD: On a point of Older. Is it in order that a Welsh solo should be sung while an hon. Member is speaking?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If that is being done, I suggest that it should be stopped.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Might we have more of the windows opened? It is very sultry, and we lock like being here all night. I am sure that the Minister of Health will agree.
  Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Perhaps that accounts for the difficulty of hearing of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. W. Greenwood).
  Captain GARRO-JONES: I do not object to the little accompaniment to my monologue, but I hope hon. Members who wish their voices to be heard will get up and support me. In no single case has the London County Council agreed to transfer its powers to the metropolitan borough councils. It is not because they do not believe that borough councils ought to have the powers, because they practically recommended that the powers should be transferred, but when it comes to doing it of their own accord, it is the general experience that the London County Council is a very jealous upholder of its own powers. I believe that possibly the objection to the Amendment is that local authorities might follow the example of Poplar. I do not think there need be any expectation or fear—according to one's point of view—that such will be the case. The metropolitan borough Councils have shown themselves fully competent, and I do not see why we should offer them the slight of excluding them from the duties to be carried out under this Measure.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is not really a question which ought to raise large principles of a distribution of powers between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs The real object of the Amendment which the hon. Member has moved, I think, is incorporated in the Amendment I have put on the Paper. I am proposing to insert the words
  "Provided that where the council of any non-county borough or urban district is both a local education authority and an authority for the purposes of the Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918, that council shall, as respects that borough or urban district, be the local authority for the purposes of this Act to the exclusion of the county council."
  We are dealing hero with children up to the age of 14. The officers of the maternity and child welfare committees deal with children up to the age of five, and I think it must be fairly obvious that the proper officers for the local authority to employ to deal with children from five to 14 are the school attendance officers, and it is obviously for the reason that we have two classes of officials we want to bring in for this purpose that I cannot accept the Amendment, because a metropolitan borough is an authority under the Maternity and Child Welfare
  1446
  Act, but is not the local education authority.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to have two sets of officials to carry out these duties, one under the Child Welfare Act and the other the attendance officers?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think probably that is the way it will be worked.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: If so, does he consider this duplication necessary— to have one official in the case of the child under five and another for children from five to 14, each official to be entrusted with the power of dealing with this Bill?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is already the power now.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: Is there any reason why we should perpetuate that?
  Amendment negatived.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next three Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb)—in page 33, line 33, after the first word "council" to insert the words
  "in the case of the City of London, the Common Council, in the case of a metropolitan borough, the metropolitan borough council."
  the hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Sir H. Greenwood)—in page 33, line 33, after the first word "council," to insert the words
  "in the case of a borough, a metropolitan borough, or an urban district the council of which exercises powers under The Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918, the council of such borough or district."
  the hon. Member for West Middles borough (Mr. T. Thomson)—in page 33, line 33, after the first word "council," to insert the words
  "in the case of a metropolitan borough, non-county borough, or urban district for which a maternity and child welfare committee have been appointed the council of the metropolitan borough, non-county borough, or urban district, as the ease may be."
  and one later on, all deal with the same subject, which is dealt with in an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. It will probably save the time of the Committee if we take the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Health.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 33, line 33, at the end, to insert the words
  "Provided that where the council of any non-county borough or urban district is both a local education authority and an authority for the purposes of The Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918, that council shall, as. respects that borough or urban district, he the local authority for the purposes of this Act to the exclusion of the county council."
  I do not think I need say any more than I have said already.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 33, line 34, to leave out Subsection (2).
  I want to make it clear that a local authority can delegate its power to its education committee and to its maternity and child welfare committee for carrying out these purposes, and that in that case the expenses incurred will be expenses for which an Exchequer grant should be available, and in the case of a county council there is power provided that special expenses for county purposes shall be charged on such part of the county as may be provided by the order.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 34, line 4, at the end, insert the words:
  "(4) A local authority for the purposes of this Act or a sanitary authority with which a county council have made arrangements under the last preceding Sub-section may, if the authority is a local education authority or an authority for the purposes of The Maternity and Child Welfare Act. 1918, delegate their powers and duties under this Act to the education committee or to the maternity and child welfare committee of the authority, or if the authority is both a local education authority and an authority for the purposes of the Maternity and Child Welfare Act partly to one such committee and partly to the other, as they think fit; and such delegation may be made subject to filch restrictions and conditions, if any, as the authority think fit."
  In page 34, line 2, leave out from the word "authority," to the word "of," in line 3.
  In page 34, leave out lines 5 to 7, inclusive, and insert instead thereof
  "(5) Any expenses incurred by a local education committee or a maternity and child welfare committee in the execution and performance of any powers and duties so delegated shall be defrayed as expenses
  1448
  incurred in aid of elementary education or under The Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918, as the case may be and any expenses incurred by a local authority for the purposes of this Act in the execution and performance of their powers and duties which have not been delegated to a local education committee or a maternity and child welfare committee, and any similar expenses of a sanitary authority, so far as they are not met by payments by the county council shall be defrayed as follows:
  (a) in the case of a county council, as expenses for general county purposes or, if the Minister by order so directs, as expenses for special county purposes charged on such part of the county as may be provided by the order."— [Mr. N. Chamberlain.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 41 (Provisions as to posthumous children) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 42.—(Decennial reports and revision of contribution).
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 31, line 13. at the end, to insert the words
  "Provided that nothing in this provision shall be construed as preventing the Treasury from requiring additional reports to be so made at such times during the currency of any decennial period as they think fit."
  This is in fulfilment of an undertaking I gave, when an Amendment was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh 'Mr. W. Graham) on Clause 11, that I would put; down an Amendment to provide that further reports might be made during the currency of a decennial period.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in page 36, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (2).
  This Amendment is one on which we propose to take a Division. The Clause that we have now reached is one that provides that the contributions shall be increased per year until they finally come to 1s. 3d. for the men and 7d. for the women; not far from double what they are at the present time. Of course we object, as we have in toto objected to contributions, and we naturally object to contributions which are nearly double the present rate. I am not going over the old ground on this object. We want

  1449
  to raise points that it has been impossible to deal with in any previous stage of the Committee. It is very difficult to gather how the matter stands from the report of the Actuary, but I think I am substantially correct in saying that these increased contributions are not necessary—at any rate are not wholly necessary—merely for the purpose of providing for the benefits in this Bill —merely for the widows' and orphans' benefits, and the old age pension at 65: the reason that these contributions are to be increased is that in the operation of this Bill, eventually, the whole increase may be used to put the old age pension at 70 from a non-contributory on to a contributory basis! We must raise that point now. In our opinion this proposal in the Bill to put the old age pension at 70 on to a contributory basis is one of the most reactionary stops in the social legislation of the last generation. It is practically to repeal the principal Act on which, up till now, every party in this House has been agreed. The report of the actuary shows quite clearly what is going to happen! A lad who enters insurance next year at 16 and begins to pay contributions is not paying simply for the benefits under this Bill. Part of his contributions are being paid in order to provide old age pensions for the future.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN Mr. CHAMBERLAIN indicated assent.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: That is so in the Actuary's report. The proportion is increased. Well, the right hon. Gentleman will correct me later. The proportion is increased until, gradually, stage by stage,: he whole of the expenses of the old age pensions will have been transferred on to industry and the poor, and wealth as wealth will have been relieved. I am not going to argue it at any length, but I will merely say that this is not a part of the Bill on which the Government has enlarged either on the Second Reading or previous stages. I have no doubt that when the Bill has passed there will be, quite rightly, a great educational propaganda by the Minister of Health in order that the Bill may be understood by the people; and on this part of the Bill I think we can promise the right hon. Gentleman that we will contribute a little assistance. It is for the purpose of beginning to help the Minister of Health in this matter that I now move this Amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The point at which I thought it necessary to shake my head was, perhaps, a small one, but it is just as well to be accurate in these matters. The hon. Member stated that a youth who entered insurance at the age of 16 would be contributing not only to the benefits under this Bill but his share of the old age pensions. Well, the inaccuracy in that case is that he would not be contributing at the rate at which he begins his contributions. There is no increase in his contributions, and therefore no contributions towards the cost of old age pensions, until the year 1936. It is a small point, but it is as well to be accurate. I am not going to argue the case for this Clause, because I am quite satisfied that I shall not convince hon. Members opposite that it is advisable that all pensions should be of a contributory nature, nor do I think it necessary to argue that point for the purpose of convincing hon. Members on this side that it is a desirable thing. But I may just point out this. First of all, the Clause begins
  "Unless Parliament otherwise determines—"
  The party opposite have got 10 years in which to build up a case and get the country to return them to power. I do not suppose they will succeed in the first ten years. Perhaps in the course of the next 10 years they may get a chance, and if not there is another 10 years after that. If they can get the opportunity, it will be possible for them, when the time comes, for one of those increases, to persuade Parliament not to make it.
  I think I need add only this other word, so that there may be no misunderstanding. I have had some calculations made to sec how long it would be before anybody obtaining the old age pension would have contributed anything towards that pension, and I find that 38 years will have elapsed from now before anybody in receipt of an old age pension at 70 will have contributed one penny towards it. So it does not seem to me that this is a matter of very pressing urgency.
  Mr. HARRIS: I think it ought to be pointed out how very exceptional it is for a paragraph of this kind to be in a Bill. Of course we cannot bind future Parliaments. Any House of Commons at any time can not only alter this Clause but repeal the whole Bill when it becomes an

  1451
  Act. It is lather unnecessary to make the statement:
  "Unless Parliament otherwise determines,"
  and I think it is rather a novel principle to insert in a Bill.
  But there is a much more serious side to this Clause. It has been established since 1908 that old people get the old age pension at 70 as a right. That has become an accepted principle with all parties; it has ceased to be a matter of controversy, although I know when the Measure was before Parliament in 1908 there was a section of the House who would not take any active part in it, though they would not oppose the original proposal to give old age pensions to all old people as a right. Now we are going to have that grafted on a contributory scheme, dealing with quite other questions. It is a serious matter in a Bill of this kind to take away the rights of people that have been recognised not only in this country but throughout the Dominions. In Australia and New Zealand they continue to get their old age pensions on a non-contributory basis. I am not opposed to a contributory basis with regard to orphans and widows because it shows that the British people recognise their obligation to the old people of TO years of age.
  Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: I understand that nobody who comes under this Act
  will be eligible for an old ago pension until they have contributed for 38 years. I want to know if this Bill will cover all the people in the country. There are large numbers of people not covered by insurance. Some of them will live up to the age of 70, and they will be entitled to an old age pension although they will not have contributed to National Health Insurance. Will those people be entitled under this Bill to their old age pension?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is very difficult to say what will happen 38 years hence, but if no alteration be made in the present Act, the difference between those people referred to by the hon. Member and those who have contributed would be that in the former case they would be subject to the means test, whereas those who contributed would not be subject to that test.
  Mr. STORRY-DEANS: Are we to understand that the old age pension at 70 to people not insured is left precisely by this Bill in the same position as they are now?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If not insured, certainly.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 114.

  Division No. 293.]

  AYES.

  [11.35 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Agg-Gardncr, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Buliock, Captain M.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Albery, Irving James

  Burman, J. B.

  Duckworth, John

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Edmondsen, Major A. J.

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Evans. Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Sallour, George (Hampstead)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Finburgh, S.

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.

  Fleming, D. P.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Forrest, W.

  Bethell, A.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Foster, Sir Karry S.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Cope, Major William

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Couper, J. B.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Crook, C. W.

  Gault Lieut. -Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Boyd-Carpenter. Major A.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Gibbs Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Brass, Captain W.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Goff, Sir Park

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Grace, John

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Meller, R. J.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Hanbury, C.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Harland, A.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Storry Deans, R.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Neville, R. J.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Newton, Sir D, G. C. (Cambridge)

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Honeage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Oakley, T.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Tinne. J. A.

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Waddington, R.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Philipson, Mabel

  Wallace, Captain O. E.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Pilcher, G.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Jacob, A. E.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Water-house, Captain Charles

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Radford, E. A.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Raine, W.

  Wells, S. R.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Rawilnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk, Peel

  Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Lamb, J. O.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Heading)

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Lougher, L.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York. W. R., Ripon)

  Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

  Salmon, Major I.

  Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Wragg, Herbert

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Macintyre, Ian

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Major Sir Harry Barnston and

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Major Hennessy.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Gosling, Harry

  Lansbury, George

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Greenall, T.

  Lawson, John James

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Lee, F.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lunn, William

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Groves, T.

  Mackinder, W.

  Barnes, A.

  Grundy, T. W.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Barr, J.

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Batey, Joseph

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  March, S.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

  Maxton, James

  Broad, F. A.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morrison. R. c. (Tottenham, N.)

  Bromley, J.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Paling, W.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hardie, George D.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Clowes, S.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Potts, John S.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Compton, Joseph

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Cove, W. G.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Riley, Ben

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Ritson, J.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hore-Belisha,. Leslie

  Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Day, Colonel Harry

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Duncan, C.

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Dunnico, H.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  England, Colonel A.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Fenby, T. D.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Kennedy, T.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Gillett, George M.

  Kirkwood, O.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  1454

  1455

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Viant, S. P.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Williams, Dr. J. H (Llanelly)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Westwood J.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Windsor, Walter

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Whiteley, W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster. Newton)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Thurtle, E.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.

  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 43.—(Interpretation.)
  Mr. KELLY: I beg to move, in page 35, line 26, to leave out the word "twenty-eight," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-six."
  This is to provide that the appointed day shall be 1926 instead of 1928. A little earlier in the evening hon. Members opposite cheered very loudly when the Minister was prevailed upon to do something with regard to pensions, and to increase what had been promised in the earlier stapes of the Debate. Surely when this was introduced into the Bill, that old age pensions should operate in 1923, so far as those who had reached 65, they might consider that good work by seeing that these people have every opportunity of handling, drawing and spending the pensions during the year 1926 and onwards. If it is a good thing it ought not to be held up. We may be told the intention is that contributions have to be paid for some time before this benefit is to be received. Surely a person who has reached 65, and has been engaged in industry, has contributed quite enough to the upkeep of the country to warrant that he should be given the old age pension next year instead of having to wait until 1928. I have wondered whether or not there is some virtue in the year 1928. I have wondered whether or not it is the intention of the Government to make an appeal to the country at that time. If that is in their mind, and if that is the reason why they are keeping back from the old people their old age pension, they can hardly suggest to those of us who sit on these benches that we are endeavouring to make any party capital out of the pensions for the aged. Seeing that the Government have
  thrown many of their employés in Government Departments out of work, people who are on the borderline of 65, I hope they will pay regard to these people and say that, instead of keeping them in the condition in which we now find them, they will give them an opportunity of drawing their pension at the beginning of next year. I hope the Minister will not say that he cannot afford it; that he has conceded all that he can possibly concede. I hope that with regard to these old people he will agree to let them have their old age pensions at an earlier date, instead of keeping them in a state of privation for a further three years.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It seems remarkable that, after denouncing this Bill so much, and speaking of the many hardships which its conditions will inflict upon the people, the hon. Member and his friends are now asking that these conditions shall come into operation two years earlier.
  Mr. KELLY: The benefits.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is a. good reason for fixing the date as 1928. We are following the principle adopted in the National Health Insurance Act. We have provided that there shall be a two years period of waiting, as in the case of the National Health Insurance Act, which was arranged for a very much smaller benefit known as the disablement benefit. There is a further reason for not accepting this Amendment, and that is, that to bring this part of the Bill into operation in 1926 it would cost another £20,000,000.
  Question put, "That the word 'twenty-eight' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 96.

  Division No. 294.]

  AYES.

  [11.50 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Albery, Irving James

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Bethell, A.

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Plicher, G.

  Blundell, P. N.

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir H. (Eastbourne)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Radford, E. A.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Hanbury, C.

  Raine, W.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Harland, A.

  Held, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Ropner, Major L.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Burman, J. B.

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Chadwick Sir Robert Burton

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Cope. Major William

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

  Lamb, J. O.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F.G. (Westm'eland)

  Crookshank, Col. C de W (Berwick)

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Storry Deans, R.

  Cunliffe Joseph Herbert

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Davidson, J. (Hertt'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Lougher, L.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Duckworth, John

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Tinne, J. A.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  England, Colonel A.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Evans, Captain A (Cardiff, South)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Wells, S. R.

  Finburgh, S.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Fleming D. P.

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Forrest, W.

  Neville, R. J.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  William, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Oakley, T.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Ganzoni Sir John

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wood, B C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Penny, Frederick George

  Wood, E (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  Glyn Major R. G. C.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Grace, John

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Philipson, Mabel

  Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Thomson.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Bromley, J.

  Duncan, C.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Buchanan, G.

  Dunnico, H.

  Alexander. A V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Charleton, H. C.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Clowes, S.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Barnes, A.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Barr, J.

  Compton, Joseph

  Gillett, George M.

  Batey, Joseph

  Dalton, Hugh

  Greenall, T.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Bread, F. A.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Groves, T.

  1458

  1459

  Grundy, T. W.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Stephen, Campbell

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Handle, George D.

  Paling, W.

  Thurtie, E.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Viant, S. P.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Potts, John S.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Riley, Ben

  Westwood, J.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Ritson, J.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Whiteley, W.

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Rose, Frank H.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)

  Shleis, Dr. Drummond

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Windsor, Walter

  Kelly, W. T.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Kennedy, T.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Lawson, John James

  Smith. H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Lee, F.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Warne-

  Lunn, William

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move in page 35, line 28, after the word "stepchild," to insert the words "or adopted child."
  I faring this matter forward because it seems to me that the adopted child is sadly neglected in this country. Adoption has become a regular practice, and we are behind most countries in the world by not recognising it. If a man adopts a child and makes himself responsible for that child, pays for its education and looks after it and keeps it, and that man dies, that child is not provided for under this Bill. I bring this Amendment forward in the hope that the Government will take the earliest possible opportunity of bringing the adopted child within the law as represented by this Bill.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have every sympathy with the object of my hon. and gallant Friend. I was myself a member of a committee which investigated this subject. But, as he is aware, there is no such thing, legally, as "adopting" a child in this country. The Committee that sat on this subject has reported. If, and when, Parliament sanctions giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee the adopted child will have a legal status. Then will be the time for Parliament to decide what alteration shall be made.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 3G, line 35, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section:
  "(4) Where a child born before the marriage of his parent has been legitimated by virtue of the subsequent marriage of his
  1460
  parents the child shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a child born of the marriage."
  12 P.M.
  This Amendment is necessary now in the case of Scotland and will be necessary in the case of this country if further legislation is passed allowing legitimation by marriage.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 36, line 35, after the words last inserted, to insert a new Sub-section:
  "(5) For the purposes of this Act, any period during which a person served in the naval, military, or air forces of the Crown during the late war shall, if he was entitled to be insured whilst so serving, be deemed to he a period during which he was insured, and contributions shall be deemed to have been paid in respect of Lim for every week during that period."
  In the great War men who were not insured in civil life were allowed to remain uninsured while in the Army. The Amendment will treat these men as if they had been insured.
  Amendment agreed to
  Clause, as amended clod, order to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 44. —(Application to Scotland).
  Amendments made: In page 37, line 21, after the word "and" insert the words "save as otherwise hereinafter provided."
  In page 37, line 39, at the end, insert the words,
  "Provided that where any of the powers and duties of the local authority are executed and performed by the committee, or joint committee, administering the scheme of

  1461
  maternity and child welfare under The Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915, in operation within the district of the local authority, any expenses incurred by that committee, or joint committee, shall be defrayed as expenses incurred under that scheme."
  In page 37, line 42, at the end, insert
  "(a) Regulations may be made by the Registrar-General with the approval of the Scottish Board of Health requiring every person giving information to a registrar of births, deaths, and marriages of a birth, death, or marriage to furnish in writing, to the best of his knowledge and belief, such information for the purposes of this Act as may be prescribed, and any person refusing so to furnish such information or knowingly making any false statement or representation with reference to such information shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. The provisions of Section six of The Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages (Scotland) Act, 1854, with respect to regulations thereunder being laid before Parliament shall apply to regulations made under this Subsection."
  In page 38, lines 8 and 9, leave out the words "including copies of, or extracts from the registers under their charge."
  In page 38, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).—[Sir John Gilmour.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 45 (Short title, extent and corn-men cement) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to modify existing superannuation schemes.)
  (1) Where at the commencement of this Act any superannuation scheme has been established otherwise than by Act of Parliament, including a scheme established under powers conferred by Act of Parliament whereby benefits are provided corresponding to any of the benefits secured by this Act, and the pension authority are desirous, in consequence of the passing of this Act, to modify the scheme as respects insured persons who may become entitled to corresponding benefits under or by virtue of this Act, but under the instrument regulating the scheme are unable to do so without undue delay or expense, the pension authority may submit to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies proposals for conferring on them the powers necessary for the purpose, and the Chief Reistrar may confirm the proposals, subject to such conditions, if any, as he thinks fit to impose, and thereupon, subject to compliance with such conditions, if any, the pension authority may modify the scheme as respects such persons as aforesaid by reducing the amount of the benefits payable
  1462
  under the scheme and the contributions payable thereunder, and by making such other alterations in the scheme as may appear to them expedient in consequence of such reductions.
  Provided that where the pension authority is a local authority this sub-section shall have effect as if for references to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies there were substituted references to the Minister.
  (2) Where at the commencement of this Act any superannuation scheme has been established by Act of Parliament whereby benefits are provided corresponding to any of the benefits secured by this Act the pension authority may submit to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies an amending scheme for reducing, as respects insured persons who may become entitled to corresponding benefits under or by virtue of this Act, the benefits payable under the scheme, and the contributions payable thereunder, and may make such other alterations in the scheme as appear to them expedient in consequence of such reductions; and the Chief Registrar, after giving persons affected by the proposed scheme or their representatives the opportunity of objecting, and after considering any such objection, may confirm the scheme; and on any such scheme being so confirmed the Act by which the scheme is established shall have effect subject to the provisions of the scheme:
  Provided that where the pension authority is a local authority this Sub-section shall have effect as if for references to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies there were substituted references to the Minister.
  (3) Where by any public general Act in force at the commencement of this Act provision is made for the establishment of a general scheme of superannuation whereby persons in return for contributions payable thereunder become entitled to benefits corresponding to any of the benefits secured by this Act, any local authority or combination of local authorities which is at the commencement of this Act, or has hereafter become or propose to become a pension authority to which the first-mentioned Act applies may submit to the Minister a scheme modifying the first-mentioned Act so far as it relates to insured persons who may become entitled to any of the benefits secured by this Act and who may also become entitled to receive from the pension authority corresponding benefits under the first-mentioned Act: —

  (a) by reducing the superannuation allowance payable under the first-mentioned Act to any such person by such amount as may be specified in the scheme, not exceeding the amount of the pension to which he and, if he is married, his wife may become entitled under or by virtue of this Act;

  (b) by reducing the contributions payable under the first-mentioned Act by any such person by such amount as may be specified in the scheme;

  and the scheme may make such financial adjustments (including any alteration in

  1463
  any annual charge payable by the pension authority which may have been fixed under the first-mentioned Act) as may be appropriate in the circumstances, and the Minister, after giving persons affected by the proposed scheme or their representatives an opportunity of objecting, and, after considering any such objections, may confirm the scheme, and upon any such scheme being so confirmed the first-mentioned Act, in relation to the pension authority and such persons as aforesaid, shall have effect subject to the provisions of the scheme.
  (4) No alteration in any particular scheme, or in any general scheme in its application to any particular pension authority shall be made by a scheme under this Section which will prejudicially affect the solvency of the particular scheme, or of the general scheme, in its application to that authority or increase the liability of the person (if any) liable for the solvency thereof.
  (5) The powers conferred on a pension authority by a scheme under this Section may include power to pay on behalf of any person in receipt of a superannuation allowance) from the pension authority any contribution under this Act or the Insurance Act payable by such person and, if they think fit, to deduct the amount thereof from the superannuation allowance payable to him.
  (6) This Section shall not, nor shall any scheme thereunder, affect the benefits of or contributions by any person in respect of whom contributions under this Act are payable at the rate mentioned in Part IV of the First Schedule to this Act or in respect of whom no contributions under this Act are payable.
  (7) For the purposes of this Section the expression "local authority" means the council of any county or municipal or metropolitan borough or urban or rural district, and any board of guardians, and any other local authority within the meaning of The Local Loans Act, 1875, and the expression pension authority" means any local authority or combination of local authorities or other body of persons administering a superannuation scheme, and the expression "Act of Parliament" includes a Provisional Order confirmed by Act and an order having the effect of an Act."—[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This Clause is so long and the hour is so late, that I do not want to detain the Committee by going into it unnecessarily There are in existence a number of superannuation schemes, and it has been pointed out to us that, unless we make some provision to prevent it, people who are contributing to these schemes and have also come under the operation of the
  1464
  Bill, may find themselves, between the two, obliged to contribute for benefits which would be beneath the remuneration that they are now receiving. In other words, they would be over-insured. They would be glad if they could have their scheme so modified that the contributions may be reduced, and the benefits reduced accordingly. Therefore, this new Clause is moved, allowing existing schemes to be modified in that way, reducing she contributions and the benefits, so long as the reductions are not more than would reduce the benefits by the amount of the benefits provided in this Bill. Provision is made in regard to representations for any modification of the schemes.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is the Clause purely permissive, or does it put it in the power of the Minister to bring any individual under an existing superannuation scheme down to not more than the 10s. provided in the Bill?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The procedure will be voluntary on the part of the authority administering the superannuation scheme. These schemes are largely local authority schemes. They cannot bring down the superannuation allowance to the amount of the benefits under this Bill. They can reduce the superannuation allowance by an amount not exceeding the benefits receivable under this Bill. That leaves them in the same position.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Is it going to be purely permissive, or is it going to be done compulsorily by the Government?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a permissive Clause.
  Mr. GILLETT: I wish to know whether under this Clause the Minister retains any power in relation to a local authority which has started a scheme under which men have been exempted from the insurance scheme. Supposing it is decided to bring such a scheme to an end, does not the Minister retain any power on behalf of the workers who come under that scheme, to reverse that policy? It seems to me an exceedingly important point, if a scheme can be brought to an end by a local body and the men concerned have no say in the matter. The Minister should have some power of intervention on behalf of the workers before a scheme is brought to an end.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A scheme cannot be brought to an end. It can only be modified, and that modification of a scheme must first be submitted to the Minister and approved by him.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to reciprocal arrangements with other parts of His Majesty's Dominions.)

  (1) if provision is made by legislative enactment in any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain for the establishment therein of any scheme of National Health Insurance and of pensions substantially corresponding to those provided by virtue of the Insurance Act and this Act, the National Health Insurance Joint Committee may, with the consent of the Treasury, make reciprocal arrangements with the authority administering such scheme whereby periods of insurance contributions paid and residence in one country shall, for the purpose of qualification for pensions in the other country, be treated as if they had been periods of insurance contributions paid and residence in that other country, and whereby pensions payable by one country shall be payable to persons whilst resident in the other country.

  (2) Prevision may be made by regulations under this Act for directing that this Act shall, in relation to or in connection with any persons affected by any arrangements made under this Section, apply, subject to such modifications and adaptations as may be prescribed and may make provision for any necessary financial adjustments.

  (3) For the purposes of this section the expression "country" means Great Britain on the one hand and any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain which has made such provision as aforesaid on the other hand.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

  Brought up, read a First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of bank officers and others.)
  No person shall be compelled to insure under this Act who is engaged in clerical work under any banking or other corporation or company where the average salary of the clerical staff of the corporation or company paid to persons of forty years of age exceeds two hundred and fifty pounds per annum.— [Mr. Basil Peto.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I do so in virtue of representations made to me by the Bank Officers' Guild. They point out that young men joining
  1466
  the staffs of banks, insurance companies and analogous corporations arc, at first, paid very small salaries, perhaps from £90 to £100 a year, and by the time they reach 30 years of age, in almost every case, their salaries exceed £250 a year. Therefore, at 30, they automatically go out of the provisions of this Bill, and as regards widows' pensions or orphans' pensions this is merely asking them to pay contributions which, though small, are material in relation to a salary of £90 or £100 a year. Owing to the fact that a vast majority of bank employés, by reason of their salaries being over £250 a year by the time they reach the age of 30, come outside the scope of the Act at that age, the Pensions Bill resolves itself into a compulsory levy upon them without any corresponding benefit. The Attorney-General will probably say that under an insurance scheme you cannot strike a winner every time, and that somebody has got to pay or the rate of insurance would be very much higher. That is true, but this is a special case, and I think it deserves consideration from the Government as to whether it is fair that people in these professions should be asked to contribute to widows' and orphans' pensions for people in another sphere of life altogether. It does not seem to me to be fair.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment. It is a mistake to think that, because after these people have joined when their salaries are small and they rise above £250, they are thereby necessarily deprived of benefit. They can remain voluntary contributors and continue to draw benefit. But if they are left out. it is again a mistake to think they will come in as voluntary contributors. The effect of this Clause as moved would be that all bank clerks would be cut out of the Bill.
  Mr. PETO: That is what they ask.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. Member agrees that there are substantial benefits conferred by this Bill, he would be very sorry to cut this class of people out of its operations. We could not possibly agree that in the case of people engaged in clerical work they should be given the option of coming In or not, as they pleased, when the whole scheme of the Bill in regard to other classes of the community is that it should

  1467
  be made compulsory. That would be an unfair differentiation between clerical and manual workers.
  Mr. PETO: I hope the explanation will be as satisfactory to the Bank Officers' Guild as it appears to be to the Committee. I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Committee to administer funds.)
  For the purposes of administering the funds as provided by this Act there shall be constituted a National Statutory Committee consisting of twenty-seven members, appointed as hereinafter mentioned. Of the said twenty-seven members—
  Nine (one of whom shall he chairman, two of whom shall be women, and not less than three shall be representatives of labour) shall be appointed by the Minister of Health;
  Nine (two of whom shall be women) shall be appointed by the contributing employers or by associations represented by them;
  Nine (two of whom shall be women and five of whom shall be representative of the trade unions appointed either direct or in co-operation with the general Council of the Trade Union Congress) shall be appointed by the individual contributors.
  All members of the National Statutory Committee, with the exception of the chairman, shall be contributors to the fund.
  There may be paid to the chairman, out of the funds, such salary as the Minister of Health may determine.
  All other expenses of the committee (including such travelling expenses to members of the committee as the committee may determine) shall be paid out of the funds at the disposal of the committee.
  Nine members of the National Statutory Committee shall constitute a quorum.
  The statutory committee may appoint subcommittees consisting cither wholly or partly of the members of the statutory committee, and may delegate to such sub-committees, with such restrictions as they think fit, any of the powers and duties under this Act.
  The statutory committee shall regulate their own procedure.
  The Ministry of Health shall provide such clerical and professional assistance as the statutory committee may require, and the committee, with the consent of the Ministry of Health, may determine such salaries or remuneration as may be considered adequate.
  For the purpose of assisting the statutory committee in the execution of their duties
  1468
  a local committee shall be established for every county and. county borough and for every borough or urban district.
  The constitution of a local committee shall be such as may be approved by the statutory committee, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:—
  The number of members of a local committee shall be twenty-one;
  Seven shall be appointed by the council of the county or borough or urban district, but the members so appointed need not be members of the council; Seven (not less than two of whom shall be women) shall be appointed by the local employers;
  Seven (not less than four of whom shall represent the local trade union organisations) shall be appointed by the local individual contributors;
  Not less than two of the representatives in each of the three sections shall be women and all members of the local councils shall be contributors to the fund;
  Each local committee shall appoint its own chairman;
  Nine shall be a quorum.—[Mr. N. Maclean.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  What I am anxious to accomplish in this Amendment is that those who are contributing to the scheme should have some say in the administration, direction, apportionment, and control in regulating the expenditure of the Fund. With this object I have moved this new Clause in order to give democratic control over the money. The Minister of Labour intimated that he was about to set up a Committee, and made a statement that it was to be set up with the object of going into the circumstances and methods of working the Unemployment Insurance Act. This Committee, he says, is to be composed of the three different sections who are contributing to the Insurance Fund, namely, the State, the employers, and the employés. It is to be representative of all the classes that are building up the Fund. If it is advisable to set up such a Committee, even though of a temporary kind, of the three sections of the insurance scheme, surely it is equally advisable to set up a Committee of the three sections for this particular Fund, which is to make up the pensions scheme we are discussing. I hope the Minister will accept the Clause, which embodies a new principle I am trying to bring into the insurance scheme.

  1469
  it is the principle that the people who pay ought to have representation in the administration of the Fund. I hope the Minister will accept the Clause as I have put it down, or that he will himself, on the Report stage, put something into the Bill which will give the control I seek to have.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This proposed new Clause seems to me to be fantastic. So far as I can see there is a central Committee of 27 persons and local Committees all over the country, which, I calculate, will mean the employment of some 30,000 persons. I cannot understand the necessity for this. The benefits under this Bill are not discretionary; they are being paid for by certain definite payments. While there is a discretion in the hands of the Minister, there is an appeal to an independent body of referees. I think the administration of a scheme of this kind should be in the hands of the Minister who is responsible to Parliament. These Committees, scattered all over the country, so far as I can see, are supported by no one.
  Mr. DUNCAN: When the insurance schemes were first started the object was to secure some form of democratic control for them. My objection to State schemes such as this is that they are all
  growing into purely the autocratic principle. We have had Committees of an advisory character. My hon. Friend who has moved this Clause has asked the Minister to be good enough to consider this matter, and to see if he cannot suggest some plan other than the one suggested, whereby some Committee of this kind might exercise some oversight. Obviously the people coming under this scheme might be consulted to discover their opinion, so that the Minister might have that for guidance in the future. This kind of Committee existed during the War, as we are all aware, and nobody on this or that side of the House will deny that those composing these Committees performed, on behalf of the State., service that was of an exceedingly valuable character. I suggest that in this question there is room for some consideration for the bulk of those concerned in the scheme. It seems to be a very lopsided arrangement that the actual control is left in the hands of the Minister, and those who contribute the bulk of the money are not to be considered in any form at all.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 196.

  Division No. 295.]

  AYES.

  [12.28 a m

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hardle, George D.

  Potts, John S.

  Barr, J.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Broad, F. A.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Duncan C.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Watts-Morgan. Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Dunnico. H.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Westwood, J.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

  Whiteley, W.

  Gillett, George M.

  Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Greenail, T.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Windsor, Walter

  Groves. T.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Lawson, John James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Lunn, William

  Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. Beckett.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark. N.)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Blundell, F. N.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Surton

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Clayton. G. C.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Brass, Captain W.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Balniel, Lord

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Beckett. Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Buckingham. Sir H.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Benn. Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Bethel, A.

  Burman, J. B.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Bird. E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hunting field, Lord

  Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Kernel Hempst'd)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Jacob A. E.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks. W.R., Sowerby)

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Shaw. Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Duckworth, John

  Lamb, J. O.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  England, Colonel A.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-&.-M.)

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Kandsw'th)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Laugher, L.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Stanley, Lord (Fyide)

  Fielden, E. B.

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Finburgh, S.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Fleming, D. P.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Storry Deans, R.

  Forrest, W.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Mac Robert, Alexander M.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Gauit Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Neville, R. J.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D, L. (Exeter)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Tinne, J. A.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Oakley, T.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Hall. Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Watson, sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Wells, S. R.

  Hanbury, C.

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Wheter, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Feto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Harland, A.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Pilcher, G.

  Wilson. Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichffeld)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C, M.

  Radford, E. A.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Raine, W.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Roes, Sir Beddoe

  Wood, B C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Hope. Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Captain Douglas Hacking and

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Major Cope.

  Horlick, Lieu.-Colonel J. N.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Widows of persons in Civil Service employment.)
  The widow of every person who has been engaged in any Civil Service employment for a period of not less than fifteen years, and who died before the commencement of this Act or who dies within two years after the commencement of the Act, shall be entitled to the widow's pension provided by Section one of this Act ns if her husband had been a person who had complied with the statutory conditions of the Act. provided that the terms of his employment did not include the provision of a pension for his widow, and the ato of his remuneration at the time of his death or retirement from the service did not exceed two hundred and fifty pounds per annum.—[Mr. B. Peto.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I apologise for having to move another New Clause, but I think I shall be able
  1472
  to give reasons to the Committee why this matter should be carefully considered before we part with this Measure. The New Clause is perfectly clear, but if the Committee will allow me I will read it again. It is as follows:—
  The widow of every person who has been engaged in any Civil Service employment for period of not less than fifteen years, and who died before the commencement of this Act or who dies within two years after the commencement of the Act, shall be entitled to the widow's pension provided by Section one of this Act as if her husband had been a person who had complied with the statutory conditions of the Act, provided that the terms of his employment did not include the provision of a pension for his widow, and the rate of his remuneration at the time of his death or retirement from the service did not exceed two hundred and fifty pounds per annum.
  The people I have specially in mind are the widows of police officers who retired

  1473
  from the force before September, 1918. The Minister of Health two days ago, in moving his Amendment to Clause 15, was particular to point out that it was necessary for him to move that amendment in order to take out of the Bill police officers who were already providing in respect of their widows and children benefits better than those provided by this measure. The words he used were these:
  "Paragraph (a) is designed to deal with the case of a policeman who has had every-thing provided for him that will be provided under this Bill. If that ex-policeman, having retired from police employment, and having the benefit accrued to him from his super-animation allowance, including provision for widows and children takes up in-surable employment, he is out of the Bill." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1925; col. 1005, Vol. 186.]
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the hon. Member give the reference?
  Mr. PETO: It is in the OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1005, on 13th July. If it is desirable and necessary for the Government to move an amendment to exclude these police officers who are provided for under the Police Pensions Act, owing to the fact that they retired after September, 1918, then surely it is necessary we should have an amendment to provide for those police officers who retired before September, 1918. and for whose widows and children no provision is made at present. The position with regard to them is not clear. Many of them will no doubt be able to come in under Clause 14, but I hope the Attorney-General will tell the Committee what particular class of police officers are about to get the advantages of this Bill. Some of them may be in insurable employment, but many are crippled by long years of service, and are unfit to enter employment. Some of them no doubt will be able to come in as voluntary contributors. I have one case of a man who was suffering from angina pectoris, which is a disease—
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: We did not hear the malady from which the man was suffering.
  Mr. PETO: Angina pectoris, which hon Members know is a disease which may—[Interruption.] I want the Committee to consider seriously the position of a man under this Bill who has to retire. To get a pension for his widow he has to make 104 contributions. He joins and commences to pay them. I want to know what his position is if he
  1474
  pays 100 contributions and then becomes a victim to this dread disease. He has paid for nearly two years, only to find that his sacrifice is in vain. The position is not satisfactory with regard to these people, and I am thinking particularly of the wife of such a man. Take the wife of a police-constable who has had 29 years of service, during the whole of which he has been on duty in an isolated station, where his wife has had to search the female prisoners, answer the telephone at all hours of the day and night, provide meals for her husband at all hours, and do other work, quite unremunerated by the State. I quite admit the advantages of giving pensions to people in industrial employment, but I want to know why it is not possible to include such a widow as the one I have referred to, who has really given a. life of service to the State, and for whom, owing to the fact that her husband retired before a certain arbitrary date, no provision is made as far as I can see under this Bill. We may be told that Clause 18 of this Bill provides for pensions for the widows of those who die before the commencement of the Act. So far as these old people are concerned, that Clause does nothing. It requires that they should have children under 14 years of age. None of them are in that position, and therefore that particular Clause might just as well be out of the Bill. These are old people, and I ask the Attorney-General to give serious consideration to these cases, and at any rate to give me the assurance, if, as he may say, these cases ought to be dealt with under a Police Pensions Bill, that a Police Pensions Bill will be introduced into this House without any further delay if ho cannot see his way to what I think is a short and simple solution of the difficulty and include them under this Clause.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry not to be able to deal with the various hard cases which my hon. Friend has put forward. This is a Clause which proposes to deal with the widows of persons in Civil Service employment, and the short answer to it is that the police are not anything of the kind. They are not civil servants at all, and if the Clause were carried it would not have any effect on the position whatever. If my hon. Friend will produce a Police Pension Bill I will certainly consider it, but the Committee will not expect me, without any

  1475
  previous notice, to give a definite pledge as to what particular course we will take in regard to police pensions, which is not a matter that this Clause deals with at all.
  Major HORE-BELISHA: It is rather unfortunate that the learned Attorney-General should take his stand upon a legal technicality of this kind. My hon. Friend, the Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto) has moved the Amendment and justified it with great lucidity, as is his habit. He wanted to move the substance of this Clause as an Amendment to one of the particular Clauses, and it was ruled from the Chair yesterday that if he did so, he would lose his right to move this as a new Clause, and it is very unfortunate for him, and still more unfortunate for the class of persons that he represents, that the Attorney-General, bringing to bear all his penetrating legal knowledge, should discover that the new Clause would not affect the objects which my hon. Friend has in view. In view of the fact that the Attorney-General, using all his legal skill, has discovered that this new Clause would be of no effect so far as the police are concerned, I think he himself will not deny that it would have some effect so far as the people mentioned in the Clause are concerned—namely, servants of the Crown—and it is a peculiar feature of this Bill that it seems to direct all its efforts to the exclusion of those who have faithfully served the country. Had certain Amendments not been accepted, and had certain concessions not been graciously made by the Minister of Health in the course of the discussions on this Bill, there is hardly a sailor, soldier, airman or servant of the Crown who would have got any pension of any kind under this Bill.
  This Amendment, as it reads, is destined to give to those who have served the country faithfully for a period of years certain benefits which are conferred upon others, and I would have the Attorney-General observe that the servants of the Crown who are mentioned in this particular Amendment are, throughout their working lives, mulcted in contributions which far exceed the contributions which you are exacting under this Bill. They have to pay 2s., 3s., 4s. and 5s. every week of their lives in order to draw a miserable superannuation benefit at the
  1476
  age of 60, and their widows are left absolutely destitute upon their death. Seeing that the Attorney-General conceives the case of the police to be excluded from this Clause, I would ask him to the point which this Clause very generously raises on behalf of a section of Government servants who are deserving of very special consideration; that is to say, men who have worked faithfully for not less than 15 years.
  Mr. PETO: Should I be in Order now in adding, after the words "Civil Servants," the words "or police employés"? I had these words in Amendments I put down on various Clauses all the way through the Bill, and I merely drafted this Clause in what I thought the widest possible way, and the Attorney-General, so to speak, trips me up because, although I have mentioned the police four or five times on the Order Paper, I was not aware of the technicality that they were not civil servants.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Clause would first have to be read a Second time before an Amendment was possible. I might remind the hon. Member that new Clauses come first on the Report stage.
  Mr. HAYES: I think the interpretation of the Attorney-General is probably technically correct. On the other hand, I am sure the Attorney-General will appreciate that police officers suffer all the disabilities of being civil servants, though perhaps not technically so. All the civil servant's disabilities are applicable to the police and prison services. I think it is only about ten days ago that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself replied to a question in the House, that a prison officer could not be allowed a Petition of Right to take proceedings against the Crown because he was suffering under the disability of being a servant of the Crown. In that case I do think there should be, if not within this Bill, certainly some immediate consideration given to the points that have been raised.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the Attorney-General is right, a discussion about the police would not be relevant.
  Mr. HAYES: I have not said the Attorney-General is bound to be correct, but that the new Clause reads "in any Civil Service employment." I think one would admit that the police forces of this country is distinctly Civil Service employ-

  1477
  ment, though policemen may not be civil servants in the technical sense as understood by the Attorney-General. The Home Secretary, but a few days ago, in reply to a question, did admit that he was intending to consider the question as to how far the widows of police officers would be placed in a less favourable position by this Bill than they otherwise would have been, and he is considering whether any fresh provision can be made. What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether he can tell the Committee if this question of the widows of the pre-1918 police officers will be taken into consideration in any legislation which may be contemplated? The widows of police. officers who resigned from the police force after 1918 are entitled to widows' pensions on a non-contributory basis, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) introduced the principle of non-contributory widows' pensions for police officers, it was denied to widows of police officers up to 1918. A large number of Members who supported the Coalition Government secured the inclusion of these particular widows, which this new Clause seeks to cover, but when the Bill reached the House of Lords the provision was removed upon the proposal of the Home Secretary. We are asking that some recognition should be given to this unfortunate class of widows who, though their husbands had contributed, were ignored by the House of Lords after the House of Commons itself intended they should be included.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: May I ask for your ruling, Mr. Hope, in these particular circumstances. I think you at first imagined it would be in order to discuss the police. Would it be in order to withdraw this Clause and move it again with "and police" inserted after "civil servants"—I mean to move it again at once?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be in order, but at the same time I would very much deprecate it. If it is put down on Report I shall make it my business to draw the Speaker's attention to it.
  Captain GARRO - JONES: The Attorney-General pointed out that he had not been given notice of this Clause. It may therefore be presumed that he drew
  1478
  on his memory when he said that civil servants did not include police. What is his authority for saying that?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look it up he will find that police are paid out of the rates and are, therefore, not civil servants. I might explain to the hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause that I had no idea he proposed to deal with the police until he mentioned it, and naturally, I was not prepared to deal with that matter, which I had no idea was to be raised. In regard to civil servants, any civil servants who retire after the commencement of the Act will have an opportunity of keeping their insurance for widows' pensions by becoming voluntary contributors. Any civil servant who died before the Act came into force will, if they are insured persons, have the same rights as other insured persons.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The Attorney-General stated that the police forces of the country are paid through the rates. The Metropolitan Police are under the Home Office. They are paid not out of the rates but by the Government. Are they not in the category of being civil servants?
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Docs not that apply largely throughout the country to all police forces? They are paid a large amount of their pay and expenses from the Treasury.
  Mr. PETO: I would like to adopt the suggestion to withdraw this Clause now and consider putting it down in a better form for the Report stage. I can quite understand the position now, though I did not do so previously.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Rates of Contributions.)
  Mr. LAMB: I beg to move, in page 39, line 14, column 1, after the word "men," to insert the words
  "not employed in agricultural occupations as defined for the purposes of The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920."
  This Amendment has also relation to that which stands in my name: "Schedule I,

  1479
  page 39, line 15, col. 1, after "women," insert
  "not employed in agricultural occupations as defined for the purpose of The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920,"
  1.0 A.M.
  and the further proposed Amendment to the Schedule I, page 35, line 15, in respect of rates of contribution, I quite realise that the House is not in a mood to listen to a lengthy statement, but I do ask the Committee to give me the time to do justice to a case which I think has a grievance under the Bill. The Amendment to the Schedule is to reduce the charge to the industry of agriculture. The figures 9d. and 8½d. are being charged, and the figures 3d. and 1½d. which I have put down require some justification. I would like to refer very briefly to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that no fresh burden can be placed on the land in the absence of a complete rural policy. That statement I agree with, and I am glad a Member of the Government has made that statement so recently in the House. It gives me hope that consideration will be given to this Amendment. The Government have included agricultural workers in this Bill, and I am not one of those who want to exclude them because I could not possibly stand by and see benefits offered to employment in other industries without these benefits being assured to agricultural workers. But what I do dispute is the basis of the inclusion. Referring again to the Schedule you will see. that the charge is 9d. Under Schedule 3 the new charge for Health Insurance will be reduced from 10d. to 9d., giving a relief of 1d. There is also a further reduction of 1d. which brings the charge down to 3d. Then in the Unemployment Insurance Bill there is a further reduction to those in any industry coming under it, of 2d. and 2d., or 4d. in all. The charge for those employed in agriculture, with the reduction of 1d., is just double the charge which is going to be imposed upon other industries. The reason for that is quite simple, because the agricultural industry, not having been previously an industry brought under the Unemployment Insurance scheme, there is to be no relief of 2d. and 2d. That is where the difference comes in. Consequently, the new charge will be 8d. as against 4d.
  1480
  in the other industries. I believe the agricultural industry is entitled to receive the benefit the same as ether industries. The industry has carried its own unemployment. There is no unemployment in agriculture. Almost curiously there are as many men employed in agriculture now as before the War, and they are being maintained by the industry. They are accordingly entitled to this 4d. relief, which would bring an equality in so far as it would be a 4d. increase. I see that the other figures do not tally with the figures in the Amendment, but the charges made for the benefit received under the Health Insurance were heavier than were necessary for the industry. I do ask the Minister, if he cannot accept the figures in this Amendment and to consider seriously the 4d. and 2d. which I have proved should be applicable to the industry. I am only asking for fair treatment. If there is no concession made, the burden upon the agricultural industry will be over £1,338,000 per annum. I am asking, not for a concession, but for justice to the industry in comparison with the charges upon other industries. I make that request to the Minister, especially after the expression of opinion by the. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend has certainly put his case shortly, concisely and moderately, but I think he will not be altogether surprised when I say I cannot accept the proposal. It comes to this, that whatever the reduced figures which might be put into the Schedule, he wants to give all the benefits provided in the Bill to one particular class of people at reduced contributions— contributions below that which other people pay for the benefits. Once you say you are going to make an exception for a particular industry and you give a concession of this kind, how can you stop there? There are other industries which are certainly quite as deserving of special consideration. While my hon. friend has based his case entirely on the relative increases in the contributions which are going to be paid in various forms of insurance, he has not shown us what is going to be the net result upon agriculture and other industries. If all the reductions he has mentioned are taken into account, including the reductions in unemployment insurance provided for in the new Bill. the position is that in other industries the total contribution is 2s. 9d., of which the

  1481
  man pays Is. 4d. and the employer Is. 5d.; but in the case of agriculture it is Is. 6d., of which the man and the employer both pay half.
  Mr. LAMB: We maintain our own unemployed.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If there is no unemployment, no insurance is required against unemployment. It is a strange, illogical argument that, because some industries have a burden upon them, agriculture, which has not that burden, should have similar relief.
  Mr. LAMB: Will you allow me to elaborate that particular point? Agriculture maintains its own unemployment. Agriculture employs all the men it had before the War. These men are kept on all the time, when they are not fully employed. Men are maintained in pay, when in other industries there would be short time.
  Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: When all the other industries get some benefit it stops at agriculture. All we ask in this Amendment is that the same reduction should be given to agriculture as to other industries. Agriculture at the present moment has had very little done for it. If something is done, it may help to populate and develop the countryside. Unless something is done, I am sure that, instead of getting people into the country, you will drive them out of it.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: May I support the Amendment moved from the other side of the Committee? The reason I do so is that the burden put upon the agricultural back is out of all proportion to the benefits which they receive.
  Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 148.

  Division No. 296.]

  AYES.

  [1.12 a.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hilisbro')

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayday, Arthur

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barr, J.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dinc. C.I

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. sir George L.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Dalton, Hugh

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Kelly, W. T.

  Westwood, J.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Kennedy, T.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Duncan, C,

  Lawson, John James

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Windsor, Walter

  Gillett, George M.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Potts, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

  Grundy, T. W.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Sir Thomas Davies and Mr. Lamb.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  NOES.

  Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Cope. Major William

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Crookshank, Cpt, H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Barclay-Harvey C. M.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Goff, Sir Park

  Bethell, A.

  Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Duckworth, John

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hall, Capt. W. O'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Hanbury, C.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  England, Colonel A.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Harland, A.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Burman, J. B.

  Faile, sir Bertram G.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxford, Henley)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Fielden, E. B.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Finburgh, S.

  Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Fleming, D. P.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Forrest, W.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Pielou, O. P.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Pilcher, G.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Radford, E. A.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Raine, W.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Ropner, Major L.

  Wells, S. R.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Salmon, Major I.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Wilson Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Womersley, W. J.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wood E (Chest'r Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Oakley, T.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Captain Margesson and Mr. F. C.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Storry, Deans, R.

  Thomson.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is a long series of Amendments dealing with the same point of principle and I do not think there should be a discussion on each. A Debate might take place on the first one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton).
  Mr. R. MORRISON: Will that decision of yours apply to all sections of the first Schedule?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think we ought to have a different discussion on each.
  Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, in page 39, line 14, column 2, to leave out "9d.," and to insert instead thereof "4d."
  So far as we are concerned we shall be quite content with a general discussion raised by these Amendments and of taking one Division, but we do intend to divide the Committee once on the points laid down in our Amendments. What we propose is, not to wipe out the contributions altogether, but to mitigate their incidence on industry and to re-adjust the rates of contributions by making the series of reductions as set out in the series of Amendments. The first is to leave out 9d. and insert 4d. At an earlier stage in the Debate arguments were adduced from this side of the Committee, but they did not make very much impression upon the Government. Since that time certain things have happened. Unemployment has increased and to that extent the position is more serious than it was when we from this side of the House appealed vainly to
  1484
  the Government to have some regard for the burden thrown upon the wage earners. I hope there will be left a tender place in the hearts of those on the Treasury Bench. I feel that the change which has taken place in the circumstances justify us in making a last appeal to the Minister of Health to reconsider the incidence of these rates. It would not be in order for me to refer to the details of the new Unemployment Insurance Bill which has just been introduced, but it will have a certain effect on the situation as was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman on a previous Amendment. But when all allowance is made for the activities of the Government in searching the pockets of the unemployed in order to replace some of the money paid by the employers it still remains true— [Interruption.] I cannot dwell upon that point, as it would be out of order; and I am sorry that the present state of business in the Committee has not lead the unemployed on the other side of the Committee to greater activity on this Bill. It is true, however, that the burden on industry is considerably increased by the net effect of these two Bills taken together, and that at a time when industry is rapidly proceeding from bad to worse. I hope it is not too late to ask for a reasoned reply from the Government and I hope we shall not be put off with the statement, which is, of course, obviously true, but quite insufficient, that it will cost a large sum of money. Obviously it will do that. If the

  1485
  Amendments are accepted, it would mean a Supplementary Finance Bill, and hon. Members opposite would have to postpone their visit to Scotland, but still the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be prepared for the acceptance of those Amendments. He should be prepared with a Supplementary Finance Bill, re-imposing some of the Super-tax and Income Tax which was taken off in the last Finance Bill.
  Mr. R. MORRISON: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Peckham in his general statement in regard to contributions and only rise to make one brief point with regard to Part II of Schedule I. The proposal there seems to me to be most iniquitous. It is a proposal that when a man or woman has attained the age of 65, when the contributions cease to be payable in respect of old men and women, the employers shall pay double contributions. On the face of it, that appears to be a concession to these old people, but when one examines it it is found that it will have a most pernicious effect. If this part of the Schedule is carried it means that the attention of the employer will be deliberately drawn to the fact that a man or woman in his employ has reached the age of 65. There are many men in industry who are past 65 years of age and the employer is quite unaware of the fact. They work as hard and as industriously as they can in order to disguise their age as long as possible, but by this proposal the deliberate attention of the employer is drawn to the fact that they have reached this age. What will be the result? I suggest that the actual result will be one of two things. The employer will either discharge them because they have reached 65, or else he will immediately approach them with a view of putting upon them a substantial reduction in wages. I think this is grossly unfair to old people, and this House should not go out of its way to draw the attention
  of employers to their having reached this age. It is not the business of an employer what age his employés are so long as they give satisfactory service. The Minister of Health has not made any concessions lately and there is not much time left for him to do so, but I hope that even at this late hour he will not put this penalty upon these old people when they reach the age of 65 by deliberately drawing the attention of their employers to the fact.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The contributions which are payable in Part II of this Schedule, are in respect not only of pensions but of health insurance as well, and the hon. Member is, under a misapprehension in supposing that the 9d. paid by the employer is doubled in respect of these men. It is not. We are keeping the contributions exactly where they are. That I hope will clear up any apprehension of the hon. Member. With regard to the general point. I take it we all look upon this Amendment as a final demonstration. I have no objection to a demonstration as a sort of finish to the discussions we have had, but I hardly think it is worth while to argue it again. Sufficient is it for me in say that if the Amendment is carried the scheme would be rendered insolvent.
  Major CRAWFURD: I desire to say one word, not with any hope of affecting the Government in any decision or with any desire to keep the Committee, but simply as a protest against the failure of the Government to meet the criticisms which have been made, not only from these benches but from all parts of the House, against the way this Bill is being financed. As a final protest I shall vote, for the Amendment.
  Question put, "That '9d.' stand part of the Schedule"
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 39.

  Division No. 297.]

  AYES.

  [1.28 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Bourne, Captain Robert

  Croft Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Brings, J. Harold

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Brooklebank, C. E. R.

  Cope, Major William

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Bethell, A.

  Burman, J, B.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Burton, Colonel H: W.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Llndsey Gainsbro)

  Blundell, F. N.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jacob, A. E.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Kidd, J. (Linilthgow)

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Duckworth. John

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Smith, R. w.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

  Smithers, Waldron

  England, Colonel A.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Fieldon, E. B.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Storry Deans, R.

  Finburgh, S.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Fleming, D. P.

  Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Forrest, W.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Neville, R. J.

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Ganzoni Sir John

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Oakley, T.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir John

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Tinne, J. A.

  God, Sir Park

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Penny, Frederick George

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Wells. S. R.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Phillpson, Mabel

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Hanbury. C.

  Pleiou, D. P.

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pileher, G.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Harland, A.

  Radford, E. A.

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Raine, W.

  Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Herbert, s.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Hogg Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Ropner, Major L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hayes, John Henry

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smitn, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotnerhithe)

  Barr, J.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kelly, W. T.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Kennedy, T.

  Westwood, J.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lawson, John James

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Duncan, C.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gillett, George M.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Windsor, Walter

  Grundy, T. W.

  Potts, John S.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

  Amendment made: In page 40, line 3, leave out from the second word "employment," to the word "and," in line 9, and insert instead thereof the words
  "to which paragraph (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section nine of this Act applies."— [Mr. Chamberlain.]
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move, in page 40, line 14, column 3, to leave out "4½d.," and to insert instead thereof "3½d."
  Even at this very late hour Intend to put the case for the poor down-
  1488
  trodden ratepayers of the country before the Committee. I am speaking on behalf of those numerous local authorities throughout the country who have adopted superannuation schemes. Under the provisions of the Health Insurance Acts certificates of exemption have been granted to these authorities because they had superannuation schemes, and I presume certificates will be issued to them under this Bill. That being so, the employés, being men, will not have the benefit of the scheme in the full, so far as it relates to old age

  1489
  pensions. They will have the benefit of the scheme, so far as it relates to the widows' pensions and orphans' pensions. The total contribution under the Bill, in respect of men, will be reduced from 9d. to 7d. a week, but, instead of this contribution being shared equally. 4½d. will be payable by the local authority and 2½d. by the men. Many local authorities have adopted superannuation schemes, and they are liable to make up any deficit in these funds. They will have, under the Act as it stands, to pay precisely the same contributions as those employers of labour who do not provide superannuation schemes for their men. It is only an act of justice that these contributions should be equally divided between the employer and the employed. I speak on behalf of the poor down-trodden ratepayers of this country, many of them in receipt of far less wages than their employés, and with no superannuation scheme for them to rely upon in their old age, except what is provided in this Bill.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do think it is a reasonable suggestion that the contribution should be divided equally, but the hon. Gentleman will see that while reducing the contribution made by the employer he does not propose that an adjustment of the employés contribution should be made. If I accept the Amendment to reduce the 4½d. it will be necessary to bring forward another Amendment on Report.
  HON. MEMBERS: It is on the Paper.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not seen one on the Paper.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Are you accepting it?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Do not accept anything at this hour of the morning. Are we to understand that the Minister is accepting an Amendment to put another penny on the employés contribution.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN Mr. CHAMBERLAIN indicated dissent.
  Mr. MACLEAN: You are shaking your head.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot carry on a conversation with the hon. Member.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I do not think shaking your head is a conversation.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will put his question definitely, he will receive an answer.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I put my question. The Minister shook his head. I took that to be his reply.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: He may have been shaking it for some other purpose.
  Mr. MACLEAN: At this hour of the morning there are many purposes for which an individual shakes his head, I do not know for what the right hon. Gentleman shook his head. I asked him if he was increasing the contribution to the unemployed by a penny?
  Mr. R. DAVIES: I am a little bewildered—
  Mr. MACLEAN: I am asking a question, and according to the answer I intend to speak or remain silent.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It was quite usual for Ministers to wait until other hon. Members have spoken before giving a reply.
  Mr. MACLEAN: In that case, I can go on with my speech.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already called upon the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I must point out that I was on my foot speaking, and gave way, expecting the Minister was going to rise. I will continue my speech.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood the hon. Member had put his question, and he having resumed his seat, I naturally called upon another hon. Member.
  Mr. MACLEAN: May I remind you that I addressed a question to the Minister. I took it that he would reply. You stated he might have indicated something else. I gave way to him to afford him an opportunity of replying verbally to the Committee.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Minister may reply after the other hon. Member has made his speech. If the hon. Member is not satisfied, he may make another speech.
  Mr. DAVIES: I am a little bewildered at the result of the moving of this Amendment. The Minister may have given way for very substantial reasons, but a fundamental alteration of the Schedule has been made. I do not know whether the Minister actually promises to accept the Amendment now, or whether he intends to bring the matter up again on the Report stage so that we may see the new rate of contribution on the Paper. So far as we are concerned, we do not intend to allow this to pass without some further explanation of what it means. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what is the change contemplated as the result of this Amendment?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the request is a reasonable one. The particular part of the First Schedule which is being dealt with here is that which lays down the rates of contribution in respect of persons in excepted employment. The hon. Gentleman will see that that has reference to people employed under the Crown by local authorities and by public authorities. These people are excepted from contributions in respect of old age pensions only. They are not excepted in respect of other benefits under the Bill. The result of that exception is that the total contribution required from the employer and from the man is, instead of 9d., reduced to 7d. In the Bill as drafted the whole of the surplus is taken off the man's contribution, whereas the Eon. Member desires that the 2d, taken off should be divided equally between the employer and the employed. The hon. Member will, of course, note that in other cases the rates are equally divided between the employer and the employed, and the same thing is desired in regard to the 7d. It does not seem to me an unreasonable request.
  Mr. DAVIES: It seems to me that the embargo is put on the employés.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It does not mean that. There is 2d. taken off altogether from the total rate of 9d. Of this 4½d. is paid by the employer and 4½d. by the man.
  Mr. DAVIES: I must be very dense on the subject. In the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment I find that the rate of contribution will be 7d., that is, 2d. off the 9d. Then the next column points out
  1492
  that payment by the employer is 4½d. and by the employed person 2½d. As I understand his Amendment it is that instead of 4½d. and 2½d., we are to have 3½d in respect of each of the parties. That is what I was trying to paint out. You are taking a penny off the employers' contribution and adding a penny to the contribution of the employed. I think this is really a very important change to accept at a very late hour like this.
  Captain BENN: I certainly think the right hon. Gentleman on an earlier Amendment which proposed to vary the rate of contribution said, "I regard it as a demonstration," and dismissed it. Then, to the surprise of Members of the Committee, he accepted a similar Amendment.
  Mr. BLUNDELL: Is not this Amendment merely consequential to the Amendment accepted on page 9, line 15, of Clause 9, on Monday last?
  Captain BENN: Some hon. Members seem to imagine that consequential Amendments to Government Amendments are moved by private Members.
  Mr. BLUNDELL: The Amendment was accepted by the Minister, and I submit the Amendment to the Schedule is merely consequential.
  Captain BENN: I do not know whether the Minister desires to make any remarks on that, or whether I may be permitted to put the point I wish to put. It appears to be thought that it is a consequential Amendment. If it is a new one, then I think we have reason to complain that, without any notice to anyone, the right hon. Gentleman has come forward and increased the contribution of this particular class of employed man and woman. I expect that, as the right hon. Gentleman accepted the first Amendment, he will also accept the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Walt-hamstow (Sir H. Greenwood). I should like to ask the Minister of Health how many people are going to be affected by that Amendment and how many contributions are going to be exacted? We should have known all this before the Amendment was accepted.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: This is a very important Amendment that has been accepted, and I wish to get some information about it. I want to turn back to

  1493
  page 39. It is stated that the 4½d. and the 2½d. are exactly as they are in Part IV. Would the Minister explain to us why 2½d. is put down and accepted in Part III and why, when it was put down in Part IV, it is now being changed to 3½d.? If the full benefits are to be given, the contribution will be 9d., or 4½d. for the employer and 4½d. for the employed. I want to know why there is this difference between Part III and Part IV.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity of making this perhaps still clearer. According to the Schedule to which he has referred, Part III deals with the case of exempted persons—persons who are in receipt of a salary of more than £250 a year and are not engaged in manual labour. It is important that the contribution should be the same in the case of all persons in the same employment who are not exempted. That is the reason the 4½d. is kept in the case of exempted persons. When you come to reflect upon the matter, the case of the excepted person is different. The exception applies to the whole employment and therefore there is no question of giving preference to one or the other.
  Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the information I asked?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I find that in line 16 of page 9 an Amendment was accepted which says it shall be payable as to one-half by the employer and the other half by the employed.
  Captain BENN: I asked the Minister to tell us how many people are affected by it.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see that has anything to do with it. The question is whether it is a fair arrangement.
  2.0 A.M.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Might I ask this of the Minister: In Part III exempted
  persons are persons with salaries over £250 per year, but in Part IV excepted employment, according to the statement by the Mover of the Amendment, includes individuals employed by the local authorities. Is it not rather unfair that individuals who are earning £250 a year should be asked to pay only 2½d., whereas the employé of a local authority is to have this other 1d. clapped upon him? It is not the class of individual who is paying under Part IV; it is the individual under Part III, and under Part III I maintain the individual is better off to pay the addition than the individual is under Part IV. May I also ask this point of the Minister of Health: When these particular schedules were drafted and when these scales of contributions were inserted in the Schedule surely the general financial situation has been gone into by the Minister and he advisers, and they had very good reasons why the contributions were put down in the proportions stated in these parts of the Schedule. I think the House is due to an explanation why, in the first place, the Minister and his advisers arrived at the scales set down, and then that the Minister should suddenly rise to his feet and accept the Amendment that has been moved without giving any explanation or Statement as to the reasons that caused him to raise the scales as set out in the Schedule.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: We are agreeing to this on the condition that we shall raise it on the Report stage.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move, in page 40, line 14, column 4, to leave out "2½d." and to insert instead thereof "3½d."
  Question put, "That '2½d.' stand part of the Schedule.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 37; Noes, 151.

  Division No. 298.]

  AYES.

  [2.8 a.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Gillett, George M.

  Kennedy, T.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Lawson, John James

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayday, Arthur

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Barr, J.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Potts, John S.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Duncan, C.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Westwood, J.

  Windsor, Walter

  Watson. W. M. (Duntermline)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Dalton and Major Crawfurd.

  NOES.

  Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Alexander. Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Ballour, George (Hampstead)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Barclay-Harvey, c. M.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Hanbury, C.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Bethell, A.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Sanderson, sir Frank

  Blundell, F. N.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Slaney, Major p. Kenyon

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Burman, J. B.

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N)

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Stanley, Lord (Fyide)

  Chad wick, Sir Robert Burton

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Chamberlain, At. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Clayton, G. C.

  Kidd, J, (Linlithgow)

  Storry Deans, R.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Cochrane, commander Hon. A. D.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Cope. Major William

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  styles, Captain H. Walter

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Davidson, J.(Hertt'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  Macintyre, Ian

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Duckworth, John

  Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. c. R. (Ayr)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Wells, S. R.

  England, Colonel A.

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  whether, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Oakley, T.

  Wilson, Sir C, H. (Leeds, Central)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  O'Connor, T, J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Penneiather, Sir John

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Fielden, E. B.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Womersley, W. J.

  Finburgh, S.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Fleming, D. P.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Pilcher, G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Radford, E. A.

  Colonel Gibbs and Captain Viscount

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Raine, W.

  Curzon.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Question, "That '3½d.' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  Further Amendment made: In page 40, line 15, column 3, leave out "2½d." and insert instead thereof "2d."—[Mr. Womersley.]
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move, in page 40, line 15, column 4, to leave out "Id." and to insert instead thereof "1½d."
  Question put, "That 'Id.' stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division.
  The CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN declared that, in his opinion, the Noes had it; but his
  1496
  decision being challenged it appealed to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed. Re accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged, his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Noes had it, 3V Members only, who had challenged his decision, having risen in their places.
  "l½d." there inserted.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS(seated and covered): On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member opposite in order in describing hon. Members on this side of the Committee as "Red Indians"? [Interruption.]
  The CHAIRMAN: I know of no precedent for it.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 36.

  Division No. 299.]

  AYES.

  [2.19 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Raine, W.

  Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Hanbury, C.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Bethell, A.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Ropner, Major L.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxford, Henley)

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

  Brass, Captain W.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Burman, J. B.

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Jacob, A. E.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Storry Deans, R.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Stott Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Cope. Major William

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Strickland, Sir Gerald

  Courtauld, Major J. s.

  Little. Dr. E. Graham

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

  Locker-Lampson. Com. O. (Handsw'th)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Styles, Captain H. Walter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Davies, Sir Thom (Cirencester)

  Macintyre, Ian

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Duckworth, John

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  England, Colonel A.

  Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Wells, S. R.

  Erskine Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Neville, R. J.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Oakley, T.

  Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Fielden, E, B.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Finburgh, S.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Womersley. W. J.

  Fleming, D. P.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Foster, Sir Harry s.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Wragg, Herbert

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Pleiou, D. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Pilcher, G.

  Colonel Gibbs and Captain Viscount

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Radford, E. A.

  Curzon.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (File, West)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Alexander A V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hayes, John Henry

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Ammon, Charles Ceorge

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Barr, J.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Benn Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kennedy, T.

  Westwood, J.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawson, John James

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Duncan, C.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Windsor, Walter

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Potts, John S.

  Gillett George M.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Guest. Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Disqualifications for Receipt of Pension.)
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
  Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. Do I understand that in that very hurried manner—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I can assure hon. Gentlemen, whatever their opinions may be—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady will please address her remarks to me.
  Miss WILKINSON: I only wish to assure you that not in the slightest degree was I passing any reflection on the Chair, but there is something that I and several of my hon. Friends wish to raise on this Schedule, and we did not realise you had passed it. I want to suggest that this is too important a matter to be rushed through in a quick sentence before we really heard it.
  The CHAIRMAN: It may be that the hon. Lady was beginning to say something which I did not hear, so I will give her the benefit of the doubt.
  Mr. DALTON: On a point of Order. May I ask whether you have any intention of calling the Amendment on the Paper in the name of three of my hon. Friends on the Second Schedule?
  The CHAIRMAN: I understood that that was not to be moved. The question is, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
  Miss WILKINSON: Although we have reached a very late hour, I hope we are not going to have a Schedule of this importance rushed through without due consideration. I wish that hon. Members would look at paragraph (1), and especially the proviso. It says that
  "A person who has become an inmate of any workhouse or other Poor Law institution for the purpose of obtaining medical or surgical treatment shall not, during a period of three months from the date on which he "
  and, presumably, "she," in the case of a widow, is receiving such treatment. I want to suggest to the Minister that that is far too short a time. You may have a woman going into hospital for a very serious operation. I would remind the Minister of Health that there are many districts in the country where there are not sufficient hospital beds, and where
  1500
  the Poor Law institution is used regularly as a hospital by the working-class population who cannot afford to pay the high fees for nursing homes, and especially during the present trade depression. A woman of this kind goes into a Poor Law hospital for a very serious operation, under which she cannot normally recover under three months. She may be there four, five or even six months, and, in addition to having the worry of leaving her children behind her when the father is dead, she has to make provision while she is in hospital for these children to be looked after; she will have the additional worry of—
  The CHAIRMAN: On looking at the matter I find that this Second Schedule is merely a recital of certain provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act and has no enacting words itself. If the hon. lady will look at Clause 21, she will there find that these are the enacting words:
  "Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Section, the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, with respect to the disqualifications for the receipt of a pension under those Acts (which provisions are set out with necessary adaptations in the Second Schedule to this Act), shall as so set out have effect as of re-enacted in this Act."
  The only question on this Schedule is whether these provisions are properly set out. The principle has been enacted in Clause 21, and this is merely a recital, so it is not in order to examine it on the merits.
  Captain BENN: If it were desired to alter, for the purpose of this Bill, some of the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act, would this not be a proper place to raise the matter?
  The CHAIRMAN: It would have to be done on Clause 21. It is merely set out to elucidate Clause 21.
  Mr. HADEN GUEST: I hope the Minister of Health may find some way to get round the difficulty. No doubt it is correctly set out, but three months is too short for the treatment of women and sometimes men.
  The CHAIRMAN: That question may be raised on the Report stage.
  Question put, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division.
  Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Viscount Curzon were nominated Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Members willing to act' as Tellers for the Noes, the Chairman declared that the Ayes had it.
  Third Schedule agreed to.
  FOURTH SCHEDULE. — (Consequential Amendments of Unemployment Insurance Acts.)
  Amendment made: Leave out the Schedule.—[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]
  NEW SCHEDULE.—(Application of Section 15 (V) to a person whose remuneration exceeded two hundred and fifty pounds a year.)
  Where a person who has been employed in an employment which would have been an excepted employment within the meaning of Section fifteen of this Act had the rate of his remuneration not exceeded two hundred and fifty pounds a year has on retirement from such employment, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been granted a superannuation allowance, then—

  (i) Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (7) of the said Section shall apply to him if, had the rate of his remuneration not exceeded the amount aforesaid, no contributions under this Act would, or would had he continued in the employment after the commencement of this Act, have been payable in respect of him;

  (ii) Paragraph (b) of the said Sub-section shall apply to him if, had the rate of his remuneration not exceeded the amount aforesaid, contributions at the rates mentioned in Part IV of the First Schedule to this Act would, or would had he continued in the employment after the commencement of this Act, have been payable in respect of him.

  Provided that where a person to whom paragraph (a) of the said Sub-section would by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this Schedule apply is a person who at the commencement of this Act was an insured or exempt person, he shall be treated as if
  1502
  he were a person to whom paragraph (a) of the said Sub-section did not, but paragraph (b) thereof did, apply. —[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]
  Schedule read a First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 219.]

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session, to make further provision with regard to the grant of superannuation and other allowances to teachers in Scotland and to their legal personal representatives and to the payment of contributions towards the cost of such allowances, to authorise the payment into the Education (Scotland) Fund, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such sums as may become payable there into in respect of (a) the amount collected and recovered in the year commencing the l6t day of April, 1925, by the Scottish Education Department under Section one of The Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1922, as amended by the said Act of the present Session, and (b) any contributions or balance of contributions returned in terms of Section two of The School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1922, or in terms of any Act amending the same, as well as any sums paid as compensation in terms of Section three thereof in the year commencing the 1st day of April, 1926, and every subsequent year."
  Resolution agreed to.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clod upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Nineteen minutes before Three o'Clock, a.m.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  GERMOL DISINFECTANT COMPANY.
  GERMOL DISINFECTANT COMPANY.
  TRANSFER OF LABOUR (HOUSING ACCOMMODATION).
  TRANSFER OF LABOUR (HOUSING ACCOMMODATION).
  FRANCE, GERMANY, AND ITALY.
  FRANCE, GERMANY, AND ITALY.
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS.
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS.
  EATING AND VALUATION BILL.
  EATING AND VALUATION BILL.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
  CUSTARD AND EGG POWDERS.
  CUSTARD AND EGG POWDERS.
HOUSING.
  DEMOLITION ORDERS.
  DEMOLITION ORDERS.
  ABBOTSMEAD ESTATE, BARROW-IN-FURNESS.
  ABBOTSMEAD ESTATE, BARROW-IN-FURNESS.
  POST OFFICE (GRADING).
  POST OFFICE (GRADING).
ROYAL NAVY.
  HOSPITAL, PORTLAND (COOK).
  HOSPITAL, PORTLAND (COOK).
  COMMISSIONED GUNNERS (PROMOTION).
  COMMISSIONED GUNNERS (PROMOTION).
  His MAJESTY'S SHIP "EFFINGHAM"
  His MAJESTY'S SHIP "EFFINGHAM"
  LIEUTENANTS (PROMOTION)
  LIEUTENANTS (PROMOTION)
  China (INSTRUCTIONS).
  China (INSTRUCTIONS).
  SICK-BERTH BRANCH, PORTLAND.
  SICK-BERTH BRANCH, PORTLAND.
  RAILWAY CONCESSION WARRANT (WIVES).
  RAILWAY CONCESSION WARRANT (WIVES).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (EXPANSION SCHEME).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (EXPANSION SCHEME).
  McKENNA DUTIES.
  McKENNA DUTIES.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SALARIES).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SALARIES).
  POOR RATES (RECEIPT STAMPS).
  POOR RATES (RECEIPT STAMPS).
  BRITISH GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.
  BRITISH GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.
  ADVERTISING IN STREETS (REGULATIONS).
  ADVERTISING IN STREETS (REGULATIONS).
  OCCUPIED GERMANY TERRITORY.
  OCCUPIED GERMANY TERRITORY.
  INSPECTOR OF TAXES, BRIGHTON (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION).
  INSPECTOR OF TAXES, BRIGHTON (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION).
  OFFICES (INSPECTION).
  OFFICES (INSPECTION).
  PRISONS (ELEMENTARY TEACHING).
  PRISONS (ELEMENTARY TEACHING).
  HOKSE TRAFFIC, LONDON.
  HOKSE TRAFFIC, LONDON.
  COAL INDUSTRY (WAGES AGREEMENT).
  COAL INDUSTRY (WAGES AGREEMENT).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given in regard to these Bills.
Moved, That the order made on the 2nd day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 30th of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

MOTOR VEHICLES COMPULSORY INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to the desirability of the compulsory insurance of motor vehicles against third-party risk, and to present a Bill. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject of the compulsory insurance of motor vehicles using the public roads against third-party risk is one which has been considered for some time by motorists and, to a less extent, by the general public. The reason for the suggestion, of course, is that an irresponsible person who is driving one of these vehicles may inflict damage for which he is not able to pay when he is sued. He may be a man of straw. The general situation has been summed up by a very well-known motor writer in a recent article in the Autocar, and I do not think I can do better than read to your Lordships one or two sentences from that article to show what the contentions are.
The writer says:—
"Well, nothing matters so long as things go well, but accidents will happen, and when they do it is not inconceivable that they may inflict damage and often irreparable loss on other folk, for which there is absolutely no possible chance of obtaining any redress or getting any return whatever. The majority of us have enough common sense to insure our cars and ourselves against all eventualities, but some risk the chance in order to save their pockets, often knowing full well that they are but men of straw and perfectly incapable of being made to pay for any damage they may do…
"Innumerable instances are already on record, and this is why I am of opinion that the State ought to insist on compulsory third-party insurance, at any rate on the part of everyone owning a motor vehicle. …
"The whole matter amounts to this, that it is now possible for any ordinary law-abiding citizen engaged on his or her lawful occasions oil the road to receive injuries with no possibility of any redress. I was never one to demand impossibilities, but this case does not answer to that description, for by a compulsory scheme of third-party insurance the mischief can be obviated, and a certain amount of redress for even the worst of cases obtained."
There is one difficulty which, I think, might be dealt with at once, and that is the suggestion that there are some people whose records are so well known, and so bad, that no insurance company can be found to insure them and, therefore, if they could not drive unless insured they would be unable to drive at all. I can only say that if that were the result I do not think that the House need regret it. If the record of any driver is so bad that no person will be found to take the risk, the public will be better off if such a person is kept off the road.
Then there is the very difficult question as to the possible machinery by which this kind of thing can be done. I have drawn a Bill—no doubt very badly because I have drawn it myself—which I propose to present to your Lordships. Fortunately, it is not in your Lordships' hands, and therefore you will not be able to criticise its defects, but I have proceeded upon the principle that a licence should not be issued in respect to a motor vehicle unless at the same time a receipt for insurance is produced for that vehicle, showing that it is insured against third-party risks to the extent of £5,000. £5,000 may seem a very large sum to insure, but, in fact, the cost of £5,000 is very little. It is a good deal lower than the insurance against damage to your vehicle
78
and things of that kind and it would not cost very much. I would suggest to your Lordships that it is not altogether an unreasonable sum because cases might happen, and have happened, in which a man earning, say, £1,000 a year is run down by a motor vehicle and killed and his widow and family lose the benefit of that income. There is a case where £5,000 might hardly compensate them. There have been cases, I think, in which even larger damages have been given. So long as motor vehicles are and can be driven by irresponsible people who have no means to fall back upon and no means of paying severe damages when inflicted, so long will you run the risk of perfectly innocent people being without a remedy. This is a risk which, I think, they ought not to run any longer.
I will tell your Lordships in a few words what the Bill does. Clause 1 provides that no licence shall be issued under Section 13 of the Finance Act, as amended by the Roads Act, unless at the time there is produced to the issuing officer a policy of insurance or a receipt for insurance against third-party risks in the sum of not less than £5,000 in respect of any damage caused by the use of such vehicles. That is really the operative clause. Clause 2 provides that a declaration of particulars in this matter may be prescribed under Section 5 of the Roads Act in addition to the particulars there prescribed.
Clause 3 provides for a practical difficulty which might, and must, arise where the period of the insurance policy is not co-terminous with the period of the licence, and I have provided that if the insurance policy expires before the licence expires then the date of the expiry of the insurance policy shall be written upon the licence and no such licence shall be valid beyond that date unless a fresh insurance is effected. It seems to me that is a fairly simple way of getting the insurance carried on. I have very little doubt that if, in practice, any scheme of insurance is adopted, you will very seen get these insurances issued exactly coterminous with the licence, because in my opinion all insurance companies carrying on business will adapt themselves to it. Clause 4 provides that the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, relative to the production of a licence to drive, shall have effect also as regards

79
the production of a receipt for insurance under the Bill, so that a motorist might be required to satisfy any police constable that his vehicle was, in fact, insured. If he produced his vehicle licence with the receipt upon it that would be enough to show it.
I am not at all insensible to the difficulties involved and it is for that reason that I have taken the occasion to put down a notice for the First Reading of this Bill, not with the intention of carrying the matter any further this Session, but simply that the text should get into the hands of your Lordships so that you may be able to consider the matter and, if the principle is approved by you, make suggestions as to how an application of it may be made. That there is a grievance is undoubted. That there is an injustice is also undoubted. That injustice is done to perfectly innocent people and you are not, in fact, inflicting any real hardship upon the motorist, because I do not suppose that the number uninsured exceeds one per cent.; it is probably not so much. But you are simply compelling that small and reckless minority, and possibly a minority who could not pay, and taking steps to prevent what I have mentioned happening when innocent people are injured. I shall ask your Lordships to read this Bill a first time and to consider the matter. I shall be very grateful for any assistance from any quarter of the House at a later stage. I beg now to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl Russell.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the noble Earl who introduced this Bill has told us that he does not wish to proceed with the Second Reading this Session and therefore, for a moment or two, I should like to indicate the sort of view that is taken by authorities and by the Government upon this subject. Your Lordships are, of course, extremely well aware of the very large increase of motors upon the road in the last few years and therefore the question of compulsory insurance against third-party risk has really become of some importance. In some countries on the
80
Continent these matters have already been dealt with. I understand that in Denmark there is a system of compulsory insurance already in existence and in Switzerland a projet de loi has been under discussion in the National Council. In Belgium the principle of the system of compulsory insurance has been already approved but has not taken any form yet as an Act or as a Bill. I understand that that country is waiting for other countries to pass similar systems.
There was a special committee of inquiry on road driving set up by the League of Nations with reference to the circulation of motor vehicles and they recommended that the possibility of the establishment in all the contracting States—that is to say, those who signed the International Convention of 1909—should consider the possibility of a system of compulsory insurance against all damage caused by motor traffic. On the whole, the view of the Ministry is that the difficulties of setting up a satisfactory system are at present very great and they do not see their way, as yet, to establish a regular system. But there are one or two points on which I shall say a few words. One is, what should be insured? Should it be the driver or should it be the vehicle? From what was said by the noble Earl I thought at first that he was going to insure the driver. Then he spoke some words later on in his speech which made me think he was going to insure the vehicle.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, the vehicle.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The view of the Ministry is that the insurance of the driver is in many ways rather a simpler process, because when he goes to get his licence or to renew the licence he will not get the renewal, if this system be established, unless he is able to produce a satisfactory insurance policy. That, no doubt, would be in some ways not very difficult to administer. On the other hand, I understand there are a good number of working men and men of the quite poor class who would find it rather difficult to pay the insurance and whose insurance would not be paid for them by owners. Another difficulty is that the amount of insurance would differ very much with the type of vehicle and also

81
with the purposes for which the vehicle was used. In that case, as a man would shift from one vehicle to another, it would be very difficult to have a sort of shifting policy which suited itself to the varieties of vehicle and to the different purposes for which that vehicle was used. Where the man was definitely employed by a fixed employer there would be no difficulty, or very little difficulty. This system would, of course, upset for the time, as the noble Earl realises, the existing system of insurance, under which a great many people have insured their vehicles and drivers and under which the companies are able pretty well to estimate the risk, while competition, perhaps, hinders the cost of the insurance from being placed too high.
Another matter which is worth considering is that the possibility of evasion is rather greater when you insure a driver, because when you insure the vehicle under the system that now obtains anybody can see, when that vehicle is being driven along the road, whether it has a proper paper which carries with it the insurance. The system, therefore, of insuring motor vehicles does not appear to be so difficult in some respects as the system of insuring the motor driver. On the other hand, in cases of an unauthorised use it would be difficult to say whether the insurance money would duly be paid. Those occasions of an unauthorised use involve a certain number of motors that are used on the rather convivial occasions when this sort of accident unfortunately, occurs, or is rather likely to occur. If the investigation of the insurance policy or certificate at the time of the issue of a vehicle licence involved the withdrawal of the existing alternative of renewing licences at the principal post offices there might be some difficulty with the public, because you can hardly expect the officials of the post office to have sufficient technical knowledge to be able to judge of the value of these insurance policies.
Those are some of the pros and cons of the question of insuring either the vehicle or the driver, but whatever system you adopt it would appear to involve a good deal of cost in officials. You would have to throw new duties upon the licensing officials. Moreover, the number of licensing authorities is something like 184, and therefore you would have to lay down
82
some general standard of approved policy which might guide all these authorities in the system of issuing their licences. Further than that, you would probably have to issue also a list of approved insurance companies; otherwise, it would be no use establishing a system of compulsory insurance. If the insurance money was not to be paid the whole of the Bill would be defeated. It has been suggested—I do not think the noble Earl suggested it—that if you had this system of compulsory insurance introduced it would involve, almost, a licence to drivers to drive carelessly, because as they were insured they would not care very much what damage they inflicted.
I should like to say that, as the noble Earl knows, there are penalties for dangerous driving under the Act of 1903, and it is hoped shortly to introduce a Bill dealing with the questions, when it is very likely that the penalties for reckless and careless driving may be increased. For my part, I trust that they will be increased. Then there would have to be exceptions for the case of those companies which were of such financial stability that they were able to meet their own insurance. There also might be involved, possibly, the question of establishing some regular tariff, because if this system was established and came into force it might very easily happen that rather high standards of insurance would be set up by the insurance companies, who would not he able to calculate the risks over so large a field of insurance. I only indicate some of the difficulties that there are in the way of establishing this system at this preliminary stage. I do so because, as the noble Earl wished the subject to be open for discussion and suggestion, I thought it might be useful to him and the House to see the general way, without committing myself absolutely to details, in Which the Ministry of Transport regarded this question.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, the noble Viscount has indicated some of the numerous difficulties which are raised by the question that the noble Earl has raised this afternoon. May I be allowed to add one or two more? The noble Viscount has not gone into great detail. It occurs to me that one of the chief difficulties which will very soon arise if

83
you compel insurance and force it upon insurance companies, is that you will also involve in that the necessity of the State fixing the rates. If you limit the number of insurance companies to a certain select few, which is what I understood the noble Viscount to indicate, you may be perfectly sure that those companies will get together, and that they will fix their own rate, which may be extremely high. In order to counteract that it will be absolutely necessary for the State to step in, and to fix what the rates are to be. That seems to me, as an old-fashioned person, to be very undesirable. The trend of modern legislation seems to be to drag the State into everything. That, I think, is a very undesirable line to pursue. If the State is called upon to fix all these insurance premiums it would mean, as the noble Viscount suggested, a special department for the purpose, involving a great deal more expense and a considerable number more officials.
As matters stand al present about £10,000,000 are paid in this country for premiums for motor insurance, and nearly every insurance policy covers third-party risks. The number of exceptions is, I think, extremely small. Most sensible people do insure and the only case which has to be met is the case of the man whom the noble Earl described as "a man of straw" who, having a motor car runs someone down and inflicts serious damage. The noble Earl said that such cases were innumerable. I am a fairly constant student of the papers and I must confess that I seldom see cases in which the defendant is unable to pay. That there may be such cases do not deny, but I do not think they occur very often and they are not present to my mind in considering this matter.
Is this proposal made in the interests of the Public? I presume it is? I can understand a proposal that no motor should be insured against third-party risk. That, I think, is an arguable case, because then every person driving would take special care not to inflict damage to life or limb of any of His Majesty's lieges, but I can also understand the frame of mind of a man who has been lunching not wisely but too well and who says: "Well, I am insured against all risks, it does not matter," and he will go ahead for all he is worth and, as likely as not, will cause an accident. But the way to insure the
84
greater safety of the public is not on the lines suggested by this Bill, but on entirely different lines—namely, by imposing severer penalties upon those who inflict these injuries, compelling bicycles at night to carry a red light—that seems to me essential—more care at cross-roads than is taken now by means of signs and otherwise, and, if necessary, impounding the motor which has caused the damage until the owner is able to produce an insurance policy which shows that he is fully insured against, any claim which may be made against him or deposit a sufficient sum of money to cover all such cases as may arise.
The noble Viscount, in his reply, cited the cases of Denmark and Belgium. May I cite the case of Greece? We learned a great deal from Greece in old times and I am not sure that we may not learn something from Greece to-day. In Greece there is a law that in cases where an accident has occurred the motor is impounded and kept until the owner is able to satisfy the authorities that he is in a position to meet all claims which may be made against him. These, my Lords, are one or two of the objections which occur to me and I trust your Lordships will scrutinise very carefully this measure when it is produced, bearing in mind also what seems to me to be the most important consideration of all, that it may eventually lead to the State not only fixing the rates but having to guarantee payment in a case where the insurance money is insufficient to meet the claim made upon the defaulting motorist.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, not-withstanding the doubts which have fallen from the noble Viscount who has just spoken, my sympathies are with the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill and with the attitude taken up by the noble Viscount opposite.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not speak in favour of the Bill.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: No, it was an attitude of sympathy. It is quite true that if there were only few insurance companies they could combine on the question of rates, but that is not the case. There are hundreds of insurance companies, and, of course, they will compete if this Bill passes just as much as they do now. The main principle of the Bill is that no one

85
should tend out to, drive a motor car any one who is not properly insured, and that is a condition which you can attach just as well as you attach other conditions. I was a little dismayed when I heard the suggestion that you should insure the vehicle as an alternative to insuring the driver. I do not know what is meant by "insuring the vehicle," but I do know that by the jurisprudence of this Empire we can make an Indian deity liable in the Courts, although he is a wooden idol, but, then we take care always to insist on this fact, that he shall have a friend who shall be responsible for the costs if the case goes against him.
The suggestion to make the vehicle responsible is, I think, a little dubious in this case. It is far better to make the driver responsible, and I will tell you why. Whose is the vehicle? The vehicle may belong to some one who has nothing to do with the transaction. It may have been borrowed for the day's outing and driven by the borrower himself, or by a chauffeur whom he gets at the shortest notice. It may be a vehicle which has been annexed by some of these light-fingered gentry who annex motor cars on the smallest provocation; and in that condition of things you want to have some one against whom you can proceed with the certainty of being able to recover something. The noble Viscount said that although he reads the papers he had not noticed that people were not able to recover damages against the driver but the reports in the papers would not, tell him anything. He would have to read what takes place afterwards when an execution is put in or bankruptcy proceedings are taken, and it is obvious that it is very speculative whether you recover anything from the ordinary driver or not. The simplest thing is to say that a driver is not to be employed unless he is properly insured. It may be that the owner of the vehicle will pay, or he may not, but it seems to me that the simplest thing to do is to see that the driver of the motor is properly insured.
You may, of course, protect the public by penalties. You do that now and you may make the penalties more severe, but what we are concerned with is the case, say, of a woman whose husband is run over and then she finds that she can get nothing, although she is entitled to it by legal process. I am quite aware that
86
there may be difficulties in this Bill and the noble Viscount opposite was wise not to commit himself even to approval of the measure as it is at present drafted. It wants looking into, but I think the problem is very far from insoluble, and I hope the Department will take it up with a desire to effect a reform which I think is in the interests of the public.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I thoroughly agree with what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. From the point of view of the interests of the public this Bill is about as had a Bill as could have been introduced. What will happen? Your Lordships, no doubt, have known of many cases where a man has had an accident with a motor car. He will say that it does not matter because he is insured. Only the other day a large motor lorry drove into a cart of mine, threw my bailiff and coachman out, and broke a shaft. I wrote to the owners of the motor lorry and they took no notice whatever. I wrote to them again, and again they took no notice. I wrote a third letter and they replied that they were insured in such and such a company and did not care what happened or what I did. I then wrote to the insurance company, who replied that they would pay for the broken shaft, but as to taking any liability in case any injury was done to either of the two men they did not care and would fight it to the utmost of their power. Fortunately, no serious injury was done to the men, though in the case of one of them the doctor said that at first he could not tell whether or not an injury might result. I should have been in the position of fighting a big insurance company, going to law and employing lawyers, with a very doubtful result. If the owners of the lorry had been personally liable they would have told their driver to be careful in the future. As a matter of fact, they did not care, because they were insured.
It seems to me that the only result of compulsory insurance would be that nobody would care and accidents would increase. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, is, if I may say so, perfectly right when he says that if there were compulsory insurance the insurance companies would combine together to fix the rate. The noble and learned Viscount

87
says that there are hundreds of insurance companies. That is a large estimate and I should say that a good many of them are not very strong in their financial position. You may be quite sure that if the directors of those insurance companies that are sound in their financial position know their business and regard the interests of their shareholders, they will come to an arrangement and the motor owner will have to accept whatever rates they choose to impose unless, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, pointed out, the Government step in and we have more officials and more expense—a development which I have always endeavoured, I am afraid with very little success, to defeat.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount opposite for his sympathetic attitude. The considerations which he indicated have been fully present to my mind. I did consider the question of whether you should insure the driver instead of the vehicle, but the noble Viscount knows quite well that the usual practice at present is to issue a policy in respect of the vehicle and the third-party risk—I think this is some answer to the noble Viscount's objection—is generally unlimited, instead of being limited to £5,000. As regards a vehicle which the owner would not be able to insure there are certainly great difficulties, and I should be only too glad if the Department which the noble Viscount represents would consider them, but I do think that some protection to the public is desirable. It does not involve such a very great upset of insurances as is suggested, because something like 99 per cent. of the vehicles on the road at present are fully covered now by comprehensive policies.
I cannot say that either of the two speeches from the other side of the House has been equally helpful. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, seemed to think that there would be a combination among these companies. But not only are there a great many of them, but this third-party risk which you are insuring is a very small part of the premium of £15, £20 or £25 which the motorist pays. He insures against other risks—risks of damage to his own vehicle, loss by theft, personal damage to the driver, and damage to himself—so that the third-party risk is only a small part of the total premium
88
that he pays, and you may be quite sure that competition between these companies will continue. The companies are not limited to this country. There are also quite strong companies abroad who would be capable of taking the risk. For this reason I do not think that the proposal need or ought to lead to State insurance.
I agree, if I may respectfully say so, with the comment of the noble and learned Viscount below me on the question of those who are unable to pay. You do not generally see these cases in the newspaper, not only because you do not see the results of execution but also because, when it is seen that a person is unable to pay and is a man of straw, it is not usually thought worth while proceeding. Therefore, you do not see reference to such cases. There is one suggestion, and one only among those that have been made, to which I should personally take no objection, and that is the impounding of the offending vehicle. That is certainly some security, though very often the vehicles would not be worth anything like the amount of the damage. I do not think that your Lordships need be afraid that a measure of this sort will increase reckless driving. It is precisely those who now drive recklessly that I want to prevent doing so, but it is no satisfaction to those who have suffered from a reckless driver to know that he has been sent to prison for three months for reckless driving, for that would not put anything in his pocket. I hope that when your Lordships consider the text of the Bill you will make suggestions of some sort or another to meet what is undoubtedly at the present time a very real need. I recognise the difficulties of this matter and am very much obliged to the House for having discussed it.
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION IN IRELAND.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion, moved on Thursday, July 2, by the Earl of Selborne, That a Committee of Inquiry be appointed by His Majesty's Government which shall make recommendations as to the compensation which ought to be paid to those Irish loyalists: (a) Who have legal claims for

89
compensation for post-Truce malicious injuries, but who have not received from the Free State compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Acts; and (b) Who have no legal claim for compensation under existing legislation, but who have suffered in person or property owing to the withdrawal of British protection in Southern Ireland.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the Motion which was introduced a fortnight ago and adjourned until to-day deals with matters that have frequently been discussed in your Lordships' House. Last year at this stage of the Session—that is by July—there had been three debates upon these questions of Irish compensation in each of which the Labour Government was strongly attacked, although it was only carrying out the policy of its predecessors. Despite that fact no member of the Front Opposition Bench last year rose to take part in the work of resisting those attacks. I am quite willing, however, so far as I am concerned, to take such small share as I can in reply to at any rate some of the speeches that were made a fortnight ago.
There have been, during the last two or three years on the part of the loyalists in Southern Ireland, so many misconceptions, exaggerations and misstatements with regard to these questions of compensation, that it has required a considerable counter-effort to present anything like the true perspective of what has been happening. At the same time, I do not wish to make the same mistake as is made by those whom I am criticising: I do not wish to overstate the case. I say again, as I have said before, that undoubtedly owing to the troubles in Ireland many persons have suffered serious loss and injury. At the same time, I also say again, as I have said before, that great efforts have been made to compensate those who have suffered. Looking at the matter as a whole, taking that which has been clone under the Wood-Renton Commission, that which is being done under the Free State Act of 1923, and the further help which the British Government has given and will give, I think it will be found that no Governments in the course of history have made more generous provision to compensate those who have suffered from damage in civil strife than have been made during the
90
last two years by the Free State Government and the British Government. It is quite impossible to have strife raging over long periods—and, unhappily, strife did rage over long periods—and for everybody to be satisfied with the compensation awarded. As a matter of fact, even in this country, it is rarely that anybody is satisfied with a compensation award—at all events, the award of a court.
I come now direct to the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. What does that Motion do? It charges the British Government with the breach of a pledge. I am going to examine that very carefully. It is quite true that a certain pledge was given by the Coalition Government of 1922, which was endorsed by the Conservative Government of 1923, and which was under-written, so to say, by the Labour Government of 1924. All that is true, but in view of the terms of the Motion and of some of the statements that were made during the last debate, it is really necessary to examine this pledge carefully and see exactly what it was, because extraordinary and quite untenable interpretations have been placed upon it by the noble Earl and by some of his friends.
I will take the matter step by step. The history of this pledge is, to be found in the White Paper of July, 1922, and its origin is in the words which were quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. Let me read those exact words:
"It was also agreed in January last"—
that is, in January, 1922—
"that claims in respect of malicious injuries, whether to persons or property, sustained after July 11, 1921, should be dealt with in the usual way by the County Courts and discharged by the local authorities."
Now those are the words, and of course they mean, or did mean, that procedure was to be in accordance with the Malicious Injuries Acts. It is highly important to realise the circumstances in which this Agreement came to be made. It was an Agreement to deal with post-Truce compensation in the circumstances which then prevailed—that is in January, 1922, when it was made.
What were those circumstances? There was in Ireland, in the Free State, at that time profound peace. Arrangements had previously been made for dealing with the great problem, the very big problem, of

91
pre-Truce compensation and it was next agreed, in the words that I have quoted, that post-Truce compensation, which seemed then a comparatively small affair, should be dealt with by the county courts in the way which those words which I have read indicate. That was in January, 1922, but unfortunately the peaceful conditions which prevailed then did not last. On the contrary, in the following June a very serious rebellion broke out and immense damage was done. Thus the whole situation was entirely changed, and if the British Government is to be held literally to that pledge, the pledge of January, 1922, let me tell your Lordships what would have happened. The eases might have been taken to the county courts, but they could not have been discharged by the local authorities because the local authorities, or nearly all of them, would have gone bankrupt. That is what would have happened. So that if the British Government is to be held literally to that pledge then the claimants would have got little or nothing, though the pledge would have been fulfilled in the sense that the words were adhered to.
In those circumstances it was that the British Government wrote in July, 1922, to the Free State Government asking that Government what it proposed to do. In writing to that effect—and all this is down in the White Paper and can be seen by anybody who will read it carefully—the British Government said that the responsibility for meeting this large body of claims for compensation—large because of the rebellion which had broken out—must rest on the Irish Government, but they, the British Government, could not divest themselves of the duty to see that the claims were met equitably and as promptly as inevitable difficulties would allow. That is really the pledge and I can demonstrate to your Lordships that that pledge, looking on the matter as a whole and taking everything into account, is being kept by the Free State Act of 1923, combined with the further assistance which has been given, is being given, and will be given by the British Government.
Everyone who reads properly and fairly this White Paper in which the pledge is given can only come to one conclusion—that after the rebellion in June no pledge was given that compensa-
92
tion was to be awarded in accordance with the Malicious Injuries Acts. No such pledge was given. On the contrary, it is quite clear that the whole purport and object of this White Paper is to recognise that procedure through the county courts and by the local authorities in accordance with the Malicious Injuries Acts had broken down and the British Government asked what, in the changed circumstances, the Free State Government proposed to do. Subsequently the Free State Government passed the Free State Compensation Act of 1923.
I say, and it is proved by the White Paper, that there is no breach of pledge because the Act of 1923 goes on rather different lines to the Malicious Injuries Acts. The quarrel of Lord Selborne and his friends is really with the Conservative Government of 1923, because it was in the lifetime of that Government that the Free State Act of 1923 was passed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, told your Lordships a fortnight ago that at that time he went on a deputation to the Conservative Government and he asked them to do certain things in connection with this Act, but he says that he got no satisfaction. They would not do them. Why would they not do them? Obviously, because they did not agree with the noble and learned Lord in his interpretation either of the pledge or of the Act. That was why.
I want to examine in more detail some of the complaints which have been made regarding inadequate compensation. Many of these awards about which complaints have been made are concerned with the destruction of country houses. Everybody knows perfectly well that country houses have become a drug on the market in this country. If anybody has any doubt about that they can dispel it any week by looking through the advertisement pages of Country Life Houses of this sort can be bought for a fraction of their original value and for a still smaller fraction of their replacement value.
Let me take an example. There may be a house which cost £30,000. To-day, if it came to be sold, it might bring £5,000 or £10,000 if the owner was fortunate enough to find a buyer at all. If it was burned down and the owner sought to re-

93
build it, it might well be that it would cost £50,000 to re-build it. A man might be desirous of selling his country house in the Free State and there, as here, he can only get a poor price for it. If it happened to be burned down, and the owner then argued that it would cost ten times as much to re-build it as the selling price at present day values, that contention might be perfectly true. I submit that, looking at the matter as a whole, there will not be any substantial injustice done if the owner receives an amount more or less equivalent to the actual selling value of the property. That is all the more true as it is well known that many owners have for a long time left their houses and many others have for a long time wished to do so, just as in this country many owners of country houses would be only too glad to get rid of them at almost any price if they could find a buyer.
Let me put the matter in another way. In the case of a house for which, it may be, that £50,000 has been claimed under this Act, it would be extremely interesting to know what valuation for Death Duty purposes would have been put upon that house if it had not been burned down and if the owners had died. I will undertake to say that in a large number of instances the valuation put by the executors of the owner for Death Duty purposes would be no more, and in many cases would be less, than the compensation awarded under the Free State Act. Your Lordships had before you last year the case of a noble Lord who had claimed for his house, pictures, etc., no less than £300,000. The case came to be tried. It was what is called an undefended case. At that time cases were not being defended by the local authorities, and, therefore, only the evidence of the plaintiff, the noble Lord, was taken into consideration. But this claim of £300,000, although it was not defended, was cut down to £63,500. Subsequently, the case properly enough came to be reviewed before the Wood-Renton Commission, and the 263,500 was cut down to £51,600. The noble Lord felt himself greatly aggrieved.
Let me put this point. Supposing, there had been next to this property of the noble Lord a property with an identical house, identical pictures, etc., which had not been burned clown and the owner had died. Does anybody believe for a moment
94
that his executors would have valued the estate at £300,000 or anything approaching it? Does any one believe that they would have valued it, at the £51,600 which was awarded? I very much doubt it. Here, I maintain, we have some explanation of this disparity in values of which we have heard so much in these debates.
It was almost suggested a fortnight ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, whom I am sorry not, to see in his place, that compensation claims, that is pre-Truce and post-Truce claims, had been cut down from £60,000,000 to £10,000,000, and that if the pledge were o be fulfilled preperly the British Government ought to make up a large proportion of the difference. That, or something very like it, was the suggestion made. Does anybody suppose for a moment that the British Government gave any such pledge at all? I have no doubt I shall be told that it is not a question of the amount, it is a question of justice and good faith, but what I am trying to do is to state the facts and to show your Lordships that there has really been no breach of faith. Any such amount of compensation as £60,000,000, named by the noble and learned Lord, cannot, for a moment, be maintained on any proper computation. It is well known that many of the claims made were grossly excessive—I repeat, grossly excessive.
I have just given your Lordships the case of a claim for £300,000 which was cut down to £51,600 and I showed your Lordships last year, in debate, that that was after a very careful hearing. £51,000 is practically one-sixth of £300,000 so this case affords some explanation of the charge that compensation has been cut down from £60,000,400 to £10,000,000 because the latter sum is again one-sixth of £60,000,000 though, as a matter of fact, the total compensation, pre-Truce and post-Truce, will, I believe, taking everything into account, amount to very much more than £10,000,000.
Let me give your Lordships another case which was mentioned in the debate last Friday by the noble Marquess opposite. This will show your Lordships how much basis there is for the suggestion that the compensation should amount to £60,000,000. This is a case which, as I said, was brought up last, time, very much to the discomfiture of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson. This also was

95
the case of a noble Lord and he claimed £50,000 for his place. His family had not lived in the house for thirty-four years. From 1899 to 1913 the house had been let at £100 a year. Well, the case came to be tried and the compensation awarded was £4,500—£1,000 in cash and £3,500 to be spent in erecting suitable houses in the locality.
Let me assume that, instead of the house being let at £100 a year, it was let at £200 a year gross, which would come down to something like £165 net. £165 at 5 per cent. represents a capital of £3,300. This noble Lord was awarded a sum of £4,500. Can anybody say that that was inequitable? Can anybody say there is any real basis for claiming £50,000 in that ease I should add that there was a point about some timber but no compensation would have been awarded in that matter even before the days of the Free State Act of 1923. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, seemed to think that this case should not have been brought up at all. Why not? The noble Lord concerned, whose property it was, apparently thought it was a strong case—such a strong case that he wrote to the Press about it.
LORD DANESFORT: Will the noble Lord give us the name of the case?
LORD ARNOLD: Yes, it was the case of Lord Headley. I had refrained from giving the name, but as the noble Lord asks for it I give it. Lord Headley wrote to The Times and, if I remember rightly, he said he was going to bring the facts before the Irish Claims Compensation Association but what happened? In December, 1924, the High Commissioner of the Free State wrote to The Times and smashed this case to smithereens. Since then, except for an ineffective rejoinder, practically nothing has been heard about the case. No wonder Lord Carson did not want this case to be brought up and preferred to talk about the Crosby case. I will speak about the Crosby case in a minute.
I say that this case which I have just been describing and cases like it go to show how an estimate of £60,000,000 is arrived at. When the noble and learned Lord. Lord Carson, suggests that the compensation should amount to £60,000,000 I wonder whether he realises
96
what that really means. Let us examine it. The Free State is a country with a population of about 3,000,000 persons, and the capital wealth of the country is, proportionately to the population, very much less than the capital wealth of Great Britain. Now, let it be assumed that there had been in Great Britain similar troubles to those that have taken place in Ireland. If in the Free State the compensation for the troubles there ought to amount to £60,000,000, the equivalent figure, when everything is taken into account, would in Great Britain be between £1,500,000,000 and £2,500,000,000. Does anybody believe for a moment that that amount of compensation for damage would have been clue for troubles here corresponding to the troubles in the Free State? Does anybody believe for a moment that that amount ought in equity to have been paid by this country? I say that the proposition is absolutely untenable.
Let me once again, and for the last time, take the analogy of the Death Duties. Does anybody believe that these properties, for which it is now said there ought to be a compensation of £60,000, would have been valued at £60,000 for Death Duty purposes? The idea is ridiculous. I question very much whether they would have been valued at as high as the compensation which is awarded under this Act, and I cannot understand upon what principle of right and justice the British taxpayer—because that is undoubtedly the proposition—should be asked to make up the difference to a grossly inflated valuation.
Much was said on the last occasion about certain cases which were intended to prove that the compensation was inadequate and I would like to say something about the matter. Under any system of compensation there are, no doubt, a certain number of exceptional cases which may seem hard. That will always be so. It would be perfectly possible in this country to produce a large number of instances of persons who are profoundly dissatisfied, as I indicated earlier, with the compensation they receive in the Courts. In fact, your Lordships know perfectly well that the exception is to find any one who is satisfied. A fortnight ago the noble Duke the Duke of Northumberland, quoted some words of a Free State Judge who

97
deplored in certain cases that he could not under the law give more compensation. The noble Duke quoted those words and impressed them upon your Lordships. But it is not at all unknown for Judges in this country to use such words as those in certain eases, particularly in what I might cull marginal cases, where just a slight difference in the circumstances would allow much bigger compensation to be awarded. If I thought it to take up your Lordships' time I could prove that point, and prove it easily, from the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act and, again, in the granting of many disability War pensions; but I will not take up your time with it. You can, under any system, produce a certain number of exceptional cases. Surely it ought to be remembered in your Lordships' House that these cases are brought here on the complainants' side and we do not hear the other side at all. I am bound to say that again and again when I was at the Colonial Office and cases of this sort were brought to my notice and probed to the bottom, there was quite a reasonable explanation forthcoming of why the award complained of had been made.
Let me come now to the Crosby case. Mach was said on the last occasion by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, about the Crosby case. With those great gifts of his, which I personally admire more than I can say, the noble and learned Lord almost succeeded in creating in your Lordships' minds the impression that every case was like the Crosby case. When that case was brought before your Lordships' House last year I commented on it. I do not know all the circumstances of that case. I have not heard the arguments on the other side. Neither have your Lordships heard the arguments on the other side. But let it he assumed that that case was exactly what it was represented to he, and, even so, it only brings that case within the area of the exceptional or marginal cases of which I have been speaking and which are to be found under any system of compensation. Compensation must, after all, be awarded in accordance with certain rules and regulations.
Let me give your Lordships particulars of two eases which are very much more typical of what is going on than the
98
Crosby ease—very much more typical. The first is the case of a house and 250 acres which were bought, I think in 1920, for £6,000. The house was burned down, and compensation was claimed. It was stated in evidence that it would cost £19,000 to rebuild the house. I dare say that was true. The compensation awarded was £4,900, plus a provision for replacement. The owner, of course, still had the 250 acres of land. If you take that land as worth, say, only £10 an acre, that is £2,500. If you add that to the £4,900 you arrive at £7,400 for property which originally cost £6,000. Let me give your Lordships another case, the case of a house which was bought, I believe—also a post-War purchase—for £5,000.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Will the noble Lord tell us where those houses were and who were the owners?
LORD ARNOLD: I will let the noble Earl have particulars later. Surely he does not doubt it.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I do not doubt it; I would only like to know the names.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD I will give them to the noble Earl later. I will not now be deflected from my argument.
LORD DANESFORT: Will the noble Lord give me the names?
LORD ARNOLD: No, not at the moment. I will not be deflected from my argument; let me proceed. I have one more case of a house which cost £5,000 It was stated in evidence that it would cost £10,000 to rebuild. I dare say it would have cost that. I think, in fact I know, that the compensation was £6,000, but whether there was a provision for replacement I am not quite sure. In any case, I think that compensation was fully adequate.
Great complaints were made a fortnight ago, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, and by other noble Lords, about these replacement provisions, but it was not explained to your Lordships that if the proper steps are taken it is quite feasible in a large number of cases to get permission to use the replacement money not for re-erecting the house which has been burned down, and which, as a rule,

99
the owner does not wish to re-erect, but for building property of a different character in the same neighbourhood, just as happened in the case of Lord Headley. In some cases I understand suburban villas are constructed or shops can be built which can be sold or held as investments; so I submit that in all the circumstances such provisions are not unfair in giving an award when everything is taken into account.
In regard to consequential damage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, dwelt upon it at great length on the last occasion. He complained that the Free State Act of 1923 was unjust because it does not give compensation for consequential damage. Even under the old Malicious Injuries Acts it was not, as a rule, the custom to award compensation for consequential damage. No doubt there were instances such as the noble and learned Lord mentioned, which might appear to suggest the contrary, but generally speaking such compensation was not awarded under the old Malicious Injuries Acts. That was the position. I raised this question again and again when I was at the Colonial Office and again and again that was the information given to me, and although I am not a lawyer I have no reason to doubt that, speaking broadly, it is correct that such compensation was not awarded under the old Malicious Injuries Acts. But now the demand is made and was made by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, I think, that such losses shall be compensated for.
So the position with which we are asked to agree is this: it is actually contended that the Government ought to go further than it has gone and to do that in au unprecedented number of cases. I ask your Lordships this question: Does any body believe that any British Government, whether Coalition, Conservative or Labour, ever gave any pledge of that character? That is a pledge that compensation was to be awarded on an immense scale involving liabilities for damages which, generally speaking, were not compensated in the old days. I say emphatically no such pledge was ever given, no such pledge was for a moment contemplated.
Another great complaint which was made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, particularly, was that
100
there is delay in hearing cases. I dare say that is quite true because of the enormous number of cases. The Wood-Renton Commission sought to deal with this inevitable congestion by means of investigators. What happened then? Immediately the complaint went up that every case was not being tried direct before the Judges themselves. I do not think that there is the smallest reason to suppose that the Free State Government is delaying the trial of cases, and I would remind your Lordships that it is to deal with delayed compensation, or at any rate part of the functions of the Irish Grants Commission is to deal with delayed compensation, and make advances in those cases.
I myself presided for some time over the Irish Grants Committee and I know that Ministers in each British Government have taken the closest possible interest in its proceedings, which is a further evidence that they are not unmindful of their obligations in this matter. In fact, so far as I am concerned, the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, was good enough, a fortnight ago, to say kind words about the sympathy I had shown in considering certain cases which were submitted to the Colonial Office. I was gratified by what the noble Duke said, though it is true my appreciation was slightly tempered by his succeeding remark, which was that he thought it was a very good thing that the Labour Government had been defeated. I must not however, digress into that, although it is a very tempting theme. I must take occasion to reply to that on some other occasion.
I will proceed now to reply to what the noble Duke suggested as to what are known in Ireland as agrarian outrages. As regards those outrages they are, unhappily, nothing new in the Free State or in Ireland. They have long been known in that country and indeed, when I was in office last summer, I was informed that they were then rather less than they used to be in pre-War days, when no compensation was payable at all in many instances.
I must draw to a close, but I wish before sitting down to say a few words about the complaint regarding payment in Bonds—depreciated Bonds, I think, are the words of the Motion. The facts about this matter look very different, as is the

101
case in nearly all this trouble, when the other side is put. It is a proportion of the compensation that is paid in these Bonds which are redeemable at par over a period of 10 years by 10 annual drawings. It is true that the Bonds are at a discount but not a substantial discount. The last price that I saw a few days ago was £91 to £92 for the £100 Bond. In 10 years the holder should have received the full par value together with 5 per cent. interest in the interval.
I would like to point out to your Lordships that the Free State main Loan, the Free State Government 5 per cent. Loan, stands, or stood a few days ago, at £93½ to £95. That is to say it is only a few pounds below the 5 per cent. War Loan of the British Government, Yet I remember very well last December that the Free State Land Guarantee Act was before your Lordships' House and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, said that these Bonds—they were 4½ per cent. Bonds—if they were not guaranteed, would stand at £30 to £40. I have pointed out that to-day the 5 per cent. Loan stands at £93½ and if the 5 per cent. Loan stands at £93½ the equivalent price for the 4½ per cent. Loan would be somewhere about £84 as against the £30 to £40 suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson. That is to say, there was an exaggeration of about 250 per cent. I am very glad to have the opportunity of pinning down one of those exaggerated statements which are so frequently made in the course of these debates. As I have said, these compensation Bonds are not at a substantial discount at all. The reason for payment in Bonds is due to financial exigencies, and I cannot see that in all the circumstances there is any very great grievance in paying a proportion of the compensation in Bonds, especially in view of what the British Government is prepared to do in this matter, as was announced by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on the last occasion.
I have only two further things to say. The first is this. I notice with very great interest a few lines in a pamphlet issued by the Irish Claims Compensation Association. They refer to the question of pre-Truce compensation and the Wood-Renton Commission, and on page 9 I read these words:
"In the cases heard by the three members of the Commission personally the Associa-
102
tion is satisfied front their inquiries that substantial justice has been done."
It goes on to say that great dissatisfaction exists in the case of the investigators. That was suggested to me last year, but the odd thing was that no complaints, or practically none, reached me at the Colonial Office. What did reach me were the greatest complaints about the awards of the Judges themselves. I suggested that on the whole they were fair except in exceptional cases, but noble Lords would not hear of that and now we have the admission in this pamphlet of the Irish Claims Compensation Association that on the whole these awards of the Wood-Renton Commission have done substantial justice.
I want to add this. I may be too, sanguine, but I am not altogether without hope that perhaps in another year or two there will similarly be a recognition, looking at the matter broadly and considering all the difficulties, that substantial justice has been done by the Free State Act of 1923 combined with the further monies found and to be found by the British Government through the Irish Grants Committee, and in that which was announced by the noble Marquess, the Marquess of Salisbury, in our last debate. Everything which the British Government has done or promised to do is, judging from the reception given to what he said in debate a fortnight ago, to be considered of no account, whereas as a matter of fact big sums are involved and they will be considerably increased by the further undertakings which the noble Marquess gave.
My last point is this. It might very well be imagined, by those who do not know the facts, from the terms of this Motion and from various speeches and writings that this Act of 1923 was deliberately designed by the Free State Government to injure loyalists. Nothing could be more untrue, nothing could be more devoid of truth. This Act does not apply only to cases of loyalists. It applies to all cases and a great majority of the cases, I believe, are not cases of loyalists at all. They are cases of Sinn Feiners and supporters of the present Government. I believe Mr. Cosgrave's house itself was burned down. So that if all this injustice is being done, which I

103
deny, it is being done not only to loyalists but also to supporters of the Free State Government. There is a great deal more ground that I should like to cover but I refrain from doing so. What I have tried to do is to put all these matters before your Lordships in true perspective and to show that there is another side, and a very different side, from that which was put forward a fortnight ago.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it has been my misfortune to be somewhat intimately concerned with some of the incidents which we have discussed during the coarse of these debates and your Lordships may not take it amiss if I venture to lay before you some of the impressions which I have been able to form. I wish, in the first place, to join with those who have expressed their gratitude to Lord Selborne for taking up this question. We could not have had an abler or more authoritative champion. He has at any rate one qualification and that is that he is not an Irishman. He is not a member of that rather pitiable fraternity to which I imagine I belong—the fraternity of Irishmen with a grievance, who are I fear regarded by their friends rather as a nuisance, and who are fortunate if they encounter nothing worse than an attitude of toleration tempered by incredulity. Lord Selborne has held high office in this country. He has been a colleague of noble Lords who sit below me. He has held high administrative posts in the Empire and, with all his experience and from an entirely independent point of view, he has come to the conclusion that a great wrong is being done in Ireland and demands an investigation.
I have never myself been able to see why the Free State Government should not welcome such an investigation. A great many hard things are being said about them. Many of them. I have no doubt, are undeserved, and while I do not go so far as the noble Lord who has just spoken, I agree with him in thinking that there have been a great many misstatements and exaggerations in connection with these claims for compensation. If I were called upon to hear witness from my own experience, I should say that my evidence, while it would be unfavourable to the Free State at some points, would certainly be favour-
104
able to them at others. I will say a further word upon that point later, but at any rate, I deprecate anything like wholesale and indiscriminate charges against the Free State Government and its officials. But there is a great conflict of evidence, and surely we are not unreasonable when we suggest that in the circumstances a dispassionate investigation of the facts could produce nothing but good result. And may I be allowed to say that I entirely agree with the noble Marquess the Leader of the House when lie suggests that an investigation of that kind would be more likely to produce good results if it could be arranged that it should be carried out in co-operation with the Government of the Irish Free State? It would be interesting to know whether, in the suggestions which the noble Marquess has thrown out from time to time, he is inspired by anything that has passed between himself and the Free State Ministers.
But before I speak of His Majesty's Government may I say one word about His Majesty's Opposition and the speech to which we have just listened? The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, will forgive me if I say that I thought his speech rather disappointing. We have very fresh in our minds the statement made by the noble Lord himself in this House in 1924. A Labour Government was in power and I asked His Majesty's Ministers whether they could tell us whether, in the spirit of continuity which they had accepted in regard to other questions, they were ready to step into the shoes of their predecessors in regard to this Irish question. Nothing could be more precise or categorical than the noble Lord's reply. This is what he said:—
"The position of the Government can be stated almost in a sentence. The present Government in this whole question have considered and are adhering to the policy followed by their predecessors and they see no ground for departing from that policy."
What was that policy? It was the policy embodied in the letter written on behalf of Mr. Lloyd George's Government to the Provisional Government of Ireland in July, 1922, which contains this oft-quoted passage:—
"While, however the responsibility for meeting these claims to compensation must rest upon the Irish Government, His Majesty's Government cannot divest themselves of a duty to see that such claims are met equitably and as promptly as inevitable difficulties allow."

105
That pledge was taken up by Mr. Bonar Law's Government and in December, 1922, the Duke of Devonshire, whose absence we all regret, said this:—
"It is for us who have accepted that responsibility to see that full and ample justice is rendered in all cases. We do realise these responsibilities and we shall act upon them even if we have to make considerable demands upon the people of this country."
That was a pledge which certainly could not have been given without previous consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, made the announcement which I have just quoted the Duke of Devonshire on the same occasion thanked him for the assurance he had given and considered it satisfactory that there should be such a degree of continuity existing in the policy of the three Governments. There is no doubt as to these pledges because the text is there for your Lordships to consider. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has been at great pains this afternoon to explain that circumstances alter cases and that a pledge which might have been appropriate in 1922 might well cease to be an appropriate pledge when the conditions of the country had altered.
LORD ARNOLD: I am extremely loath to interrupt the noble Marquess but this is rather an important matter. My point is not that the pledge was altered but that if the pledge given in 1922 had been literally adhered to the claimants would have got little or nothing, and that there-upon the British Government wrote and asked what was suggested should be done in the changed circumstances.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That is a new rendering of the pledge, and it is not one which I can accept. It is, in effect, a suggestion that if this is left, to the Irish Government to deal with they will have to make default and only pay a few shillings in the £. That has never been suggested on their behalf by any one as far as I am aware. The noble Lord also made great play with the old story of the high demands made as compensation for the destruction of Irish country houses. There is a great deal to be said about that. I quite agree. I remember when the Compensation Bill was going through the Irish Parliament paying some attention to the discussions
106
which took place, and a phrase was frequently used in those discussions to the effect that what were called "white-elephant houses" should not be made the subject of inordinate claims. That is quite sound.
I can imagine, and I think I know of, Irish country houses, virtually derelict, quite unsaleable and quite unlettable, probably not very habitable, for which nobody could reasonably claim to be paid the price of replacing them by houses of the exact size and dimensions at which they now stand. But that does not touch the question which concerns us most—namely, the ease of houses which were anything but white elephant houses, houses of moderate dimensions which have been inhabited by their owners, which have been centres of order and civilisation and which have been destroyed, although the owners desired to reoccupy them and would have done so if they had been provided with the opportunity. Does it not after all come to this, that with regard to this question of compensation there is great controversy of opinion but no agreement, as to the facts? In such a case surely my noble friend is not unreasonable when he suggests that the whole matter should be dealt with by a competent investigation, and that the facts should be sifted so that we may really know where the right and the wrong lie.
May I now pass from His Majesty's Opposition to His Majesty's Government? I cannot help thinking that my noble friend, the noble Marquess, must not have been sorry to have had an opportunity provided for him by my noble friend Lord Selborne of clearing up the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this question. My noble friend will forgive me if I say quite frankly that a good many of us have been puzzled as to the precise position which His Majesty's Government desired to take up. We have had debates and we have had deputations, but we none of us really knew exactly where the Government stood in relation to this question. My noble friend made a courageous effort to clear up the situation. He made various admissions which were noted with satisfaction and which seemed to us very important. There was no doubt as to the sincerity of his language, and there was no doubt as to his honest desire to help us if he could. It is true that at one moment he

107
struck a note of despair when he said—I am afraid with a good deal of truth—that, having once abandoned your friends, you can no longer look after them. But I think my noble friend means to try, all the same.
Let me say two or three words as to what I would venture to call my noble friend's plan of campaign. In the first place, he made the novel and rather ingenious suggestion that my noble friend Lord Selborne and the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, should proceed by means of excursions—I suppose I might almost say personally conducted excursions—to the Colonial Office. By all means let us have excursions to the Colonial Office if my noble friend thinks that any good can come of them, but some of us are a little discouraged when we remember that we have already been to the Colonial Office and that our excursions have not been altogether profitable to us. We have been at immense pains to marshal our facts and figures, we have put all our cards on the table and we have challenged cross-examination; but nothing has happened. We may be more fortunate another time.
Then, if I remember aright, my noble friend made one or two concrete suggestions. He suggested, in the first place, that persons who had obtained advances and who were likely to be penalised by having to repay them in Irish securities which had depreciated in value might have their loss made good to them. I think his suggestion was that for the purpose of repayment they might be allowed to use Irish securities at their nominal or face value. That is a very friendly and helpful suggestion, but, of course, it touches only a comparatively limited number of cases. So far as it goes, we welcome it. His other suggestion was to this effect. He said that as to compensation—
"In a certain number of cases they "—
that, I presume, means His Majesty's Government—
"are prepared to go beyond anything which Ins been clone up to now.…"
That seems to open a hopeful prospect, but my noble friend will forgive me if I say that we should like to know rather more about the details of the proposal before we can express an opinion as to
108
the value that we can attach to it. Any suggestions of this kind, coming from him, will always be treated respectfully, but he will forgive us if, at first sight, it seems to us that our proposal for an investigation of the whole question was a more reasonable plan.
Then the noble Marquess asked us what kind of inquiry we favoured. I think the answer to that is that, in a case of this kind, we should expect the Government themselves to put forward their own scheme for the best kind of investigation, the kind that is most suited to the circumstances. But I will take upon myself to tell my noble friend what we do not want. I do not think that any of us want what is known as a Departmental Inquiry. We do not want an inquiry undertaken by subordinate officials on the back stairs of the Colonial Office. We should like to have the case examined by men of experience, of knowledge, of high standing and authority and, above all, of complete independence of character.
I will not take up your Lordships' time by an enumeration of the subjects that we should like to refer to such an inquiry. Obviously in the first rank comes the question which my noble friend Lord Selborne has raised, the question of compensation. I am not going to lose myself in details, but I do put it to the House that one fact has been clearly established, and that is that the law has been changed by the Free State Government greatly to the detriment of those who invoke its aid. We are under the belief that these sufferers had a right to expect trial of their cases in the usual way, under existing Imperial Statutes, that the compensation which they would be able to claim was what is described in the reference to the Shaw Commission as that which they could demand in reason and fairness, and that they would be allowed to receive compensation for any damage which was, as the Court of Appeal put it in a case quoted last week by my noble friend Lord Carson, "the natural and direct consequence of the wrong." We are under the impression that such compensation has now been denied to these claimants and that all that they can look for, under Section 6 of the Act of 1923, is compensation for the actual damage done to their property and no more. We all know, and Lord

109
Arnold must know, that there are cases in which the rigid application of that section has led to most disastrous effects to men who have suffered through these outrages.
May I say one word as to another aspect of this question of compensation One of the greatest hardships of which these Irish sufferers complain is that they are now denied any compensation for damage due to plunder or depredation. Lord Arnold will probably tell me that under the Malicious Injuries Acts no compensation could be claimed for larceny. That is perfectly true and I think the framers of the Statute were probably wise in their generation; for if, in a country with a loosely organised society where the distinction between meum and tuum is not always sufficiently recognised, every villager was allowed to claim compensation at the public expense for the theft of his potatoes by his neighbour, there would be no end to it. But the kind of robbery we are talking of has nothing to do with ordinary larceny at all. There may be something to be said for excluding ordinary larceny, but we maintain that there is nothing to be said for the rule or practice under which sufferers during the reign of terror arc refused compensation unless they can prove destruction as distinct from theft. Robbery and destruction have gone hand in hand and are inextricably mixed, and to throw on the sufferer the onus of proving that his property which has disappeared is actually destroyed and not stolen is preposterous, whether judged from the point of view of law or of common sense.
I wonder whether your Lordships would bear with me for a moment while I tell you how this doctrine was applied in a case in which I was myself personally concerned. My house was wrecked, plundered and burned during the earlier part of the month of September. I was left with the bare walls of the house and with only a certain portion of its contents restored to me owing to the friendly action of some neighbours and the courage of a public-spirited priest. I put in a claim for compensation for the reconstruction of the buildings and also for the loss of the contents. Let me say at once, so far as the buildings are concerned, that I was met it a reasonable
110
spirit by the Free State officials, that my claim was promptly settled and the money punctually paid out as the work of reconstruction proceeded.
But, when I come to the question of compensation for the loss of the contents of the building I have a very different story to tell. I was at infinite pains to obtain a perfectly just and fair valuation of the contents of the house. I was determined that nothing should be over-valued and I have nothing but commendation to give to the Public Works officer who was sent down to investigate my claim and decide whether it was reasonable or not. We had no difficulty in arriving at an agreement with him as to the question of values and at one moment it looked as if the whole case was going to be settled by consent. At the last moment there appeared on the scene a sinister personage in the shape of the State Solicitor, and the State Solicitor warned us that my claim on account of furniture, and so forth, would he disputed on the ground that I could not prove that it had all been destroyed, and that some of it must have been stolen.
I put in a carefully-drawn memorandum, reciting the circumstances in great detail, pointing out that the wrecking extended over several days, that communications were cut off, that the Royal Irish Constabulary had been taken away and the Civic Guard had not yet been formed, and that something like pandemonium went on. I contended that it was clearly established that the whole of the depredations were consequent upon and indissolubly concerned with the wrecking, and I said that even if it were conceded that there were some cases of loss owing to mere theft it was humanly impossible to distinguish between those and the losses occasioned by fire and wreckage.
It may interest you to know that my facts and arguments were not disputed, but were used against me as an admission that a part at any rate of the loss was due to larceny and not to destruction. The State Solicitor, when the case came on for hearing—I got his words not from the files of the Colonial Office but from those of the Cork Examiner—announced that "no deduction could be made as regards value, that in fact most of the articles were very much undervalued, but

111
as some of the property was not destroyed but was probably looted," and "as it was practically impossible for Lord Lansdowne to say how much was destroyed and how much was looted," he had suggested to my solicitor to accept £2,000 instead of the £4,000 I had claimed. My solicitor was a shrewd gentleman who knew something of the previous findings of the same learned Judge on the "looting" question. He knew that it was absolutely impossible for us to prove that a particular chair or a particular table had been destroyed and not stolen, and in view of my obvious desire to be rid of the whole case he advised me to accept my £2,000 and be thankful it was not worse. I accordingly did so.
I remained under the impression that the decision was a very iniquitous one, and your Lordships may judge of my satisfaction when not very long afterwards I came across a speech made in the Dail by a very well-known member of the Irish Ministry—one of the ablest of them—Mr. O'Higgins, in which he used these words:—
"It is a hardship that as yet there is no recognised compensation for loot. It is a hardship that whereas if a man's goods were brought out of his backyard and burnt, as did occasionally happen in these good old days, there would be compensation, but if they were thrown in a lorry and driven away there would be none. That is an anomaly, and it is something that would require treatment in the future.…
We want to establish by agreement some court, committee or tribunal which will deal with cases of loss and injury that are not covered by the terms of reference of the existing Commission."
Those are brave words. They were spoken exactly a year ago, but has Mr. O'Higgins brought in a Bill for remedying the grievance? Not a bit; nothing has happened, and the grievance remains. One feels when we are told to go to the Colonial Office about these questions, that as they have already been before the Irish Government, and as the Irish Ministers have formed an opinion and yet nothing has happened, the excursion to the Colonial Office may possibly not be very fruitful of results.
My noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne has, I see, an Amendment to Lord Selborne's Motion on the Paper, in which he desires that the House should examine not only the matters covered by Lord Selborne's Motion but the question of the terms of land purchase given under the
112
Act of 1923. I do not know whether your Lordships will desire to take up that question at the same time as this, but I do wish to say that this question of the terms of land purchase is one which cannot be brushed on one side, and which, we hope, will either now or hereafter be thoroughly examined by some competent authority.
Here again I come to the suggested excursions to the Colonial Office. My noble friend Lord Midleton, who was here a moment ago, took a number of us, a year ago, to the Colonial Office in order to discuss this question with the Secretary of State. We were able to show, and we showed by documents and evidence, that the terms which the owners of lands will receive under the Purchase Act of 1923 fall considerably below the terms embodied in the Convention scheme of 1920, that they fall below the terms embodied in the Government Bill of 1920, which was accepted on both sides as the proper basis for land purchase whenever land purchase should take place, and we showed that the terms were also below those which at the present time are being given to the agricultural tenants of Ulster who are acquiring their holdings in the same way. We showed that this reduction from twenty years' purchase to fifteen years' purchase had the effect of diminishing by about 20 per cent. the available income of the vendors; we showed that the reduction would have the effect of obliterating entirely in a great many cases the narrow margin upon which the vendor had expected to live, and that to many of them it could spell nothing but simple ruin.
We were listened to respectfully, but again nothing has happened. If I may give your Lordships an illustration of the hardship of these terms, these fifteen years' purchase terms, let me mention this. Some Irish landlords were, probably your Lordships might say, so unwise as to spend money in improving the buildings upon their property. I have a list of cases from which I gather this, that the vendor will receive as purchase money for the fee simple of the farm a sum which will often he actually less by a few pounds than the amount which he spent in equipping the holding with suitable buildings. That is to say, if you admit that the value of the build-

113
ings is still there and that the buildings are the landlord's he will get literally nothing from the Government for the land.
I may be told that this is a proper retribution for landlords who were so foolish as to spend money in erecting valuable buildings on a farm which has little or no value. It is not true that these farms have no value. We occasionally get a glimpse into the question of the value of the farm. Let me tell your Lordships the story of a little farm with which I am personally familiar. The rent is £15. The estate expenditure upon building was £235. The vendor will receive £233 only. Now the tenant of this farm the other day desired to divest himself of it and he sold the good will in the open market. He received £1,025, whereas the owner of the fee simple of the soil comes out actually on the wrong side of the account.
To sum up, let me say this. I am in entire sympathy with the Motion that my noble friend Lord Selborne has made, and I would gladly support it. But if, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury indicated when he spoke last week, he sees great difficulty in giving effect to it and if, on the other hand, he sees his way to alleviating the lot of the sufferers by other means which he has partially indicated to us—if he will somewhat amplify the statement he made the other night and tell us with rather more detail and precision what his scheme is, then personally I shall not regret it if my noble friend Lord Selborne decides not to put the House to the trouble of a Division, but in that case he would, I have no doubt, do so with the reservation that, should the result of the noble Marquess's negotiation prove unsatisfactory or abortive he would hold himself free to revive the Motion which he has already put on the Table of your Lordships' House.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I have no right, of course, to address your Lordships again, but, in view of the appeal which has been made to me in the closing words of my noble friend's speech, perhaps I might ask your Lordships' indulgence in order to respond to it in a very few phrases. I recognise that he commented on—perhaps I might say criticised—the vagueness of some of the observations
114
which I made a fortnight ago, and he expressed the view that it was for His Majesty's Government to indicate the form of inquiry which they advocate. May I try to put in a more precise form the actual suggestion which we make?
My noble friend has referred to the suggestion which I made in the debate of July 2 that representatives of the loyalists in the House should confer with representatives of the Government with a view to helping as far as possible the loyalist victims of malicious injury in the troubles. My noble friend asks me to state in more precise form the offer I then indicated on behalf of the Government. The difficulties in the way of a formal committee such as my noble friend Lord Selborne proposed are, as I stated, considerable, but if two or three noble Lords representing Lord Selborne's and the Duke of Northumberland's point of view would consent to join members representing the Government in an informal Committee we should welcome it. As to the procedure, we should be glad to take into consideration any suggestion they might put forward, but our idea is that the Committee should thoroughly sift a certain number of typical cases of hardship. In this way we might, I hope, agree as to the limits of what is possible and what is not possible in the treatment of them. We suggest that the cases might be divided into three categories—(1), cases covered by the Free State Act in which the compensation awarded is considered to be inequitable; (2), cases in which compensation has been awarded but undue delay has occurred in the payment, or improper deductions have been made in respect of Income Tax; (3) cases not covered by the Free State Act.
We would leave the selection of the cases, which no doubt my noble friend the Duke of Northumberland's organisation could furnish, entirely to my noble friends, of course upon the understanding that they select what they believe to be typical cases of hardship, and that, if for any reason they select for discussion exceptional cases, they will so inform us. Although, of course, we cannot commit the Government at this stare, we will give the fullest and most sympathetic consideration to the recommendations of such a Committee as that which I have indicated. My noble friend will see that the proposals which we make are something

115
much more than excursions to the Colonial Office. They are of a formal character which, for my part, I earnestly hope may lead to some definite result.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury was good enough to inform me beforehand of the details of the offer he was going to make on behalf of His Majesty's Government and I have had time to consult with my friends who are acting with me in this matter, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I stated at once the course we propose to take. I do not profess that the offer of His Majesty's Government goes so far as we would like it to go. We would have preferred a more formal Committee and a more complete inquiry. But we welcome the offer conveyed by my noble friend the Leader of the House as an indication of what we never were in doubt about—the real desire of His Majesty's Government to find, if possible, some means of dealing with a very difficult situation. Therefore, as we are asked to co-operate we will not refuse that co-operation; always, let it be understood, with this proviso—that if, unfortunately, the representatives of the distressed loyalists and the representatives of His Majesty's Government are unable to come to an agreement on the principles or if, having come to an agreement, His Majesty's Government do not find themselves able to act upon those principles, then we hold ourselves absolutely free to renew this debate and our Motion. Therefore, I will not ask the House to go to a Division to-night. But if your Lordships accept the suggestion that my friends and I make we would adjourn the debate to no fixed date.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I am glad to have heard what the noble Earl has just said because it has carried further what was stated by the noble Marquess. What I desire to do is to point out that considerations of great gravity must be taken into account in regard to what has been said. The whole tone of the noble Earl's speech in making this Motion has been that those who have been injured—I use the term advisedly—have some kind of legal claim which this Government is bound to take into consideration, and which must be judged on ordinary juridical principles. That leaves out of account that after peace was
116
made liability for these things and liability for the things which subsequently occurred was transferred to the Irish Free State Dominion. The Irish Free State is a Dominion, and I ask your Lordships to consider what would happen if you made such a suggestion as the noble Earl has just made or, indeed, such a suggestion as the noble Marquess has made, in the case of Canada or Australia. You would have a hornet's nest about your ears at once. And the greatest care is required in dealing with this matter. You cannot have claims put forward as though they were legal claims which we could take into account despite the views which were taken account of in Ireland. The noble Marquess, in his speech the other day, which I have read very carefully, spoke of the reasonable attitude of Mr. Cosgrave in this matter. Mr. Cosgrave is a very reasonable man, and I think that the Irish Government will probably show that they are reasonable if only you treat them properly. But do not approach the question in the tone of the noble Earl.
I listened to the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, with the greatest sympathy. He confined himself to a statement of what had happened and he detailed to us a very lamentable state of things. I am quite inclined to take the whole of his testimony and to think that a great many people in Ireland have suffered injustice, and cruel injustice. But I am pointing out to your Lordships that Ireland is a Dominion. Ireland was made a Dominion, with the status of Canada and Australia, by your Lordships' own House. It is there on the Statute Book, and so far as I have any responsibility, sitting where I do on this side of the House, it is to see that you do not stumble into things which may get you into very great trouble.
That is no reason why the Government should not take this matter into consideration. But there is great reason why they should proceed with the utmost caution and why they should proceed in close cooperation with the Irish Free State. So long as I have any breath to expend I will never consent to anything which will re-open the questions of the past between Ireland and this country. Thank Heaven they are settled at last, and I will do nothing to disturb that settlement. Therefore, I am most

117
anxious that the noble Marquess in his announcement should not be taken to mean that we are going to trench on things which belong to the province of the Irish Government. As I have said, I believe that the Irish Government will be glad to have your assistance in settling these difficult and dangerous things. I do not think they have any desire to go back upon the justice of which the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, spoke. But you will have to proceed very delicately indeed, and to use your Cabinet machinery in the most delicate fashion, if you are going to make an inquiry which does not get you into trouble. I would far rather see this made a Cabinet Inquiry under the new machinery with which the noble Earl opposite is so familiar, an inquiry to which, if necessary, you could bring the representatives of the Irish Free State Dominion into consultation.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I venture to hope that His Majesty's Government will not be discouraged by the speech to which we have just listened in the policy that they have announced. For my own part I welcome it heartily as being a method by which this very difficult question may eventually be settled. I hope I may take it for granted that His Majesty's Government meanwhile have assured themselves that the suggestion which they have made to your Lordships' House this afternoon will meet with the approval of the Free State. I suppose that I may not unfairly take it for granted that the Free State Government will not object to the course which has been proposed by His Majesty's Government. I am taking that for granted. I would venture to say for myself, and I think I may also say for my noble friends, that the action which has been foreshadowed by the noble Marquess and the course which he suggests do not seem to me in any way to re-open all the unhappy matters of controversy, but may, I hope, on the other hand lead to a settlement of this question which undoubtedly has in the past and does even now cause a great deal of ill-feeling between certain people in this country in regard to Ireland.
For my own part, if I feel any regret at all with reference to the policy which was announced by the noble Marquess, it is that it prevents me from answering some
118
of the figures and facts and arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. We have listened to two speeches delivered on the same subject, and it would be difficult indeed to find a greater contrast between two speeches than that which was afforded by the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold I, however, feel myself precluded now from saying anything more upon the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. If I were to say what I think about it, it might not bring about that harmony which I hope may reign in this House in regard to this question. For my own part it does seem to me that, leaving noble Lords on the back benches free to act in any way that they think right after this inquiry has been made, the policy announced by the noble Marquess is a wise one, and I hope that it may meet with the success that it deserves.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I feel somewhat in a difficulty because there stands on the Paper an Amendment in my name to add to the Motion of the noble Earl the following words: "or owing to the failure of His Majesty's Government to carry out their pledge to pass the Land Purchase Bill of 1920 simultaneously with a measure granting Home Rule to Ireland." I had intended to argue that this was included within the orbit of the Motion of the noble Earl, but now that he has stated that he is prepared to withdraw his Motion it appears to me that I should be out of order in moving an Amendment to it. At the same time the matter is one of the very greatest importance. It is one in which not only I but a great many Irishmen take very much interest, and I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Lansdowne say that some steps will have to be taken to deal with it.
The noble Marquess the Leader of the House read out a short statement of the particular cases which it was proposed this Committee should consider, and amongst them, I am sorry to say, there was no reference to the question of land purchase or, where any pledges had been given by preceding Governments, whether those pledges have been fulfilled, or if not whether steps should be taken to fulfil them, or, on the other hand, whether His Majesty's Government

119
repudiated any responsibility for action which has been taken by their predecessors. If the matter cannot be included in the inquiry which it is proposed to make, I shall feel it my duty on a subsequent occasion to raise the matter again in your Lordships' House. I should be very sorry to trouble the House again at short notice with another discussion on Irish affairs. For that reason I was very anxious that it should be included in the debate to-night. It seems to me now, however, that I should be out of order in moving any Amendment to a Motion which is to be withdrawn, but I think I may ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether he can give me any reply to the question as to whether it is proposed, or will be permitted to the small Committee which is to be set up, to consider this very important question in addition to the equally important, or perhaps even more important, one of the compensation due to loyalists.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, before I deal with the general question I should like to say a few words with regard to the speech delivered by Lord Arnold. Lord Arnold dealt with a number of cases, but in regard to some of them he declined to give the names. He only stated one case, which I knew perfectly well. Previous to that he mentioned the Wood-Renton Commission and stated that the Free State Government were satisfied with that Commission.
LORD ARNOLD: Will the noble Lord excuse me? We must be careful in these debates. I did not say the Free State Government was satisfied with the Wood-Renton Commission; I merely read out a passage from a pamphlet issued by the Irish Claims Compensation Association.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I stand corrected. The Commission consisted of Sir A. Wood-Renton, who took the place of Lord Shaw. Mr. J. C. Dowdall, a member of the Irish Free State Senate, and Mr. J. C. Howell Thomas, chief valuer to the Board of Inland Revenue. Lord Arnold's speech does not help us very much. He informed us that country houses were a drug in the market, and that if they were put up for sale they would fetch nothing at all. I am very
120
much obliged to him for those remarks. I have had my house burned down, and they do not help me very much. I expected something more from Lord Arnold than statements full of financial quibbles and curiosities.
Let me come to a much more serious matter. I must deal with the speeches made on July 2 when, I am sorry to say, I was unable to be present to hear Lord Selborne move his Resolution. I am not in the least surprised that Lord Selborne should have asked the Question he did, and moved such a Resolution. You cannot have a great war, you cannot have a revolution, you cannot have civil war without terrible suffering, and those who suffered, and still suffer, are those who live in Ireland. They have to pay the price. The noble Earl, Lord Sel-borne, was quite correct in his dates. He asked your Lordships to remember the date when the Truce was brought about, and the occasion—nobody has mentioned this in the debate—when the Lord Lieutenant. Viscount FitzAlan, handed over from the Imperial Government to the representatives of the Free State the government of Ireland. I remember that day well. We had no Royal Irish Constabulary—now the Civic Guard—we had no Army to keep order—we had nothing. That was a very serious position in which to be left, and nothing has been said about it in this debate.
Lord Arnold stated that after the Truce there was profound peace in Ireland. I wish the noble Lord had been there. Profound peace, indeed! Every sort of dreadful thing happened. I warned the Government then that we were in for very bad times. I warned them of the sulky nature of my countrymen, but no heed was taken of my warnings. My diagnosis of the situation turned out to be quite correct. However, I am not going into the past; it is a bad dream, but you must remember that in the Free State there are only twenty-six counties, and the effect of a great war, a revolution and civil war in a small country like that is very terrible.
The noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, in answering Lord Danesfort in this House on June 17, said this—I must quote this because it is very important. Let me read the whole passage—

121
"The sum of £900,000 to which my noble friend has referred, covers the British liability for awards made by the Wood-Renton Commission alter June 30 of last year, and the British Government is still liable for those awards made prior to that date.
"LORD CARSON: They have been paid.
"THE EARL OF CLARENDON: Not altogether. Our liability with regard to the awards made by the Commission prior to the date I have mentioned amounts to £400,000, and this is included in the figure of £650,000 to which I have just referred. All liabilities as and from July 1 of last year, as well as those which I will mention later, are swept away by the new Agreement, that is to say, by the payment, which is subject to certain deductions, of the £900,000 to which my noble friend has referred. It is not suggested that the arrangement which has been come to is as favourably as these figures would seem to indicate."
I hold in my hand a Paper showing the estimate of receipts and expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1925, prepared by the Executive Council and presented to the Dail in accordance with the provisions of Article 54 of the Constitution. I know it is difficult for noble Lords in England to understand these figures and follow them, but you must remember that in Ireland there is a written Constitution and the Minister is bound to furnish these figures in detail. Under the head of "Miscellaneous" there is for the year 1923–24 a sum of £1,953,628, and there is a footnote to this effect:
"This figure includes an item of £1,021,086, receipts into the Exchequer in respect of annuities under the Land Purchase Acts, 1891, 1903 and 1909. Since the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1923, these annuities no longer pass through the Exchequer, being payable to the Purchase Annuities Fund set up under that Act."
If I deduct that sum from the sum I have mentioned the residue is £932,542, or very nearly the figure that Lord Clarendon quoted.
I now come to the Budget for the year ending March 31, 1925, and it shows that there will be a deficit of £1,730,000. We, in Ireland, are very heavily taxed, and this is the Budget that the Finance Minister has to make. Irishmen have always paid their debts and we intend to pay them again. That will be borne out by all noble Lords who remember the debates upon the old Land Acts. I have this further to say, that when this Budget was framed by the Finance Minister, Mr.
122
Blythe, he stated that the duties we have to pay on things coming into the country were for the purpose of revenue and for the purpose of paying our debts. I do not always agree with the Irish Free State and its Ministers. I profoundly disagree with them on many occasions, and I tell them so.
The proposal which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has made to the noble Earl who introduced this subject is very distinct and very clear. A hope was expressed by the noble Earl, Earl Beauchamp, that the Irish Free State would take part in some of these proceedings. I think it my duty to tell your Lordships that I have communicated with Dublin and I have it from the authorities there that they will take no part in any negotiations of this sort, nor will they afford witnesses. They consider that the Wood-Renton Commission was a perfectly fair Commission. They had their representative on it and they do not wish the question to be reopened. I hope your Lordships will think I have not exceeded my duty in making that statement.
I should like now to deal with a remark made by the Duke of Northumberland in his speech the other evening. He quoted a great many cases and I am certainly not going to go through them again; but in his speech he made this observation:—
"Some people seem to have an idea that all these cases happened a long time ago, that they are a very old story, that they only happened during the Civil War, and that Ireland is now a perfectly peaceful place, a kind of earthly Paradise. I can assure your Lordships that is not so at all. Violence intimidation and boycott are still going on."
In answer to the noble Duke, I may say that we are taught that Paradise is a very difficult place to get into, and, when you are there, you cannot get out. Ireland is quite an easy place to get into, and equally easy to get out of. I wish the noble Duke were here, because, if he wants to go to Ireland, I could tell him that he could take his motor car there with the greatest of ease and see the state of the country for himself.
We are at last entering upon a peaceful period, and I may say that the speeches that are made in this House do not help us very much over there. I hope that, in spite of what the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has said, we shall not have any more of these Questions and the

123
raking up of the past, which was as bad as it could be. I do not wish to speak of myself, but I was all through it from the beginning to the end. I landed in the middle of the rebellion, and I have seen it right through. I always said that we should pull through and see the country peaceful at last, and it is so now. Anybody who cares can take his motor car over there, tour through the country, enjoy himself most thoroughly and be welcome. I have here a document, an English one, issued by the Automobile Association and Motor Union. It says:—
"Since the adherence of the Irish Free State to the International Convention, the Automobile Association has been authorised to issue the international travelling pass—as well as the triptyque—to members visiting the Irish Free State or coming from there to Great Britain."
Triptyques can also be issued as between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland.
I have nearly done. There is, of course, a dark side to the question. We have difficulties, and there are still people who are ready to commit outrages in Ireland. Only the other day I had some cattle driven off a farm on which I take in cattle to graze. That farm is now protected, and it is full of cattle, which are doing very well. You must remember that, for those who live in Ireland and have to live in Ireland, it is not all so pleasant as it might be, but it is getting better and better, and I hope, at all events, that we have heard the last of these continual complaints about the action of the Free State. I have been a member of the Senate since 1921, and I have taken part in nearly every deliberation that has taken place.
I wish now to deal with the noble Duke's remarks concerning demobilised soldiers. He suggested that they had very little chance of getting employment in Ireland, and he mentioned a contractor's advertisement for the rebuilding of barracks in the town of Kildare, close to me, in which it was stated that the contractors would employ men of the Free State Army who had been demobilised. That Free State Army guarded me, and were shot down by the Irregulars very much in the same way as the rebels, as you call them, shot the Imperial troops, but let me tell the noble Duke that, notwithstanding all this, we now have colonies in Ireland of soldiers who have
124
been demobilised from the Imperial troops and from Irish regiments. There is one such colony close to one of the villages that belong to me, there is one close by, on the left-hand side as you go to Dublin from the Curragh, and another large one down in County Limerick. These demobilised soldiers in some cases found themselves put into their houses in the winter and they behaved very much as some of the troops did in France—they helped themselves, being hungry, to their neighbours' goods and victuals. But they are now being kept in order because we have a Civic Guard. I can assure the noble Duke that in the Free State we shall see that these colonies are properly built and properly looked after. There had been a dreadful winter and in some cases they found themselves standing in the mud. I know that well because the colony near the Dublin road has entirely spoilt some of the best of our hunting country, a thing that has come home to us very forcibly.
The noble Duke must remember also that the Shannon scheme has now passed both Houses in the Free State. A great many demobilised soldiers of the Imperial troops are experts in mechanical work. They will be employed in working the standing engines that are to drive these big grubbers, and we shall take very good care that they are not put together with men who may feel a certain amount of jealousy regarding them. Until things settle down and the scheme is carried through there are to be a sort of local police who will have nothing to do but to look after the men and see that there is none of this nonsense going on. We are going to stop it. In addition there is no doubt that some of the men will be fit only for a labour corps, as they were in the Army, and these will be employed, if they care to take the wages, as labourers. Here also they will be separated from the jealousy of the local men, who are always jealous in these matters and want to have the work to themselves. I hope that this satisfies the noble Duke.
One of the reasons why we have to pay taxes and duties on a great many things that we can get very much more cheaply in this country is that we have to pay for all those activities of which this is one of the items. Dublin is a very much more expensive place to live in than London.

125
Of course those who live in the country and have a garden and live on the products of their farm, like myself, can live very comfortably. The people who live round Dublin and have got those advantages are certainly very much better off than the people who live on the outskirts of this great City. When Lord Arnold talks in the way he does about Ireland you must remember that the taxation there is very heavy. He does not give us any credit at all for trying to meet our debts.
LORD ARNOLD: I do not know to what the noble Lord is referring. I did not touch on that matter at all.
THE EARL OF MAYO: That is exactly what I mean; you did not touch on it. I am astonished you did not.
LORD ARNOLD: It is not relevant to the subject.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I give the noble Lord that for what it is worth. We will do our best to meet our liabilities in every way, but give us time. We cannot do everything in a week-end in Ireland.
THE LORD CHANCELLOE (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, before this debate is adjourned I will only trouble your Lordships with a few sentences, and they will be in answer to questions to His Majesty's Government. My noble friend Lord Oranmore and Browne referred to the question of land purchase and asked whether we intended to abide by the pledges given on this subject, and especially whether the subject would be included in the reference to the informal Committee which is to be set up. Of course, we do not repudiate any pledges, but it is most undesirable that the important questions that have been raised in the main part of this debate should be complicated by having added to them the very difficult question which arises as to land purchase. Accordingly it is our desire that the informal Committee referred to should not deal with that question.
With regard to the main debate, it is, of course, needless for me to enter into any discussion after the statement that has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I will only say that the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, need not have been under the least apprehension lest we should act without caution or without due regard to the position of the Irish
126
Free State. The Irish Free State, of course, is the body primarily responsible for the compensation which we have been discussing. It would be absurd if we went into the matter without, at all events, endeavouring to co-operate with the Government of the Free State. We must abide by the pledges given by us and our predecessors and we must see whether some redress can be found for the complaints that have been made. I believe that an informal Committee of the kind which has now been arranged would be better able to deal with these matters than the kind of Committee which was suggested by the noble Earl, and I am very glad that the noble Earl has seen his way to accept the proposal made and on those terms to adjourn the debate.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I understand that the Government think it advisable that the question of land purchase and the obligations of the Government on that subject should not be considered simultaneously with those raised more specifically by the noble Earl. I am rather anxious to know whether the Government propose to take any other steps with regard to this question of land purchase. If necessary, I will put down a Question on the Paper, but I do not want to have another Irish debate in a short time. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount can give me some assistance which will enable me to avoid doing so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I cannot give any specific reply to that. If the noble Lord puts down a Question, of course we will deal with it, but I have not had the opportunity of consulting my colleagues on the point he has just raised.
LORD DANESFORT: I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned sine die.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.

Preamble
The Duke of Somerset—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
NEW SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 25th of June last and Wednesday last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS.
Special Older made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the City of Lichfield and part of the rural district of Lichfield, in the County of Stafford, and for other purposes:
Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Reigate, in the County of Surrey:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920, SPECIAL ORDERS.
Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Great Yarmouth Gas Company:
Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Devizes:
Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Urban District Council of Great Driffield:
Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Langley Mill and Heanor Gas Light and Coke Company, Limited:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MOTOR RACES (AUTHORISATION AND REGULATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order for the Second Reading read, and discharged.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.